sanju
04-04 03:30 PM
Your argument may be true only some extent. If you keep on asking more H1b and GC without meaningful reform of H1b then it won't sell in the congress and they will try to keep staus quo and you have to wait years to get gc. How do you resolve the problem of Cap reached within few days? Will congress accept unlimited H1bs? What is the solution for this?
Your posts seem to suggest that because we (collectively all of us on the forum) have not yet agreed to a �meaningful reform� of H-1b,that has prevented fixes to the green card process? Is that what has truly delayed fixing the current green card backlog?
Secondly, we do not have to choose between the one and the other i.e. we do not have to choose between supporting Durbin-Grassley bill and delay with the green card. Do you think that supporting Durbin-Grassley bill that contains absolutely nothing to fix green card delays will somehow speed up the green card process?
We (all of us when calling lawmakers) HAVE to differentiate between increase/decrease in H-1b and green card delays. H-1b is not our issue and we will be better of staying as far away from that issue as possible. If we have to call, then we should call in to support a bill that has our provisions, rather than a bill that has nothing for us or maybe stuff that would hurt us.
Your posts seem to suggest that because we (collectively all of us on the forum) have not yet agreed to a �meaningful reform� of H-1b,that has prevented fixes to the green card process? Is that what has truly delayed fixing the current green card backlog?
Secondly, we do not have to choose between the one and the other i.e. we do not have to choose between supporting Durbin-Grassley bill and delay with the green card. Do you think that supporting Durbin-Grassley bill that contains absolutely nothing to fix green card delays will somehow speed up the green card process?
We (all of us when calling lawmakers) HAVE to differentiate between increase/decrease in H-1b and green card delays. H-1b is not our issue and we will be better of staying as far away from that issue as possible. If we have to call, then we should call in to support a bill that has our provisions, rather than a bill that has nothing for us or maybe stuff that would hurt us.
wallpaper Plus Size Wedding Gowns
makemygc
01-30 08:33 PM
[QUOTE=logiclife]Unpaid bench means you are "Out of Status". Not illegal.
I don't agree at all with this statement. People can go on a unpaid maternity leave and still maintain status.
Out of status is anyway no better than illegal.
I don't agree at all with this statement. People can go on a unpaid maternity leave and still maintain status.
Out of status is anyway no better than illegal.
arsh007
01-30 03:49 PM
1. Asking employees to pay for H1 costs is not legal. It would be in violations of CFR.
2. That is also illegal. Employer cannot ask employee to pay for payroll taxes that the employer owes IRS, and too, when you are not even working. It would be an attempt to cover-up the violation of immigration law: Not paying on bench. The only alternative to all that is cancelling her H1 if she cannot find project and if they cannot pay her, but that again would cost money. Damn its too expensive to operate a business legally obeying every friggin law.
3. If you are paying for H1 (which is really not legal) what would you refund them?
So whether you want to tell them "Go to hell" depends on how much you want the job and how much bending/breaking of law can you do.
Point 3 was for the employer refunding the employee for the H1 costs after completing 6 months on project.
Well it is an accepted fact that Employers need to pay for H1 sponsorship but desi companies hardly follow the rules. Well I don't understand from you point above why paying for H1 expenses means I am breaking the law. Rather it should be the employer who is breaking the law.
2. That is also illegal. Employer cannot ask employee to pay for payroll taxes that the employer owes IRS, and too, when you are not even working. It would be an attempt to cover-up the violation of immigration law: Not paying on bench. The only alternative to all that is cancelling her H1 if she cannot find project and if they cannot pay her, but that again would cost money. Damn its too expensive to operate a business legally obeying every friggin law.
3. If you are paying for H1 (which is really not legal) what would you refund them?
So whether you want to tell them "Go to hell" depends on how much you want the job and how much bending/breaking of law can you do.
Point 3 was for the employer refunding the employee for the H1 costs after completing 6 months on project.
Well it is an accepted fact that Employers need to pay for H1 sponsorship but desi companies hardly follow the rules. Well I don't understand from you point above why paying for H1 expenses means I am breaking the law. Rather it should be the employer who is breaking the law.
2011 Wedding Dress Stockist in
sureshj
06-08 02:18 PM
To solve the FBI name check problem, the following suggestions should be communicated to lawmaker if possible:
1. Increase the fundings for FBI name check. The major reason of name check delay is due to lack of resources for manual name check.
2. Introduce a conditional Green Card. Conditional green card is equivalent to green card, except with condition that it could be taken back IF AND ONLY IF the name check eventually fails to pass. Person with conditional green card enjoy all the benefits with normal green card, including transfering job freely, re-enter US freely, count years to citizenship, etc.
3. People wants to file 485 can ask FBI do name check before they actaully file 485 with a certain amount of filing fee. So that the delay for FBI name check will not impact 485 processing too much.
I could'nt agree with gcdreamer more...
Consider this...
1. FBI, I believe, has 2 rookie analysts dedicated to processing name checks and I heard USCIS pays $25 per name check.
2. FBI has distributed databases in NY, CA, FL, etc. that are not networked. So they have to request name checks individually out of these databases.
3. Name check ranks least in their priority list.
4. FBI has increased their name check criteria from 2 (First name and Last Name) to, I think it is, 7 or 8 (part of the first name, part of the last name and few other combinations). This increases the chances of your name generating "hits" and falling into this blackhole.
In addition to the above FBI (which normally receives ~1.5m name check requests per year) received ~6m in 2003. They are still recovering from that deluge. So now you see what's causing the delay.
For USCIS this works out fine, since they rake in 15% of their annual revenue from EAD/AP renewals. They do not want to mess with this "free money" and reduce the processing time. And to top it all they can transfer the blame on FBI.
In addition, to secure this "money train" USCIS cleverly issued a public memo earlier this year indicating WOM cases will be fought in court. To most this would have seemed like the end of WOM, but it is not. Applicants have since filed and won these cases. However the memo probably had its' desired effect...to discourage a majority of the applicants from filing WOM.
I think USCIS has to be made accountable for the money they earn. The $25/name check is just not sufficient. More funding is necessary so that FBI can allocate more analysts to the job and also upgrade their IT infrastructure. Excuses such as "ball is in FBI's court" is just not acceptable. "Conditional Green card" (as suggested by gcdreamer) is excellant idea to alleviate the problems the "name check" victims face over the ~2 to 4 years they spend in this blackhole.
PS: Just in case you are not aware of Senator Obama's initiative to address this problem here is a link where you can sign-up for whatever it is worth.
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?nc082505&1
1. Increase the fundings for FBI name check. The major reason of name check delay is due to lack of resources for manual name check.
2. Introduce a conditional Green Card. Conditional green card is equivalent to green card, except with condition that it could be taken back IF AND ONLY IF the name check eventually fails to pass. Person with conditional green card enjoy all the benefits with normal green card, including transfering job freely, re-enter US freely, count years to citizenship, etc.
3. People wants to file 485 can ask FBI do name check before they actaully file 485 with a certain amount of filing fee. So that the delay for FBI name check will not impact 485 processing too much.
I could'nt agree with gcdreamer more...
Consider this...
1. FBI, I believe, has 2 rookie analysts dedicated to processing name checks and I heard USCIS pays $25 per name check.
2. FBI has distributed databases in NY, CA, FL, etc. that are not networked. So they have to request name checks individually out of these databases.
3. Name check ranks least in their priority list.
4. FBI has increased their name check criteria from 2 (First name and Last Name) to, I think it is, 7 or 8 (part of the first name, part of the last name and few other combinations). This increases the chances of your name generating "hits" and falling into this blackhole.
In addition to the above FBI (which normally receives ~1.5m name check requests per year) received ~6m in 2003. They are still recovering from that deluge. So now you see what's causing the delay.
For USCIS this works out fine, since they rake in 15% of their annual revenue from EAD/AP renewals. They do not want to mess with this "free money" and reduce the processing time. And to top it all they can transfer the blame on FBI.
