rabs
04-12 06:31 AM
Sorry i keep on asking same questions again and again. I could not find any answer for that. What should I fill in "date of application" for priviously applied I-765, it should be date from EAD when they approved it or should it be the the date on which they received my application.
Also what should I fill in the
"Please provide information concerning your eligibility status"
Please suggest.
AOS pending
Also what should I fill in the
"Please provide information concerning your eligibility status"
Please suggest.
AOS pending
jsb
11-28 01:19 PM
Fee : $305.00
Applied on line, printed the form.
Attached the following and sent them to USCIS
1) 485 - copy.
2) Old APs 2 - Copies.
3) Cover letter explaining that I need to visit my parents as they are old.
4) DL - Copy.
5) Photos : 2 (write A# and name back of them) (I forgot to send the photos with the application)
I forgot to attach the photos and got RFE, sent photos and approved yesterday. Waiting for the physical copy.
Item (3) the cover letter, is not required, but there is no harm to include one. Besides that include photo page of your passport (to confirm you are who you say you are) help speed up the process.
Applied on line, printed the form.
Attached the following and sent them to USCIS
1) 485 - copy.
2) Old APs 2 - Copies.
3) Cover letter explaining that I need to visit my parents as they are old.
4) DL - Copy.
5) Photos : 2 (write A# and name back of them) (I forgot to send the photos with the application)
I forgot to attach the photos and got RFE, sent photos and approved yesterday. Waiting for the physical copy.
Item (3) the cover letter, is not required, but there is no harm to include one. Besides that include photo page of your passport (to confirm you are who you say you are) help speed up the process.
lacrossegc
09-06 03:56 PM
keep in perspective that --
H1B Visa is a travel document required for entry into US.
The green Card is for sponsorship towards FUTURE employment.
In all cases I dont see any problem with what you are planning to do ...
as soon as you adjust your status you can move back to US provided your company gives you the same/similar job as you were approved for by the green card.
H1B Visa is a travel document required for entry into US.
The green Card is for sponsorship towards FUTURE employment.
In all cases I dont see any problem with what you are planning to do ...
as soon as you adjust your status you can move back to US provided your company gives you the same/similar job as you were approved for by the green card.
skagitswimmer
June 19th, 2005, 09:58 AM
A bit better but still a little grey. I don't think you can get detail on the chest area for instance and keep the blacks looking black on the rest of the bird.
I do use autofocus, at least with the 1D2 it works fine. The 20D is a bit iffy, it should work but it hunts sometimes.
Here is another version, with FM shadow recovery set to 2 - and I used a mask to limit it only to the darkest areas.
By the way - when I opened the attachment it looked washed out to me too, because it opens in windows rather than in Adobe PSCS2. They use different colourspaces. - try opening the attachment in an adobe colourspace and see if it makes a difference.
Re the autofocus, it may be that the 100-400 doesn't allow AF. There is absolutely none on the setup I'm using - a 350D + the 100-400L + type II TC 1.4
I do use autofocus, at least with the 1D2 it works fine. The 20D is a bit iffy, it should work but it hunts sometimes.
Here is another version, with FM shadow recovery set to 2 - and I used a mask to limit it only to the darkest areas.
By the way - when I opened the attachment it looked washed out to me too, because it opens in windows rather than in Adobe PSCS2. They use different colourspaces. - try opening the attachment in an adobe colourspace and see if it makes a difference.
Re the autofocus, it may be that the 100-400 doesn't allow AF. There is absolutely none on the setup I'm using - a 350D + the 100-400L + type II TC 1.4
more...
ayazali17
12-18 01:25 PM
Hello i am new to this forum, i am looking for some answers involving stock trading? My question is: Can i invest in stocks, mutual fund, etc. while having only a EAD(work Permit)? Do i need get permission from IRS? What do i need to do invest legally? I was thinking of investing with Scottrader.
Thanks in advance for all the replies.
Thanks in advance for all the replies.
kaisersose
11-30 03:40 PM
They will not approve a derivative case without approving the principal. USCIS does not follow FIFO, so though it is possible they picked up a 485 application from July, the second problem of having a PD available kicks in.
So for this approval to be valid, some IO should have
1. Picked up a July application for processing
2. Ignored the PD requirement
3. Approved the derivative without bothering to first approve the primary.
Three mistakes together is impossible. It is just a data entry error.
So for this approval to be valid, some IO should have
1. Picked up a July application for processing
2. Ignored the PD requirement
3. Approved the derivative without bothering to first approve the primary.
Three mistakes together is impossible. It is just a data entry error.
more...
glus
05-31 09:00 AM
Guys,
Pappu just posted an important message here: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=72997#post72997
Please read and contribute now, as it is a critical time for us.
Pappu just posted an important message here: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=72997#post72997
Please read and contribute now, as it is a critical time for us.
Jaime
08-06 12:12 PM
Yeah, why not? As long as Legals ALSO get green cards!
On The Washington Post today:
A Less Ambitious Approach to Immigration
By Arlen Specter
Monday, August 6, 2007; Page A17
The charge of amnesty defeated comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate this summer. It is too important, and there has been too much legislative investment, not to try again. The time to do so is now.
Certainly the government should implement the provisions it has already enacted to improve border security and crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. But the important additions on those subjects contained in the bill defeated in June will not be enacted without also dealing with the 12 million-plus undocumented immigrants and the guest worker program.
So let's take a fresh look and try a narrower approach.
There is a consensus in Congress on most objectives and many remedies for immigration reform: more border patrols, additional fencing, drones and some form of a guest worker program. Modern technological advances provide foolproof identification so employers can -- justifiably -- be severely sanctioned if they don't verify IDs and act to eliminate the magnet attracting illegals to penetrate the border. Yet Congress is unlikely to appropriate $3 billion for border security without dealing simultaneously with the illegal immigrants already here.
The main objective in legalizing the 12 million was to eliminate their fugitive status, allowing them to live in the United States without fear of being detected and deported or being abused by unscrupulous employers. We should consider a revised status for those 12 million people. Let them hold the status of those with green cards -- without the automatic path to citizenship that was the core component of critics' argument that reform efforts were really amnesty. Give these people the company of their spouses and minor children and consider other indicators of citizenship short of the right to vote (which was always the dealbreaker).
This approach may be attacked as creating an "underclass" inconsistent with American values, which have always been to give refuge to the "huddled masses." But such a compromise is clearly better than leaving these people a fugitive class. People with a lesser status are frequently referred to as second-class citizens. Congress has adamantly refused to make the 12 million people already here full citizens, but isn't it better for them to at least be secure aliens than hunted and exploited?
Giving these people green-card status leaves open the opportunity for them to return to their native lands and seek citizenship through regular channels. Or, after our borders are secured and tough employer sanctions have been put in place, Congress can revisit the issue and possibly find a more hospitable America.
Some of the other refinements of the defeated bill can await another day and the regular process of Judiciary Committee hearings and markups. Changing the law on family unification with a point system can also be considered later. Now, perhaps, we could add green cards for highly skilled workers and tinker at the edges of immigration law, providing we don't get bogged down in endless debate and defeated cloture motions.
It would be refreshing if Congress, and the country, could come together in a bipartisan way to at least partially solve one of the big domestic issues of the day.
The writer, a senator from Pennsylvania, is the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
On The Washington Post today:
A Less Ambitious Approach to Immigration
By Arlen Specter
Monday, August 6, 2007; Page A17
The charge of amnesty defeated comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate this summer. It is too important, and there has been too much legislative investment, not to try again. The time to do so is now.
Certainly the government should implement the provisions it has already enacted to improve border security and crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. But the important additions on those subjects contained in the bill defeated in June will not be enacted without also dealing with the 12 million-plus undocumented immigrants and the guest worker program.
So let's take a fresh look and try a narrower approach.
There is a consensus in Congress on most objectives and many remedies for immigration reform: more border patrols, additional fencing, drones and some form of a guest worker program. Modern technological advances provide foolproof identification so employers can -- justifiably -- be severely sanctioned if they don't verify IDs and act to eliminate the magnet attracting illegals to penetrate the border. Yet Congress is unlikely to appropriate $3 billion for border security without dealing simultaneously with the illegal immigrants already here.
The main objective in legalizing the 12 million was to eliminate their fugitive status, allowing them to live in the United States without fear of being detected and deported or being abused by unscrupulous employers. We should consider a revised status for those 12 million people. Let them hold the status of those with green cards -- without the automatic path to citizenship that was the core component of critics' argument that reform efforts were really amnesty. Give these people the company of their spouses and minor children and consider other indicators of citizenship short of the right to vote (which was always the dealbreaker).
This approach may be attacked as creating an "underclass" inconsistent with American values, which have always been to give refuge to the "huddled masses." But such a compromise is clearly better than leaving these people a fugitive class. People with a lesser status are frequently referred to as second-class citizens. Congress has adamantly refused to make the 12 million people already here full citizens, but isn't it better for them to at least be secure aliens than hunted and exploited?
Giving these people green-card status leaves open the opportunity for them to return to their native lands and seek citizenship through regular channels. Or, after our borders are secured and tough employer sanctions have been put in place, Congress can revisit the issue and possibly find a more hospitable America.
Some of the other refinements of the defeated bill can await another day and the regular process of Judiciary Committee hearings and markups. Changing the law on family unification with a point system can also be considered later. Now, perhaps, we could add green cards for highly skilled workers and tinker at the edges of immigration law, providing we don't get bogged down in endless debate and defeated cloture motions.
It would be refreshing if Congress, and the country, could come together in a bipartisan way to at least partially solve one of the big domestic issues of the day.
The writer, a senator from Pennsylvania, is the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
more...
saibaba
12-04 12:01 PM
One of my best friends has good FTE offer from one company in WestCoast.Right now he is working as subcontractor at client place in Boston but by looking at the market recession/depression, he is inlined towards this offer from the previous client manager in CA.
He is on H1 for 5 yrs and is into 3 yrs extension based on approved LC/140.He got EAD/AP approved and his EAD recently extended for 2 yrs.He is married, H4 wife with school aged kids.
He is with this Desi employer for 5+ years so his employer is generous about not cancelling his approved 140 for the bucks he made on this guy for the last 5 yrs. But my buddy is planning to ask his employer about keeping his H1 active, means he doesn�t want his employer to cancel his H1.He want to take up the FTE opportunity using EAD. He was asking me about his H1 status when not getting paid/no pay stubs and leaving it just like that until it comes out for renewal which is after 3 yrs�when I asked why he wants to do it he said he just want to keep it as backup incase his 485 get denied so that he can use the remaining period of H1.But I have my own doubts about his H1 and EAD usage.
Now my Question is can he stay on H1 with the Original employer without working for him (that means no salary/pay stubs) and work for this new company that is offering FTE for him?
I told him that he might have to do AC-21 stuff but he said he don�t need to do it as he is not changing his employer, Is that true? He is saying that AC-21 wld come into the picture only when if u switch employer / 140 got revoked.
Looks like he can get paid by the new employer by 1099, is that correct?.
Also I�m skeptical about using EAD while keeping your H1 with original employer.
I read in IV that you will be called for personal interviews (National Benefit Center stuff) right before you getting GC and you have to show your current years pay stubs, previous w-2�s returns etc... What about if you have to face this scenario(although it happens randomly)? Like how can we show pay stubs from new employer as proof of employment when your LC/140/484 are coupled to previous employer and you are not in his payroll though your H1/140 is not cancelled?
Has anybody done this? If so can I know what are the pros and cons?
If it is doable and if you have friendly employer who recognizes your loyalty for those years you worked for him, it�s look like a very good option for everyone.
Can someone pls share your knowledge?
Thanks
He is on H1 for 5 yrs and is into 3 yrs extension based on approved LC/140.He got EAD/AP approved and his EAD recently extended for 2 yrs.He is married, H4 wife with school aged kids.
He is with this Desi employer for 5+ years so his employer is generous about not cancelling his approved 140 for the bucks he made on this guy for the last 5 yrs. But my buddy is planning to ask his employer about keeping his H1 active, means he doesn�t want his employer to cancel his H1.He want to take up the FTE opportunity using EAD. He was asking me about his H1 status when not getting paid/no pay stubs and leaving it just like that until it comes out for renewal which is after 3 yrs�when I asked why he wants to do it he said he just want to keep it as backup incase his 485 get denied so that he can use the remaining period of H1.But I have my own doubts about his H1 and EAD usage.
Now my Question is can he stay on H1 with the Original employer without working for him (that means no salary/pay stubs) and work for this new company that is offering FTE for him?
I told him that he might have to do AC-21 stuff but he said he don�t need to do it as he is not changing his employer, Is that true? He is saying that AC-21 wld come into the picture only when if u switch employer / 140 got revoked.
Looks like he can get paid by the new employer by 1099, is that correct?.
Also I�m skeptical about using EAD while keeping your H1 with original employer.
I read in IV that you will be called for personal interviews (National Benefit Center stuff) right before you getting GC and you have to show your current years pay stubs, previous w-2�s returns etc... What about if you have to face this scenario(although it happens randomly)? Like how can we show pay stubs from new employer as proof of employment when your LC/140/484 are coupled to previous employer and you are not in his payroll though your H1/140 is not cancelled?
Has anybody done this? If so can I know what are the pros and cons?
If it is doable and if you have friendly employer who recognizes your loyalty for those years you worked for him, it�s look like a very good option for everyone.
Can someone pls share your knowledge?
Thanks
sam_hoosier
12-14 10:35 AM
Munnabhai,
I have recevied I-140 RFE on all of the above u mentioned 1,2,3. i have 3 years degree.Labour doesnt match with edu.i am hpoing to get reject :).thats what attorney saying.
Why are you HOPING to get rejected ? :D
But if you expect to get rejected, you should get a new case ready and file as soon as you know for sure that the first one ha been rejected.
I have recevied I-140 RFE on all of the above u mentioned 1,2,3. i have 3 years degree.Labour doesnt match with edu.i am hpoing to get reject :).thats what attorney saying.
Why are you HOPING to get rejected ? :D
But if you expect to get rejected, you should get a new case ready and file as soon as you know for sure that the first one ha been rejected.
more...
desi3933
05-21 06:50 AM
I understand two I-140s, one existing (EB-3) and second new I-140 (EB2), but you have also mentioned more. Why need more than two, in what circumstances?
Example -
PD Jan 2002 EB-3 I-140 (Job Title: Senior Programmer)
Filed new I-140 on March 2004 for EB-2 I-140 (Job Title: Project Manager) and claimed earlier PD of Jan 2002
Filed new I-140 on Feb 2009 for EB-1 I-140 (Job Title: Director Software Division) and claimed earlier PD of Jan 2002
Beneficiary can claim PD of Jan 2002 with his EB-1 I-140.
Please note that I-140s can belong to any employer, but they all must belong to same beneficiary.
_________________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
.
Example -
PD Jan 2002 EB-3 I-140 (Job Title: Senior Programmer)
Filed new I-140 on March 2004 for EB-2 I-140 (Job Title: Project Manager) and claimed earlier PD of Jan 2002
Filed new I-140 on Feb 2009 for EB-1 I-140 (Job Title: Director Software Division) and claimed earlier PD of Jan 2002
Beneficiary can claim PD of Jan 2002 with his EB-1 I-140.
Please note that I-140s can belong to any employer, but they all must belong to same beneficiary.
_________________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
.
hnordberg
June 18th, 2005, 12:58 PM
I like the top one the way it is. It is moody and the motion blur of the bird just adds to the feeling. Great capture.
With the rainbow, I think I may have tried to get an anchor for the foreground. Such as the yellow flower/bush in the lower right. I often find myself shooting with the camera at ground level. But it is a fine picture, nevertheless.
The bird shots are good. I would probably cut out some of the top of the last one.
Cheers
- Henrik
With the rainbow, I think I may have tried to get an anchor for the foreground. Such as the yellow flower/bush in the lower right. I often find myself shooting with the camera at ground level. But it is a fine picture, nevertheless.
The bird shots are good. I would probably cut out some of the top of the last one.
Cheers
- Henrik
more...
hmehta
09-12 07:20 PM
Yes, you can take "Leave without pay" - you will not be out of status. Even if you are not getting paid you still are on company payroll.
As someone suggested earlier, if a woman on H1-B is pregnant, she can surely take maternity leave without going out of status.
As someone suggested earlier, if a woman on H1-B is pregnant, she can surely take maternity leave without going out of status.
.jpg "Team Building Quotes as well")
howzatt
08-15 10:45 AM
Any idea how do they transfer application from VSC to NSC? Process or guidelines around it would be helpful.
My para-legal told me that since my I-140 has a EAC number, my I-485 was also sent to Vermont.
Please advise.
The answer to the FAQ clearly states that you should be fine and expect some processing delays. I am not sure what else you would like to know.
My para-legal told me that since my I-140 has a EAC number, my I-485 was also sent to Vermont.
Please advise.
The answer to the FAQ clearly states that you should be fine and expect some processing delays. I am not sure what else you would like to know.
more...
lskreddy
06-10 06:51 PM
My 6 years end today and my extension filing is already in and pending since April. I wonder if they would entertain people who already filed and are waiting.
I can't believe I am saying this but I hope my H1 extension does not get approved until I can file premium. :-)
I can't believe I am saying this but I hope my H1 extension does not get approved until I can file premium. :-)
Pankaj
04-17 11:04 AM
I would suggest send an email, fax and certified mail asking your salary and give a time of a week.
Fill WH4 form along with copy of H1 approval and submit to the office of DOL where you worked for that period.
Fill WH4 form along with copy of H1 approval and submit to the office of DOL where you worked for that period.
more...
Blog Feeds
07-09 12:30 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
H1B-GC
05-27 08:30 AM
As long as a person is meek and weak, that's what we get - Nothing. With AOS pending, every person in most states are bound to get 1 year renewal..Period. Be forceful but polite in expressing it. Take it to the next level - Supervisor.Ask what they mean or definition of "old I-485". Tell them you are Paying all Taxes (Federal, state, Social, Medicare.... ).
By the time you come hear, mostly probably, the agent might have approved a 1 year Renewal.
Seems FAIR is slowly creeping into DMV also.
By the time you come hear, mostly probably, the agent might have approved a 1 year Renewal.
Seems FAIR is slowly creeping into DMV also.
Better_Days
06-10 06:10 PM
www.immigration-law is reporting that PP for I-140 will be re-instated when approval is needed for H1 extension and less than 60 days are left 'till H1 expiration.
A small step in the right direction.
A small step in the right direction.
jsb
03-25 03:47 PM
Give us some relief during the period of recession and make some rules for H1B guys to stay legal and claim unemployment benifits
1. Allow H1B holders to stay unemployed but legal during this time of recession. They should be allowed unemployment insurance for the amount of money they contributed during the years of their work.
2. Don't send RFE to those in EAD during the this time of recession.
I don't know if these points are written as a joke. Technically H1B's are guest workers. If there is no work, they need not be here. "...Don't send RFE to those on EAD...", seems to tell don't do your job of checking whatever you are supposed to check before admitting a new immigrant.
Best thing is do nothing, just wait and hope for the best. Any actions are not likely to favour immigration or speedup GC granting, as these are not favoured in difficult economic times.
1. Allow H1B holders to stay unemployed but legal during this time of recession. They should be allowed unemployment insurance for the amount of money they contributed during the years of their work.
2. Don't send RFE to those in EAD during the this time of recession.
I don't know if these points are written as a joke. Technically H1B's are guest workers. If there is no work, they need not be here. "...Don't send RFE to those on EAD...", seems to tell don't do your job of checking whatever you are supposed to check before admitting a new immigrant.
Best thing is do nothing, just wait and hope for the best. Any actions are not likely to favour immigration or speedup GC granting, as these are not favoured in difficult economic times.
singhsa3
11-15 10:01 AM
We are in agony and pain. Let us scream so loud that even deafs may lend their ears.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar