gc_kaavaali
12-10 05:33 PM
I am sorry to ask you...i think you need to get SSN inorder to work...if u allowed to work on what bases you pay tax...
Hi friends,
I need your help!!!
I'm here at California with L-2 visa. I can stay legally in US but i can not get a SSN number, i can work too.But For a driver license they ask for SSN. Do i still get the Driver License or no?
Thank you very much...
Hi friends,
I need your help!!!
I'm here at California with L-2 visa. I can stay legally in US but i can not get a SSN number, i can work too.But For a driver license they ask for SSN. Do i still get the Driver License or no?
Thank you very much...
wallpaper Queen Sofia of Spain wore a
rongha_2000
11-14 05:17 PM
Does this vote gives us an overview of how the PDs might be spread out all over? From this poll, it looks like there are not many applications from Jan 2005 onwards as compared to prior to Jan 2005.
Once that back log is cleared, things wont be as bad for the rest? What do you think?
Once that back log is cleared, things wont be as bad for the rest? What do you think?
guy03062
11-11 07:49 PM
This is great find. I am not sure why IV leadership (as an advocacy group) is not pursuing this to USCIS leadership as they are in touch with them regularly for other issues. Are we missing something here?
Under the regulation No reference to Calendar year. It mentions explicitly calendar quarter.
Immigration and Nationality Act: Section ACT 202 - Numerical Limitation to any single foreign state under Sec. 202. [8 U.S.C. 1152]
(3) Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
(B) LIMITING FALL ACROSS FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (e)- In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 203(b) exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 203(b)consistent with subsection (e) (determined without regard to this paragraph),in applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 203(b).
Under the regulation No reference to Calendar year. It mentions explicitly calendar quarter.
Immigration and Nationality Act: Section ACT 202 - Numerical Limitation to any single foreign state under Sec. 202. [8 U.S.C. 1152]
(3) Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
(B) LIMITING FALL ACROSS FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (e)- In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 203(b) exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 203(b)consistent with subsection (e) (determined without regard to this paragraph),in applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 203(b).
2011 Queen Sofia of Spain and
amitjoey
08-11 10:21 AM
Most of the Eb3's are either working for big companies who won't do GC in EB2 or not qualified for eb2 ( so called 3 year degree ) and enjoying all these years when they know clearly eb3 is not going any where ...what in the world prevent them to move up the ladder and porting their PDs ...They dont want to take any risk and just show their frustation in internet forums
As some one in the forum quoted "There is a path of joy and there is the path of pleasure. Pondering on them, the wise (eb1 ,pre-approved labor and eb2 inorder ) chooses the path of joy; the fool takes the path of pleasure."
Mr Path of Joy
I am EB3 India working for a small company in construction design industry. I have enough experience, qualifications and degrees for an EB2. But it is not as simple as you make it sound.
A major part- 8 out of my 15 year experience in this field has been with this employer and although my employer supports me, they are simply not hiring and have been having a difficult time since 2007. So, they cannot file for an EB2 Labor.
I cannot change jobs, since my qualifications and experience will put me in a different job-description and title which I cannot because of how AC21 interprets the laws.
So it is not as white and black as you make it sound. Most EB3 folks started their process way early in their careers and have moved on since. Some of us have been waiting for 10 years and have been in the country for 15 or more years.
Some started during the last recession in 2001-2002 when EB2 was in scrutiny and dates were current for all, most employers and lawyers were touting the EB3 route.
Anycase, I do not expect you to understand our situation. So continue speeding on your path of joy.
As some one in the forum quoted "There is a path of joy and there is the path of pleasure. Pondering on them, the wise (eb1 ,pre-approved labor and eb2 inorder ) chooses the path of joy; the fool takes the path of pleasure."
Mr Path of Joy
I am EB3 India working for a small company in construction design industry. I have enough experience, qualifications and degrees for an EB2. But it is not as simple as you make it sound.
A major part- 8 out of my 15 year experience in this field has been with this employer and although my employer supports me, they are simply not hiring and have been having a difficult time since 2007. So, they cannot file for an EB2 Labor.
I cannot change jobs, since my qualifications and experience will put me in a different job-description and title which I cannot because of how AC21 interprets the laws.
