GCNaseeb
10-17 11:03 PM
What's going on?
rmi
10-10 07:43 PM
July 2 filer. nsc->csc->nsc. No update since receipts on 9/14. No FP.
snathan
11-27 11:25 PM
I thought the same thing but then I researched some more and I found out that this kind of notes basically gives the holder the power to go to court and get (easily), a court order to retrieve the owned amount from the other party's account. It generally applies to a Creditor Debtor relationship, but doesnt end there. ( i may be wrong ).
Dont be surprised, the guys is covering all corners, so that in no way he gets in trouble. it just instates that fact he's good, which somehow doesnt work in my favour.
I guess you are right, attorney is the best way to go about it.
will post my out come here soon.
Till then please post your comments or views here.
Appreciate the responses!
How long this bond is for. You employer seems like a cleaver and cunning guy.
Dont be surprised, the guys is covering all corners, so that in no way he gets in trouble. it just instates that fact he's good, which somehow doesnt work in my favour.
I guess you are right, attorney is the best way to go about it.
will post my out come here soon.
Till then please post your comments or views here.
Appreciate the responses!
How long this bond is for. You employer seems like a cleaver and cunning guy.
%252BBuzz%252BShort%252BMen%252B1Haircut%252B2010.jpg "Hairstyles For Men 2011 Short.")
GCDream
07-13 08:50 AM
Done
more...
Britsabroad
December 3rd, 2008, 08:00 PM
Ed - Dang. Wish I hadnt chickened out! I could have handled what you went through... Ordred thru amazon (d300 and 24-70 2.8) It will be interesting to compare notes over time...
Owen
Owen
cbpds
08-05 02:23 PM
Guys as gk_2000 said it does not apply to us
Log In (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/usc...0048f3d6a1RCRD)
Log In (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/usc...0048f3d6a1RCRD)
more...
makemygc
04-02 09:31 PM
Hi Desiguy786,
I've used employer A labor to get a 7th year extension while employed with employer B but I didn't have that RFE situation. Since, you are employed with employer A currently and got an RFE, asking for H1 transfer + 1 year extension could be tricky.
Hi Satyasaich,
I have been working for employer A for more than 3 years and I dont know the reason for RFE, but it is related to the employer, following is the RFE, My LC is approved and applied 140 in Nov'06 which is pending. Since it's such a huge RFE ( 16 questions ), I was looking for some backup...please advice.
In short, My RFE is asking for..
Current number of employess: DHS records indicate that the petitioner has filed a disproportionately higher numberof H1b, and/or L-1 petitions than the number of employess shown on the petition. Submit an explanatoin for filing such an unusally high number of peitions in proportion to the low number of employees shown on you petition.
Copies of all H and L approval notices, petitioner's organizational chart, Form 941 Quarterly wage report, Payroll Summary, Federal Income Taxes, IRS tax return filing status transcripts, lease agreement, floor plan, office photos etc..
Consultants and Staffing Agencies: If the petitioner is, in any way , engaged in the business of consulting, employment staffing, or job placement that contracts short-term employment for workers who are traditionally self-employer, submit evidence to establish whether a specialty occupation exists for the beneficiary.
No matter whether the alien will be working within the employment contractor's operation on projects for the client or whether the alien will work at the end-client's place of business - uscis must examine the ultimate employment of the alien, and determine whether the postion qualifies as a specialty occupation. Please clarify the petitioner's employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary and, if not already provided, submit a description of conditions of employment as provided in contractual agreements, statements of work, work orders, service agreements, or letters from authorized officials of the ultimate end-client companies where the work will actually be performed that lists the name, descritipon of the duties..etc..
I've used employer A labor to get a 7th year extension while employed with employer B but I didn't have that RFE situation. Since, you are employed with employer A currently and got an RFE, asking for H1 transfer + 1 year extension could be tricky.
Hi Satyasaich,
I have been working for employer A for more than 3 years and I dont know the reason for RFE, but it is related to the employer, following is the RFE, My LC is approved and applied 140 in Nov'06 which is pending. Since it's such a huge RFE ( 16 questions ), I was looking for some backup...please advice.
In short, My RFE is asking for..
Current number of employess: DHS records indicate that the petitioner has filed a disproportionately higher numberof H1b, and/or L-1 petitions than the number of employess shown on the petition. Submit an explanatoin for filing such an unusally high number of peitions in proportion to the low number of employees shown on you petition.
Copies of all H and L approval notices, petitioner's organizational chart, Form 941 Quarterly wage report, Payroll Summary, Federal Income Taxes, IRS tax return filing status transcripts, lease agreement, floor plan, office photos etc..
Consultants and Staffing Agencies: If the petitioner is, in any way , engaged in the business of consulting, employment staffing, or job placement that contracts short-term employment for workers who are traditionally self-employer, submit evidence to establish whether a specialty occupation exists for the beneficiary.
No matter whether the alien will be working within the employment contractor's operation on projects for the client or whether the alien will work at the end-client's place of business - uscis must examine the ultimate employment of the alien, and determine whether the postion qualifies as a specialty occupation. Please clarify the petitioner's employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary and, if not already provided, submit a description of conditions of employment as provided in contractual agreements, statements of work, work orders, service agreements, or letters from authorized officials of the ultimate end-client companies where the work will actually be performed that lists the name, descritipon of the duties..etc..
Beemar
12-13 01:22 AM
Without you we would have never known this breaking news.
The U.S. Department of State (DOS) Visa Bulletin for January 2008 contains more bad news for Indian nationals in the EB2 category. The cutoff date for EB2, India, retrogressed by two additional years, to January 1, 2000. Moreover, the prediction contained in the Visa Bulletin for EB2, India, is that the annual limit could be reached within the next few months. If this occurs, the category will become "unavailable" for the remainder of the fiscal year.
The explanation for this is simply that demand for visa numbers by the USCIS for EB2, India, adjustment-of-status cases far exceeds supply
EB3 cutoff dates either remained unchanged or moved slightly forward, depending upon country of chargeability. The January Visa Bulletin cutoff dates become effective on January 1, 2008. Until that time, the December 2007 Visa Bulletin cutoff dates remain valid.
thanks
ram
The U.S. Department of State (DOS) Visa Bulletin for January 2008 contains more bad news for Indian nationals in the EB2 category. The cutoff date for EB2, India, retrogressed by two additional years, to January 1, 2000. Moreover, the prediction contained in the Visa Bulletin for EB2, India, is that the annual limit could be reached within the next few months. If this occurs, the category will become "unavailable" for the remainder of the fiscal year.
The explanation for this is simply that demand for visa numbers by the USCIS for EB2, India, adjustment-of-status cases far exceeds supply
EB3 cutoff dates either remained unchanged or moved slightly forward, depending upon country of chargeability. The January Visa Bulletin cutoff dates become effective on January 1, 2008. Until that time, the December 2007 Visa Bulletin cutoff dates remain valid.
thanks
ram
more...
gparr
June 14th, 2005, 03:16 AM
I use Canon gear, so am not much help with Nikon. However, my macro lens is the Sigma EX 105 and I think it is one of the best lens values available. I've owned it for a year now and use it more than any other of my lenses. Autofocus is slow, but I have yet to figure out why I'd want autofocus for macro work, so it doesn't matter. To get more reach, I'm seriously considering the new Sigma EX 150 macro. It is getting excellent reviews and images I've seen are as good as they get. I don't use any other magnifying techniques, so I can't offer any help with some of the other items you mentioned. Here's my current favorite shot with the Sigma macro.
Gary
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/rose01.jpg
Gary
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/rose01.jpg
desimass77
05-11 01:56 PM
Yes, my school did query with USCIS and got the confirmation that I am at AOS stage. I got AP valied for one year, but I did talk to the school stating that since I am within USA I will not get I-94 as I-94 is given to people who are entering from outside. As my new AP is issued by USCIS it is a valied document.
My FAO communicated with their International Students office who handles immigration issues to confirm this and I got my Loan approved.
Good Luck
Hi desimass77. How do you convince the school that you are qualified?
My wife has a similar situation. We tried to convince school that we are qualified under "parolee" category. However, my wife's I-94 expires (she entered US using AP last June). Her school uses this reason to reject again. Now, we decide to re-enter US again to get a fresh I-94.
Her school officials say that they are going to query USCIS database once my wife gets a new I94 stamp. It is something called G-845 form.
Just curious, did you school query USCIS database on your case? Or your school just think yo are qualified?
I think the "parolee" category is really ambiguous, since it requires student to enter US with parole for at least one year. On the other hand, it wants I-94 unexpired. AP can hardly fit into this category, as if we entered US, the valid length is usually less than 1 year, unless we re-enter US on the exact same date when the AP was issued.
Please, if anybody successfully convinced school on FAFSA, please share your experience here!
My FAO communicated with their International Students office who handles immigration issues to confirm this and I got my Loan approved.
Good Luck
Hi desimass77. How do you convince the school that you are qualified?
My wife has a similar situation. We tried to convince school that we are qualified under "parolee" category. However, my wife's I-94 expires (she entered US using AP last June). Her school uses this reason to reject again. Now, we decide to re-enter US again to get a fresh I-94.
Her school officials say that they are going to query USCIS database once my wife gets a new I94 stamp. It is something called G-845 form.
Just curious, did you school query USCIS database on your case? Or your school just think yo are qualified?
I think the "parolee" category is really ambiguous, since it requires student to enter US with parole for at least one year. On the other hand, it wants I-94 unexpired. AP can hardly fit into this category, as if we entered US, the valid length is usually less than 1 year, unless we re-enter US on the exact same date when the AP was issued.
Please, if anybody successfully convinced school on FAFSA, please share your experience here!
more...
Blog Feeds
02-05 06:40 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
H-1B workers certainly seem to be under fire these days on many fronts. A new memo issued by USCIS on the employer-employee relationship imposes new extra-regulatory regulations on the types of activities in which H-1B workers can engage as well as the types of enterprises that can petition for H-1B workers. The memo targets the consulting industry directly, deftly slips in a new concept that seems to prohibit H-1B petitions for employer-owners of businesses, and will surely constitute an open invitation to the Service Centers to hit H-1B petitioners with a new slew of kitchen-sink RFE's. On another front, USCIS continues to make unannounced H-1B site visits, often repeatedly to the same employer. Apart from the "in-terrorem" impact of such visits, I personally cannot see the utility of three different visits to the same employer, particularly after the first one or two visits show that the employer is fully compliant.
But USCIS isn't the only agency that is rigorously targeting H-1B's. An AILA member recently reported that CBP pulled newly-arrived Indian nationals holding H-1B visas out of an immigration inspection line and reportedly placed them in Expedited Removal. The legal basis of those actions is still unclear. However, the tactic is too close to racial profiling for my own comfort.
Finally, recent H-1B "skirmishes" include various U.S. consular posts in India issuing "pink letters" that are, simply put, consular "RFE's" appearing to question the bona fides of the H-1B and requesting information on a host of truly repetitive and/or irrelevant topics. Much of the information that is routinely requested on a pink letter is already in the copy of the H-1B visa petition. Some of the letters request payroll information for all employees of the sponsoring company, a ridiculous request in most instances, particularly for major multi-national companies. One of the most frustrating actions we are seeing from consular officers in this context is the checking off or highlighting of every single category of additional information on the form letter, whether directly applicable or not, in effect a "paper wall" that must be overcome before an applicant can have the H-1B visa issued. Very discouraging to both employer and employee.
How have we come to a point in time where the H-1B category in and of itself is so disdained and mistrusted? Of course I'm aware that instances of fraud have cast this category in a bad light. But I think that vehemence of the administrative attack on the H-1B category is so disproportionate to the actual statistics about fraud. And interestingly, the disproportionate heavy-handed administrative reaction comes not from the agency specifically tasked with H-1B enforcement�the Department of Labor�but from CIS, CBP and State. Sometimes I just have to shake my head and ask myself what makes people so darn angry about a visa category that, at bottom, is designed to bring in relatively tiny number of really smart people to work in U.S. businesses of any size. It has to be a reaction against something else.
Yes, a great number of IT consultants come to the US on H-1B's. It is important to remember that so many of these individuals are extremely well-educated, capable people, working in an industry in which there are a large number of high profile players. And arguably, the high profile consulting companies have the most at stake if they do not focus on compliance, as they are the easiest enforcement target and they need their business model to work in the U.S. in order to survive. Some people may not like the business model, although arguably IT consulting companies provide needed services that allow US businesses, such as banks and insurance companies to focus on their own core strengths. Like it or not, though, this business model is perfectly legal under current law, and the agencies that enforce our immigration laws have no business trying to eviscerate it by policy or a pattern of discretionary actions.
It is true that some IT consulting companies' practices have been the focus of fraud investigations. But DOL has stringent rules in place to deal with the bad guys. Benching H-1B workers without pay, paying below the prevailing wage, sending H-1B workers on long-term assignments to a site not covered by an LCA�these are the practices we most often hear about, and every single one of these is a violation of an existing regulation that could be enforced by the Department of Labor. When an employer violates wage and hour rules, DOL investigates the practices and enforces the regulations against that employer. But no one shuts down an entire industry as a result.
And the IT consulting industry is not the only user of the H-1B visa. Let's not forget how many other critical fields use H-1B workers. In my own career alone, I have seen H-1B petitions for nanoscientists, ornithologists, CEO's of significant not for profit organizations, teachers, applied mathematicians, risk analysts, professionals involved in pharmaceutical research and development, automotive designers, international legal experts, film editors, microimaging engineers. H-1B's are valuable to small and large businesses alike, arguably even more to that emerging business that needs one key expert to develop a new product or service and get the business off the ground.
The assault on H-1B's is not only offensive, it's dangerous. Here's why:
H-1B's create jobs�statistics show that 5 jobs are created in the U.S. for every H-1B worker hired. An administrative clamp-down in the program will hinder this job creation. And think about the valuable sharing of skills and expertise between H-1B workers and U.S. workers�this is lost when companies are discouraged from using the program.
The anti-H-1B assault dissuades large businesses from conducting research and development in the US, and encourages the relocation of those facilities in jurisdictions that are friendlier to foreign professionals.
The anti-H-1B assault chills the formation of small businesses in the US, particularly in emerging technologies. This will most certainly be one of the long-term results of USCIS' most recent memo.
The attack on H-1B's offends our friends and allies in the world. An example: Earlier this year India �one of the U.S.'s closest allies --announced new visa restrictions on foreign nationals working there. Surely the treatment of Indian national H-1B workers at the hands of our agencies involved in the immigration process would not have escaped the attention of the Indian government as they issued their own restrictions.
The increasing challenges in the H-1B program may have the effect of encouraging foreign students who were educated in the U.S. to seek permanent positions elsewhere.
Whatever the cause of the visceral reaction against H-1B workers might be�whether it stems from a fear that fraud will become more widespread or whether it is simply a broader reaction against foreign workers that often raises its head during any down economy �I sincerely hope that the agencies are able to gain some perspective on the program that allows them to treat legitimate H-1B employers and employees with the respect they deserve and to effectively enforce against those who are non-compliant, rather than casting a wide net and treating all H-1B users as abusers.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-7575642888668204601?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/why-is-h-1b-dirty-word.html)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
H-1B workers certainly seem to be under fire these days on many fronts. A new memo issued by USCIS on the employer-employee relationship imposes new extra-regulatory regulations on the types of activities in which H-1B workers can engage as well as the types of enterprises that can petition for H-1B workers. The memo targets the consulting industry directly, deftly slips in a new concept that seems to prohibit H-1B petitions for employer-owners of businesses, and will surely constitute an open invitation to the Service Centers to hit H-1B petitioners with a new slew of kitchen-sink RFE's. On another front, USCIS continues to make unannounced H-1B site visits, often repeatedly to the same employer. Apart from the "in-terrorem" impact of such visits, I personally cannot see the utility of three different visits to the same employer, particularly after the first one or two visits show that the employer is fully compliant.
But USCIS isn't the only agency that is rigorously targeting H-1B's. An AILA member recently reported that CBP pulled newly-arrived Indian nationals holding H-1B visas out of an immigration inspection line and reportedly placed them in Expedited Removal. The legal basis of those actions is still unclear. However, the tactic is too close to racial profiling for my own comfort.
Finally, recent H-1B "skirmishes" include various U.S. consular posts in India issuing "pink letters" that are, simply put, consular "RFE's" appearing to question the bona fides of the H-1B and requesting information on a host of truly repetitive and/or irrelevant topics. Much of the information that is routinely requested on a pink letter is already in the copy of the H-1B visa petition. Some of the letters request payroll information for all employees of the sponsoring company, a ridiculous request in most instances, particularly for major multi-national companies. One of the most frustrating actions we are seeing from consular officers in this context is the checking off or highlighting of every single category of additional information on the form letter, whether directly applicable or not, in effect a "paper wall" that must be overcome before an applicant can have the H-1B visa issued. Very discouraging to both employer and employee.
How have we come to a point in time where the H-1B category in and of itself is so disdained and mistrusted? Of course I'm aware that instances of fraud have cast this category in a bad light. But I think that vehemence of the administrative attack on the H-1B category is so disproportionate to the actual statistics about fraud. And interestingly, the disproportionate heavy-handed administrative reaction comes not from the agency specifically tasked with H-1B enforcement�the Department of Labor�but from CIS, CBP and State. Sometimes I just have to shake my head and ask myself what makes people so darn angry about a visa category that, at bottom, is designed to bring in relatively tiny number of really smart people to work in U.S. businesses of any size. It has to be a reaction against something else.
Yes, a great number of IT consultants come to the US on H-1B's. It is important to remember that so many of these individuals are extremely well-educated, capable people, working in an industry in which there are a large number of high profile players. And arguably, the high profile consulting companies have the most at stake if they do not focus on compliance, as they are the easiest enforcement target and they need their business model to work in the U.S. in order to survive. Some people may not like the business model, although arguably IT consulting companies provide needed services that allow US businesses, such as banks and insurance companies to focus on their own core strengths. Like it or not, though, this business model is perfectly legal under current law, and the agencies that enforce our immigration laws have no business trying to eviscerate it by policy or a pattern of discretionary actions.
It is true that some IT consulting companies' practices have been the focus of fraud investigations. But DOL has stringent rules in place to deal with the bad guys. Benching H-1B workers without pay, paying below the prevailing wage, sending H-1B workers on long-term assignments to a site not covered by an LCA�these are the practices we most often hear about, and every single one of these is a violation of an existing regulation that could be enforced by the Department of Labor. When an employer violates wage and hour rules, DOL investigates the practices and enforces the regulations against that employer. But no one shuts down an entire industry as a result.
And the IT consulting industry is not the only user of the H-1B visa. Let's not forget how many other critical fields use H-1B workers. In my own career alone, I have seen H-1B petitions for nanoscientists, ornithologists, CEO's of significant not for profit organizations, teachers, applied mathematicians, risk analysts, professionals involved in pharmaceutical research and development, automotive designers, international legal experts, film editors, microimaging engineers. H-1B's are valuable to small and large businesses alike, arguably even more to that emerging business that needs one key expert to develop a new product or service and get the business off the ground.
The assault on H-1B's is not only offensive, it's dangerous. Here's why:
H-1B's create jobs�statistics show that 5 jobs are created in the U.S. for every H-1B worker hired. An administrative clamp-down in the program will hinder this job creation. And think about the valuable sharing of skills and expertise between H-1B workers and U.S. workers�this is lost when companies are discouraged from using the program.
The anti-H-1B assault dissuades large businesses from conducting research and development in the US, and encourages the relocation of those facilities in jurisdictions that are friendlier to foreign professionals.
The anti-H-1B assault chills the formation of small businesses in the US, particularly in emerging technologies. This will most certainly be one of the long-term results of USCIS' most recent memo.
The attack on H-1B's offends our friends and allies in the world. An example: Earlier this year India �one of the U.S.'s closest allies --announced new visa restrictions on foreign nationals working there. Surely the treatment of Indian national H-1B workers at the hands of our agencies involved in the immigration process would not have escaped the attention of the Indian government as they issued their own restrictions.
The increasing challenges in the H-1B program may have the effect of encouraging foreign students who were educated in the U.S. to seek permanent positions elsewhere.
Whatever the cause of the visceral reaction against H-1B workers might be�whether it stems from a fear that fraud will become more widespread or whether it is simply a broader reaction against foreign workers that often raises its head during any down economy �I sincerely hope that the agencies are able to gain some perspective on the program that allows them to treat legitimate H-1B employers and employees with the respect they deserve and to effectively enforce against those who are non-compliant, rather than casting a wide net and treating all H-1B users as abusers.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-7575642888668204601?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/why-is-h-1b-dirty-word.html)
beppenyc
02-04 04:39 PM
Do you think that the post poned to march for the senate debate is due to preparation to handle the 11 milion immigrants?
Another question, i feel some anymosity (sorry for my english) for the Illegals immigrants, i am not one of them, i am legal and beleive i don`t have any problem for a visa, but as immigrant i see a lot of them struggling and working like animals for few dollars, and sometime they become illegals due to the confusion about the law. Do you know how much cost a lawier ? I really think that exist only immigration, no difference for me.
Another question, i feel some anymosity (sorry for my english) for the Illegals immigrants, i am not one of them, i am legal and beleive i don`t have any problem for a visa, but as immigrant i see a lot of them struggling and working like animals for few dollars, and sometime they become illegals due to the confusion about the law. Do you know how much cost a lawier ? I really think that exist only immigration, no difference for me.
more...
brij523
02-18 07:05 PM
Hu Hu I got two people who will join Conf. Anyone else ready to help themself!
