mbawa2574
05-26 07:45 AM
Have to watch this one carefully. Kennedy (one of the co-sponsors of this bill) had thrown EB immigrants under the bus last year while favoring FB and illegals (in CIR). Need to be see the contents of this bill very carefully. Esp this clause from the AILA report:
"Addressing the decades-long backlogs for certain countries by raising the per-country immigration limits from 7 percent to 10 percent of total admission".
The CIR in 2007 had a similar clause, bumping up the country-limit from 7% to 10%, BUT it had another related clause that stopped rollover of visa's in the last quarter.
That would be disastrous for people from India and China as number of visas issued for the whole year will go DOWN!!
The recapture clause sounds promising , provided there is atleast an even split between EB and FB (of EB coming before FB). If they do it the other way around (like they had done in the last recapture for schedule-A nurses) then EB people will see no benefit of the recapture, and will end up losing one more quick-fix option.
Eagerly waiting for the bill text so the dissection and analysis can begin!!
RECAPTURE OF IMMIGRANT VISAS LOST TO BUREAUCRATIC DELAY.
(a) Worldwide Level of Employment-Based Immigrants- Subsection (d) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151) is amended to read as follows:
�(d) Worldwide Level of Employment-Based Immigrants-
�(1) IN GENERAL- The worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to the sum of--
�(A) 140,000; plus
�(B) the number computed under paragraph (2); plus
�(C) the number computed under paragraph (3).
�(2) UNUSED VISA NUMBERS FROM PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR- The number computed under this paragraph for a fiscal year is the difference, if any, between--
�(A) the worldwide level of employment-based immigrant visas established for the previous fiscal year; and
�(B) the number of visas actually issued under section 203(b), subject to this subsection, during the previous fiscal year.
�(3) UNUSED VISA NUMBERS FROM FISCAL YEARS 1992 THROUGH 2007- The number computed under this paragraph is the difference, if any, between--
�(A) the difference, if any, between--
�(i) the sum of the worldwide levels of employment-based immigrant visas established for each of fiscal years 1992 through 2007; and
�(ii) the number of visas actually issued under section 203(b), subject to this subsection, during such fiscal years; and
�(B) the number of unused visas from fiscal years 1992 through 2007 that were issued after fiscal year 2007 under section 203(b), subject to this subsection.�.
"Addressing the decades-long backlogs for certain countries by raising the per-country immigration limits from 7 percent to 10 percent of total admission".
The CIR in 2007 had a similar clause, bumping up the country-limit from 7% to 10%, BUT it had another related clause that stopped rollover of visa's in the last quarter.
That would be disastrous for people from India and China as number of visas issued for the whole year will go DOWN!!
The recapture clause sounds promising , provided there is atleast an even split between EB and FB (of EB coming before FB). If they do it the other way around (like they had done in the last recapture for schedule-A nurses) then EB people will see no benefit of the recapture, and will end up losing one more quick-fix option.
Eagerly waiting for the bill text so the dissection and analysis can begin!!
RECAPTURE OF IMMIGRANT VISAS LOST TO BUREAUCRATIC DELAY.
(a) Worldwide Level of Employment-Based Immigrants- Subsection (d) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151) is amended to read as follows:
�(d) Worldwide Level of Employment-Based Immigrants-
�(1) IN GENERAL- The worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to the sum of--
�(A) 140,000; plus
�(B) the number computed under paragraph (2); plus
�(C) the number computed under paragraph (3).
�(2) UNUSED VISA NUMBERS FROM PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR- The number computed under this paragraph for a fiscal year is the difference, if any, between--
�(A) the worldwide level of employment-based immigrant visas established for the previous fiscal year; and
�(B) the number of visas actually issued under section 203(b), subject to this subsection, during the previous fiscal year.
�(3) UNUSED VISA NUMBERS FROM FISCAL YEARS 1992 THROUGH 2007- The number computed under this paragraph is the difference, if any, between--
�(A) the difference, if any, between--
�(i) the sum of the worldwide levels of employment-based immigrant visas established for each of fiscal years 1992 through 2007; and
�(ii) the number of visas actually issued under section 203(b), subject to this subsection, during such fiscal years; and
�(B) the number of unused visas from fiscal years 1992 through 2007 that were issued after fiscal year 2007 under section 203(b), subject to this subsection.�.
wallpaper Jeremy Shockey Jeremy Shockey
mbartosik
07-19 09:47 AM
Imagine if Uncle Sam held an auction to allow you to submit I485 EAD AP, what would you have bid for the right to submit?
Maybe $640, $6,400, or even $64,000?
If Uncle Sam charged a fee to submit now rather than waiting for another year or two or three... What would you have paid to submit I485 and get EAD AP AC21?
Alternatively, how much are you going to benefit from EAD AP or AC21?
