ramus
05-21 09:09 AM
This is time to send press release to media and not for this document. Please visit press relese thred.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
vasa
07-08 04:43 PM
5 stars and posted comments..good job dude
GCwaitforever
03-07 04:28 PM
I saw something like April 30th of this year. Please post your comments opposing this fee increase.
webm
02-13 04:22 PM
Folks,
Need a little advice. We (my husband and I) filed our 485 on July 2 under EB-3and have received AP, EAD, FP etc. Our PD date (July 7, 2001) got current in the March bulletin:). I wanted to check if there is way to find out if our cases have been adjudicated and are ready for approval as and when a visa # is allocated in March.
Thanks
One more criteria is,If your 485 Notice Date falls prior to the processing dates (respective Processing Centre) as well THEN you can expect adjudicated in or after March depends on your Luck..
This criteria was mentioned in one of the recent thread in this forum..
Need a little advice. We (my husband and I) filed our 485 on July 2 under EB-3and have received AP, EAD, FP etc. Our PD date (July 7, 2001) got current in the March bulletin:). I wanted to check if there is way to find out if our cases have been adjudicated and are ready for approval as and when a visa # is allocated in March.
Thanks
One more criteria is,If your 485 Notice Date falls prior to the processing dates (respective Processing Centre) as well THEN you can expect adjudicated in or after March depends on your Luck..
This criteria was mentioned in one of the recent thread in this forum..
more...
GCHope2011
08-10 02:17 PM
I recently heard that the new immigration bill is finally going to be passed in Oct 2010. The highlights would be mainly to use all the green cards alloted irrespective of any country. And to support this bill they will receive all the 485 applications irrespective of the PD. Can anyone confirm if this is accurate info.
Thanks.
It will be better if you could mention your sources. Otherwise, it is just speculation and wishful thinking.
Thanks.
It will be better if you could mention your sources. Otherwise, it is just speculation and wishful thinking.
bluez25
07-16 04:24 PM
I did submit through mail when I applied last year and it took for ever. My personnel preference DO NOT try that option. They atleast need 45 to 60 days for the PCC to be issued.
more...
pappu
12-31 09:03 AM
Is your case complicated or has multiple applications?
heywhat
07-26 10:07 AM
Option 1> Try to bring your wife to US before aug 17. (No risk at all)
Option 2> File it and do not use EAD and stay on H1b so you can bring your wife on H4. ( Thers is some risk. 99.99% USCIS is not going to do anything with your I485 till Oct'07 except sending you receipt. But god forbid, they approve your application before that then you are in trouble because you won't be able to bring your wife to US. Chances of happening this is very slim). Get benefit of AC21.
Option-3> Do not apply. And wait for 2005 becode current ( this is not going to happen atleast for next 3-4 years without any new legislation. And if you change job or somethingm, restart it from 0, no AC21 benefit.
In short, FILE IT....
Option 2> File it and do not use EAD and stay on H1b so you can bring your wife on H4. ( Thers is some risk. 99.99% USCIS is not going to do anything with your I485 till Oct'07 except sending you receipt. But god forbid, they approve your application before that then you are in trouble because you won't be able to bring your wife to US. Chances of happening this is very slim). Get benefit of AC21.
Option-3> Do not apply. And wait for 2005 becode current ( this is not going to happen atleast for next 3-4 years without any new legislation. And if you change job or somethingm, restart it from 0, no AC21 benefit.
In short, FILE IT....
more...
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
harivenkat
05-11 01:06 PM
This is happening right now
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) chaired a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on U.S. citizenship and immigration services. Alejandro Mayorkas, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services testified before the committee.
C-SPAN Video Player - Senate Judiciary Cmte. Hearing on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/05/11/HP/A/32807/Senate+Judiciary+Cmte+Hearing+on+US+Citizenship+an d+Immigration+Services.aspx)
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) chaired a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on U.S. citizenship and immigration services. Alejandro Mayorkas, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services testified before the committee.
C-SPAN Video Player - Senate Judiciary Cmte. Hearing on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/05/11/HP/A/32807/Senate+Judiciary+Cmte+Hearing+on+US+Citizenship+an d+Immigration+Services.aspx)
more...
eb3_nepa
11-06 12:21 PM
Concurrent H-1Bs are always non-cap.:)
What does that mean?
I guess the reason i am asking is coz my spouse can possibly get a job offer in the near future and i was wondering if there was ANY way in which she can get an H1 and start working without having to wait for Oct 2007 :(
ANY alternative solutions guys? She is on H4 right now and we are both Indian citizens (born in India).
What does that mean?
I guess the reason i am asking is coz my spouse can possibly get a job offer in the near future and i was wondering if there was ANY way in which she can get an H1 and start working without having to wait for Oct 2007 :(
ANY alternative solutions guys? She is on H4 right now and we are both Indian citizens (born in India).
newyorker123
09-02 08:03 AM
lj_rr,
you dont need any special form to make FOIA request to DOL.
"The Department of Labor does not require a special form in order to make a FOIA request. Requests must be in writing, either handwritten or typed. Requests may be submitted by fax, courier services, mail, or to foiarequest@dol.gov. Although, as discussed immediately below, certain information may be required from a requester. "
U.S. Department of Labor -- Freedom of Information Act Guide (http://www.dol.gov/dol/foia/guide6.htm#how)
I wanted both Approval notice and Application(ETA-750), please tell me how to make this request?
you dont need any special form to make FOIA request to DOL.
"The Department of Labor does not require a special form in order to make a FOIA request. Requests must be in writing, either handwritten or typed. Requests may be submitted by fax, courier services, mail, or to foiarequest@dol.gov. Although, as discussed immediately below, certain information may be required from a requester. "
U.S. Department of Labor -- Freedom of Information Act Guide (http://www.dol.gov/dol/foia/guide6.htm#how)
I wanted both Approval notice and Application(ETA-750), please tell me how to make this request?
more...
abhijitp
03-06 08:15 PM
Will scan and send on Monday.
Thanks for taking the initiative! Go IV!
Thanks for taking the initiative! Go IV!
bharad
08-03 12:25 PM
Very well said.
FIFO - FirstInFirstOut & LIFO - LastInFirstOut
Folks at USCIS follow a random method ie AIAO - AnytimeInAnytimeOut.
Enjoy the wait!
FIFO - FirstInFirstOut & LIFO - LastInFirstOut
Folks at USCIS follow a random method ie AIAO - AnytimeInAnytimeOut.
Enjoy the wait!
more...
ags123
07-26 06:23 PM
Per Lawyers response both AOS and CP are possible. When I mentioned 180 days the lawyer mentioned it is 2 yrs not 180 days for follow to join.
As long as marriage is before 485 it can be applied.
My question is where to file and I am going to go with Nebraska for now as I cant conclusively get any official source which says chicago lock box.
A
As long as marriage is before 485 it can be applied.
My question is where to file and I am going to go with Nebraska for now as I cant conclusively get any official source which says chicago lock box.
A
go_gc_way
05-18 11:32 AM
Great work guys !!!
more...
Arjun
03-15 11:32 AM
I agree, I think you can recieve incentives, but you cannot work (as an employee) for a corporation other than the H1B sponsor. In any case, as long as you report all of your income you are fine. I do'nt think IRS checks your status to validate your income.
H1-B folks are permitted to have sources of passive income from entities other than their H1 sponsor. This includes bank interests, stock dividends, profits from stock transactions etc. Most of these incomes are taxable and reported to the IRS on 1099-INT or 1099-DIV forms. When you open a bank account and get a bonus of, say $200, it is considered as interest earned.
The vital point to remember, I guess, is that H1s are NOT allowed to generate an income from any source (other that H1 sponsor) that needs any tangible work to be done- investments do not count as tangible work.
H1-B folks are permitted to have sources of passive income from entities other than their H1 sponsor. This includes bank interests, stock dividends, profits from stock transactions etc. Most of these incomes are taxable and reported to the IRS on 1099-INT or 1099-DIV forms. When you open a bank account and get a bonus of, say $200, it is considered as interest earned.
The vital point to remember, I guess, is that H1s are NOT allowed to generate an income from any source (other that H1 sponsor) that needs any tangible work to be done- investments do not count as tangible work.
delax
11-06 08:53 AM
Can we know which airline direct flight from Mumbai to Newark you mentioned something new or is it AirIndia??
Presently Continental is the only non-stop EWR-BOM service operated on a daily basis. AI flies EWR-CDG-BOM
Presently Continental is the only non-stop EWR-BOM service operated on a daily basis. AI flies EWR-CDG-BOM
indio0617
12-13 01:08 PM
That was my thought process too. If the immigration systems is corrected then I believe EB3 and EB2 will become current. Then it does not make a difference. Even late 90's the retrogression was there for both Eb2 and Eb3. IN 1999 they opened up for Y2K and then again retrogressed in 2001-2002 I believe. But again after that it was all current till the current retrogression.
Exactly ! That is my line of thought too. IF there is going to be a fix, it will be a remedy across the board for all EB2 and EB3. I can live with EB3 lagging behind a bit too. I am not going to get bogged down by which one is faster.
It is important for us to contribute our bit to get some legislative fix, but it is futile to endlessly speculate which category will move faster.
Exactly ! That is my line of thought too. IF there is going to be a fix, it will be a remedy across the board for all EB2 and EB3. I can live with EB3 lagging behind a bit too. I am not going to get bogged down by which one is faster.
It is important for us to contribute our bit to get some legislative fix, but it is futile to endlessly speculate which category will move faster.
reddysn
06-16 09:27 AM
My lawyer answered that one can work on OPT-EAD till one gets their I-485 EAD. So I guess you dont need to worry. Better check with ur lawyer also.
My wife has changed her status from H4 to F1 in last
year. She will be on F1-studies till July mid
of this year. Few weeks back she got her EAD for her
F1-OPT, which will start on Aug 15 of this year.
As I am going to file AOS for her and also EAD, will
she able to work on her OPT-EAD till she gets her
I-485 EAD? Or She need to wait till she gets her
I-485 EAD to work?
As far as I know she need to wait till she gets her EAD of 485.
I sent a mail to lawyer he did not respond yet.
She is going to meet her international advisor on this sometime next week
, but he does not seem to be an expert in this area.
any ideas on this one?
My wife has changed her status from H4 to F1 in last
year. She will be on F1-studies till July mid
of this year. Few weeks back she got her EAD for her
F1-OPT, which will start on Aug 15 of this year.
As I am going to file AOS for her and also EAD, will
she able to work on her OPT-EAD till she gets her
I-485 EAD? Or She need to wait till she gets her
I-485 EAD to work?
As far as I know she need to wait till she gets her EAD of 485.
I sent a mail to lawyer he did not respond yet.
She is going to meet her international advisor on this sometime next week
, but he does not seem to be an expert in this area.
any ideas on this one?
sandy_anand
01-24 10:09 AM
Guys, sorry I do not understand the numbers very well. Assuming the same amount of spillover numbers for 2011, what will be the status of EB2 by December-2011??
Thanks,
Prasad.
If EB2-India receives around 20000 visas in 2011, the EB2-India priority dates could move to between Feb 2007 and April 2007 depending on EB3-EB2 upgrades.
Thanks,
Prasad.
If EB2-India receives around 20000 visas in 2011, the EB2-India priority dates could move to between Feb 2007 and April 2007 depending on EB3-EB2 upgrades.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment