minimalist
08-18 04:09 PM
Thanks for the reponse imm_pro and kopra.
Hi Kopra,
My wife will be returing beack from india in mid october :(...
If she uses her H4 Visa stamp to enter , will have to file H4 to H1 Chane of status to be able to work on H1.
Hi Kopra,
My wife will be returing beack from india in mid october :(...
If she uses her H4 Visa stamp to enter , will have to file H4 to H1 Chane of status to be able to work on H1.
wallpaper 2005 Nissan Pathfinder XE
KbK
04-09 11:50 PM
Hi friends
I am sure lot of applicants are hold up in labor certification at Backlog Processing Centers. The implication of this delay are; even if the current bill is passed and all the provisions in the current bill are implemented, still it will be of NO USE to the applicants who are awaiting labor certification.
The other option is to apply through PERM and try to get certification quickly. But the catch here is, if the PERM application is approved then the original labor application is cancelled and priority date would become 2006. For example, if someone's application is pending since year 2002 and now if that person applies through PERM and if it gets approved within three months then that person would loose the priority date of 2002 and will have a priority date of 2006. If the green card numbers are not current then it would be a big disadvantage.
On the other hand if someone had applied through PERM in 2004 and his/her labor is approved then, with this new proposed bill, there is a good chance that he/she might get green card immediately because priority dates would have moved up to 2004. The reason I think this is a possibility is because, the quota numbers are going to increase substantially and BPC is very slow in approving labor certification. Hence there is a good chance that priority dates would move up fast.
If this happens then people who had applied earlier and waited for such a long time, will be at very big disadvantage.
I propose that we should request for change in law to allow existing applicants to apply through PERM and keep the old priority dates even after the application is approved.
This will not only help all of us but also help the authorities; as it would reduce the work load on BPC.
Friends at the end, may I request you to please send your thoughts on this?
Thanks
I am sure lot of applicants are hold up in labor certification at Backlog Processing Centers. The implication of this delay are; even if the current bill is passed and all the provisions in the current bill are implemented, still it will be of NO USE to the applicants who are awaiting labor certification.
The other option is to apply through PERM and try to get certification quickly. But the catch here is, if the PERM application is approved then the original labor application is cancelled and priority date would become 2006. For example, if someone's application is pending since year 2002 and now if that person applies through PERM and if it gets approved within three months then that person would loose the priority date of 2002 and will have a priority date of 2006. If the green card numbers are not current then it would be a big disadvantage.
On the other hand if someone had applied through PERM in 2004 and his/her labor is approved then, with this new proposed bill, there is a good chance that he/she might get green card immediately because priority dates would have moved up to 2004. The reason I think this is a possibility is because, the quota numbers are going to increase substantially and BPC is very slow in approving labor certification. Hence there is a good chance that priority dates would move up fast.
If this happens then people who had applied earlier and waited for such a long time, will be at very big disadvantage.
I propose that we should request for change in law to allow existing applicants to apply through PERM and keep the old priority dates even after the application is approved.
This will not only help all of us but also help the authorities; as it would reduce the work load on BPC.
Friends at the end, may I request you to please send your thoughts on this?
Thanks
setpit_gc
08-13 02:09 PM
What if that company not willing to offer any employment or no longer exists?.
2011 of 2005 nissan pathfinder
mavrick
06-02 05:38 PM
My H1 B Visa and my wife's H4 is being transfered to a new employer. We filed under premium processing last friday (30th May). We have a family emergency and my question is whether my wife can travel to India before our applications are approved. I will remain in the country. Only she will be travelling. Your inputs will be much appreciated in this trying time.
more...
bigboy007
11-01 01:49 PM
Couple of questions : I am planning to apply for EAD . I have already filed 485 on July 2 and got receipt no.s .
1. where to file : Here is the catch when filing 485 i am in IL and later moved on to CT. I have updated all addresses etc to CT and everything fine. Since i was in IL for 485 I applied to NSC now i am in CT and here it is VSC for form EAD. So where should i send my application to NSC or VSC?
2. Efile or regular : which is good efile or regular filing. I filing myself and requested attorney's view he said he would prefer normal way as its better and i can see checks cashing and make that a proof of receipt in case of reciept notice lost.
Need ur views.
1. where to file : Here is the catch when filing 485 i am in IL and later moved on to CT. I have updated all addresses etc to CT and everything fine. Since i was in IL for 485 I applied to NSC now i am in CT and here it is VSC for form EAD. So where should i send my application to NSC or VSC?
2. Efile or regular : which is good efile or regular filing. I filing myself and requested attorney's view he said he would prefer normal way as its better and i can see checks cashing and make that a proof of receipt in case of reciept notice lost.
Need ur views.
Sakthisagar
11-17 09:16 AM
The President is once again giving Political KULFI to all Legal immigrants.
