mrcmic
07-24 06:38 PM
I am in the same boat with you.
485 package was delivered by UPS on NSC and the tracking number shows it delivered on the morning of June 08.
However, until this moment there is still no receipts annd check is not cashed.
As Canadian_Dream suggest, we just have to wait a little more time and if still no result, I will submit another copy for the application.
485 package was delivered by UPS on NSC and the tracking number shows it delivered on the morning of June 08.
However, until this moment there is still no receipts annd check is not cashed.
As Canadian_Dream suggest, we just have to wait a little more time and if still no result, I will submit another copy for the application.
wallpaper 2010 Hyundai Tiburon
another_wei
05-01 02:07 PM
Hi all;
Questions if anyone has ever seen an RFE like this one.
My first RFE was asking for all documents related to work authorized by USCIS.
I think I responded properly and provided all documents requested.
Then another RFE just came in end of April mail asking for the following.
Please provide all school transcripts during your F1 student status.
Now I am dummy because up until about few days ago I just realized I made big mistake!
I have gap (7 months) from when I finished school (mid 2002) and when I was approved my H1B (Jan 2003)
I should have went on OPT after school but mistake I think I could wait pending my H1B application. I did not work during that 7 month period and stupid me did not go to school during that 7 month period in end 2002.
Any good lawyers in San Jose area think I can pass with a letter of explanation?
Questions if anyone has ever seen an RFE like this one.
My first RFE was asking for all documents related to work authorized by USCIS.
I think I responded properly and provided all documents requested.
Then another RFE just came in end of April mail asking for the following.
Please provide all school transcripts during your F1 student status.
Now I am dummy because up until about few days ago I just realized I made big mistake!
I have gap (7 months) from when I finished school (mid 2002) and when I was approved my H1B (Jan 2003)
I should have went on OPT after school but mistake I think I could wait pending my H1B application. I did not work during that 7 month period and stupid me did not go to school during that 7 month period in end 2002.
Any good lawyers in San Jose area think I can pass with a letter of explanation?
chanduv23
07-09 07:24 AM
Lets forward this link to DOL ??? How do we do that? Anyone?????????
2011 2005 - 2006 Hyundai Tiburon
GCEB2
06-25 10:49 AM
Thank You Dhundhun you Information was Very Helpful
more...
funny
09-16 12:22 PM
It happened to me as well, Last year my denied my Wife AP the Reson was that her 485 is approved, we send them the letter that its not the case and it was a mistake.....In the end we had to re- apply. I wonder if they can Print it on the same day in case of an emergency, why can't they give you the one which is already approved....weired people ...weired USCIS...
anilsal
10-24 11:45 PM
In my opinion its just one of the marketing gimmicks of Y! See how it works
http://news.yahoo.com/s/judy_woodruff/20060823/judy_woodruff/j_woodruff10015
Similar lines ask the white house program. many people in the forum sent Q's to USCIS director and he didnt chose even one Q about retrogression or labor situation etc..
It probably is cherry picking.
We will post wherever we can(at least it is better than those who are silently submitting to destiny). Throw a hundred stones at a fruit on a tree. Atleast, one will hit?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/judy_woodruff/20060823/judy_woodruff/j_woodruff10015
Similar lines ask the white house program. many people in the forum sent Q's to USCIS director and he didnt chose even one Q about retrogression or labor situation etc..
It probably is cherry picking.
We will post wherever we can(at least it is better than those who are silently submitting to destiny). Throw a hundred stones at a fruit on a tree. Atleast, one will hit?
more...
lax999
07-18 05:35 PM
Hi,
I am in the same situation too, my lawyer misplaced my wife photographs, but still went ahead and send the documents to USCIS.
Even i am worrying what would happen with my application.
LK
I am in the same situation too, my lawyer misplaced my wife photographs, but still went ahead and send the documents to USCIS.
Even i am worrying what would happen with my application.
LK
2010 2003 Hyundai Tiburon Front
rjgleason
February 27th, 2004, 07:28 AM
I think 5 a week from us all is a grand amount.....
I am doing ten.....(sete an easy target for my self)
:)
Count me in............10 a week! We are all here to share and offer opinions, praises and learn from the good and the bad in all of us.....(talking about photography here...........Lecter)
I am doing ten.....(sete an easy target for my self)
:)
Count me in............10 a week! We are all here to share and offer opinions, praises and learn from the good and the bad in all of us.....(talking about photography here...........Lecter)
more...
reverendflash
10-21 04:31 AM
:sleep:
Rev:elderly:
Rev:elderly:
hair 2010 Hyundai Tiburon Rear
lskreddy
08-14 12:05 PM
all the best to you! If you are serious about this, then you may want to go easy on visiting iv and start checking out: http://www.r2iclubforums.com/forums/
I spend a few good hours a week on that site. :-)
Some of the writings are pretty motivating...