AC21 -- maybe ability to move jobs and get a few thousand $ pay rise?
AC21 -- maybe not going to the back of the queue -- really worth thousands!
EAD for you and spouse -- maybe a week of salary for someone that could not previously work?
AP -- how much is it worth not to have to waste time and money renewing H1B at an embassy. That's at least a few days of time you don't have to waste (and time is money).
How much will you save from filing under the old fee structure? At least a few hundreds.
Now use that as a guideline for what you are going to contribute to IV.
There are still problems ahead for most....
* retrogression
* BECs for unluck some
* name checks (I personally know someone that it took almost 2 years for).
IV is now the most credible organization there to help get these issues addressed. So let's hand over the $.
(me about $1K so far plus time)
Maybe $640, $6,400, or even $64,000?
If Uncle Sam charged a fee to submit now rather than waiting for another year or two or three... What would you have paid to submit I485 and get EAD AP AC21?
Alternatively, how much are you going to benefit from EAD AP or AC21?
AC21 -- maybe ability to move jobs and get a few thousand $ pay rise?
AC21 -- maybe not going to the back of the queue -- really worth thousands!
EAD for you and spouse -- maybe a week of salary for someone that could not previously work?
AP -- how much is it worth not to have to waste time and money renewing H1B at an embassy. That's at least a few days of time you don't have to waste (and time is money).
How much will you save from filing under the old fee structure? At least a few hundreds.
Now use that as a guideline for what you are going to contribute to IV.
There are still problems ahead for most....
* retrogression
* BECs for unluck some
* name checks (I personally know someone that it took almost 2 years for).
IV is now the most credible organization there to help get these issues addressed. So let's hand over the $.
(me about $1K so far plus time)
stuck_here
01-22 04:44 AM
I wouldn't bet on a month either. I think I'm the most unfortunate of people on the planet today :-(
My appointment was on the 12-Dec. Visa was approved immediatly but haven't received the passport yet. I receive the same response when I call.. that its under PIMS verification. No ETA of when I can expect it to be done..
I had a H1 transfer to a new employer and 3 year extension happen at the same time. I am not sure what the problem is and what I can do. I am totally stressed out and really depressed ..
If someone has done something thats helped their case move along.. please PM me or reply to this post.. Thanks !
My appointment was on the 12-Dec. Visa was approved immediatly but haven't received the passport yet. I receive the same response when I call.. that its under PIMS verification. No ETA of when I can expect it to be done..
I had a H1 transfer to a new employer and 3 year extension happen at the same time. I am not sure what the problem is and what I can do. I am totally stressed out and really depressed ..
If someone has done something thats helped their case move along.. please PM me or reply to this post.. Thanks !
2011 Saints Send Jeremy Shockey
gcnirvana
01-31 01:05 AM
Same here. Good job OP on finding this.
I just voted 9:56pm PST. question no is now 22 and 27
I just voted 9:56pm PST. question no is now 22 and 27
more...
va_labor2002
07-21 10:17 AM
Starting a Recruiting company for Nurses will be a good idea now. There is a heavy shortage for Nurses in USA. It is easy to bring qualified nurses from India to USA. IV can start a recruiting company with the help of 5000 members.
If 5000 members contributing atleast $100 to raise the initial capital,we can easily make a Good company with 1/2 million capital asset.Everybody will be share holders of the company and they can get profit every year. We need to employ 2-3 persons for marketing and administration.
Think about it. You are investing only $100.00 ! Any comments from IV core members ?
If 5000 members contributing atleast $100 to raise the initial capital,we can easily make a Good company with 1/2 million capital asset.Everybody will be share holders of the company and they can get profit every year. We need to employ 2-3 persons for marketing and administration.
Think about it. You are investing only $100.00 ! Any comments from IV core members ?
add78
06-13 10:51 AM
As of now there are more than 8000 views for this thread. If we just take that each of us might have visited this thread 50 times.. .That would still take us to 180 odd unique visitors...
and if you look the survey..JUST 90 Calls so far.. Why there is a disconnect here/??? because we postpone and don't do our part...
If efforts fails, it is only ourselves to blame.. Platform is set and try to atleast help by sparing 10 mins of your day... Take this matter to your heart and
JUST DO IT>>>>
You are the perfect example of what IV looks for in its new members. Enthusiastic, Energetic, Encouraging and Endeavoring.
Keep up the good work.
Folks, there is no great feeling than when you feel you are making the difference. Call, Donate, Rally others and feel the rush.
Yes We Can? Sure We Can.
Yes We Will? Sure We Will.
But All Is Nil, Unless We Do The Thing.
Thank You.
and if you look the survey..JUST 90 Calls so far.. Why there is a disconnect here/??? because we postpone and don't do our part...
If efforts fails, it is only ourselves to blame.. Platform is set and try to atleast help by sparing 10 mins of your day... Take this matter to your heart and
JUST DO IT>>>>
You are the perfect example of what IV looks for in its new members. Enthusiastic, Energetic, Encouraging and Endeavoring.
Keep up the good work.
Folks, there is no great feeling than when you feel you are making the difference. Call, Donate, Rally others and feel the rush.
Yes We Can? Sure We Can.
Yes We Will? Sure We Will.
But All Is Nil, Unless We Do The Thing.
Thank You.
more...
gcisadawg
04-15 02:34 PM
Hey, sorry for your situation, I can only imagine, I cant even manage one here..:rolleyes:
pun aside, here is my 2 cents
1) did you talk to your lawyer?
2) if # 1 is ruled out or of no use, I would personally draft a letter showing that she is travellling right now and with kids and it would be extremely difficult to get her TB test done as you cant get it done by that RFE due date. add some more stuff telling your situation as to why she cant come right away due to the stuff you mentioned (kids/babies ). IAm sure you WILL get it exteneded.
you made a good point here - Is it possible to ask 1 month extension for RFE based on the difficulties. I'm EB3 IND PD 2003 and I dont think our I-485 is waiting for adjudication any time soon.
so bottomline I would not go empty handed, go with a typed letter. if you need anything esle PM me...
Thanks man for your replies. I'm gathering as much as I can. All the tickets, birth certs.
Plus, to add to the complication, I've also confirmed ticket to meet them at Frankfurt on their way to US. My Euro vacation for a week would collapse and have to cancel everything.
I'm try to keep myself sane. There are much worse situations people are facing in this forum ( for example, a ninth pregnant lady getting laid off).
Just hoping (and praying) that this can be solved smoothly.
GC is really proving to be a daaawg....
GCisaDawg.
pun aside, here is my 2 cents
1) did you talk to your lawyer?
2) if # 1 is ruled out or of no use, I would personally draft a letter showing that she is travellling right now and with kids and it would be extremely difficult to get her TB test done as you cant get it done by that RFE due date. add some more stuff telling your situation as to why she cant come right away due to the stuff you mentioned (kids/babies ). IAm sure you WILL get it exteneded.
you made a good point here - Is it possible to ask 1 month extension for RFE based on the difficulties. I'm EB3 IND PD 2003 and I dont think our I-485 is waiting for adjudication any time soon.
so bottomline I would not go empty handed, go with a typed letter. if you need anything esle PM me...
Thanks man for your replies. I'm gathering as much as I can. All the tickets, birth certs.
Plus, to add to the complication, I've also confirmed ticket to meet them at Frankfurt on their way to US. My Euro vacation for a week would collapse and have to cancel everything.
I'm try to keep myself sane. There are much worse situations people are facing in this forum ( for example, a ninth pregnant lady getting laid off).
Just hoping (and praying) that this can be solved smoothly.
GC is really proving to be a daaawg....
GCisaDawg.
2010 Jeremy Shockey touchdown
grupak
06-13 12:45 PM
Pappu,
2. I have told this before but would like to repeat now... I don't contribute because there is nothing for CP filers here. VISA recapturing is the only effort that would benefit CP filers but anyway the chances of that bill passing is close to 0.
In my opinion, the biggest sufferers are people in EB3 India or China and who have opted for CP (now guys, don't start lecturing on CP vs. 485. We have heard it enough).
willwin I understand from your posts that being in CP with retro dates is very tough. No point in trying to compare whose situation is tougher.
We have a few bills that will help everyone. Instead of getting disheartened, follow you handle and participate in IV efforts.
The way I see it, if we take action, chance for success increases no matter how minuscule it might seem.
2. I have told this before but would like to repeat now... I don't contribute because there is nothing for CP filers here. VISA recapturing is the only effort that would benefit CP filers but anyway the chances of that bill passing is close to 0.
In my opinion, the biggest sufferers are people in EB3 India or China and who have opted for CP (now guys, don't start lecturing on CP vs. 485. We have heard it enough).
willwin I understand from your posts that being in CP with retro dates is very tough. No point in trying to compare whose situation is tougher.
We have a few bills that will help everyone. Instead of getting disheartened, follow you handle and participate in IV efforts.
The way I see it, if we take action, chance for success increases no matter how minuscule it might seem.
more...
ak27
06-16 03:09 PM
Yes a new memo was issued in 2009 (After DHS confirmed that they have worked with FBI to reduce the response time.) Now since FBI claims that 90/95% of the requests are happening within 6 months. DHS/USCIS is not allowing automatic approval of GC is FBI check was the only peice pending and was pending for more than 180 days.
I went to Infopass today, unfortunately service rep on counter was totally uncooperative. She did not tell anything other than my background check is still pending. It has been pending for more than six months now. I understand that my PD is not current as of yet but, based on recent movement, I hope to have my date current in next couple of months. But, it may not help me much if BC is still pending..
Any suggestions from IV.. What can I do about it? I planning to get in touch with my attorney but, I don't think they can be of much help..
I went to Infopass today, unfortunately service rep on counter was totally uncooperative. She did not tell anything other than my background check is still pending. It has been pending for more than six months now. I understand that my PD is not current as of yet but, based on recent movement, I hope to have my date current in next couple of months. But, it may not help me much if BC is still pending..
Any suggestions from IV.. What can I do about it? I planning to get in touch with my attorney but, I don't think they can be of much help..
hair tight end Jeremy Shockey
chanduv23
06-02 10:52 AM
I am wondering if this is still happening. We don't see any new posts stating 485 has been denied.
If anyone is facing this situation, please send me a private message.
If anyone is facing this situation, please send me a private message.
more...
mlk
06-22 07:59 PM
I wanted to win too!
*pokes mlk in the eye then kicks him in the *** and runs away shouting .. i win, i win!*
*** = eye ? as$ ? toe ? I gotta know before you really start seeing lighbulbs floating about... =)
*pokes mlk in the eye then kicks him in the *** and runs away shouting .. i win, i win!*
*** = eye ? as$ ? toe ? I gotta know before you really start seeing lighbulbs floating about... =)
hot Jeremy Shockey New Orleans
unitednations
03-31 11:51 AM
I (and I�m sure others too) would like to know how the following works,
Employer X filed labor, 140 for their employee. Both were approved (assumption - no RFEs, etc. until now), 485 was filed for in July 2007, and remains pending.
The employee was employed with Employer X from before the labor was applied and until ~360 days after the 485 was filed, and was always paid more than the LC prevailing wage/offered salary.
In July 2008, the employee leaves employer X and joins employer Y under AC21 provisions. An AC21 letter, G-28N are submitted.
140 never gets revoked by employer X.
In Jan 2009, employer X receives an Ability to Pay RFE for another pending 140 of theirs.
At this point, employer X has 16 140s that are open (pending OR approved with 485 pending to be filed/filed and pending). Out of those 16 140s, one was for the employee that left under AC21.
When they respond to that RFE, I do understand that they could be asked to show ability to pay for all 16 140s, even for the one that doesn�t work for them anymore, because of the fact that it was never revoked.
In this case, is the employee (that left) covered or at risk? I ask this question because the employee that left submitted AC21 documentation immediately upon leaving, thus notifying the USCIS that the �ability to pay� responsibility for his case, if any at all, now lies with the new future employer. There probably isn�t any clear definition of such a situation in the law, but can such an argument ever hold up in court, and protect the employee�s AOS application from getting affected due to any ability to pay issues the old employer (X) has had AFTER the employee left them.
The only person on here that I expect to be able to give a non-speculative answer to this is UN, unless someone else has personally gone through something similar.
Long post, I know, and I hope it does get read.
Thank you.
I worked on a very big case back in 2006.
Company had 20 pending 140's which were filed in 2005
Company had 42 approved 140's
in Janaury 2006 they sent RFE on one of the cases and asked for ability to pay. Before response was sent; second rfe is received on another pending casestating ability to pay and that uscis has noted company has filed many 140's; then third rfe is received on another case asking ability to pay on all pending cases (note this was in vermont service center and at this time the whole cybersoftech issue was going on; so there was a heightened alert from vermont service center).
In preparing for the response to the 20 pending cases; we had to analyze the 42 approved cases to ensure that just in case USCIS went after those cases together with the 20 then we should be ready in this particular response to justify the 42 approved cases.
In the response we only showed the 20 pending cases and that we had ability to pay for them.
Within three weeks; USCIS sent notice of intent to revoke the approved 140's. In the notice of intent to revoke; they stated that their records showed 20 pending; 42 approved cases and 205 h-1b's filed. USCIS went through their calculations and stated that if the average salary was xxx on all these petitions then the company would have to have paid close to $15 million in salaries which was (at that time the 2004 tax returns) more then five times the revenue. USCIS also went on to state they thought the company was involved in fraudulently obtaining h-1b's and 140's.
Now; company guy talks to Shusterman and he wants $2k per case and he can only handle the immigration component and that he neeed a CPA (which was me) and the company guy should also get a criminal attorney.
Well anyways; because in the first 20 cases we thought uscis may go after the approved 140's; the financials looked the right way to support all the cases.
The response was very scientific; hire dates; priority dates; amounts people got paid before priority date; amounts paid after; dates people left the company, etc.
In the various calculations; we proved out that even with people leaving who used ac21; we still had ability to pay for them (ie., even though they were no longer there we still had the financials to pay them). Then we gave another scenario that ability to pay clock should stop once person used ac21. We then did recalculation under this scenario.