So it is not as white and black as you make it sound. Most EB3 folks started their process way early in their careers and have moved on since. Some of us have been waiting for 10 years and have been in the country for 15 or more years.
Some started during the last recession in 2001-2002 when EB2 was in scrutiny and dates were current for all, most employers and lawyers were touting the EB3 route.
Anycase, I do not expect you to understand our situation. So continue speeding on your path of joy.
more...
BharatPremi
09-19 11:03 AM
we made them understand the difference between legal and illegal immigration.
Are you kidding or Are you seriously quoting this? Do you understand that very people you "made understood" are part of law making process? How can you say that they do not have understanding of "legal" and "illegal" immigration. Man, they are making the laws.
Are you kidding or Are you seriously quoting this? Do you understand that very people you "made understood" are part of law making process? How can you say that they do not have understanding of "legal" and "illegal" immigration. Man, they are making the laws.
reddymjm
10-21 08:59 AM
Bump
more...
nixstor
07-04 09:25 PM
nixstor,
First, with out name check cleared by FBI, no 485 will be approved. Assiging visa number to a 485 appliction initally, nothing to do with name check. If the applicant is threat to the security of the country, his/her 485 will be denied and they will take back the already assigned number. Both are two different issues.
Another myth: USCIS processed 60,000 485 in June. It is wrong. They processed 60,000 485 over the period of 6 months to 5 years. And they just approved in June, based on earlier processing.
Well, Thats what I have said before as well. Its like setting the order card flag to "yes" on 60K cases with older PD's. I do not know from where Jay Solomon got the tip off about lapse of name checks, unless they are trying to make this a big issue through all possible means. There have been stories flying around that they by passed on security checks, which I thought your original post conveyed. Most of the 485's they approved have been the one's with PD's from 2003 and 2004 initially. If there are a few from the pile that were of later PD's, I don't think its a big issue. The lack of communication and implementation/interpretation at their whims and fancies has resulted in the situation at hand for every one involved in the chain. I am very very positive that the OB's office has nothing do with this and USCIS is not worried about the postmortem conducted by OB.
First, with out name check cleared by FBI, no 485 will be approved. Assiging visa number to a 485 appliction initally, nothing to do with name check. If the applicant is threat to the security of the country, his/her 485 will be denied and they will take back the already assigned number. Both are two different issues.
Another myth: USCIS processed 60,000 485 in June. It is wrong. They processed 60,000 485 over the period of 6 months to 5 years. And they just approved in June, based on earlier processing.
Well, Thats what I have said before as well. Its like setting the order card flag to "yes" on 60K cases with older PD's. I do not know from where Jay Solomon got the tip off about lapse of name checks, unless they are trying to make this a big issue through all possible means. There have been stories flying around that they by passed on security checks, which I thought your original post conveyed. Most of the 485's they approved have been the one's with PD's from 2003 and 2004 initially. If there are a few from the pile that were of later PD's, I don't think its a big issue. The lack of communication and implementation/interpretation at their whims and fancies has resulted in the situation at hand for every one involved in the chain. I am very very positive that the OB's office has nothing do with this and USCIS is not worried about the postmortem conducted by OB.
2010 Queen Sofia of Spain#39;s
wellwishergc
07-13 10:54 AM
Right on! You are absolutely right! It just needs people to amplify their vision. Even if there is a hidden agenda for somebody else, why shouldn't you be happy if it benefits both you and the other person?
As anyone in this forums know about this "may-a-times-told" joke about a bunch of people in an airplane that have to make some hard decision on dropping out some of thier own to save the flying aircraft. As one by one jumps out of the aircraft for a noble cause of saving the other person - our own Desi pushed the next one crying " Gandhiji ki Jai" - saving himself instead of others.
The moral of the story (which people never really bothered to infer) was that our Desi folks are trigger ready to pull someone down when it comes to me versus them. I hate to stereotype people - based on some unfounded and preconceived notions , but the more and more postings I see like this, it just reinforces my beliefs that we are still gullible enough to be divided no matter what the past had taught us.
I enjoy visiting IV forums - because of all the Indian based forums - this was one place where people came together rallied for a cause - something that I could not find in any other place. Now I am seeing some folks postings that spites and pits one against another - without understanding the real issue.
What or why does it matter if Murthy sending a letter to DHS or its Director is all about getting credit for her? Why do we have to think that its "us versus them" within our group - when we are all fighting for one single cause?
Need some civility here - Please!
As anyone in this forums know about this "may-a-times-told" joke about a bunch of people in an airplane that have to make some hard decision on dropping out some of thier own to save the flying aircraft. As one by one jumps out of the aircraft for a noble cause of saving the other person - our own Desi pushed the next one crying " Gandhiji ki Jai" - saving himself instead of others.
The moral of the story (which people never really bothered to infer) was that our Desi folks are trigger ready to pull someone down when it comes to me versus them. I hate to stereotype people - based on some unfounded and preconceived notions , but the more and more postings I see like this, it just reinforces my beliefs that we are still gullible enough to be divided no matter what the past had taught us.
I enjoy visiting IV forums - because of all the Indian based forums - this was one place where people came together rallied for a cause - something that I could not find in any other place. Now I am seeing some folks postings that spites and pits one against another - without understanding the real issue.
What or why does it matter if Murthy sending a letter to DHS or its Director is all about getting credit for her? Why do we have to think that its "us versus them" within our group - when we are all fighting for one single cause?
Need some civility here - Please!
more...
BharatPremi
03-12 12:02 PM
I am worried about this financial reports. I am not sure many consulting companies will give those to employee who is leaving
Yes, I believe, most companies (new employers - mid level) would not even ask and if requested and you can not provide then generally they may not make a big deal but underlying result for asking is to check if financial strength is "Good" and I-140 is approved then no problem hiring an EAD holder.
Yes, I believe, most companies (new employers - mid level) would not even ask and if requested and you can not provide then generally they may not make a big deal but underlying result for asking is to check if financial strength is "Good" and I-140 is approved then no problem hiring an EAD holder.
hair Queen Sofia of Spain attends a
sam0407
07-13 11:11 AM
I agree with shivaz90, we put so much effort and unity to bring this issue to light and hoping for justice, Let’s not spoil that sprite. Whatever the hidden agenda behind Murthy’s letter to DHS.. let’s not loose our focus.
more...
jamesbond007
09-10 11:12 AM
I guess, getting 30 green dots is tougher than getting GC itself:D
Restricting chat access based on dots earned is probably the most idiotic thing IV has done. Folks who have contributed hundreds of dollars should be allowed access irrespective of posts or stupid dots.
I concur.
This is one way to get an additional post by saying simple things like "i agree" etc. But how to get green dots?
50 posts and 30 green dots to access the chat feature? WOW.
It is ridiculous to restrict access just because some one does not agree with what one is posting and instead of debating it, they give a red dot.
This smells of EB1, EB2, EB3 etc?
When IV is asking everyone's participation, trying to increase the visibility, trying to improve the numbers, why this exclusionary practice?
Restricting chat access based on dots earned is probably the most idiotic thing IV has done. Folks who have contributed hundreds of dollars should be allowed access irrespective of posts or stupid dots.
I concur.
This is one way to get an additional post by saying simple things like "i agree" etc. But how to get green dots?
50 posts and 30 green dots to access the chat feature? WOW.
It is ridiculous to restrict access just because some one does not agree with what one is posting and instead of debating it, they give a red dot.
This smells of EB1, EB2, EB3 etc?
When IV is asking everyone's participation, trying to increase the visibility, trying to improve the numbers, why this exclusionary practice?
hot Queen Sofia of Spain having a
485InDreams
09-26 10:19 AM
Thanks all and to the blogger who found this.... This thread make me believe...
Revolution - People of common interest meet...
Collusion - People of different interest meet
Revolution - People of common interest meet...
Collusion - People of different interest meet
more...
house and Queen Sofia of Spain
.png "File:Queen Sofia of Spain Coat"){kind=icon}
prioritydate
09-20 10:06 AM
Now they are saying "Smartness" is a relative term.:)
Heeeee... I know what you mean.
Heeeee... I know what you mean.
tattoo to QUEEN Sofia in 1962
Dolly20
10-03 01:14 PM
Hi!