I spend a few good hours a week on that site. :-)
Some of the writings are pretty motivating...
more...
chanduv23
03-31 01:55 PM
I am a July 2nd filer and I attended 485 interview in local field office in Dec 2008. A week back they sent me a denial notice cliaiming I filed the application when my priority date was not current which is an error on their part.
So, I need to file MTR. This includes a $585 application fee + Legal-Fee (don't know yet - still waiting for my attorney to get back).
$585 can be refundable as its their error, but not the legal fee which I am guessing ~$1000, meaning I have to shell out $1000 for someone elses simple mistake.
I am comtemplating to file MTR by myself, the application I-290B seems simple and the reason involved here is also simple. But, before I do that, I would like to know if anyone else has done this before so that I can know the things I should watch out for?
The forms look simple. I did look at the form. But there is some risk involved in doing it by yourself.
The officer might have quoted some law for the basis of the denial and you have to have legal wordings to support your MTR - say clauses and references to clauses or memos. So, the best thing is to use a lawyer.
You are so close to GC - why take risks?
On another note - I see that people are getting denials on 485 - cases like yours, and then AC21 stuff .. I am trying to understand if there is a pattern to it.
So, I need to file MTR. This includes a $585 application fee + Legal-Fee (don't know yet - still waiting for my attorney to get back).
$585 can be refundable as its their error, but not the legal fee which I am guessing ~$1000, meaning I have to shell out $1000 for someone elses simple mistake.
I am comtemplating to file MTR by myself, the application I-290B seems simple and the reason involved here is also simple. But, before I do that, I would like to know if anyone else has done this before so that I can know the things I should watch out for?
The forms look simple. I did look at the form. But there is some risk involved in doing it by yourself.
The officer might have quoted some law for the basis of the denial and you have to have legal wordings to support your MTR - say clauses and references to clauses or memos. So, the best thing is to use a lawyer.
You are so close to GC - why take risks?
On another note - I see that people are getting denials on 485 - cases like yours, and then AC21 stuff .. I am trying to understand if there is a pattern to it.
hot 2006 / 2007 Hyundai Tiburon
chi_shark
06-17 12:54 PM
Chi_shark for your response.
According to my lawyer, I can go on vacation (paid or unpaid) during the gap.
Thanks
thats good... thanks for the update, i would not mind going on a 7 day vacation myself if i come to your situation... enjoy yours.
According to my lawyer, I can go on vacation (paid or unpaid) during the gap.
Thanks
thats good... thanks for the update, i would not mind going on a 7 day vacation myself if i come to your situation... enjoy yours.
more...
house 2006 Hyundai Tiburon Advanced
Dhundhun
10-23 05:53 PM
I think, for an employment-based case, there is effectively a 180-day grace period because of 245[k]. Please explore this, which may be helpful for gaps like I485 refusal and MTR.
From: http://www.murthy.com/adjsta.html
Section 245(k) enables a person who is adjusting status in an employment-based category (whether on the basis of a labor certification or in one of the special Green Card categories that does not require a labor certification or job offer) to adjust, even if s/he has been out of status or worked without authorization for less than 180 days. This provision does not require an immigrant petition or labor certification to have been filed on or before any particular date and there is also no penalty fee involved.
From: http://www.murthy.com/adjsta.html
Section 245(k) enables a person who is adjusting status in an employment-based category (whether on the basis of a labor certification or in one of the special Green Card categories that does not require a labor certification or job offer) to adjust, even if s/he has been out of status or worked without authorization for less than 180 days. This provision does not require an immigrant petition or labor certification to have been filed on or before any particular date and there is also no penalty fee involved.
tattoo 2003 Hyundai Tiburon GT V6
GreenCard4US
08-21 10:53 PM
The RFE is not unusual, they are sending RFE's on all pending I-485 applications in an attempt to pre-process the applications and have them ready before the priority date becomes available.
Even though the beneficiary does not have to be working for the GC sponsoring company and the offer of employment can be a future offer, i always advice my clients to work for the sponsoring employer, if possible, otherwise the USCIS might raise the issue of the validity of the job offer, they have done this in the past. I also always advice clients to do AC-21 whenever they can, rather than depend on future employment.
