codehari
04-09 12:46 PM
I did the same cruise with just Drivers License.
As ship travels in US waters no need to have VISA Stamping...
Unlike Alaska cruise ships leave US waters and enters Internationa waters, so you need VISA.
Cheers.
As ship travels in US waters no need to have VISA Stamping...
Unlike Alaska cruise ships leave US waters and enters Internationa waters, so you need VISA.
Cheers.
wallpaper quotes about god and love.
nepaliboy
05-21 10:08 PM
hi thanks your input.
what about my Lud ? when i will see lUD ? I took biometric yesterday and my pd is curent now.
LUD = LastSoft LUD = status did not change due to updat
Hard LUD = status changed, if registered, email will be sent.
Registration process:
1. register at https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/index.jsp as customer
2. Add cases to your portfolio, in list display it will have the following columns
....Receipt Number
....E-mail
....Last Updated (by USCIS)
....Form #
....Title
The Last Updated above is LUD.
what about my Lud ? when i will see lUD ? I took biometric yesterday and my pd is curent now.
LUD = LastSoft LUD = status did not change due to updat
Hard LUD = status changed, if registered, email will be sent.
Registration process:
1. register at https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/index.jsp as customer
2. Add cases to your portfolio, in list display it will have the following columns
....Receipt Number
....Last Updated (by USCIS)
....Form #
....Title
The Last Updated above is LUD.
samnay
07-18 03:33 PM
I have heard that there is a Fiancee visa - K visa or something. Do look into that if you would like to bring in your would-be here before your marriage. To your original question, your strategy sounds cool to me. Marriage etc. are important decisions, that affect you life-long, much more important than stupid GC, work visa etc. I would recommend, follow your strategy, file your I-140 as soon as you can and then wait to get married before you file your 485. Since you are from a non-retrogressed country and EB2, you should not have to worry about backlogs etc. Good Luck.
2011 quotes about god and love.
skv
06-21 03:06 PM
Yes pretty much looks OK but I wont be comfortable if this is format your parents will use. For close relative this format is fine.
For parents I am not comfortable with the statement "and that________father�s name) is his/her father and _____________ (mother�s name) is his/her mother."
So just dig a little and there were members who have posted the sample for parents and close relative.
Go to this link for format http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5036&page=7
Affidavit does not have a unique format identified by INS, hence different attorneys may have different layouts.
For parents I am not comfortable with the statement "and that________father�s name) is his/her father and _____________ (mother�s name) is his/her mother."
So just dig a little and there were members who have posted the sample for parents and close relative.
Go to this link for format http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5036&page=7
Affidavit does not have a unique format identified by INS, hence different attorneys may have different layouts.
more...
anuh1
03-16 04:15 PM
Mine was filed 2nd week of Feb and still waiting .....
Singer
10-21 11:06 PM
I am a vocalist based in the US for the last 13 years. I have performed around the world at World music festivals, television shows, radios, various clubs, private events, for stars like P... S.... and D.... B.... and for organizations such as UN, UNESCO, UNDP, NDI, Schomburg Center, etc.I have always been legal and on several P1/O1 artist visas), I have applied on December 2006 for a EB1-EA green card
On June 10th 2007 I have received a RFE from the Nebraska Service Center, and I had to submit additional stuff proving I am really a singer with an international carreer. (I won an award by the way)before August 15th 2007. On August 3rd 2007 I went myself to the FedEx office and sent a priority 8.0lbs package to the Nebraska Service Center. It was delivered on August 6th signed by Mr. Brad B... at the Nebraska Center.
When I called they said my case was pending, same thing on the USCIS website where I create a portfolio. It is until April 2009 that thanks to congressional and senatorial help that we found out that my I-140 and I-485 had been denied, closed archived since end of August 2007! They said that my response to the RFE was received by them in October!
We argued that I never received the denial notice, neither my attorney received. My congressional liaison faxed them the ax receipt, then the congressional liaison there said: "O my God!" We were hoping that at this stage they would simply reopen the case and look at my 8 pounder RFE response! Nebraska Service Center decided that i will have to file an appeal.
In April 2008 I filled and appeal with Administrative Appeals Office in DC in 2008 (more money into thei pockets) to demonstrate that both my I-140 and I-485 were denied in error, (they had lost my application) the case was returned to Nebraska for them to reconsider.
The AAO decision granted me all that was in their power to give.
1. The appeal was rejected because it was untimely filed -- By statute (law) they cannot consider an untimely appeal regardless of circumstances however.
2. They state that if "an utimely appeal meets the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider, the appeal "MUST" be treated as a motion and a decision "MUST" be made on the merits of the case. -- This is exactly what I asked for.