When i was in India, my company applied for H1B visa. In the meantime I got married and came to US on H4 visa. After a month, my H1B was approved. Now, my company is planning to apply for a change of status. I have the following queries:
1. Do we have to fill in I 539 form or I 129 form
2. How long is the processing time?
3. Will i be eligible to work from Oct 1st, 2007 even though the change of status case is in process? Or should i wait till its been approved?
please help me. Your responses will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance :)
When i was in India, my company applied for H1B visa. In the meantime I got married and came to US on H4 visa. After a month, my H1B was approved. Now, my company is planning to apply for a change of status. I have the following queries:
1. Do we have to fill in I 539 form or I 129 form
2. How long is the processing time?
3. Will i be eligible to work from Oct 1st, 2007 even though the change of status case is in process? Or should i wait till its been approved?
please help me. Your responses will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance :)
more...
pictures Queen Sofia of Spain, left,
andy garcia
01-26 09:40 AM
I had trouble sifting through all that data and figuring out what that was all about.
Could you give the specific report that you used for these numbers. And, if possible, any hints on how you arrived at the data below. I would appreciate that.
Thanks....
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
Could you give the specific report that you used for these numbers. And, if possible, any hints on how you arrived at the data below. I would appreciate that.
Thanks....
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
dresses Spain#39;s Queen Sofia #39;flies
zuhail
04-11 01:23 AM
A very useful piece of information has been brought to our attention by shiankuraaf.
Thank you very much!
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR08.shtm
Table 6 Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Type and Major Class of Admission: Fiscal Years 1999 to 2008
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/YrBk04Im.shtm
Table 4 Immigrants admitted by type and selected class of admission: fiscal years 1986-2004
Employment-based preferences (Total Number)
Year QUOTA ISSUED Unused/Excessively used
1986 140000 56617 83383
1987 140000 57519 82481
1988 140000 58727 81273
1989 140000 57741 82259
1990 140000 58192 81808
1991 140000 59525 80475
1992 140000 116198 23802
1993 140000 147012 -7012
1994 140000 123291 16709
1995 140000 85336 54664
1996 140000 117499 22501
1997 140000 90607 49393
1998 140000 77517 62483
1999 140000 56678 83322
2000 140000 106642 33358
2001 140000 178702 -38702
2002 140000 173814 -33814
2003 140000 81727 58273
2004 140000 155330 -15330
2005 140000 246877 -106877
2006 140000 159081 -19081
2007 140000 162176 -22176
2008 140000 166511 -26511
Sum total of the differences from 1986 to 2008: 626,681. Vow!!!
So when looked between the period of 1986 and 2008,
there were a total of 626,681 un-used visa numbers that can be re-captured.
This is based on the BIG assumption that the yearly quota for EB categories is 140,000 from 1986 to 2008.
Does anybody know how to verify this important assumption online --a link to a gov website perhaps?
It would be good to verify when the law specifying 140,000 visa numbers per year was passed and
what were the criteria for visa number usage prior to the existence of the law.
Thank you very much!
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR08.shtm
Table 6 Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Type and Major Class of Admission: Fiscal Years 1999 to 2008
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/YrBk04Im.shtm
Table 4 Immigrants admitted by type and selected class of admission: fiscal years 1986-2004
Employment-based preferences (Total Number)
Year QUOTA ISSUED Unused/Excessively used
1986 140000 56617 83383
1987 140000 57519 82481
1988 140000 58727 81273
1989 140000 57741 82259
1990 140000 58192 81808
1991 140000 59525 80475
1992 140000 116198 23802
1993 140000 147012 -7012
1994 140000 123291 16709
1995 140000 85336 54664
1996 140000 117499 22501
1997 140000 90607 49393
1998 140000 77517 62483
1999 140000 56678 83322
2000 140000 106642 33358
2001 140000 178702 -38702
2002 140000 173814 -33814
2003 140000 81727 58273
2004 140000 155330 -15330
2005 140000 246877 -106877
2006 140000 159081 -19081
2007 140000 162176 -22176
2008 140000 166511 -26511
Sum total of the differences from 1986 to 2008: 626,681. Vow!!!
So when looked between the period of 1986 and 2008,
there were a total of 626,681 un-used visa numbers that can be re-captured.