It is difficult to predict what the Officers decision will be and what factors he will look at, and your attorney is not wrong in his response, however if you were my client i would advice you to use AC-21. The USCIS has not indicated that AC-21 has to be invoked as soon as you join the new employer, no deadline for invoking AC-21. However, you should have a GC sponsor at all times to keep your GC alive. In your case, company A was your sponsor until the time that company C has agreed to be your sponsor and invoke AC-21.
It is also good to invoke AC-21 because at the time of filing for citizenship they will see if you worked for your sponsoring employer for at least 6 months after getting the GC and if you did not, they will ask why dint you.
Further Questions:
Can I invoke AC21 now when an RFE is pending? Also, since I had already joined company C when I applied for 485, can I still invoke AC21. Do I reply to the RFE first and then invoke AC 21 or as part of RFE can I invoke AC21? Thanks again.
The dates in the first couple of sentences are all messed up ( came to US through Company A in June 2007 and was with them until Dec 2006...........I joined Company B in Jan of 2007(change of H1) and was with them until April of 2007. )
It would help to answer if you can correct the dates.
Even though the beneficiary does not have to be working for the GC sponsoring company and the offer of employment can be a future offer, i always advice my clients to work for the sponsoring employer, if possible, otherwise the USCIS might raise the issue of the validity of the job offer, they have done this in the past. I also always advice clients to do AC-21 whenever they can, rather than depend on future employment.
It is difficult to predict what the Officers decision will be and what factors he will look at, and your attorney is not wrong in his response, however if you were my client i would advice you to use AC-21. The USCIS has not indicated that AC-21 has to be invoked as soon as you join the new employer, no deadline for invoking AC-21. However, you should have a GC sponsor at all times to keep your GC alive. In your case, company A was your sponsor until the time that company C has agreed to be your sponsor and invoke AC-21.
It is also good to invoke AC-21 because at the time of filing for citizenship they will see if you worked for your sponsoring employer for at least 6 months after getting the GC and if you did not, they will ask why dint you.
Further Questions:
Can I invoke AC21 now when an RFE is pending? Also, since I had already joined company C when I applied for 485, can I still invoke AC21. Do I reply to the RFE first and then invoke AC 21 or as part of RFE can I invoke AC21? Thanks again.
The dates in the first couple of sentences are all messed up ( came to US through Company A in June 2007 and was with them until Dec 2006...........I joined Company B in Jan of 2007(change of H1) and was with them until April of 2007. )
It would help to answer if you can correct the dates.
more...
pictures This Hyundai Tiburon (known on
TeddyKoochu
05-18 02:13 PM
There are two pointless threads on this site, one is titled "The yanks are coming" and another as "US political system is broken". They both contain long rants of a single user. I seriously doubt if anybody ever reads them, as is evident from the absence of any other user's reply to these threads. Why don't we just remove them, or block them from showing up on the main page. At least it will free up space for more useful threads.
Those are excellent threads buddy. If you look at the content the poster seems to spend significant time to gather the facts and the presentation is extremely detailed. Somebody mentioned the lighten up thread its also great, all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. I agree that some information may not be strictly immigration related its ok. This is my personal opinion.
Those are excellent threads buddy. If you look at the content the poster seems to spend significant time to gather the facts and the presentation is extremely detailed. Somebody mentioned the lighten up thread its also great, all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. I agree that some information may not be strictly immigration related its ok. This is my personal opinion.
dresses 2009 Hyundai Tiburon
anilsal
01-26 12:30 AM
Can we contact journos like Neil Cavuto, Sheryl Casone to talk about how giving GC to legals like us can stimulate economy in someway?
I noticed these Business section journos are endlessly talking about ways to prevent the recession.
We can suggest them to talk about recapturing of visas & giving the legals GCs as it can contribute towards (to some extent) a possible stimualtion to the economy(it will surely add to the percentage...) surely we are boosting the spending by making high earning legals spend more on say housing or Autos by giving them GCs...
Not sure if IV gurus are thinking on these lines.
Vivek
Vivek, suggestions are always welcome. But we get more folks suggesting than those that actively do something for IV's cause.
I am wondering if you would want to contact these journalists as an IV member. If you want more information or any other details, PM me your email address and phone number and we can co-ordinate off line.
The immediate need of the hour is the administrative fixes campaign success.
I noticed these Business section journos are endlessly talking about ways to prevent the recession.
We can suggest them to talk about recapturing of visas & giving the legals GCs as it can contribute towards (to some extent) a possible stimualtion to the economy(it will surely add to the percentage...) surely we are boosting the spending by making high earning legals spend more on say housing or Autos by giving them GCs...
Not sure if IV gurus are thinking on these lines.
Vivek
Vivek, suggestions are always welcome. But we get more folks suggesting than those that actively do something for IV's cause.
I am wondering if you would want to contact these journalists as an IV member. If you want more information or any other details, PM me your email address and phone number and we can co-ordinate off line.
The immediate need of the hour is the administrative fixes campaign success.
more...
makeup Hyundai Tiburon TS
lostinbeta
10-21 03:48 AM
Seems like I am making you regurgitate some old memories. I don't know if that is good or bad.
What did you mean by "that was right before the end" if you don't mind me asking.
What did you mean by "that was right before the end" if you don't mind me asking.
girlfriend Hyundai Tiburon Review
tabaching
10-22 12:43 AM
Gurus pls help,
Here's my situation.
I'm a derivative and recently got an interview notice.
1) My spouse came here with H1 status (without me). Because my spouse's company can only start processing my H4 visa, 3 months after my spouse start date. Since it will be difficult for us to be thousands of miles away, we decided to use my tourist visa and come here so that I can join my spouse. So, I came here initially in B1/B2 status (around February 2006). After 3 months (around May 2006), I got a job offer from one company and was willing to sponsor my H1 visa. During the H1 processing, I had to go back home for emergency. Again came back to US using B1/B2. After I came back, we got a RFE asking for the new I-94. Then, my H1 was approved around November 2006 but only started getting paid around May 2007 (after I got a client).
If asked during the interview, when I started working? Should I answer November 2006 (when my H1 visa was approved) or May 2007 (when I started getting paid bec I got a client)?
2) Late last year we went to Canada and our I-94 was not taken from us. We were told that it's because we will be in Canada for few days only. Hence, we dont have a new I-94 in our hands. Currently, we're still holding old I-94. When we filed our I-485, the last entry date we entered was based on the Canada trip so it wont match the date with the old I-94. Will this cause a problem during the interview?
Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks
Here's my situation.
I'm a derivative and recently got an interview notice.
1) My spouse came here with H1 status (without me). Because my spouse's company can only start processing my H4 visa, 3 months after my spouse start date. Since it will be difficult for us to be thousands of miles away, we decided to use my tourist visa and come here so that I can join my spouse. So, I came here initially in B1/B2 status (around February 2006). After 3 months (around May 2006), I got a job offer from one company and was willing to sponsor my H1 visa. During the H1 processing, I had to go back home for emergency. Again came back to US using B1/B2. After I came back, we got a RFE asking for the new I-94. Then, my H1 was approved around November 2006 but only started getting paid around May 2007 (after I got a client).
If asked during the interview, when I started working? Should I answer November 2006 (when my H1 visa was approved) or May 2007 (when I started getting paid bec I got a client)?
2) Late last year we went to Canada and our I-94 was not taken from us. We were told that it's because we will be in Canada for few days only. Hence, we dont have a new I-94 in our hands. Currently, we're still holding old I-94. When we filed our I-485, the last entry date we entered was based on the Canada trip so it wont match the date with the old I-94. Will this cause a problem during the interview?
Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks
hairstyles The new improved Tiburon
pvpb
11-11 10:00 AM
Hi,
I got FP notices yesterday (11/10/07)
Application reached NSC 08/03/07
transferred to VSC and 485 to TSC
EAD cards received
I got FP notices yesterday (11/10/07)
Application reached NSC 08/03/07
transferred to VSC and 485 to TSC
EAD cards received
vallabhu
01-14 12:22 PM
The source is Immigration-law.com
This bill was introduced by Rep. Shela Jackson-Lee of Texas. Here is the full-text of the bill. It is a shocker, highly prejudiced against the employment-based immigration. Another shocker is a proposal to increaase Diversity Visa from 55,000 to 110,000 when the general opinion in the Congress was even to eliminate the DV program.
SEC. 701. UNFAIR IMMIGRATION-RELATED EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES.
Section 274B (8 U.S.C. 1324b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(5)--
(A) by amending the paragraph heading to read `Prohibition of Intimidation, Retaliation, or Unlawful Discrimination in Employment';
(B) by moving the text down and to the right 2 ems;
(C) by inserting before such text the following: `(A) IN GENERAL- '; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
`(B) FEDERAL LABOR OR EMPLOYMENT LAWS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer to directly or indirectly threaten any individual with removal or any other adverse consequences pertaining to that individual's immigration status or employment benefits for the purpose of intimidating, pressuring, or coercing any such individual not to exercise any right protected by State or Federal labor or employment law (including section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 157)), or for the purpose of retaliating against any such individual for having exercised or having stated an intention to exercise any such right.
`(C) DISCRIMINATION BASED ON IMMIGRATION STATUS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer, except to the extent specifically authorized or required by law, to discriminate in any term or condition of employment against any individual employed by such employer on the basis of such individual's immigration status.'; and
(2) in subsection (c)(2), by adding at the end the following: `The Special Counsel shall not disclose to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, and shall not cause to be published in a manner that discloses to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, any information obtained by the Special Counsel in any manner concerning the immigration status of any individual who has filed a charge under this section, or the identity of any individual or entity that is a party or witness to a proceedings brought pursuant to such charge. The Secretary of Homeland Security may not rely, in whole or in part, in any enforcement action or removal proceeding, upon any information obtained as a result of the filing or prosecution of an unfair immigration-related employment practice charge. For purposes of this paragraph, the term `Special Counsel' includes individuals formerly appointed to the position of Special Counsel and any current or former employee of the office of the Special Counsel. Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits information to be used in violation of this paragraph shall be fined not more than $10,000.'.
SEC. 702. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TASK FORCE.
The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall conduct a national study of American workplaces to determine the causes, extent, circumstances, and consequences, of exploitation of undocumented alien workers by their employers. As part of this study, the Secretary of Labor shall create a plan for targeted review of Federal labor law enforcement in industries with a substantial immigrant workforce, for the purpose of identifying, monitoring, and deterring frequent or egregious violators of wage and hour, antidiscrimination, National Labor Relations Act, and workplace safety and health requirements. Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall submit to the Congress a report describing the results of the study and the Secretary's recommendations based on the study.
SEC. 703. RECRUITMENT OF AMERICAN WORKERS.
Section 214 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (m) (as added by section 105 of Public Law 106-313), (n) (as added by section 107(e) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1513(c) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1102(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act), and (p) (as added by section 1503(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act) as subsections (n), (o), (p), (q), and (r), respectively; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(s)(1) No petition to accord employment status under the nonimmigrant classifications described in sections 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) and (H) shall be granted in the absence of an affidavit from the petitioner describing the efforts that were made to recruit an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence or a citizen of the United States before resorting to a petition to obtain a foreign employee. The recruitment efforts must have included substantial attempts to find employees in minority communities. Recruitment efforts in minority communities should include at least one of the following, if appropriate for the employment being advertised:
`(A) Advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker in local newspapers in the labor market that is likely to be patronized by a potential worker for at least 5 consecutive days.
`(B) Undertake efforts to advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker through advertisements in public transportation systems.
`(C) To the extent permitted by local laws and regulations, engage in recruitment activities in secondary schools, recreation centers, community centers, and other places throughout the communities within 50 miles of the job site that serve minorities.
`(2)(A) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a 10 percent surcharge on all fees collected for petitions to accord employment status and shall use these funds to establish an employment training program which will include unemployed workers in the United States who need to be trained or retrained. The purpose of this program shall be to increase the number of lawful permanent residents and citizens of the United States who are available for employment in the occupations that are the subjects of such petitions. At least 50 percent of the funds generated by this provision must be used to train American workers in rural and inner-city areas.
`(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall reserve and make available to the Secretary of Labor a portion of the funds collected under this paragraph. Such funds shall be used by the Secretary of Labor to establish an `Office to Preserve American Jobs' within the Department of Labor. The purpose of this office shall be to establish policies intended to ensure that employers in the United States will hire available workers in the United States before resorting to foreign labor, giving substantial emphasis to hiring minority workers in the United States.'.
This bill was introduced by Rep. Shela Jackson-Lee of Texas. Here is the full-text of the bill. It is a shocker, highly prejudiced against the employment-based immigration. Another shocker is a proposal to increaase Diversity Visa from 55,000 to 110,000 when the general opinion in the Congress was even to eliminate the DV program.
SEC. 701. UNFAIR IMMIGRATION-RELATED EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES.
Section 274B (8 U.S.C. 1324b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(5)--
(A) by amending the paragraph heading to read `Prohibition of Intimidation, Retaliation, or Unlawful Discrimination in Employment';
(B) by moving the text down and to the right 2 ems;
(C) by inserting before such text the following: `(A) IN GENERAL- '; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
`(B) FEDERAL LABOR OR EMPLOYMENT LAWS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer to directly or indirectly threaten any individual with removal or any other adverse consequences pertaining to that individual's immigration status or employment benefits for the purpose of intimidating, pressuring, or coercing any such individual not to exercise any right protected by State or Federal labor or employment law (including section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 157)), or for the purpose of retaliating against any such individual for having exercised or having stated an intention to exercise any such right.
`(C) DISCRIMINATION BASED ON IMMIGRATION STATUS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer, except to the extent specifically authorized or required by law, to discriminate in any term or condition of employment against any individual employed by such employer on the basis of such individual's immigration status.'; and
(2) in subsection (c)(2), by adding at the end the following: `The Special Counsel shall not disclose to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, and shall not cause to be published in a manner that discloses to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, any information obtained by the Special Counsel in any manner concerning the immigration status of any individual who has filed a charge under this section, or the identity of any individual or entity that is a party or witness to a proceedings brought pursuant to such charge. The Secretary of Homeland Security may not rely, in whole or in part, in any enforcement action or removal proceeding, upon any information obtained as a result of the filing or prosecution of an unfair immigration-related employment practice charge. For purposes of this paragraph, the term `Special Counsel' includes individuals formerly appointed to the position of Special Counsel and any current or former employee of the office of the Special Counsel. Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits information to be used in violation of this paragraph shall be fined not more than $10,000.'.
SEC. 702. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TASK FORCE.
The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall conduct a national study of American workplaces to determine the causes, extent, circumstances, and consequences, of exploitation of undocumented alien workers by their employers. As part of this study, the Secretary of Labor shall create a plan for targeted review of Federal labor law enforcement in industries with a substantial immigrant workforce, for the purpose of identifying, monitoring, and deterring frequent or egregious violators of wage and hour, antidiscrimination, National Labor Relations Act, and workplace safety and health requirements. Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall submit to the Congress a report describing the results of the study and the Secretary's recommendations based on the study.
SEC. 703. RECRUITMENT OF AMERICAN WORKERS.
Section 214 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (m) (as added by section 105 of Public Law 106-313), (n) (as added by section 107(e) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1513(c) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1102(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act), and (p) (as added by section 1503(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act) as subsections (n), (o), (p), (q), and (r), respectively; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(s)(1) No petition to accord employment status under the nonimmigrant classifications described in sections 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) and (H) shall be granted in the absence of an affidavit from the petitioner describing the efforts that were made to recruit an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence or a citizen of the United States before resorting to a petition to obtain a foreign employee. The recruitment efforts must have included substantial attempts to find employees in minority communities. Recruitment efforts in minority communities should include at least one of the following, if appropriate for the employment being advertised:
`(A) Advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker in local newspapers in the labor market that is likely to be patronized by a potential worker for at least 5 consecutive days.
`(B) Undertake efforts to advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker through advertisements in public transportation systems.
`(C) To the extent permitted by local laws and regulations, engage in recruitment activities in secondary schools, recreation centers, community centers, and other places throughout the communities within 50 miles of the job site that serve minorities.
`(2)(A) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a 10 percent surcharge on all fees collected for petitions to accord employment status and shall use these funds to establish an employment training program which will include unemployed workers in the United States who need to be trained or retrained. The purpose of this program shall be to increase the number of lawful permanent residents and citizens of the United States who are available for employment in the occupations that are the subjects of such petitions. At least 50 percent of the funds generated by this provision must be used to train American workers in rural and inner-city areas.
`(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall reserve and make available to the Secretary of Labor a portion of the funds collected under this paragraph. Such funds shall be used by the Secretary of Labor to establish an `Office to Preserve American Jobs' within the Department of Labor. The purpose of this office shall be to establish policies intended to ensure that employers in the United States will hire available workers in the United States before resorting to foreign labor, giving substantial emphasis to hiring minority workers in the United States.'.
gandalf1234
02-10 03:33 PM
just updated my profile .
so I should not worry about H1 right . I just want to amke sure they willl now not approve it . got GC after long time do not want to screwed due to this .
was you in this situation too and got denied H1?
so I should not worry about H1 right . I just want to amke sure they willl now not approve it . got GC after long time do not want to screwed due to this .
was you in this situation too and got denied H1?
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar