guesswho
11-12 11:47 AM
What was your previous status (before 1st oct). If you still have valid visa for say H-4, just go out of country and come back using your previous valid visa. On your return you will get a new I-94 with H-4 status. Then you can apply for H-4 to H-1 transfer (you won't need any paystubs) and you will not be subjec to H1 quota either.
Ofcourse, I am assuming your previous status was H-4. If it was F-1 or something else, I don't know if you have valid permit to return to that status.
Hi Gurus,
It's amazing to see all the good work here! Please keep it up.
My question is:
I graduated with a Master's (MBA) from US in Dec. 06, have H1B approved from Oct. 1st 2007, through Comp. A (consultant). However, I have never worked with Comp. A, as they couldn't secure a project for me. Now, Comp. B has come forward to possibly hire me (non-consultant). How do I get my H1B transferred without the pay stubs, considering that Comp. B is a non-consulting company, and would need a very smooth transfer?
Ofcourse, I am assuming your previous status was H-4. If it was F-1 or something else, I don't know if you have valid permit to return to that status.
Hi Gurus,
It's amazing to see all the good work here! Please keep it up.
My question is:
I graduated with a Master's (MBA) from US in Dec. 06, have H1B approved from Oct. 1st 2007, through Comp. A (consultant). However, I have never worked with Comp. A, as they couldn't secure a project for me. Now, Comp. B has come forward to possibly hire me (non-consultant). How do I get my H1B transferred without the pay stubs, considering that Comp. B is a non-consulting company, and would need a very smooth transfer?
Blog Feeds
01-26 08:40 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
geesee
07-20 05:21 PM
^^^^
cool_guy_onnet1
06-01 01:56 PM
If we can generate decent noise on 7K "active" members, 50K with "Don't touch my cheese mentality" can create a whole lot! Lets not kick the wall and try to find the door!
i dont get it...how come programmers guild gets a say in everything when they cant even get members to join or to even get people to be on their board of directors?
i have not seen one resume of an american tech worker that lists programmers guild as an association they belong to. Still.. how to they get solicited for opinions every day and Kim Berry keeps using strong rheotric to influence public opinion? What about his war on legal immigrants?
"Board Members
Kim Berry (Sacramento, CA)
Valerie Chau (San Diego, CA)
John Miano (New Jersey)
Mark Powell (Westminster, CA)
(three openings)
Officers
President: Mr. Kim Berry (Sacramento, CA)
Secretary: (open)
Treasurer: John Miano (New Jersey)
Membership Chairman: Valerie Chau (San Diego, CA)
V.P. Governmental Relations: Mark Powell (Westminster, CA)
Newsletter Editor: Open
Newsletter Coeditor: Open
V.P. Public Relations: Open
V.P. Advertising: Open
Press Releases: Open
Assistant webmaster: Open
(If you would like to contribute to our cause in another way, please contact us.)
The Programmers Guild is incorporated "
i dont get it...how come programmers guild gets a say in everything when they cant even get members to join or to even get people to be on their board of directors?
i have not seen one resume of an american tech worker that lists programmers guild as an association they belong to. Still.. how to they get solicited for opinions every day and Kim Berry keeps using strong rheotric to influence public opinion? What about his war on legal immigrants?
"Board Members
Kim Berry (Sacramento, CA)
Valerie Chau (San Diego, CA)
John Miano (New Jersey)
Mark Powell (Westminster, CA)
(three openings)
Officers
President: Mr. Kim Berry (Sacramento, CA)
Secretary: (open)
Treasurer: John Miano (New Jersey)
Membership Chairman: Valerie Chau (San Diego, CA)
V.P. Governmental Relations: Mark Powell (Westminster, CA)
Newsletter Editor: Open
Newsletter Coeditor: Open
V.P. Public Relations: Open
V.P. Advertising: Open
Press Releases: Open
Assistant webmaster: Open
(If you would like to contribute to our cause in another way, please contact us.)
The Programmers Guild is incorporated "
more...
snathan
05-19 04:25 PM
The statue of limitation is, i believe, 2 years.
No, its only 12 months.
No, its only 12 months.
naushit
02-12 08:36 AM
Chris,
My case was very similar in last November, I did call them many times...but same old answer. but in last month they told me they did not work on my case because my fiinger prints were expired. they expire every 15 months, and without valid FP , case even will not pass standard "filter" criteria, and they don't consider it "ready to approve"
Looks like you sent your 485 on Jul 2007, assume your first FP was done before Aug 2007? if yes, it's expired. By any chance, did you do your 2nd FP?
Just my 2 cents.!
Regards,
-N
Our cases are assigned to IO more that 60 days ago. No LUD's sofar.
Called VSC, One officer told me that they have thousands of cases pending. :confused:
Any one got GC recently and pending with IO more that 60 days ?
Appricaite comments and advice.
My case was very similar in last November, I did call them many times...but same old answer. but in last month they told me they did not work on my case because my fiinger prints were expired. they expire every 15 months, and without valid FP , case even will not pass standard "filter" criteria, and they don't consider it "ready to approve"
Looks like you sent your 485 on Jul 2007, assume your first FP was done before Aug 2007? if yes, it's expired. By any chance, did you do your 2nd FP?
Just my 2 cents.!
Regards,
-N
Our cases are assigned to IO more that 60 days ago. No LUD's sofar.
Called VSC, One officer told me that they have thousands of cases pending. :confused:
Any one got GC recently and pending with IO more that 60 days ?
Appricaite comments and advice.
more...
eb3_nepa
07-29 06:46 PM
CHC speaks only for illegals...
they fear any partial immigration reforms will harm their political constituents..namely the hispanic voter base.
They will never come onboard for legals..we have to fight our own battle.
So individual constituents on this forums can have personal views..
Yes, but we do not represent the CHC, nor are we in any way affiliated to them.
Secondly there are no "individual constituents" when it comes to Immigration Voice. This is an organization OF, FOR and BY the "EMPLOYMENT BASED LEGAL IMMIGRANTS". We neither support nor oppose rewards or penalties for or against the undocumented workers (illegal immigrants). Individual members can have their own "opinions/biases", but NO individual member can speak on behalf of Immigration Voice on major issues. As per my understanding, ONLY the IV Core team/Board members as a WHOLE can make such decisions.
they fear any partial immigration reforms will harm their political constituents..namely the hispanic voter base.
They will never come onboard for legals..we have to fight our own battle.
So individual constituents on this forums can have personal views..
Yes, but we do not represent the CHC, nor are we in any way affiliated to them.
Secondly there are no "individual constituents" when it comes to Immigration Voice. This is an organization OF, FOR and BY the "EMPLOYMENT BASED LEGAL IMMIGRANTS". We neither support nor oppose rewards or penalties for or against the undocumented workers (illegal immigrants). Individual members can have their own "opinions/biases", but NO individual member can speak on behalf of Immigration Voice on major issues. As per my understanding, ONLY the IV Core team/Board members as a WHOLE can make such decisions.
deejk
03-09 12:14 PM
My 485 got approved 3 months back. Once the status showd "Card Production Ordered". Then changed to "Post Decission Activity". I received the Welcome lettter that i have been grnated permanent resident statusI called USCIS some 45 days back. They mentioned the card has been mailed and file another I-90 mentioning my card is lost. I told them i have not received it at all and asked why i need to spend money and file I-90 again when i did not receive it at all. They said file I-90, thats all. I took infopass appointment. The IO at infopass gave same answer. We mailed the card, its lost, we did not receive it back, file I-90.
I asked if my EAD is valid until i get the green card. The officer asked if he can see my EAD. I had both me and my wife's EADs in a cover and gave both to him. Once he took it, he said he cannot give it back. I asked what should i do now and how should i show my status/ work authorization. He said your only option is to file I-90. Come back after filing I-90 and submitting fingerprints, then we will stamp on your passport. I have been cornered.
I have never missed a single mail. When i mentioned same in the post office, they said its absurd when i receive all mails except the card and that something is wrong with the sender. USCIS is making some blunder in sending the cards and forcing people to spend money and go through the hassle of applying for a new one. They dont check any further information other than bluntly saying "We mailed it, we have not received it back". Such important documents should have a tracking number so that we know that they have actually mailed. There is no way to know if they really mailed it.
I asked if my EAD is valid until i get the green card. The officer asked if he can see my EAD. I had both me and my wife's EADs in a cover and gave both to him. Once he took it, he said he cannot give it back. I asked what should i do now and how should i show my status/ work authorization. He said your only option is to file I-90. Come back after filing I-90 and submitting fingerprints, then we will stamp on your passport. I have been cornered.
I have never missed a single mail. When i mentioned same in the post office, they said its absurd when i receive all mails except the card and that something is wrong with the sender. USCIS is making some blunder in sending the cards and forcing people to spend money and go through the hassle of applying for a new one. They dont check any further information other than bluntly saying "We mailed it, we have not received it back". Such important documents should have a tracking number so that we know that they have actually mailed. There is no way to know if they really mailed it.
more...
Aakaash
10-25 10:38 AM
I believe i am right when I say that one can work on an expired H1b visa provided his/her extension (I129) is pending approval!! Please correct me if wrong.
qasleuth
09-17 11:37 AM
Why even bother?
Forget worrying about about CNN and Lou Dobbs. They are NOBODY and of no significance for the quest for immigration reform.
If CNN drops Lou that will not pass CIR or recapture. There are so much Lou Dobbs are there in USA. It is a waste of time.
Wrong and Wrong.
Lou is broadcasting his radio show from Federation for American Immigration Reform's "Hold Their Feet to the Fire" legislative advocacy event. No points for guessing what the event is advocating for. Just wait for CNN to drop Lou and Fox embraces him. It will be just in time when CIR comes back on radar.
If you have been even remotely following the healthcare debate, the fewest (however idiotic or uninformed they are) make the loudest noise, scaring lawmakers. THAT is guaranteed to affect you and I (well not senthil as he already has his GC).
Lou Dobbs | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/lou_dobbs)
Here is a good read on the why's/what's
Timothy Karr: What Beck, Dobbs and Limbaugh Are Really Afraid Of (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/what-beck-dobbs-and-limba_b_288480.html)
Forget worrying about about CNN and Lou Dobbs. They are NOBODY and of no significance for the quest for immigration reform.
If CNN drops Lou that will not pass CIR or recapture. There are so much Lou Dobbs are there in USA. It is a waste of time.
Wrong and Wrong.
Lou is broadcasting his radio show from Federation for American Immigration Reform's "Hold Their Feet to the Fire" legislative advocacy event. No points for guessing what the event is advocating for. Just wait for CNN to drop Lou and Fox embraces him. It will be just in time when CIR comes back on radar.
If you have been even remotely following the healthcare debate, the fewest (however idiotic or uninformed they are) make the loudest noise, scaring lawmakers. THAT is guaranteed to affect you and I (well not senthil as he already has his GC).
Lou Dobbs | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/lou_dobbs)
Here is a good read on the why's/what's
Timothy Karr: What Beck, Dobbs and Limbaugh Are Really Afraid Of (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/what-beck-dobbs-and-limba_b_288480.html)
more...
immi_seeker
07-16 07:46 PM
^^
gc_buddy
05-05 09:59 AM
Years before, the back log was at Labor Stage, then when PERM Labor came into existance, the back log was at 485 stage, now with non-concurrent filing I think the I 140 will get backlogged.
http://www.immigration-law.com/
05/05/2008: USCIS May Initiate Rule Making Process in June 2008 for Termination of Concurrent I-140/I-485 Filing Procedure
* As we reported earlier, the USCIS has been considering halting the concurrent filing procedure quite some time. Initially it was planning to commence the procedure to publish this proposed rule in November 2008. However, the latest information reflects that the proposed may be released next month, June 2008 with the two months of comment period through August 2008. People are cautioned that this is just a "proposed" rule stage. After the comment period is over, the agency will still have to go through the final rule making procedure with another cycle of OMB review and publication of the rule. There are nothing to panic about at this time. However, people may be conscious of the upcoming change in the filing procedures for I-140 petition and I-485 application from the current single-tier procedure when the visa number is available to the two-tier procedure. Please stay tuned to this website for this important development of immigration procedure changes.
http://www.immigration-law.com/
05/05/2008: USCIS May Initiate Rule Making Process in June 2008 for Termination of Concurrent I-140/I-485 Filing Procedure
* As we reported earlier, the USCIS has been considering halting the concurrent filing procedure quite some time. Initially it was planning to commence the procedure to publish this proposed rule in November 2008. However, the latest information reflects that the proposed may be released next month, June 2008 with the two months of comment period through August 2008. People are cautioned that this is just a "proposed" rule stage. After the comment period is over, the agency will still have to go through the final rule making procedure with another cycle of OMB review and publication of the rule. There are nothing to panic about at this time. However, people may be conscious of the upcoming change in the filing procedures for I-140 petition and I-485 application from the current single-tier procedure when the visa number is available to the two-tier procedure. Please stay tuned to this website for this important development of immigration procedure changes.
more...
pbojja
05-22 11:46 AM
Why not let people apply 485/140 concurrently even if their PDs are not current?.
All of us who were stuck know what a relief it is to have EAD in hand. Also non-IT spouses can work if they get their EAD.
Not that everybody would listen but I would say that it will be good if they allow concurrent filing even if the PD is not current and process the cases when PD becomes current.
I Agree with you , But again if they allow concurent filling ROW will get preference over us as they will be current most of the time .
I think it would be best if they allow us to apply for 485 regardless of priority date once 140 is approved .
140 may take a year but atleast you know you can file 485 in a year , with priority date rule you never know when you can apply
All of us who were stuck know what a relief it is to have EAD in hand. Also non-IT spouses can work if they get their EAD.
Not that everybody would listen but I would say that it will be good if they allow concurrent filing even if the PD is not current and process the cases when PD becomes current.
I Agree with you , But again if they allow concurent filling ROW will get preference over us as they will be current most of the time .
I think it would be best if they allow us to apply for 485 regardless of priority date once 140 is approved .
140 may take a year but atleast you know you can file 485 in a year , with priority date rule you never know when you can apply
my2cents
08-05 11:36 AM
Time and again - there are confilicting opinion from attorneys.
My attorney ( and i trust her) said that if you are maintaining H1/H4 status (not necessairly VISA stamped) . your I-485/I-131 doesn't get considered cancelled and only requirements that you must be in US while filing. Being on purely non immigrant VISA like F1/F2/B1 you must be in US on day of approval.
People normally refer to friend's example but i have 2 collegues whose spouses has done same thing. Spouse's H4 visa stamping is long expired but they were gone to India after filing AP and they have comeback without any issue.
If you have not extended ur H1-B/H4 (dual immigrant) and have take advantage on AC-21 then I believe that you are not maintaining any non-immigrant status and you are just paroled in.
Thanks
My attorney ( and i trust her) said that if you are maintaining H1/H4 status (not necessairly VISA stamped) . your I-485/I-131 doesn't get considered cancelled and only requirements that you must be in US while filing. Being on purely non immigrant VISA like F1/F2/B1 you must be in US on day of approval.
People normally refer to friend's example but i have 2 collegues whose spouses has done same thing. Spouse's H4 visa stamping is long expired but they were gone to India after filing AP and they have comeback without any issue.
If you have not extended ur H1-B/H4 (dual immigrant) and have take advantage on AC-21 then I believe that you are not maintaining any non-immigrant status and you are just paroled in.
Thanks
more...
chanduv23
09-04 11:16 AM
You can work on h1b - you will get H1b based on existing approved 140 and pending 485.
If 140 is revoked by employer you may get a RFE or NOID or in rare cases erroneous denial but you can continue on h1b while you respond to RFE or NOID oor through MTR to erroneous denial.
Sending AC21 docs does not necessarily mean you may not get NOID - AC21 docs seldom go into your file.
If 140 is revoked by employer you may get a RFE or NOID or in rare cases erroneous denial but you can continue on h1b while you respond to RFE or NOID oor through MTR to erroneous denial.
Sending AC21 docs does not necessarily mean you may not get NOID - AC21 docs seldom go into your file.
amitga
06-24 11:41 AM
Rupert Murdoch, Mayor Bloomberg Lobby For Immigration Reform, Path To 'Legal Status' For Illegal Immigrants (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/24/rupert-murdoch-mayor-bloo_n_623805.html)
more...
pbojja
05-22 11:22 AM
I totally agree, but as if there isnt a backlog at I-140 right now!! its been more than an year since I filed my I-140 ..I see a couple of LUDs but no approval in sight!
Does anyone else have the same story? I-140 pending for 12+ months now(transfered from NSC to TSC last month).
I applied my 140 on July 05 07 and still waiting , transfered to TSC last month . I guess the transfer cases box is the last one , so I guess our approvals are not insight , I beleive CIS is working on 485 cases who are current ..thats why I m all in for this rule
Does anyone else have the same story? I-140 pending for 12+ months now(transfered from NSC to TSC last month).
I applied my 140 on July 05 07 and still waiting , transfered to TSC last month . I guess the transfer cases box is the last one , so I guess our approvals are not insight , I beleive CIS is working on 485 cases who are current ..thats why I m all in for this rule
leoindiano
07-09 01:45 PM
Buddy,
Why you are so angry??. I know more than you about immigration and all the rules. you try to understand the English properly and the meaning. I hope you are from a very remote place in India. So for you to understand better, Here is the meanign fo my message.
GUYS, YOUR PRIORITY DATE IS 2006 and why you are asking for the premium processing when many of your friends are still waiting to file their I 140 or I 485.
Don't try to put harsh words in public forums. You will get them back as a Boomerang...... Understand?:mad:
Needless to respond...but cant stay calm....
We were trying to track what is going on? 15 days was the published deadline. Priority date of mine is Nov 2004. You can check my previous posts. You are the one who was harsh to start with. Now you are talking about english. You got the boomarang.. good luck
Why you are so angry??. I know more than you about immigration and all the rules. you try to understand the English properly and the meaning. I hope you are from a very remote place in India. So for you to understand better, Here is the meanign fo my message.
GUYS, YOUR PRIORITY DATE IS 2006 and why you are asking for the premium processing when many of your friends are still waiting to file their I 140 or I 485.
Don't try to put harsh words in public forums. You will get them back as a Boomerang...... Understand?:mad:
Needless to respond...but cant stay calm....
We were trying to track what is going on? 15 days was the published deadline. Priority date of mine is Nov 2004. You can check my previous posts. You are the one who was harsh to start with. Now you are talking about english. You got the boomarang.. good luck
ngopikrishnan
07-12 09:47 PM
AP and EAD Renewal Paper filed at TSC - Self Filed
USPS'd AP & EAD apps - 6/2
Reached TSC - 6/3
Receipt Date - 6/4
LUDs on AP & EAD apps - 6/11
AP Approval Email (for myself & spouse) - 6/29
LUDs on AP apps (for myself & spouse) - 6/30
APs (for myself & spouse) received on - 7/4
EAD app for myself is still pending - LUD is still 6/11. I hope TSC approves the EAD as well soon.
USPS'd AP & EAD apps - 6/2
Reached TSC - 6/3
Receipt Date - 6/4
LUDs on AP & EAD apps - 6/11
AP Approval Email (for myself & spouse) - 6/29
LUDs on AP apps (for myself & spouse) - 6/30
APs (for myself & spouse) received on - 7/4
EAD app for myself is still pending - LUD is still 6/11. I hope TSC approves the EAD as well soon.
mpadapa
10-09 01:32 PM
IMHO.. Its better to resolve the out-of-status issues before U file for 485. Please consult a good attorney.
If things are cleared out, its a smooth sailing for U since U are from EB2 ROW. Since U are planning to marry, its better to marry and then file for 485. U donno sometimes USCIS goes into an approval frenzy, U might get U'r GC approved soon and thus U'r wife might have to wait for yrs to get GC. If U'r wife comes to US before U'r GC approval, its a different story as explained by glus.
If things are cleared out, its a smooth sailing for U since U are from EB2 ROW. Since U are planning to marry, its better to marry and then file for 485. U donno sometimes USCIS goes into an approval frenzy, U might get U'r GC approved soon and thus U'r wife might have to wait for yrs to get GC. If U'r wife comes to US before U'r GC approval, its a different story as explained by glus.
srikondoji
01-28 04:38 PM
I don't think Americans are that short sighted or narrow minded to want to steal your social security money. I know, i read a lot of press releases on how their social security is in a mess. They will fix it. I have no doubt about it.
Who thought India would be in such a limelight and then go on to be economic power before year 2000?
In a short span of 6-7 years the whole world changed. Coming to social security, by the time you will be in need of Social security, it will be decades and that is lot of time for a change. Who knows, we may be even taking a flight to Mars or worse 'nuked'.
Just be positive and drink a high gravity beer.
Yeah right... he wants your brain, but does not want your body. Got it? :rolleyes:
In case you did not, Americans only want you to come to work for them and then you will need to leave... so that they do not have to pay your social security down the road. Isn't that a good deal?
Who thought India would be in such a limelight and then go on to be economic power before year 2000?
In a short span of 6-7 years the whole world changed. Coming to social security, by the time you will be in need of Social security, it will be decades and that is lot of time for a change. Who knows, we may be even taking a flight to Mars or worse 'nuked'.
Just be positive and drink a high gravity beer.
Yeah right... he wants your brain, but does not want your body. Got it? :rolleyes:
In case you did not, Americans only want you to come to work for them and then you will need to leave... so that they do not have to pay your social security down the road. Isn't that a good deal?
No comments:
Post a Comment