This is based on the BIG assumption that the yearly quota for EB categories is 140,000 from 1986 to 2008.
Does anybody know how to verify this important assumption online --a link to a gov website perhaps?
It would be good to verify when the law specifying 140,000 visa numbers per year was passed and
what were the criteria for visa number usage prior to the existence of the law.
more...
makeup Queen Sofia of Spain with
pv2715
03-16 01:56 PM
It is the system which needs to be modified. I think the priority date should be decided based on one's first port of entry date. That will help eb-2 candidates a lot as most of us loose a minimum of 3 years(2 years in grad school and 1 on OPT).
girlfriend Queen+Sofia+Spain+Attends+Real
nojoke
10-23 01:19 AM
my detailed post went missing:mad: ...dunno why nojoke edited it out :D.
to put it briefly, i never heard anybody hiring a ceo based on his experience of having organized the company picnic (read community organizer to prez :rolleyes:).
u need to look a little back for ur post to appear.
mccain is the ceo of which company? If he has been in senate for 26 years for so long without promotion that looks bad for his resume:D
Whether you like it or not, Obama is getting elected. And you will love this video
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=188638&title=understanding-real-america-in
to put it briefly, i never heard anybody hiring a ceo based on his experience of having organized the company picnic (read community organizer to prez :rolleyes:).
u need to look a little back for ur post to appear.
mccain is the ceo of which company? If he has been in senate for 26 years for so long without promotion that looks bad for his resume:D
Whether you like it or not, Obama is getting elected. And you will love this video
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=188638&title=understanding-real-america-in
hairstyles Queen Sofia of Spain and her
piyu7444
02-02 02:21 PM
I am glad to be of help. If my post was helpful, I urge you to consider making a donation to IV.
Thanks.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
Donation should be on the way today.
Thanks.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
Donation should be on the way today.
nk2006
02-19 03:07 PM
I dont think this bill will survive in house - any bill with a set number of years residence as the only condition will raise the cries of amnesty and can get killed. In the current economic conditions, not sure if Obama administration will take any agressive steps to fix immigration issue - unfortunately they have far more urgent issues at hand. A bipartisan support could have made it possible but any bill which can be interpreted as 'amnesty' will sure raise emotions.
Having said that - it seems useful (irrespective of if illegals will also get benefited or only legals get benefits) for us - any bill that can potentially take thousands of people from the waiting list can also benefit people with <5 years anyways - so it should benefit everyone. Hell....even if there is a bill that grants greencards after 10 years of legal residence - I am sure it will ease the retrogession a lot (from all the stories in IV, I am sure there are quite a few still waiting after 10 years of legal residence). Whether such bill can be passed in the near future (in 2009) is another matter and I highly doubt it.
Having said that - it seems useful (irrespective of if illegals will also get benefited or only legals get benefits) for us - any bill that can potentially take thousands of people from the waiting list can also benefit people with <5 years anyways - so it should benefit everyone. Hell....even if there is a bill that grants greencards after 10 years of legal residence - I am sure it will ease the retrogession a lot (from all the stories in IV, I am sure there are quite a few still waiting after 10 years of legal residence). Whether such bill can be passed in the near future (in 2009) is another matter and I highly doubt it.
EndlessWait
07-25 10:50 AM
Yes, I have this feeling already. Now, what happens if someone switches jobs using AC-21 and then this RFE is received? You have to submit the NEW employment / offer letter right? So how does this help the current employer to stop you from switching jobs?
I think its arguable. The 6 months clock is defined by law. After that even if they issue an RFE on the old employer, assumption is ofcourse that your with a new employer, you can send the new employer's offer letter / AC21 invoked. so it shouldn't be an issue. USCIS can ask about the offer letter from the old employer as intial evidence, so have it available and send it later + new employment letter.
I think its arguable. The 6 months clock is defined by law. After that even if they issue an RFE on the old employer, assumption is ofcourse that your with a new employer, you can send the new employer's offer letter / AC21 invoked. so it shouldn't be an issue. USCIS can ask about the offer letter from the old employer as intial evidence, so have it available and send it later + new employment letter.
0 comments:
Post a Comment