See below
In an Oval Office meeting today, the President and leaders of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) � U.S. Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, U.S. Representative Nydia Velazquez of New York, and U.S. Representative Luis Gutierrez of Illinois � discussed the options on immigration reform immediately facing the Congress. He thanked them for their constant efforts on this issue. The President and the CHC leaders believe that, before adjourning, Congress should approve the DREAM Act. This legislation has traditionally enjoyed support from Democratic and Republican lawmakers and would give young people who were brought as minors to the United States by their parents the opportunity to earn their citizenship by pursuing a college degree or through military service.The President reiterated his support for fixing the broken immigration system and urged the CHC leaders to work to restore the bipartisan coalition backing comprehensive immigration reform. The President repeated his hope that, with the election season�s pressures past, Congressional Republicans would work with their Democratic colleagues not only to strengthen security at the nation�s borders, but also to restore responsibility and accountability to what everyone agrees is a broken immigration system. The President reiterated his strong support for bipartisan Congressional action on immigration reform at the earliest opportunity, noting that the American people expect both parties to work together to tackle the challenges confronting our nation.
Readout of the President's Meeting with Representatives of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Today | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/16/readout-presidents-meeting-with-representatives-congressional-hispanic-c)
See below
In an Oval Office meeting today, the President and leaders of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) � U.S. Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, U.S. Representative Nydia Velazquez of New York, and U.S. Representative Luis Gutierrez of Illinois � discussed the options on immigration reform immediately facing the Congress. He thanked them for their constant efforts on this issue. The President and the CHC leaders believe that, before adjourning, Congress should approve the DREAM Act. This legislation has traditionally enjoyed support from Democratic and Republican lawmakers and would give young people who were brought as minors to the United States by their parents the opportunity to earn their citizenship by pursuing a college degree or through military service.The President reiterated his support for fixing the broken immigration system and urged the CHC leaders to work to restore the bipartisan coalition backing comprehensive immigration reform. The President repeated his hope that, with the election season�s pressures past, Congressional Republicans would work with their Democratic colleagues not only to strengthen security at the nation�s borders, but also to restore responsibility and accountability to what everyone agrees is a broken immigration system. The President reiterated his strong support for bipartisan Congressional action on immigration reform at the earliest opportunity, noting that the American people expect both parties to work together to tackle the challenges confronting our nation.
Readout of the President's Meeting with Representatives of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Today | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/16/readout-presidents-meeting-with-representatives-congressional-hispanic-c)
more...
calgirl
05-25 07:50 PM
`(G) Aliens who have earned an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math and have been working in a related field in the United States under a nonimmigrant visa during the 3-year period preceding their application for an immigrant visa under section 203(b).
What does the above statement mean??
So, folks who have an advanced degree from the US are exempt from the cap? Or advanced degree plus 3 yrs of work exp is required?
Here is my reading of the amendment.
If you look at the original bill (S2611) Section 508 reads
SEC. 508. VISAS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH ADVANCED DEGREES.
(a) Aliens With Certain Advanced Degrees Not Subject to Numerical Limitations on Employment Based Immigrants-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 201(b)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(1)), as amended by section 505, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(G) Aliens who have earned an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math and have been working in a related field in the United States under a nonimmigrant visa during the 3-year period preceding their application for an immigrant visa under section 203(b).
`(H) Aliens described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 203(b)(1)(A) or who have received a national interest waiver under section 203(b)(2)(B).
`(I) The spouse and minor children of an alien who is admitted as an employment-based immigrant under section 203(b).'.
**************************************************
Bingaman Amendment 4181 and 4182 on the other hand state
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act the language in Title V Sec. 501 under the heading ``(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN'' is null and void and the following shall be applicable in lien thereof.
``(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN.--
``(A) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), immigrant visas issued on or after October 1, 2004, to spouses and children of employment-based immigrants shall not be counted against the numerical limitation set forth in paragraph (1).
``(B) NUMERICAL LIMITATION.--The total number of visas issued under paragraph (1)(A) and paragraph (2), excluding such visas issued to aliens pursuant to section 245B or section 245C of the Immigration and Nationality Act, may not exceed 650,000 during any fiscal year.
************************************************** ****
Reading S2611 Section 508 in conjunction with SA4811 and SA4812 specifically shows that STEM + 3 applicants as well as their spouses and children are not subject to any caps. On the other had the troubling part is that those not covered by STEM+3 will have 450,000 principal applicant slots and therefore only 200,000 spouse and children slots. This discrepancy arises from the fact that Bingaman multiplied 290,000 by 1.2 to arrive at his figure while S2611 allows for 450,000 principal applicants in the 1st 10 years to remove backlog.
SA 4188 is not currently available for reading and it will be interesting to see what change has been made to the language in 508(a)(1)(G) to allow all STEM +3 to be exempt. It would also be interesting to see whether language in Sec 508(b)(3)(III) has been changed to reflect the changes in 508(a)(1)(G)
Note that if both these sections are changed to allow all STEM+3 then labor certification too becomes easier. Hopefully changes here can provide some relief from Bingaman's torpedo.
I would appreciate comments as my analysis may be wrong.
What does the above statement mean??
So, folks who have an advanced degree from the US are exempt from the cap? Or advanced degree plus 3 yrs of work exp is required?
Here is my reading of the amendment.
If you look at the original bill (S2611) Section 508 reads
SEC. 508. VISAS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH ADVANCED DEGREES.
(a) Aliens With Certain Advanced Degrees Not Subject to Numerical Limitations on Employment Based Immigrants-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 201(b)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(1)), as amended by section 505, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(G) Aliens who have earned an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math and have been working in a related field in the United States under a nonimmigrant visa during the 3-year period preceding their application for an immigrant visa under section 203(b).
`(H) Aliens described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 203(b)(1)(A) or who have received a national interest waiver under section 203(b)(2)(B).
`(I) The spouse and minor children of an alien who is admitted as an employment-based immigrant under section 203(b).'.
**************************************************
Bingaman Amendment 4181 and 4182 on the other hand state
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act the language in Title V Sec. 501 under the heading ``(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN'' is null and void and the following shall be applicable in lien thereof.
``(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN.--
``(A) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), immigrant visas issued on or after October 1, 2004, to spouses and children of employment-based immigrants shall not be counted against the numerical limitation set forth in paragraph (1).
``(B) NUMERICAL LIMITATION.--The total number of visas issued under paragraph (1)(A) and paragraph (2), excluding such visas issued to aliens pursuant to section 245B or section 245C of the Immigration and Nationality Act, may not exceed 650,000 during any fiscal year.
************************************************** ****
Reading S2611 Section 508 in conjunction with SA4811 and SA4812 specifically shows that STEM + 3 applicants as well as their spouses and children are not subject to any caps. On the other had the troubling part is that those not covered by STEM+3 will have 450,000 principal applicant slots and therefore only 200,000 spouse and children slots. This discrepancy arises from the fact that Bingaman multiplied 290,000 by 1.2 to arrive at his figure while S2611 allows for 450,000 principal applicants in the 1st 10 years to remove backlog.
SA 4188 is not currently available for reading and it will be interesting to see what change has been made to the language in 508(a)(1)(G) to allow all STEM +3 to be exempt. It would also be interesting to see whether language in Sec 508(b)(3)(III) has been changed to reflect the changes in 508(a)(1)(G)
Note that if both these sections are changed to allow all STEM+3 then labor certification too becomes easier. Hopefully changes here can provide some relief from Bingaman's torpedo.
I would appreciate comments as my analysis may be wrong.
2010 /08/2005-nissan-pathfinder
solaris27
10-02 09:00 AM
fearonlygod
Do it now , don't wait till last min.
Consulting companies can't just take your money.
You have to complain about them and also please provide us company name and website so other person don't join them .
Do it now , don't wait till last min.
Consulting companies can't just take your money.
You have to complain about them and also please provide us company name and website so other person don't join them .
more...
ItIsNotFunny
08-02 10:17 AM
Is this true? If the employer agrees to not invoke I140 for next 180 days, I can start working for another company tomorrow without affecting my 485 application?
Wouldn't you need to show paystubs or something, for 180 days, for the company that filed your I485?
Thank you!!
This is dicey. The rule of thumb is: GC is for future employment. Somehow you need to convince this immigration officer that you worked or want to work for employer who filed GC for you. Thats why they have this 180 days clause.
Wouldn't you need to show paystubs or something, for 180 days, for the company that filed your I485?
Thank you!!
This is dicey. The rule of thumb is: GC is for future employment. Somehow you need to convince this immigration officer that you worked or want to work for employer who filed GC for you. Thats why they have this 180 days clause.
hair 2005 Nissan Pathfinder
ram_ram
01-05 10:51 AM
I contributed my 10 cents..Just now.
more...
vina92
04-13 03:47 PM
Iam curious to know if IV is supporting Hagel's bill which will not only increase H1Bs but also has good EB provisions.
It might not be a bad idea to have some interim relief instead of focussing on gigantic CIR .
It might not be a bad idea to have some interim relief instead of focussing on gigantic CIR .
hot 1999–2005 Nissan Pathfinder
rsayed
04-13 03:58 PM
http://www.aila.org/RecentPosting/RecentPostingList.aspx
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=22101
Also, here's the Bill no. and Title -
S.1092
Title: A bill to temporarily increase the number of visas which may be issued to certain highly skilled workers.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=22101
Also, here's the Bill no. and Title -
S.1092
Title: A bill to temporarily increase the number of visas which may be issued to certain highly skilled workers.
more...
house 4quot; BDS Suspension Lift
sircaustic
07-24 08:25 AM
Immigrant petition was filed only for me. However, AoS has been filed for the entire family. So in my opinion the answers to three questions sholuld be 1 - No, 2- No, 3- Yes.- Would that be Correct?
Since the primary applicant of form I-539 is my wife, i wasn't sure if there should be a mention of my immigrant petition when describing the circumstances on a separate sheet of paper. Should I add receipt number of form I-485 or attach a copy of the form as support documents?
Thanks!
Since the primary applicant of form I-539 is my wife, i wasn't sure if there should be a mention of my immigrant petition when describing the circumstances on a separate sheet of paper. Should I add receipt number of form I-485 or attach a copy of the form as support documents?
Thanks!
tattoo Classic | Lifted | Old
NikNikon
August 14th, 2006, 11:01 PM
D15, you may find some useful info in this thread as well: http://www.dphoto.us/forum/showthread.php?t=5886