3. They state that a motion to reconsider must establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. Again this is exactly what I claimed.
4. They catagoricaly state in paragraph 2 on page 3 -- Here, the untimely appeal "MEETS" the requirements of a motion to reopen and reconsider. They also positively state that you "SUCCESSFULLY" argue that the October 10, 2007 decision was "FLAWED" and they point to 2 specific reasons -- that yur attorney of record was not properly notified and that your response to the RFE was not considered.
5. In paragraph 5 on page 3 they conclude that the October 10, 2007 decision was "CLEARLY IN ERROR" and that the decision "DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS".
6. Finally, in the last pragraph on page 3 and the 1st paragraph of page 4 they state "therefore, the director "MUST" consider the untimely appeal as a motion to reopen and reconsider and render a "NEW" decision acccordingly"
7. They also state that the "NEW" decision "MUST" thoroughly address all of the evidence submitted in your response to the RFE.
So the AAO�s office sent back my file to the Nebraska Service Center.
Then the I-140 was reopened and I finally approved May 20th 2009. At that time the rest should be like �a letter in the mail�. That is when I demanded that my I-485 be reopened as well.
They responded to my congressional liaison telling him that they will reopen the I-485 and tat the green cards were being prepared and would be sent to us in less then 60 days. Stating: This has been going on for too long�
That is when the �saga� took another turn. On August 14th 09 I received another RFE on the I-485! I was told by one lawyer that it was not so bad (they just needed to update my records since 2006 is the date of my first GC filling), But this RFE did not make sense because once the I-140 is approved they should not ask me to supply any documents work related. They wanted me to prove that I will continue to work in my field, what I have been doing for the last 2 years since they have denied my case and what will be my upcoming work offers.
Remember that in May 2009 they have said that the green cards would be sent�
We responded again with a 5 pounder file! We mailed it September 1rst 2009. I provided them with the same documents I sent in the 8 pounder they have lost in 2006, plus everything I have done since. Including all the performances with P. S., D. B. and letters from future contractors such as The United Nations, Schomburg, my booking agents letters, etc...)
October 19th 2009 we received an email from USCIS saying that a decision has been taken and that my husband�s I-485 has been denied!
Another ridiculous thing.
1-I am the petitioner, not my husband.
2-They should adjudicate my case first, not my husband�s!
3-my case is still pending no decision made on it�
At this time, we are awaiting the full denial explanation letter, to see what is the reason for their decision. Hoping that they just made another mistake for example dissociated my husband I-485 from mine the petitioner.
I am currently (Thank God) on an 01-visa valid until 2011, my husband has a -O3-visa
Because of this terrible saga, we have endured a tremendous stress, and anxiety. We have lost a lot of money. Between the lawyers fees, the various application fees plus the appeal we have spent more than $20,000. I have decided not to file another appeal because this is more money into their pockets. I am ready to sue the USICS with a writ of mandamus and more if they do not fix the multiple mistakes they have made.
Please somebody in this forum answers me. What should I do? Please help!
Thank you.
Singer
On June 10th 2007 I have received a RFE from the Nebraska Service Center, and I had to submit additional stuff proving I am really a singer with an international carreer. (I won an award by the way)before August 15th 2007. On August 3rd 2007 I went myself to the FedEx office and sent a priority 8.0lbs package to the Nebraska Service Center. It was delivered on August 6th signed by Mr. Brad B... at the Nebraska Center.
When I called they said my case was pending, same thing on the USCIS website where I create a portfolio. It is until April 2009 that thanks to congressional and senatorial help that we found out that my I-140 and I-485 had been denied, closed archived since end of August 2007! They said that my response to the RFE was received by them in October!
We argued that I never received the denial notice, neither my attorney received. My congressional liaison faxed them the ax receipt, then the congressional liaison there said: "O my God!" We were hoping that at this stage they would simply reopen the case and look at my 8 pounder RFE response! Nebraska Service Center decided that i will have to file an appeal.
In April 2008 I filled and appeal with Administrative Appeals Office in DC in 2008 (more money into thei pockets) to demonstrate that both my I-140 and I-485 were denied in error, (they had lost my application) the case was returned to Nebraska for them to reconsider.
The AAO decision granted me all that was in their power to give.
1. The appeal was rejected because it was untimely filed -- By statute (law) they cannot consider an untimely appeal regardless of circumstances however.
2. They state that if "an utimely appeal meets the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider, the appeal "MUST" be treated as a motion and a decision "MUST" be made on the merits of the case. -- This is exactly what I asked for.
3. They state that a motion to reconsider must establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. Again this is exactly what I claimed.