In every scenario we showed we had ability to pay. Now; we never requested USCIS to revoke the approved 140's for people who had left; in one of the scenarios we adjusted the calculation to stop showing ability to pay once a person left.
USCIS re-approved all the cases. However; they sent notice of intent to deny for pepole who left using ac21. those candidates then gave updated letters and they all eventually got the greencards approved.
Now;this particular case is a little different because even though people left; the company still had ability to pay for them. Therefore, it is difficult to draw conclusion from this for other peoples particular cases. In this case; the fair value of the work I did for them would have cost them about $100K (i actually did audited financial statements for them; they are the only company I did audited financial statements for becuase the stakes were very very high for everyone concerned).
I can tell you that when a company does get this type of RFE; it is very difficult to substantiate everyone together and the calculations and supporting documentation is very complex AND companies have very little desire to help those who have already left. In these types of queries; the company/lawyer doesn't even bother to justify those who have already left; they just ask for revoation and they prove ability to pay for those who are still left with the company. Therefore; USCIS could just make the determination that those revoked cases were approved in error.
The main law for ability to pay is that company has to prove it from priority date until person obtains lawful permanent residency; law was never changed/modified to accomodate ability to pay for a company whose candidates have left using ac21.
Note: This is all pure speculation of what is going on in these cases. I am just writing out loud of why/if there is a shift within uscis.
Employer X filed labor, 140 for their employee. Both were approved (assumption - no RFEs, etc. until now), 485 was filed for in July 2007, and remains pending.
The employee was employed with Employer X from before the labor was applied and until ~360 days after the 485 was filed, and was always paid more than the LC prevailing wage/offered salary.
In July 2008, the employee leaves employer X and joins employer Y under AC21 provisions. An AC21 letter, G-28N are submitted.
140 never gets revoked by employer X.
In Jan 2009, employer X receives an Ability to Pay RFE for another pending 140 of theirs.
At this point, employer X has 16 140s that are open (pending OR approved with 485 pending to be filed/filed and pending). Out of those 16 140s, one was for the employee that left under AC21.
When they respond to that RFE, I do understand that they could be asked to show ability to pay for all 16 140s, even for the one that doesn�t work for them anymore, because of the fact that it was never revoked.
In this case, is the employee (that left) covered or at risk? I ask this question because the employee that left submitted AC21 documentation immediately upon leaving, thus notifying the USCIS that the �ability to pay� responsibility for his case, if any at all, now lies with the new future employer. There probably isn�t any clear definition of such a situation in the law, but can such an argument ever hold up in court, and protect the employee�s AOS application from getting affected due to any ability to pay issues the old employer (X) has had AFTER the employee left them.
The only person on here that I expect to be able to give a non-speculative answer to this is UN, unless someone else has personally gone through something similar.
Long post, I know, and I hope it does get read.
Thank you.
I worked on a very big case back in 2006.
Company had 20 pending 140's which were filed in 2005
Company had 42 approved 140's
in Janaury 2006 they sent RFE on one of the cases and asked for ability to pay. Before response was sent; second rfe is received on another pending casestating ability to pay and that uscis has noted company has filed many 140's; then third rfe is received on another case asking ability to pay on all pending cases (note this was in vermont service center and at this time the whole cybersoftech issue was going on; so there was a heightened alert from vermont service center).
In preparing for the response to the 20 pending cases; we had to analyze the 42 approved cases to ensure that just in case USCIS went after those cases together with the 20 then we should be ready in this particular response to justify the 42 approved cases.
In the response we only showed the 20 pending cases and that we had ability to pay for them.
Within three weeks; USCIS sent notice of intent to revoke the approved 140's. In the notice of intent to revoke; they stated that their records showed 20 pending; 42 approved cases and 205 h-1b's filed. USCIS went through their calculations and stated that if the average salary was xxx on all these petitions then the company would have to have paid close to $15 million in salaries which was (at that time the 2004 tax returns) more then five times the revenue. USCIS also went on to state they thought the company was involved in fraudulently obtaining h-1b's and 140's.
Now; company guy talks to Shusterman and he wants $2k per case and he can only handle the immigration component and that he neeed a CPA (which was me) and the company guy should also get a criminal attorney.
Well anyways; because in the first 20 cases we thought uscis may go after the approved 140's; the financials looked the right way to support all the cases.
The response was very scientific; hire dates; priority dates; amounts people got paid before priority date; amounts paid after; dates people left the company, etc.
In the various calculations; we proved out that even with people leaving who used ac21; we still had ability to pay for them (ie., even though they were no longer there we still had the financials to pay them). Then we gave another scenario that ability to pay clock should stop once person used ac21. We then did recalculation under this scenario.
In every scenario we showed we had ability to pay. Now; we never requested USCIS to revoke the approved 140's for people who had left; in one of the scenarios we adjusted the calculation to stop showing ability to pay once a person left.
USCIS re-approved all the cases. However; they sent notice of intent to deny for pepole who left using ac21. those candidates then gave updated letters and they all eventually got the greencards approved.
Now;this particular case is a little different because even though people left; the company still had ability to pay for them. Therefore, it is difficult to draw conclusion from this for other peoples particular cases. In this case; the fair value of the work I did for them would have cost them about $100K (i actually did audited financial statements for them; they are the only company I did audited financial statements for becuase the stakes were very very high for everyone concerned).
I can tell you that when a company does get this type of RFE; it is very difficult to substantiate everyone together and the calculations and supporting documentation is very complex AND companies have very little desire to help those who have already left. In these types of queries; the company/lawyer doesn't even bother to justify those who have already left; they just ask for revoation and they prove ability to pay for those who are still left with the company. Therefore; USCIS could just make the determination that those revoked cases were approved in error.
The main law for ability to pay is that company has to prove it from priority date until person obtains lawful permanent residency; law was never changed/modified to accomodate ability to pay for a company whose candidates have left using ac21.
Note: This is all pure speculation of what is going on in these cases. I am just writing out loud of why/if there is a shift within uscis.
more...
house Jeremy Shockey, a first-round
belmontboy
04-18 06:33 PM
Same company porting is more successful than different company porting. That's what I have been observing. What are your guys thoughts on this??
don't have much data to concur !
don't have much data to concur !
tattoo New Orleans Saints cut Jeremy
ski_dude12
11-10 02:41 AM
I believe your answer below was related to this situation:
Consider this:
If someone renews his/her H1B after 6 years based on approved I-140. Assuming that dates are not current, the H1B gets renewed for 3 years.
In this scenario if the pending I-485 gets denied, what happens to the current H1B? Does that also get invalidated as it's renewal was based on a pending I-485 and approved I-140?
Thanks,
-Ski
AS I understand : After 6 years, the moment I-485 is denied H1 becomes invalid.
Employee-Employeer can be in agreement to use "Unauthorized work protection - 245(k) - six months", continue to work and immediately apply MTR.
This is complex area and I don't understand fully. Please don't give red dots for these tough questions. I already reduced giving answers from 5-6 per day to one in 5-6 day.
Consider this:
If someone renews his/her H1B after 6 years based on approved I-140. Assuming that dates are not current, the H1B gets renewed for 3 years.
In this scenario if the pending I-485 gets denied, what happens to the current H1B? Does that also get invalidated as it's renewal was based on a pending I-485 and approved I-140?
Thanks,
-Ski
AS I understand : After 6 years, the moment I-485 is denied H1 becomes invalid.
Employee-Employeer can be in agreement to use "Unauthorized work protection - 245(k) - six months", continue to work and immediately apply MTR.
This is complex area and I don't understand fully. Please don't give red dots for these tough questions. I already reduced giving answers from 5-6 per day to one in 5-6 day.
more...
pictures Jeremy Shockey Margues Colston
unitednations
03-31 12:06 PM
UnitedNations,
Whatever be the shift in policy, they cannot go against the AC21 law, which is if the job is in similar classification then the applicant can use portability if the underlying I-140 is revoked. Also you must have seen the latest yates memo , link, http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
If you see Q.11 it asks,
Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?
Answer: An I-140 is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
A. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
B. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.
Answer B seems pretty vague. How do you interpret this?
Also can you tell, if the case you are referring to is based in TSC or NSC. I have seen cases where TSC applicants are facing this kind of situations more.
We have to understand that there is a myriad of laws; INA, CFR's; USCIS policy binding memos; internal memos; appeals decisions, court cases, precedent aao decisions, precedent legal cases.
Now; the ac21 memo is a memo that uscis officers have to follow. However; the memo is not in accordanc with INA 245 or AC21.
INA 245 states that a valid and approved 140 is needed for a person to get lawful permanent residency.
ac21 says that a person can change jobs after 485 has been pending for more then 180 days.
The above two things are the law.
In ac21 law; it doesn't say anything about the scenario if 140 is revoked by employer. It is totally silent to it.
USCIS in their memos realized that ac21 law would not have any meaning if the employer still controlled the 140 if a person was eligible for ac21; therefore, they issued the memo (memo is not law but binding; memos can be changed; however, there has been nothing public about any possible change).
Memo is clarification which they have been following for many years and as far as I know still binding.
Whatever be the shift in policy, they cannot go against the AC21 law, which is if the job is in similar classification then the applicant can use portability if the underlying I-140 is revoked. Also you must have seen the latest yates memo , link, http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
If you see Q.11 it asks,
Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?
Answer: An I-140 is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
A. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
B. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.
Answer B seems pretty vague. How do you interpret this?
Also can you tell, if the case you are referring to is based in TSC or NSC. I have seen cases where TSC applicants are facing this kind of situations more.
We have to understand that there is a myriad of laws; INA, CFR's; USCIS policy binding memos; internal memos; appeals decisions, court cases, precedent aao decisions, precedent legal cases.
Now; the ac21 memo is a memo that uscis officers have to follow. However; the memo is not in accordanc with INA 245 or AC21.
INA 245 states that a valid and approved 140 is needed for a person to get lawful permanent residency.
ac21 says that a person can change jobs after 485 has been pending for more then 180 days.
The above two things are the law.
In ac21 law; it doesn't say anything about the scenario if 140 is revoked by employer. It is totally silent to it.
USCIS in their memos realized that ac21 law would not have any meaning if the employer still controlled the 140 if a person was eligible for ac21; therefore, they issued the memo (memo is not law but binding; memos can be changed; however, there has been nothing public about any possible change).
Memo is clarification which they have been following for many years and as far as I know still binding.
dresses Jeremy Shockey
unchew
06-09 11:43 PM
discualify theeemmm! You said no mods... that way I would have less competition! (j/k) :P
more...
makeup Jeremy Shockey finally
sobers
02-20 02:14 PM
Sensenbrenner Statement after President Bush's Speech on the State of the Union
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In response to President Bush's speech on the State of the Union, Menomonee Falls Representative Jim Sensenbrenner issued the following statement:
“President Bush’s speech tonight was a strong and visionary statement that accurately reflected the state of our union. Since his last such address, our nation has gone through waves of lows and highs. From the horrors of Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma, to the December elections in Iraq where the Iraqis chose their first representational government under their new constitution, Americans have experienced both great pain and great elation.
But as the President said, ‘Our work in Iraq is difficult because our enemy is brutal.’ This brutality is continually demonstrated by the actions of terrorists who prey upon innocent men and women to preach their message of hatred. As our nation makes progress in the War on Terror, I hope to see our sons and daughters return home from their tour of duty -- American soldiers will stand down as Iraqi soldiers stand up.
On the subject of immigration, I was pleased to hear the President discuss the need for orderly and secure borders, and a plan that calls for stronger immigration enforcement that, among other things, rejects amnesty for illegal aliens. There is much work that remains to be done as we try to build consensus. The Border Security bill I introduced and the House passed last year is just the first step towards a comprehensive immigration plan. Currently, our immigration laws rival our nation’s convoluted tax code.
This highlights our need to hold the line on spending in Congress. In order to maintain America’s competitive edge, a recurring theme through the President’s speech, we must spend our taxpayer dollars wisely. I agree with the President that the federal budget includes too many special projects, better known as “pork.” To that end, I support providing the President with a line item veto.
Tonight Congress has been challenged to act on many issues. I accept the challenge laid down by President Bush to deliver common sense legislation that will continue to improve our security and quality of life.”
Contact: Raj Bharwani, (202) 225-5101
Sensenbrenner Press Office
http://www.house.gov/sensenbrenner/pr20060131.html
----------
Much work remains to be done...as we try build consensus. This (Sensenbrenner Bill) is just the first step...toward Comprehensive immigration.
My reading is that sensenbrenner seems to be open to consensus...and amenable to comprehensive reform (which in other words is tougher border security and interior enforcement + guest worker program similar to Coryn-Kyls'). Despite public rhetoric, if there is enough time we may see such legislation come to pass in the 109th Congress. We need to see how we can bring about meaningful EB visa relief in such a scenario.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In response to President Bush's speech on the State of the Union, Menomonee Falls Representative Jim Sensenbrenner issued the following statement:
“President Bush’s speech tonight was a strong and visionary statement that accurately reflected the state of our union. Since his last such address, our nation has gone through waves of lows and highs. From the horrors of Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma, to the December elections in Iraq where the Iraqis chose their first representational government under their new constitution, Americans have experienced both great pain and great elation.
But as the President said, ‘Our work in Iraq is difficult because our enemy is brutal.’ This brutality is continually demonstrated by the actions of terrorists who prey upon innocent men and women to preach their message of hatred. As our nation makes progress in the War on Terror, I hope to see our sons and daughters return home from their tour of duty -- American soldiers will stand down as Iraqi soldiers stand up.
On the subject of immigration, I was pleased to hear the President discuss the need for orderly and secure borders, and a plan that calls for stronger immigration enforcement that, among other things, rejects amnesty for illegal aliens. There is much work that remains to be done as we try to build consensus. The Border Security bill I introduced and the House passed last year is just the first step towards a comprehensive immigration plan. Currently, our immigration laws rival our nation’s convoluted tax code.
This highlights our need to hold the line on spending in Congress. In order to maintain America’s competitive edge, a recurring theme through the President’s speech, we must spend our taxpayer dollars wisely. I agree with the President that the federal budget includes too many special projects, better known as “pork.” To that end, I support providing the President with a line item veto.
Tonight Congress has been challenged to act on many issues. I accept the challenge laid down by President Bush to deliver common sense legislation that will continue to improve our security and quality of life.”
Contact: Raj Bharwani, (202) 225-5101
Sensenbrenner Press Office
http://www.house.gov/sensenbrenner/pr20060131.html
----------
Much work remains to be done...as we try build consensus. This (Sensenbrenner Bill) is just the first step...toward Comprehensive immigration.
My reading is that sensenbrenner seems to be open to consensus...and amenable to comprehensive reform (which in other words is tougher border security and interior enforcement + guest worker program similar to Coryn-Kyls'). Despite public rhetoric, if there is enough time we may see such legislation come to pass in the 109th Congress. We need to see how we can bring about meaningful EB visa relief in such a scenario.
girlfriend Jeremy Shockey Saints
sidbee
05-13 08:48 AM
Very well said.
I totally agree with you.
I really hate those people , who get fraudulent H1B's and GC's through Fraud Desi Consultants. I really wish USCIS to investigate approved GC Cases and deny them , if found a fraud.
This might come as a surprise to some of you, but someone needs to say it out loud. GET A LIFE FOLKS!!!! there is more to life then EB, GC and all. it seem all we desi's can think of is how to get a green card so we can live here with peace and never have to worry bout getting laid off or anything.
Few points:
1) having gc is a privilege not a right.
2) US has every right to choose whom they want to have in their country.
3) If getting PR or citizenship of a western country is the goal there are many countries which have a fair point based system.
4) Considering the number of fraud's committed by Indian body shoppers and people who use them, i am not surprised USCIS is extra careful when it comes to Indian applications. Anyone who got his wife with no exp with software dev an h1b visa from some cheat in Jersey knows what i am talking bout . My freind got his wife an H1 after showing she knew software testing even though her major was fine arts and all she was good at was web surfing :)
5) have a back up. i came here in 2001 as student and have seen it all. I am on h1b since 2004. i knew we have too many people whose sole aim in life is a American GC. to avoid becoming one of those who check processing dates first thing in morning, i applied for Canadian PR, got it in 8 months and i am not even gonna bother applying for labor, i-140 and all those precious life controlling documents.
Wake up friends, you have options. Don't let your life depend on you application status.
Nitin
I totally agree with you.
I really hate those people , who get fraudulent H1B's and GC's through Fraud Desi Consultants. I really wish USCIS to investigate approved GC Cases and deny them , if found a fraud.
This might come as a surprise to some of you, but someone needs to say it out loud. GET A LIFE FOLKS!!!! there is more to life then EB, GC and all. it seem all we desi's can think of is how to get a green card so we can live here with peace and never have to worry bout getting laid off or anything.
Few points:
1) having gc is a privilege not a right.
2) US has every right to choose whom they want to have in their country.
3) If getting PR or citizenship of a western country is the goal there are many countries which have a fair point based system.
4) Considering the number of fraud's committed by Indian body shoppers and people who use them, i am not surprised USCIS is extra careful when it comes to Indian applications. Anyone who got his wife with no exp with software dev an h1b visa from some cheat in Jersey knows what i am talking bout . My freind got his wife an H1 after showing she knew software testing even though her major was fine arts and all she was good at was web surfing :)
5) have a back up. i came here in 2001 as student and have seen it all. I am on h1b since 2004. i knew we have too many people whose sole aim in life is a American GC. to avoid becoming one of those who check processing dates first thing in morning, i applied for Canadian PR, got it in 8 months and i am not even gonna bother applying for labor, i-140 and all those precious life controlling documents.
Wake up friends, you have options. Don't let your life depend on you application status.
Nitin
hairstyles tight end Jeremy Shockey
anilsal
11-13 12:01 AM
Waiting for CIR bill for EB relif is not worthy. It will unlikley be passed in lame-duck congress, as t needs heavy conference. It may be the good idea to push SkIL bill or somesort of EB relief provison (like budget reconcilation bill last year) in other bills to be passed in lame duck period.
Agreed, smaller ticket items while the big ones are being debated/reported in the media.
Agreed, smaller ticket items while the big ones are being debated/reported in the media.
SivaMayam
07-16 01:45 PM
can someone pls post the link for the actual news clips
~S
~S
bigboy007
07-18 05:18 PM
how can i talk to those knowledgeble service reps from the service center. can you please suggest me how i can get to them, i have been trying to talk to them since morning and i could not get beyond the first service rep. any tips on how to get to them
Simple : tell them u have applied and its been more than 3 weeks and no response yet and tell them that last week they asked to call back so that they can forward to other cs reps of service centers
Simple : tell them u have applied and its been more than 3 weeks and no response yet and tell them that last week they asked to call back so that they can forward to other cs reps of service centers
0 comments:
Post a Comment