Dhundhun
06-26 04:13 AM
...The instructions in I-131 form says, the application will be abondoned if the person leaves the country after filing I-131.
I think that when intent of filing I-131 is to get AP, and when (s)he goes out of country, (s)he can't come back to USA. AP can't be mailed.
But it the following scenario it is possible to go out after filing I-131 (my guess) and return safely:
-- When a person is having vaild H-1B or H4 visa
-- When a person is already having AP and is returning within the validity existing AP.
I think that when intent of filing I-131 is to get AP, and when (s)he goes out of country, (s)he can't come back to USA. AP can't be mailed.
But it the following scenario it is possible to go out after filing I-131 (my guess) and return safely:
-- When a person is having vaild H-1B or H4 visa
-- When a person is already having AP and is returning within the validity existing AP.
more...
Lacris
08-09 10:41 PM
I was wondering if we could have on this site some reliable information about the most important aspects of GC processing. People are posting a lot all the time and asking the same things all over again, and while many answers are pertinent, we must realize not everyone knows the laws and rules.Not to mention how much time it takes to search the threads and find what you want to know. If there was a place where they could lookup the information they need and this information would be provided by knowledgeable persons, like admins or moderators, not other members, maybe we could avoid having so many threads and posts.I understand that would involve some effort, but in the end there would not be so much need to go thru all the posts and make sure people are not misleading others or create panic.
Of course, this is stil a forum and it's only natural to have people expressing themselves, but maybe in that situation they would not have to post so much and use the space on the servers.
Thank you
Of course, this is stil a forum and it's only natural to have people expressing themselves, but maybe in that situation they would not have to post so much and use the space on the servers.
Thank you
sshrika@gmail.com
10-14 09:27 PM
Hello,
I am currently working as full time and planning to move to consulting. I have the below questions
(i) I know its a bit risky to move to consulting right now compared to Fulltime, but still i See the H1 petetions for most of consutling companies are getting approved.
Do you think is it OK to move to consulting from Full time?
(ii)As client letter is mandatory these dayz, whats the best approach to apply for transfer? Like e finding the project and proceed for premium processing
Thanks
I am currently working as full time and planning to move to consulting. I have the below questions
(i) I know its a bit risky to move to consulting right now compared to Fulltime, but still i See the H1 petetions for most of consutling companies are getting approved.
Do you think is it OK to move to consulting from Full time?
(ii)As client letter is mandatory these dayz, whats the best approach to apply for transfer? Like e finding the project and proceed for premium processing
Thanks
more...
nomad
08-02 09:54 PM
Though my in-laws had an early appointment(945am, Chennai Consulate India) last month, they got their PP next day only. So they had to stay one more day in Chennai.
beppenyc
03-20 08:15 PM
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-20-2006/0004323801&EDATE=
Q Okay. My question is, since 9/11, one of the key things that we need
is immigration reform, including comprehensive immigration reform that is
right now in front of Senator Specter's committee in the Judiciary. There are
two principles I'm hoping that you would support: One, the good people, the
engineers, the PhDs, the doctors, the nurses, the people in the system who
have followed the rules, will go to the head of the line in any form of
immigration reform. That's Title IVz of the bill.
Secondly, the illegals who have not followed the rules -- I understand the
debate, I appreciate your statements about immigration reform, but isn't it
better that we know who they are, have them finger-printed and photographed,
and allow some form of 245I to come back so --
THE PRESIDENT: Tell people what that is. Tell people what 245I is.
Q Okay -- 245I is a partial amnesty program that expired back in 2001,
in fact, was going to be voted on on 9/11, unfortunately. But those -- it was
a small segment of the illegal population where they would pay the $1,000 fine
and, for example, coming in illegally, then marrying an American citizen,
could somehow legalize their status.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay. Let me give you some broad principles on
immigration reform as I see them. First of all, we do need to know who's
coming into our country and whether they're coming in illegally, or not
legally -- legally or not legally -- and whether they're coming in or going
out. And part of reforms after September the 11th was a better system of
finding out who's coming here.
Secondly, we have a big border between Texas and Mexico that's really hard
to enforce. We got to do everything we can to enforce the border,
particularly in the south. I mean, it's the place where people are pouring
across in order to find work. We have a situation in our own neighborhood
where there are way -- disparities are huge, and there are jobs in America
that people won't do. That's just a fact. I met an onion grower today at the
airport when I arrived, and he said, you got to help me find people that will
grow onions -- pluck them, or whatever you do with them, you know.
(Laughter.) There are jobs that just simply aren't getting done because
Americans won't do them. And yet, if you're making 50 cents an hour in
Mexico, and you can make a lot more in America, and you got mouths to feed,
you're going to come and try to find the work. It's a big border, of which --
across which people are coming to provide a living for their families.
Step one of any immigration policy is to enforce our border in practical
ways. We are spending additional resources to be able to use different
detection devices, unmanned UAVs, to help -- and expand Border Patrol, by the
way, expand the number of agents on the border, to make sure we're getting
them the tools necessary to stop people from coming across in the first place.
Secondly, part of the issue we've had in the past is we've had -- for lack
of a better word -- catch and release; the Border Patrol would find people
sneaking in; they would then hold them for a period of time; they'd say, come
back and check in with us 45 days later, and then they wouldn't check in 45
days later. And they would disappear in society to do the work that some
Americans will not do.
And so we're changing catch and release. We're particularly focusing on
those from Central America who are coming across Mexico's southern border,
ending up in our own -- it's a long answer, but it's an important question:
How do we protect our borders, and at the same time, be a humane society?
Anyway, step one, focus on enforcing border; when we find people, send
them home, so that the work of our Border Patrol is productive work.
Secondly, it seems like to me that part of having a border security
program is to say to people who are hiring people here illegally, we're going
to hold you to account. The problem is our employers don't know whether
they're hiring people illegally because there's a whole forgery industry
around people being smuggled into the United States. There's a smuggling
industry and a forgery industry. And it's hard to ask our employers, the
onion guy out there, whether or not he's got -- whether or not the documents
that he's being shown that look real are real.
And so here's a better proposal than what we're doing today, which is to
say, if you're going to come to do a job an American won't do, you ought to be
given a foolproof card that says you can come for a limited period of time and
do work in a job an American won't do. That's border security because it
means that people will be willing to come in legally with a card to do work on
a limited basis, and then go home. And so the agents won't be chasing people
being smuggled in 18-wheelers or across the Arizona desert. They'll be able
to focus on drugs and terrorists and guns.
The fundamental question that he is referring to is, what do we do about -
- there's two questions -- one, should we have amnesty? And the answer, in my
judgment, is, no, we shouldn't have amnesty. In my judgment, granting
amnesty, automatic citizenship -- that's what amnesty means -- would cause
another 11 million people, or however many are here, to come in the hopes of
becoming a United States citizen. We shouldn't have amnesty. We ought to
have a program that says, you get in line like everybody else gets in line;
and that if the Congress feels like there needs to be higher quotas on certain
nationalities, raise the quotas. But don't let people get in front of the
line for somebody who has been playing by the rules. (Applause.)
And so, anyway, that's my ideas on good immigration policy. Obviously,
there's going to be some questions we have to answer: What about the person
who's been here since 1987 -- '86 was the last attempt at coming up with
immigration reform -- been here for a long period of time. They've raised a
family here. And my only advice for the Congress and for people in the debate
is understand what made America. We're a land of immigrants. This guy is
from Hungary, you know. (Applause.) And we got to treat people fairly.
We've got to have a system of law that is respectful for people.
I mean, the idea of having a program that causes people to get stuck in
the back of 18-wheelers, to risk their lives to sneak into America to do work
that some people won't do is just not American, in my judgment. And so I
would hope the debate would be civil and uphold the honor of this country.
And remember, we've been through these periods before, where the immigration
debate can get harsh. And it should not be harsh. And I hope -- my call for
people is to be rational about the debate and thoughtful about what words can
mean during this debate.
Final question, sir. You're paying me a lot of money and I got to go back
to work. (Laughter.)
PS I did not know about the story of I-245 on 9/11....
Q Okay. My question is, since 9/11, one of the key things that we need
is immigration reform, including comprehensive immigration reform that is
right now in front of Senator Specter's committee in the Judiciary. There are
two principles I'm hoping that you would support: One, the good people, the
engineers, the PhDs, the doctors, the nurses, the people in the system who
have followed the rules, will go to the head of the line in any form of
immigration reform. That's Title IVz of the bill.
Secondly, the illegals who have not followed the rules -- I understand the
debate, I appreciate your statements about immigration reform, but isn't it
better that we know who they are, have them finger-printed and photographed,
and allow some form of 245I to come back so --
THE PRESIDENT: Tell people what that is. Tell people what 245I is.
Q Okay -- 245I is a partial amnesty program that expired back in 2001,
in fact, was going to be voted on on 9/11, unfortunately. But those -- it was
a small segment of the illegal population where they would pay the $1,000 fine
and, for example, coming in illegally, then marrying an American citizen,
could somehow legalize their status.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay. Let me give you some broad principles on
immigration reform as I see them. First of all, we do need to know who's
coming into our country and whether they're coming in illegally, or not
legally -- legally or not legally -- and whether they're coming in or going
out. And part of reforms after September the 11th was a better system of
finding out who's coming here.
Secondly, we have a big border between Texas and Mexico that's really hard
to enforce. We got to do everything we can to enforce the border,
particularly in the south. I mean, it's the place where people are pouring
across in order to find work. We have a situation in our own neighborhood
where there are way -- disparities are huge, and there are jobs in America
that people won't do. That's just a fact. I met an onion grower today at the
airport when I arrived, and he said, you got to help me find people that will
grow onions -- pluck them, or whatever you do with them, you know.
(Laughter.) There are jobs that just simply aren't getting done because
Americans won't do them. And yet, if you're making 50 cents an hour in
Mexico, and you can make a lot more in America, and you got mouths to feed,
you're going to come and try to find the work. It's a big border, of which --
across which people are coming to provide a living for their families.
Step one of any immigration policy is to enforce our border in practical
ways. We are spending additional resources to be able to use different
detection devices, unmanned UAVs, to help -- and expand Border Patrol, by the
way, expand the number of agents on the border, to make sure we're getting
them the tools necessary to stop people from coming across in the first place.
Secondly, part of the issue we've had in the past is we've had -- for lack
of a better word -- catch and release; the Border Patrol would find people
sneaking in; they would then hold them for a period of time; they'd say, come
back and check in with us 45 days later, and then they wouldn't check in 45
days later. And they would disappear in society to do the work that some
Americans will not do.
And so we're changing catch and release. We're particularly focusing on
those from Central America who are coming across Mexico's southern border,
ending up in our own -- it's a long answer, but it's an important question:
How do we protect our borders, and at the same time, be a humane society?
Anyway, step one, focus on enforcing border; when we find people, send
them home, so that the work of our Border Patrol is productive work.
Secondly, it seems like to me that part of having a border security
program is to say to people who are hiring people here illegally, we're going
to hold you to account. The problem is our employers don't know whether
they're hiring people illegally because there's a whole forgery industry
around people being smuggled into the United States. There's a smuggling
industry and a forgery industry. And it's hard to ask our employers, the
onion guy out there, whether or not he's got -- whether or not the documents
that he's being shown that look real are real.
And so here's a better proposal than what we're doing today, which is to
say, if you're going to come to do a job an American won't do, you ought to be
given a foolproof card that says you can come for a limited period of time and
do work in a job an American won't do. That's border security because it
means that people will be willing to come in legally with a card to do work on
a limited basis, and then go home. And so the agents won't be chasing people
being smuggled in 18-wheelers or across the Arizona desert. They'll be able
to focus on drugs and terrorists and guns.
The fundamental question that he is referring to is, what do we do about -
- there's two questions -- one, should we have amnesty? And the answer, in my
judgment, is, no, we shouldn't have amnesty. In my judgment, granting
amnesty, automatic citizenship -- that's what amnesty means -- would cause
another 11 million people, or however many are here, to come in the hopes of
becoming a United States citizen. We shouldn't have amnesty. We ought to
have a program that says, you get in line like everybody else gets in line;
and that if the Congress feels like there needs to be higher quotas on certain
nationalities, raise the quotas. But don't let people get in front of the
line for somebody who has been playing by the rules. (Applause.)
And so, anyway, that's my ideas on good immigration policy. Obviously,
there's going to be some questions we have to answer: What about the person
who's been here since 1987 -- '86 was the last attempt at coming up with
immigration reform -- been here for a long period of time. They've raised a
family here. And my only advice for the Congress and for people in the debate
is understand what made America. We're a land of immigrants. This guy is
from Hungary, you know. (Applause.) And we got to treat people fairly.
We've got to have a system of law that is respectful for people.
I mean, the idea of having a program that causes people to get stuck in
the back of 18-wheelers, to risk their lives to sneak into America to do work
that some people won't do is just not American, in my judgment. And so I
would hope the debate would be civil and uphold the honor of this country.
And remember, we've been through these periods before, where the immigration
debate can get harsh. And it should not be harsh. And I hope -- my call for
people is to be rational about the debate and thoughtful about what words can
mean during this debate.
Final question, sir. You're paying me a lot of money and I got to go back
to work. (Laughter.)
PS I did not know about the story of I-245 on 9/11....
hebbar77
09-10 12:28 PM
MY PD is july 2004 (I485 filed on 2 July 2007 with ND date 8/9/2007) and I did not get any approvals so I opened a SR on 09/03/09.
Yesterday I received a "DISTURBING" response to the SR saying that my dates are not current because I am in EB3. I am EB2 and had only I140 approved way back in Nov 2006. So I created another SR (with the help of a nice CSR by calling USCIS yesterday 09/09/09) today morning I went for an infopass appointment in DallaS, TX to check why the USCIS is saying my case is in EB3 and not EB2. Luckily at the Infopass I was assigned to a Desi IO to help me with my issue. He spent lot of time looking researching my case and told me that my case is EB2 and the dates are current. During my Infopass appointment the IO noticed that someone audited my case few seconds before and showed me the screen where it showed that my case was PreAdjudicated. He said it looks like soneone is working on the case and I should hear from USCIS quickly. I am sure that the Second SR triggered some one to look at the case. And might be they corrected the EB category.
Now I am eagerly awaiting my approval (primary + 2 Dependents).
My suggesstion to people who are waiting (With PD's before Feb 2005 ) are to Open SR , make Infopass appointments to check on the status. Its very important to know if there are any problems in your case similar to mine.
If anyone needs any help with Opening SR or creating Infopass PM me and I will be glad to help.
My case looks same as urs! thanks for writing.
I just hung up with USCIS before I read this.
first person transferred the call to someone else , that person gave me an email address to forward the earlier SR response and explain the problem!
Yesterday I received a "DISTURBING" response to the SR saying that my dates are not current because I am in EB3. I am EB2 and had only I140 approved way back in Nov 2006. So I created another SR (with the help of a nice CSR by calling USCIS yesterday 09/09/09) today morning I went for an infopass appointment in DallaS, TX to check why the USCIS is saying my case is in EB3 and not EB2. Luckily at the Infopass I was assigned to a Desi IO to help me with my issue. He spent lot of time looking researching my case and told me that my case is EB2 and the dates are current. During my Infopass appointment the IO noticed that someone audited my case few seconds before and showed me the screen where it showed that my case was PreAdjudicated. He said it looks like soneone is working on the case and I should hear from USCIS quickly. I am sure that the Second SR triggered some one to look at the case. And might be they corrected the EB category.
Now I am eagerly awaiting my approval (primary + 2 Dependents).
My suggesstion to people who are waiting (With PD's before Feb 2005 ) are to Open SR , make Infopass appointments to check on the status. Its very important to know if there are any problems in your case similar to mine.
If anyone needs any help with Opening SR or creating Infopass PM me and I will be glad to help.
My case looks same as urs! thanks for writing.