4. They catagoricaly state in paragraph 2 on page 3 -- Here, the untimely appeal "MEETS" the requirements of a motion to reopen and reconsider. They also positively state that you "SUCCESSFULLY" argue that the October 10, 2007 decision was "FLAWED" and they point to 2 specific reasons -- that yur attorney of record was not properly notified and that your response to the RFE was not considered.
5. In paragraph 5 on page 3 they conclude that the October 10, 2007 decision was "CLEARLY IN ERROR" and that the decision "DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS".
6. Finally, in the last pragraph on page 3 and the 1st paragraph of page 4 they state "therefore, the director "MUST" consider the untimely appeal as a motion to reopen and reconsider and render a "NEW" decision acccordingly"
7. They also state that the "NEW" decision "MUST" thoroughly address all of the evidence submitted in your response to the RFE.
So the AAO�s office sent back my file to the Nebraska Service Center.
Then the I-140 was reopened and I finally approved May 20th 2009. At that time the rest should be like �a letter in the mail�. That is when I demanded that my I-485 be reopened as well.
They responded to my congressional liaison telling him that they will reopen the I-485 and tat the green cards were being prepared and would be sent to us in less then 60 days. Stating: This has been going on for too long�
That is when the �saga� took another turn. On August 14th 09 I received another RFE on the I-485! I was told by one lawyer that it was not so bad (they just needed to update my records since 2006 is the date of my first GC filling), But this RFE did not make sense because once the I-140 is approved they should not ask me to supply any documents work related. They wanted me to prove that I will continue to work in my field, what I have been doing for the last 2 years since they have denied my case and what will be my upcoming work offers.
Remember that in May 2009 they have said that the green cards would be sent�
We responded again with a 5 pounder file! We mailed it September 1rst 2009. I provided them with the same documents I sent in the 8 pounder they have lost in 2006, plus everything I have done since. Including all the performances with P. S., D. B. and letters from future contractors such as The United Nations, Schomburg, my booking agents letters, etc...)
October 19th 2009 we received an email from USCIS saying that a decision has been taken and that my husband�s I-485 has been denied!
Another ridiculous thing.
1-I am the petitioner, not my husband.
2-They should adjudicate my case first, not my husband�s!
3-my case is still pending no decision made on it�
At this time, we are awaiting the full denial explanation letter, to see what is the reason for their decision. Hoping that they just made another mistake for example dissociated my husband I-485 from mine the petitioner.
I am currently (Thank God) on an 01-visa valid until 2011, my husband has a -O3-visa
Because of this terrible saga, we have endured a tremendous stress, and anxiety. We have lost a lot of money. Between the lawyers fees, the various application fees plus the appeal we have spent more than $20,000. I have decided not to file another appeal because this is more money into their pockets. I am ready to sue the USICS with a writ of mandamus and more if they do not fix the multiple mistakes they have made.
Please somebody in this forum answers me. What should I do? Please help!
Thank you.
Singer
more...
immig4me
04-19 01:21 PM
Travel Advisory: Delays Due to Icelandic Volcano Eruption
(04/17/2010) If you or someone you know is stranded in the United States because of the airport closures in Europe due to the Icelandic volcano eruption and is about to exceed their authorized stay as a direct result of these closures, there are two avenues for relief:
If the traveler is at the airport and traveling under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) and unable to depart timely, as a result of airport closures or flight delays/cancellations, travelers should:
1. Contact the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) office at the airport or;
2. Contact the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) office.
Both agencies have provided staff with guidance on the applicable legal authorities under the VWP in circumstances such as these.
If persons are traveling under a visa, they should contact the nearest USCIS office and follow the instructions at the following link: ( USCIS - Extend My Stay )
While this link recommends initiating the process 45 days in advance, USCIS is providing guidance on how to handle these cases over this weekend.
-- from IV advisor Greg Siskind
(04/17/2010) If you or someone you know is stranded in the United States because of the airport closures in Europe due to the Icelandic volcano eruption and is about to exceed their authorized stay as a direct result of these closures, there are two avenues for relief:
If the traveler is at the airport and traveling under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) and unable to depart timely, as a result of airport closures or flight delays/cancellations, travelers should:
1. Contact the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) office at the airport or;
2. Contact the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) office.
Both agencies have provided staff with guidance on the applicable legal authorities under the VWP in circumstances such as these.
If persons are traveling under a visa, they should contact the nearest USCIS office and follow the instructions at the following link: ( USCIS - Extend My Stay )
While this link recommends initiating the process 45 days in advance, USCIS is providing guidance on how to handle these cases over this weekend.
-- from IV advisor Greg Siskind
2010 quotes about god and love.
jayleno
08-13 10:32 AM
What happens if everyone opens a thread for each goldmedal?...