In addition, to secure this "money train" USCIS cleverly issued a public memo earlier this year indicating WOM cases will be fought in court. To most this would have seemed like the end of WOM, but it is not. Applicants have since filed and won these cases. However the memo probably had its' desired effect...to discourage a majority of the applicants from filing WOM.
I think USCIS has to be made accountable for the money they earn. The $25/name check is just not sufficient. More funding is necessary so that FBI can allocate more analysts to the job and also upgrade their IT infrastructure. Excuses such as "ball is in FBI's court" is just not acceptable. "Conditional Green card" (as suggested by gcdreamer) is excellant idea to alleviate the problems the "name check" victims face over the ~2 to 4 years they spend in this blackhole.
PS: Just in case you are not aware of Senator Obama's initiative to address this problem here is a link where you can sign-up for whatever it is worth.
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?nc082505&1
more...
pcs
11-16 11:13 PM
send polite but firm letters to....
Cut and paste the rule from the thread to educate him and other...
Alejandro Mayorkas
Director USCIS
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington DC 20529
After sending letters ... post it on this thread... I have sent 4 letters on behalf of my 4 family members....
Make the noise NOW ... so that they will have REASONS to release the unused VISAs on 8th DECEMBER......
Cut and paste the rule from the thread to educate him and other...
Alejandro Mayorkas
Director USCIS
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington DC 20529
After sending letters ... post it on this thread... I have sent 4 letters on behalf of my 4 family members....
Make the noise NOW ... so that they will have REASONS to release the unused VISAs on 8th DECEMBER......
looivy
11-11 09:42 AM
IV please mobilize resources for Lame Duck.
more...
Openarms
02-03 11:03 AM
This is the only strongest point we have ever had. So let us push or aks for help Obama administration.
If they can bring people based on merits( regardless of country ) to work they should do the same for green card. If not the system should be fair and strong.... not to open back doors for people to persuade to come to this country and be work like horse.
If they can bring people based on merits( regardless of country ) to work they should do the same for green card. If not the system should be fair and strong.... not to open back doors for people to persuade to come to this country and be work like horse.
2010 The second period with the war
anandsun
04-21 11:01 PM
Pratik and Jay spent some quality time with the Congressman AFTER the meeting was over. They should be updating us very soon.
Thanks
Anand
Thanks
Anand
more...
rajsand
09-26 12:22 PM
Thanked her, appreciated her and also
requested her to look into our issues and come up with something similar for all of us looking to shroten the route to GC!
requested her to look into our issues and come up with something similar for all of us looking to shroten the route to GC!
hair informal wedding dresses
amitjoey
07-03 04:17 PM
Thanks titu1972, mhb, sbindval, gsc999, tapukakababa, divakarr for your contributions.
more...
nc14
01-17 03:48 PM
Just signed up for $20 monthly Recurring. Thanks a lot guys for doing what you have done so far and plan to do in the future. GOD Bless IV and its efforts.
hot second wedding dresses
vgayalu
10-05 01:02 PM
Just today mine and Spouse cases ( I 485) got approved after RFE ( RFE response reached to USCIS on Sep 30).
Still waiting for my kids approval.
Good luck to each and every one.
Still waiting for my kids approval.
Good luck to each and every one.
more...
house old fashioned wedding dresses
eeezzz
02-14 11:52 AM
The spirit of US is to united everyone from different countries and races to live together to be loyal to the same country. But truly they don't want too many immigrants from one or two specific country. That is why they setup the country limit rules. So the population for all the immigrants from differnet places grows up about equally in this country. I think this is normal to every country. I believe every country will do the same if they are facing a lot immigrants. If the other day many immigrants from other countries want to go India, Indian gov. will do the same.
Just to be curious, where is the fight the OP mentioned. Can OP link us or is it just OP think there is a fight?
Just to be curious, where is the fight the OP mentioned. Can OP link us or is it just OP think there is a fight?
tattoo or second wedding dress,
ajay
12-08 04:57 PM
I also got a response with some number. I don't know how much of it is going to help us in knowing the situation.
more...
pictures halter wedding dress
Sakthisagar
06-11 11:01 AM
See below what Anti Immigrants are doing. Each and everyone visits this site should sign what IV have given the link
The following makes no sense it is utter non-sense.
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON�T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders� office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely
The following makes no sense it is utter non-sense.
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON�T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders� office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely
dresses sell second hand wedding
desi485
03-16 12:37 AM
dudester,
I work for a REAL big company and have a REAL good job. Don't get worked up you might get a cardiac arrest. :)
And, please, gimme a break. H1B = high skilled? ya right.............keep living in your dream world buddy.........good for you. Most H1Bs, according to PUBLISHED research, earn less than $50,000.
Freaking diploma holders from India get an H1B easily...........you think the monkeys who work for the outsourcing firms in India are "highly-skilled" ??
:p
Dude, IT and software are low skill jobs..........wake up and smell the coffee. Your saying "highly skilled" and holding up a placard won't change that reality. No one wants any more low skilled EB3 types in this country anymore. They are found dime a dozen.
If your highness is so highly skilled, how come you are stuck in the EB3 queue and whine to get into EB2 ???
Yes i AM selfish..........you got a problem with that?
You are now "a more frustrated fool". Your desparation shows what you really are.
I work for a REAL big company and have a REAL good job. Don't get worked up you might get a cardiac arrest. :)
And, please, gimme a break. H1B = high skilled? ya right.............keep living in your dream world buddy.........good for you. Most H1Bs, according to PUBLISHED research, earn less than $50,000.
Freaking diploma holders from India get an H1B easily...........you think the monkeys who work for the outsourcing firms in India are "highly-skilled" ??
:p
Dude, IT and software are low skill jobs..........wake up and smell the coffee. Your saying "highly skilled" and holding up a placard won't change that reality. No one wants any more low skilled EB3 types in this country anymore. They are found dime a dozen.
If your highness is so highly skilled, how come you are stuck in the EB3 queue and whine to get into EB2 ???
Yes i AM selfish..........you got a problem with that?
You are now "a more frustrated fool". Your desparation shows what you really are.
more...
makeup US$181.90. Mermaid Strapless
frostrated
09-10 02:54 PM
My PD is March 2010 EB2 so i'm not even in this race yet but help me in understanding one thing.
Was EB3 current in July 2007? If yes, I'm assuming atleast 95% EB3 folks have EAD and their spouse can work. The really big problem in post 2007 EB3.
Since dates were current in July 2007, Eb2 and Eb3 can atleast enjoy EAD/spouse working benefits. Why do ppl complain when they have EAD etc whose PD is before 2007.
smuggymba
what happened to your earlier PD. I think it was in mid 2004 or so, correct?
Was EB3 current in July 2007? If yes, I'm assuming atleast 95% EB3 folks have EAD and their spouse can work. The really big problem in post 2007 EB3.
Since dates were current in July 2007, Eb2 and Eb3 can atleast enjoy EAD/spouse working benefits. Why do ppl complain when they have EAD etc whose PD is before 2007.
smuggymba
what happened to your earlier PD. I think it was in mid 2004 or so, correct?
girlfriend US$153.90. Murmaid Sweetheart
lazycis
12-21 10:03 PM
lazycis,
According to 245(k), does it mean that "unauthorized stay" (or stay with expired I-94) of more than 1 year is wiped out if a nonimmigrant went out of the country, entered back with a new I-94 and maintained legal status ever since? He/she should not have any problems in adjusting status with 485?
I like your insight into immigration policies and the way you express them.
Thanks.
8 USC 1182(a)(9)(B) Aliens unlawfully present
(ii) Construction of unlawful presence For purposes of this paragraph, an alien is deemed to be unlawfully present in the United States if the alien is present in the United States after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General or is present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.
Unlawful presence is different from out of status.
The period for unlawful presence begins on:
1) The expiration date* of the visa "status" document (I-94 Arrival/Departure Card), or
2) status violation, determined by an immigration judge, or
3) status violation, determined by the USCIS during the course of adjudicating a benefit application.
245(k) allows up to 180 days of "out of status".
If a person overstays (expired I-94) more than one year, leaves and re-enters within 10 years, it will be a problem for I-485 (if the USCIS finds about it, of course). More likely it will result in removal proceedings and permanent bar to reentry to the US. The only exception is if that person has an immediate relative who is a US citizen (see 8 USC 1255(i)).
So the moral of the story is to never leave the US until you get a green card if you accumulated more than 180 days of unlawful presence.
However if a person left and was allowed to re-enter, there is a chance that a person did not accumulated unlawful presence to trigger re-entry ban. Refer to this CIS memo for details regarding "period of authorized stay".
http://www.mnllp.com/GOVbcisnOOSunlawful0403.pdf
According to 245(k), does it mean that "unauthorized stay" (or stay with expired I-94) of more than 1 year is wiped out if a nonimmigrant went out of the country, entered back with a new I-94 and maintained legal status ever since? He/she should not have any problems in adjusting status with 485?
I like your insight into immigration policies and the way you express them.
Thanks.
8 USC 1182(a)(9)(B) Aliens unlawfully present
(ii) Construction of unlawful presence For purposes of this paragraph, an alien is deemed to be unlawfully present in the United States if the alien is present in the United States after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General or is present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.
Unlawful presence is different from out of status.
The period for unlawful presence begins on:
1) The expiration date* of the visa "status" document (I-94 Arrival/Departure Card), or
2) status violation, determined by an immigration judge, or
3) status violation, determined by the USCIS during the course of adjudicating a benefit application.
245(k) allows up to 180 days of "out of status".
If a person overstays (expired I-94) more than one year, leaves and re-enters within 10 years, it will be a problem for I-485 (if the USCIS finds about it, of course). More likely it will result in removal proceedings and permanent bar to reentry to the US. The only exception is if that person has an immediate relative who is a US citizen (see 8 USC 1255(i)).
So the moral of the story is to never leave the US until you get a green card if you accumulated more than 180 days of unlawful presence.
However if a person left and was allowed to re-enter, there is a chance that a person did not accumulated unlawful presence to trigger re-entry ban. Refer to this CIS memo for details regarding "period of authorized stay".
http://www.mnllp.com/GOVbcisnOOSunlawful0403.pdf
hairstyles Best Wedding Dresses For 2010
bestia
01-19 01:28 PM
...
I did argue about the scenario if I ended up losing my passport and vital documents, which is why I had made copies. He shook his head and repeated the same - NO PHOTOCOPIES OF OFFICIAL US IMMIGRATION DOCUMENTS FOR PERSONAL USE.
....
Presenting copies of your documents to government officials is not PERSONAL use. You could argue that. Personal use is if you would be playing monopoly with copies of your documents with your friends. But if you make a copy of US document for the intent to present to US official and not to misrepresent the original document, it is not "personal use" and it is not illegal. That's why lawyers are suggesting making and having copies.
I did argue about the scenario if I ended up losing my passport and vital documents, which is why I had made copies. He shook his head and repeated the same - NO PHOTOCOPIES OF OFFICIAL US IMMIGRATION DOCUMENTS FOR PERSONAL USE.
....
Presenting copies of your documents to government officials is not PERSONAL use. You could argue that. Personal use is if you would be playing monopoly with copies of your documents with your friends. But if you make a copy of US document for the intent to present to US official and not to misrepresent the original document, it is not "personal use" and it is not illegal. That's why lawyers are suggesting making and having copies.
ajju
03-19 11:40 AM
Urgh.. Here come the red squares...Why do I even bother posting comments!
Same here...
Same here...
rajsand
09-26 12:22 PM
Thanked her, appreciated her and also
requested her to look into our issues and come up with something similar for all of us looking to shroten the route to GC!
requested her to look into our issues and come up with something similar for all of us looking to shroten the route to GC!
No comments:
Post a Comment