I just hung up with USCIS before I read this.
first person transferred the call to someone else , that person gave me an email address to forward the earlier SR response and explain the problem!
GreenCard4US
03-20 04:57 PM
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200903210312.htm
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Washington (PTI): In a blow to Indian professionals, the U.S. on Friday announced additional measures for hiring of foreign specialists under the H-1B visa work programme making it more difficult for the companies receiving federal aid money to hire overseas workers.
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced the measures to enforce the provisions of the new Employ American Workers Act (EAWA) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which prohibits hiring of H-1B visa holders by American companies who receive the federal aid money. Indian nationals account for bulk of the coveted H-1B visas.
These measures come about ten days before the USCIS starts accepting petitions for new H-1B visas for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2009.
"Under this legislation any company that has received covered funding and seeks to hire new H-1B workers is considered an 'H-1B dependent employer'.
All H-1B dependent employers must make additional attestations to the U.S. Department of Labour (DOL) when filing the Labour Condition Application (LCA)," the USCIS said.
"USCIS reminds petitioners that a valid LCA must be on file with DOL at the time the H-1B petition is filed with USCIS," it said.
This means that if the petitioner indicates on its petition that it is subject to the EAWA, but the Labour Condition Application does not contain the proper attestations relating to H-1B dependent employers, USCIS will deny the H-1B petition, the statement said.
Besides, the USCIS is revising Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, to include a question asking whether the petitioner has received covered funding.
USCIS is expected to post this revised form on its web site in time for the next cap subject to H-1B filing period that begins on April l.
While USCIS encourages petitioners, whenever possible, to use the most up-to-date form, USCIS will not require use of the revised form in time for the start of the filing period for fiscal year 2010, it said.
At the same time, USCIS urged H-1B petitioners who have already prepared packages for mailing using the previous Form I-129 (January 2009 version) to complete only the page in the revised version of the Form I-129 (March 2009) which has the new question on EAWA attestation requirements and to file this single page with the prepared package.
USCIS said EAWA applies to any Labour Condition Application (LCA) and/or H-1B petition filed on or after February 17, involving any employment by a new employer, including concurrent employment and regardless of whether the beneficiary is already in H-1B status.
The EAWA also applies to new hires based on a petition approved before February 17, 2009, if the H-1B employee had not actually commenced employment before that date.
However, EAWA does not apply to H-1B petitions seeking to change the status of a beneficiary already working for the employer in another work-authorised category. It also does not apply to H-1B petitions seeking an extension of stay for a current employee with the same employer.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Washington (PTI): In a blow to Indian professionals, the U.S. on Friday announced additional measures for hiring of foreign specialists under the H-1B visa work programme making it more difficult for the companies receiving federal aid money to hire overseas workers.
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced the measures to enforce the provisions of the new Employ American Workers Act (EAWA) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which prohibits hiring of H-1B visa holders by American companies who receive the federal aid money. Indian nationals account for bulk of the coveted H-1B visas.
These measures come about ten days before the USCIS starts accepting petitions for new H-1B visas for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2009.
"Under this legislation any company that has received covered funding and seeks to hire new H-1B workers is considered an 'H-1B dependent employer'.
All H-1B dependent employers must make additional attestations to the U.S. Department of Labour (DOL) when filing the Labour Condition Application (LCA)," the USCIS said.
"USCIS reminds petitioners that a valid LCA must be on file with DOL at the time the H-1B petition is filed with USCIS," it said.
This means that if the petitioner indicates on its petition that it is subject to the EAWA, but the Labour Condition Application does not contain the proper attestations relating to H-1B dependent employers, USCIS will deny the H-1B petition, the statement said.
Besides, the USCIS is revising Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, to include a question asking whether the petitioner has received covered funding.
USCIS is expected to post this revised form on its web site in time for the next cap subject to H-1B filing period that begins on April l.
While USCIS encourages petitioners, whenever possible, to use the most up-to-date form, USCIS will not require use of the revised form in time for the start of the filing period for fiscal year 2010, it said.
At the same time, USCIS urged H-1B petitioners who have already prepared packages for mailing using the previous Form I-129 (January 2009 version) to complete only the page in the revised version of the Form I-129 (March 2009) which has the new question on EAWA attestation requirements and to file this single page with the prepared package.
USCIS said EAWA applies to any Labour Condition Application (LCA) and/or H-1B petition filed on or after February 17, involving any employment by a new employer, including concurrent employment and regardless of whether the beneficiary is already in H-1B status.
The EAWA also applies to new hires based on a petition approved before February 17, 2009, if the H-1B employee had not actually commenced employment before that date.
However, EAWA does not apply to H-1B petitions seeking to change the status of a beneficiary already working for the employer in another work-authorised category. It also does not apply to H-1B petitions seeking an extension of stay for a current employee with the same employer.
krishmunn
01-26 02:23 PM
Good, so I'm not the only one who feels that Murthy is dominated by uncivilized conversations. IV came as such a breath of fresh air because everyone here is polite and agree to disagree in a civil manner.
BTW is that famous member "J***f"....lol. He's been getting bashed at Murthy a bit too lately. He's like a schoolyard bully who just enjoys pouncing on people and giving unnecessary gyan.
Bull's eye ! Thsi is the member who has been banned from another forum and then he entered thsi forum.
BTW is that famous member "J***f"....lol. He's been getting bashed at Murthy a bit too lately. He's like a schoolyard bully who just enjoys pouncing on people and giving unnecessary gyan.
Bull's eye ! Thsi is the member who has been banned from another forum and then he entered thsi forum.