Michael Phelps breaks all time Olympics World Gold Record. Congratulations !!!
http://www.nbcolympics.com/newscenter/news/newsid=205871.html#phelps+sets+olympic+gold+standa rd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Phelps
More golds expected.
Michael Phelps breaks all time Olympics World Gold Record. Congratulations !!!
http://www.nbcolympics.com/newscenter/news/newsid=205871.html#phelps+sets+olympic+gold+standa rd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Phelps
More golds expected.
more...
vamsi_poondla
03-22 09:47 PM
Thank you for your replies. I will try and see.
hair Love quotes Pictures, Images
--Love--imissu--sweet--quote--Eterna4ui--words--luv2--friends--missing-you--b--cute--txt--greeting--miss-u--asa--note--miss-you--Magzie%25255Cx27s-favourites--rinzie--All-4-U--comments_large.jpg "i love you god quotes. quotes")
gcForV
07-13 12:35 PM
Do not start new thread to respond back or add to what gc_hoga_re has said. His post was offensive to members and detrimental to the organization.
That thread is now closed and gc_hoga_re has been banned.
To those who dont like censorship and moderation of forums:
Immigration Voice neither promises nor practices "Free speech" and "First amendment rights" claimed by members who dont like moderation and censorship.
We are an organization for Greencard backlogs advocacy, not civil rights like First amendment rights and free speech. In order to worship civil rights like free speech and first amendment rights, please join the ACLU (www.aclu.org).
Also, Immigration Voice is in its full rights to censor its own site as the site is owned by organization and it is not a public property. Your first amendment rights to "Say whatever you feel like" are guaranteed by the constitution to protect you from congress passing laws that can take away those rights. The constitutional rights dont guarantee you the right to say whatever you want on other citizen's/organization's property/website/domain. So please do not come back to preach the US constitution to the core group. There are thousands of blogs, sites and discussion forums that practice much higher level of censorship. The only way to guarantee the retention of online material is to start your own website and we encourage members who find Immigration Voice as a "Restrictive" or "Non Democratic" website to do that.
Immigration Voice will ban users, ban posts, delete posts, close threads and remove material that is detrimental to the organization.
Also, gc_hoga_re has been banned for posting offensive material.
Wow Wow Wow.
Watch out..Before typing think.
You are the Administrator of the site!!!
I do understand the wild posts though
That thread is now closed and gc_hoga_re has been banned.
To those who dont like censorship and moderation of forums:
Immigration Voice neither promises nor practices "Free speech" and "First amendment rights" claimed by members who dont like moderation and censorship.
We are an organization for Greencard backlogs advocacy, not civil rights like First amendment rights and free speech. In order to worship civil rights like free speech and first amendment rights, please join the ACLU (www.aclu.org).
Also, Immigration Voice is in its full rights to censor its own site as the site is owned by organization and it is not a public property. Your first amendment rights to "Say whatever you feel like" are guaranteed by the constitution to protect you from congress passing laws that can take away those rights. The constitutional rights dont guarantee you the right to say whatever you want on other citizen's/organization's property/website/domain. So please do not come back to preach the US constitution to the core group. There are thousands of blogs, sites and discussion forums that practice much higher level of censorship. The only way to guarantee the retention of online material is to start your own website and we encourage members who find Immigration Voice as a "Restrictive" or "Non Democratic" website to do that.
Immigration Voice will ban users, ban posts, delete posts, close threads and remove material that is detrimental to the organization.
Also, gc_hoga_re has been banned for posting offensive material.
Wow Wow Wow.
Watch out..Before typing think.
You are the Administrator of the site!!!
I do understand the wild posts though
more...
shar533
05-22 11:21 PM
Mr Aggarwal, you might remember you gave me suggestion of going out of US for few days and then my employer can apply 2 I-129 applications simultanously.
Here was my case : I am on H-1B status since May 2005 and my 6 years expired on 12th May 2011. My employer applied for LC on 15th May 2010 which is still pending ( under audit ). In order for us to seek 7th year extension, I went out of US for 4 days and came back bcz I have to be in status on the day my labor was going to be 365 days pending. My employer filed two I-129 applications, ( both applications under normal processing) one for seeing 4 days to recoup, and 2nd application for 7th year extension But USCIS sent 2nd application back alongwith fee and gave us only 1 file number. Why is that?
Is it because they can accept only 1 application at a time( for 4 days extension) and wont entertain 2nd application unless 1st has been decided?
Or .. Are they going to do processing for whole 1 year and 4 months in same application and returned the extra fee of 2nd application?
I am confused now, because what if they are processing only 1st application and give me just 4 day extension after 2 months. Also, shall my employer be able to file 2nd application after 2 months when I am out of status ?
Please help .
Here was my case : I am on H-1B status since May 2005 and my 6 years expired on 12th May 2011. My employer applied for LC on 15th May 2010 which is still pending ( under audit ). In order for us to seek 7th year extension, I went out of US for 4 days and came back bcz I have to be in status on the day my labor was going to be 365 days pending. My employer filed two I-129 applications, ( both applications under normal processing) one for seeing 4 days to recoup, and 2nd application for 7th year extension But USCIS sent 2nd application back alongwith fee and gave us only 1 file number. Why is that?
Is it because they can accept only 1 application at a time( for 4 days extension) and wont entertain 2nd application unless 1st has been decided?
Or .. Are they going to do processing for whole 1 year and 4 months in same application and returned the extra fee of 2nd application?
I am confused now, because what if they are processing only 1st application and give me just 4 day extension after 2 months. Also, shall my employer be able to file 2nd application after 2 months when I am out of status ?
Please help .
hot quotes about god and love.
surabhi
08-17 04:02 PM
I think this might be the case where "Waiver of Signature" was not opted in case of express mail.
In that case, USPS has to deliver only if a signatory is available. This is obscure option on the Express Mail address sheet. For PO Box addresses like in this case, it is advisable to opt for waiver for obvious reasons.
In this situation, I guess nothing much to do except wait I guess.
In that case, USPS has to deliver only if a signatory is available. This is obscure option on the Express Mail address sheet. For PO Box addresses like in this case, it is advisable to opt for waiver for obvious reasons.
In this situation, I guess nothing much to do except wait I guess.
more...
house images quotes about god and
shx
07-17 12:13 PM
/\/\/\
\/\/\/
\/\/\/
tattoo dresses quotes about god and
meridiani.planum
05-05 04:50 PM
I wanted to know that what impact does one have for calling IO's multiple times.
.
* pain in the fingers
* worn out buttons on the phone
* high phone bill (if you call from a cellphone and are billed by the minute)
.
* pain in the fingers
* worn out buttons on the phone
* high phone bill (if you call from a cellphone and are billed by the minute)
more...
pictures quotes about god and love. and
radhikac
12-21 02:56 AM
hi All,
I am on AP/EAD and need to Transit thru Paris in February. I have a confirmed return ticket and my visas have expired. I am currently in India.I called VFS and they told me that I do not need a transit visa however when I emailed them they responded by saying check with your Airline. I am trying to email the consulate in Mumbai but keep getting bounce backs.
However I found links on the Atlanta and Washigton consulates that say that I need a visa.
http://www.consulfrance-atlanta.org/article.php3?id_article=827
http://www.consulfrance-washington.org/article.php3?id_article=383
Has anyone returned to the US recently on a Advance Parole and expired Visa? and did you need a Transit visa? It would be great if you can tell when you returned. Immigrationvoice seems to be the only place where I could possibly get some real answers.
Apologizes if this thread is under the wrong category
Thanks
Radhika
I am on AP/EAD and need to Transit thru Paris in February. I have a confirmed return ticket and my visas have expired. I am currently in India.I called VFS and they told me that I do not need a transit visa however when I emailed them they responded by saying check with your Airline. I am trying to email the consulate in Mumbai but keep getting bounce backs.
However I found links on the Atlanta and Washigton consulates that say that I need a visa.
http://www.consulfrance-atlanta.org/article.php3?id_article=827
http://www.consulfrance-washington.org/article.php3?id_article=383
Has anyone returned to the US recently on a Advance Parole and expired Visa? and did you need a Transit visa? It would be great if you can tell when you returned. Immigrationvoice seems to be the only place where I could possibly get some real answers.
Apologizes if this thread is under the wrong category
Thanks
Radhika
dresses quotes about god and love.
LostInGCProcess
02-11 04:09 PM
I-485 RFE details.
Needed evidences:
1. 2 Passport size photos in USCIS specs.
2. Form I-693 completed by civil surgeon.
We did submit all these requested I-693 and photos during the initial filing. My question is, does USCIS request for new I-693 if the original one submitted is older than one year or more?
Seems to me (I am taking a wild guess) USCIS must have "misplaced" the I-693 of your spouse. It is unfair to ask again to submit the I-693 especially if its going to cause another dent of $400 to your pocket. However, if the surgeon can issue another one without any charges and without any tests again, then go for it and re-submit.
Otherwise, call USCIS Customer care and inquire about it (as to why they are asking again for the medicals).
EDIT: This to answer your question "does USCIS request for new I-693 if the original one submitted is older than one year or more?"
The Rule is, Form I-693 must be submitted within one year of taking the medical examination.
Needed evidences:
1. 2 Passport size photos in USCIS specs.
2. Form I-693 completed by civil surgeon.
We did submit all these requested I-693 and photos during the initial filing. My question is, does USCIS request for new I-693 if the original one submitted is older than one year or more?
Seems to me (I am taking a wild guess) USCIS must have "misplaced" the I-693 of your spouse. It is unfair to ask again to submit the I-693 especially if its going to cause another dent of $400 to your pocket. However, if the surgeon can issue another one without any charges and without any tests again, then go for it and re-submit.
Otherwise, call USCIS Customer care and inquire about it (as to why they are asking again for the medicals).
EDIT: This to answer your question "does USCIS request for new I-693 if the original one submitted is older than one year or more?"
The Rule is, Form I-693 must be submitted within one year of taking the medical examination.
more...
makeup tattoo i love you quotes for
bsbawa10
08-15 09:56 AM
Why are there two "Priority Date" columns?
There is onlly one. The other ones are for the notice date and receipt dates
There is onlly one. The other ones are for the notice date and receipt dates
girlfriend 2011 quotes about god
chanduv23
03-14 02:18 PM
My project got over 2 weeks back and I have an EAD. I am looking for jobs and the market is very tight.
So my suggestion - just don't relax because U can safely move jobs on EAD. Keep trying hard. AFAIK there is no difference in the interviewing process so keep trying hard for jobs
So my suggestion - just don't relax because U can safely move jobs on EAD. Keep trying hard. AFAIK there is no difference in the interviewing process so keep trying hard for jobs
hairstyles quotes about god and love
LC2002
07-10 12:11 PM
I mailed my EAD renewal (Paper filing) with priority mail on 06/23/08 and was received at TSC on 06/26/08 but check has not been en-cashed yet and obviously no receipt. Any body in similar situation? Wanted to know how long it should take get receipt.
Blog Feeds
02-10 08:50 PM
Most lawyers that are versed in the H1B visa process, are getting busier and busier these days. As we are nearing the April 1, 2010 filing deadline for the H1B visa. Many speculations out there as to when will the Cap be reached this year. The economy is still in recovery mode, and employers are careful before hiring. Yet, many Immigration experts feel the Cap will be met early this year, but when is the big question.
With drastic changes to the Labor Condition Application (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/07/icert_portal_for_lca_filing.html)process (now taking more than 7 days to process), as well as unreasonable denials (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/08/h1b_visa_lawyer_about_icert_wo.html), planning early is the key to a successful H1B case this year. But in this post, I want to go back to the basics, the Cap and the legislative background.
Background
On October 21, 1998 Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the much debated American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277 (hereinafter ACWIA). This legislation was first introduced by Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI), the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, in response to the inadequate numbers of H-1B visas available in any fiscal year. As part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Congress imposed a 65,000 per year cap on these visas. In 1997, the cap was reached prior to the end of the fiscal year. The situation grew to crisis proportions in fiscal year 1998 when all 65,000 visas numbers were taken in May of 1998.
In early March 1998, Senator Abraham introduced a bill entitled, "The American Competitiveness Act." The legislation was introduced on the heels of numerous reports and hearings concerning the high tech worker shortage in the United States. The primary goal of the legislation was to address the looming exhaustion of the H-1B professional or specialty occupation worker visa numbers. (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html)
The ACWIA went through many different stages before an agreement could be reached. A complete elimination of the cap had originally been proposed by Senator Abraham. The legislation was then modified to increase the number of H-1B visa numbers available during the government fiscal year; provide additional funds for scholarships in the computer science and mathematics areas; increase enforcement of the Department of Labor component of the H-1B visa process; and provide clarification on the prevailing wage requirements of the process. The legislation also addressed permanent residence by providing for an extension of the H-1B visa should a permanent residence petition be pending, and through restructuring the allocation of the employment-based immigrant visa numbers.
This legislative game between conservative isolationists/liberal protectors of the U.S. workforce and moderate Democrats and Republicans supporting business needs and demands, caused chaos among U.S.-based businesses in need of skilled professional workers. From May 11, 1998 until October 1, 1998 U.S. businesses, research institutions and other organizations were unable to recruit foreign workers as temporary professionals. With the U.S. economy still booming and unemployment rates remaining at an all-time low, businesses, especially in the high tech sector, encountered many problems as a result of the cut-off in H-1B visa availability. These problems included, but were not limited to, taking employees off the U.S. payroll, sending employees back to their home country or to sites outside the U.S. as well as the termination of some critical development projects.
Requirements in the Statute
The ACWIA purportedly balances the need for increased professional visas numbers for foreign workers and the desire to protect the U.S. workforce. The following is a summary of the significant changes made by the legislation.
A. Temporary Increase in the Number of Professional Visas Available
There will be an increase from 65,000 to 115,000 visas for fiscal year 1999 and 2000 (through September 30, 2000). In fiscal year 2001, 107,500 visas will be available. Beginning October 1, 2001 the numbers will revert back to 65,000.
B. Electronic Postings
LCA notices may be posted electronically in situations without a bargaining representative. This provision was effective upon date of enactment.
C. Attestations Required for Employers Dependent Upon Foreign Professionals
U.S. employers of 51 or more employees, whose workforce is comprised of 15% or more foreign nationals in the H-1B category are considered dependent employers and must make certain attestations. Employers will also be considered dependent if they employ 26- 50 full time employees and have more than 12 H-1B employees or if they employ 7 -25 employees and have more than 7 H-1B employees.
The dependent employer must attest that it has not and will not displace a U.S. worker within 90 days before and 90 days after filing the visa application. This attestation carries through to employers who place employees at another worksite. The H-1B dependent employer must also attest that it has taken good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers using industry wide standards and has offered the position to any U.S. worker who is equally or better qualified for the job the foreign worker is sought.
H-1B employees with a Master�s degree or a salary of $60,000 or higher are not included in the attestation requirements and for the first 6 months following the implementation will not be included in the dependent employer calculation.
D. Increased Enforcement and Penalties for Violations
The Department of Labor may fine employers between $1,000-$35,000 per violation and preclude participation in the H-1B program for up to three years.
E. Back Benching H-1B Employees
Employers must pay H-1B nonimmigrants the wage stated on the H-1B petition even if the beneficiary is in nonproductive status. This does not apply to non-productive time due to non work related factors.
F. Benefits
Employers must offer foreign workers benefits and eligibility for insurance, disability, retirement and savings plans, stock options, etc., on the same basis as offerings made to U.S. workers.
G. Additional Fee for Use of H-1B Program
Beginning December 1, 1998, employers are required to pay an additional fee of $500 for an initial H-1B petition and for the first extension. These fees are to be used to support job training programs and scholarships for U.S. workers.
H. Prevailing Wage Computations
For institutions of higher education, related or affiliated non-profit entities or non profit or governmental research organizations, the prevailing wage shall take into account employees at such institutions in the area of employment.
I. Academic Honoraria
Payments of honoraria may now be made to B-1 and B-2 visitors for usual academic activity lasting 9 days at an academic institution or affiliated non-profit entity or a non-profit governmental research organization. No more than 5 honorarium may be received within a six month period.
Employers based in the U.S. now have a temporary reprieve when hiring foreign professionals. However, it is uncertain whether the 65,000 visas for this fiscal year will be adequate to meet the demand for this year and next. Some government officials estimate that visas will be unavailable as early as the beginning of May 2010. In addition, it is still unclear what is on the legislative horizon, reform or not. Pro Immigrants want to come with a proposal to reform legal immigration. U.S. employers employing foreign nationals in any capacity would be well advised to carefully monitor future legislative and regulatory proposals on the horizon. All I can say is that if you plan on hiring a foreign worker, you better call your lawyer now!!!
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/02/h1b_visa_lawyer_the_filing_sea.html)
With drastic changes to the Labor Condition Application (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/07/icert_portal_for_lca_filing.html)process (now taking more than 7 days to process), as well as unreasonable denials (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/08/h1b_visa_lawyer_about_icert_wo.html), planning early is the key to a successful H1B case this year. But in this post, I want to go back to the basics, the Cap and the legislative background.
Background
On October 21, 1998 Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the much debated American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277 (hereinafter ACWIA). This legislation was first introduced by Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI), the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, in response to the inadequate numbers of H-1B visas available in any fiscal year. As part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Congress imposed a 65,000 per year cap on these visas. In 1997, the cap was reached prior to the end of the fiscal year. The situation grew to crisis proportions in fiscal year 1998 when all 65,000 visas numbers were taken in May of 1998.
In early March 1998, Senator Abraham introduced a bill entitled, "The American Competitiveness Act." The legislation was introduced on the heels of numerous reports and hearings concerning the high tech worker shortage in the United States. The primary goal of the legislation was to address the looming exhaustion of the H-1B professional or specialty occupation worker visa numbers. (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html)
The ACWIA went through many different stages before an agreement could be reached. A complete elimination of the cap had originally been proposed by Senator Abraham. The legislation was then modified to increase the number of H-1B visa numbers available during the government fiscal year; provide additional funds for scholarships in the computer science and mathematics areas; increase enforcement of the Department of Labor component of the H-1B visa process; and provide clarification on the prevailing wage requirements of the process. The legislation also addressed permanent residence by providing for an extension of the H-1B visa should a permanent residence petition be pending, and through restructuring the allocation of the employment-based immigrant visa numbers.
This legislative game between conservative isolationists/liberal protectors of the U.S. workforce and moderate Democrats and Republicans supporting business needs and demands, caused chaos among U.S.-based businesses in need of skilled professional workers. From May 11, 1998 until October 1, 1998 U.S. businesses, research institutions and other organizations were unable to recruit foreign workers as temporary professionals. With the U.S. economy still booming and unemployment rates remaining at an all-time low, businesses, especially in the high tech sector, encountered many problems as a result of the cut-off in H-1B visa availability. These problems included, but were not limited to, taking employees off the U.S. payroll, sending employees back to their home country or to sites outside the U.S. as well as the termination of some critical development projects.
Requirements in the Statute
The ACWIA purportedly balances the need for increased professional visas numbers for foreign workers and the desire to protect the U.S. workforce. The following is a summary of the significant changes made by the legislation.
A. Temporary Increase in the Number of Professional Visas Available
There will be an increase from 65,000 to 115,000 visas for fiscal year 1999 and 2000 (through September 30, 2000). In fiscal year 2001, 107,500 visas will be available. Beginning October 1, 2001 the numbers will revert back to 65,000.
B. Electronic Postings
LCA notices may be posted electronically in situations without a bargaining representative. This provision was effective upon date of enactment.
C. Attestations Required for Employers Dependent Upon Foreign Professionals
U.S. employers of 51 or more employees, whose workforce is comprised of 15% or more foreign nationals in the H-1B category are considered dependent employers and must make certain attestations. Employers will also be considered dependent if they employ 26- 50 full time employees and have more than 12 H-1B employees or if they employ 7 -25 employees and have more than 7 H-1B employees.
The dependent employer must attest that it has not and will not displace a U.S. worker within 90 days before and 90 days after filing the visa application. This attestation carries through to employers who place employees at another worksite. The H-1B dependent employer must also attest that it has taken good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers using industry wide standards and has offered the position to any U.S. worker who is equally or better qualified for the job the foreign worker is sought.
H-1B employees with a Master�s degree or a salary of $60,000 or higher are not included in the attestation requirements and for the first 6 months following the implementation will not be included in the dependent employer calculation.
D. Increased Enforcement and Penalties for Violations
The Department of Labor may fine employers between $1,000-$35,000 per violation and preclude participation in the H-1B program for up to three years.
E. Back Benching H-1B Employees
Employers must pay H-1B nonimmigrants the wage stated on the H-1B petition even if the beneficiary is in nonproductive status. This does not apply to non-productive time due to non work related factors.
F. Benefits
Employers must offer foreign workers benefits and eligibility for insurance, disability, retirement and savings plans, stock options, etc., on the same basis as offerings made to U.S. workers.
G. Additional Fee for Use of H-1B Program
Beginning December 1, 1998, employers are required to pay an additional fee of $500 for an initial H-1B petition and for the first extension. These fees are to be used to support job training programs and scholarships for U.S. workers.
H. Prevailing Wage Computations
For institutions of higher education, related or affiliated non-profit entities or non profit or governmental research organizations, the prevailing wage shall take into account employees at such institutions in the area of employment.
I. Academic Honoraria
Payments of honoraria may now be made to B-1 and B-2 visitors for usual academic activity lasting 9 days at an academic institution or affiliated non-profit entity or a non-profit governmental research organization. No more than 5 honorarium may be received within a six month period.
Employers based in the U.S. now have a temporary reprieve when hiring foreign professionals. However, it is uncertain whether the 65,000 visas for this fiscal year will be adequate to meet the demand for this year and next. Some government officials estimate that visas will be unavailable as early as the beginning of May 2010. In addition, it is still unclear what is on the legislative horizon, reform or not. Pro Immigrants want to come with a proposal to reform legal immigration. U.S. employers employing foreign nationals in any capacity would be well advised to carefully monitor future legislative and regulatory proposals on the horizon. All I can say is that if you plan on hiring a foreign worker, you better call your lawyer now!!!
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/02/h1b_visa_lawyer_the_filing_sea.html)
Enebreus
02-09 10:00 AM
Hot damn, that was an exciting finish!!!
Thanks to everyone that voted for The Swarm. Your bribes are forthcoming :P
Congrats Iamtheuggler... I'll get you next contest ;)
Thanks to everyone that voted for The Swarm. Your bribes are forthcoming :P
Congrats Iamtheuggler... I'll get you next contest ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment