shuvro58
01-03 03:18 AM
hi all http://my-used-stuff.com/smiley.gif
syedajmal
09-20 08:28 PM
When I put in my application for a 7th year extension based on the fact that my labor was pending for more than a year, I did get a 3 year extension. My company lawyer applied again requesting a one year extension and I recently got it approved.
I believe the assumption from his side was that even though the labor was approved for 3 year it is upto us to get it corrected. Hope this helps. But I believe this would be a good question for one of those conference calls.
I believe the assumption from his side was that even though the labor was approved for 3 year it is upto us to get it corrected. Hope this helps. But I believe this would be a good question for one of those conference calls.
humdesi
02-17 03:59 AM
Which was effectively nullified by
"Default Re: Predicted Visa Bulletin movement
Nothing was said, but logically, unless there is worldwide EB3 movement, EB2 for China and India can't advance. EB for India and China have already maxed out for the year and all additional movement is based on leftovers from the rest of the world."
"Default Re: Predicted Visa Bulletin movement
Nothing was said, but logically, unless there is worldwide EB3 movement, EB2 for China and India can't advance. EB for India and China have already maxed out for the year and all additional movement is based on leftovers from the rest of the world."
pappu
04-16 10:46 AM
Admins,
Now a days I am seeing lots of questions asked by new members. If you have some mechanisms to show whether they have registered with valid data or fake data would help the other members who spend time in answering those questions.
I would request all the new members to contribute to our cause. Join monthly contribution of $20 and help yourselves. Thanks.
We get a lot of people with Alabama as the state. This is because it is the first state in the dropdown. People do not even bother to put their correct state when they create a free membership account. If we do not get correct email address we cannot communicate with you via emails. We also need your name and phone number so that we can call you. There have been times, when core team has called members to tell them about something important. We will sometimes point out on the forum if any poster has not given us full information. It may cause embarresment to some members who are frequently posting on the forums annonymously.
Now a days I am seeing lots of questions asked by new members. If you have some mechanisms to show whether they have registered with valid data or fake data would help the other members who spend time in answering those questions.
I would request all the new members to contribute to our cause. Join monthly contribution of $20 and help yourselves. Thanks.
We get a lot of people with Alabama as the state. This is because it is the first state in the dropdown. People do not even bother to put their correct state when they create a free membership account. If we do not get correct email address we cannot communicate with you via emails. We also need your name and phone number so that we can call you. There have been times, when core team has called members to tell them about something important. We will sometimes point out on the forum if any poster has not given us full information. It may cause embarresment to some members who are frequently posting on the forums annonymously.
more...
glen
08-05 11:53 AM
I got my passport renewed last year by mail. It took 7 - 8 weeks to get the old and new passports.
I am sorry for posting in here, but I was wondering if someone actually went in person to the Houston Consulate to get their passport renewed. Also, do we need to have any reason to attend in person at the Consulate such as emergency, etc.
I am from India and my passport is expiring on Aug 17. I read before in the forum that it is better to go in person to renew the passport. Any experiences please let me know.
Thanks a bunch
I am sorry for posting in here, but I was wondering if someone actually went in person to the Houston Consulate to get their passport renewed. Also, do we need to have any reason to attend in person at the Consulate such as emergency, etc.
I am from India and my passport is expiring on Aug 17. I read before in the forum that it is better to go in person to renew the passport. Any experiences please let me know.
Thanks a bunch
Edison99
02-02 10:31 AM
Congratulation maine_gc!
more...
chanduv23
02-17 08:48 PM
Durbin likes to have it both ways - be perceived as being pro-immigration (for his work on behalf of Hispanic illegal immigrants) but also being the champion of unions. I think he might respond if he starts to get labeled as anti-immigrant. He will not want to start to get the label of being someone who opposes immigrants. But I'd probably stick to the flowers and make it IV's signature. When the media hears about another flower campaign, they'll know something big is up and that the person getting the flowers is being targeted for an important reason.
For some reason this thread caught my attention. Looks like this was discussed sometime back.
Sending flowers once again ???? Is this a good idea :D:D:D
For some reason this thread caught my attention. Looks like this was discussed sometime back.
Sending flowers once again ???? Is this a good idea :D:D:D
dc4opera
05-18 11:27 PM
I need some advice from the people on this board.
My labor certification was recently approved via PERM. My employer will soon be signing the paperwork to file the I-140 with INS. My contract with him expires in February 2007, and he wants me to continue working for him beyond that. I, however, have expressed my desire NOT to stay with him any longer than I need to. Obviously, I will need to stay until 6 months have passed from the filing of my I-485 for portability to kick in.
Because of this, he wants me to WAIT until January 2007 to file my I-485. This way he is assured that I will be working for him until June 2007. My question is, does he have any right to coerce me to wait until January 2007 to file the I-485?
I initially agreed to this delay in filing because I was under the impression that BOTH the I-140 and I-485 were to be filed by the employer, and that I-485 processing took about 6 months. Now that I have learned that the I-485 is to be filed by me and that I-485 processing can take more than a year, are there any downsides to me filing the I-485 earlier than January 2007 WITHOUT MY EMPLOYER KNOWING?
I realize that "honesty is the best policy" but the situation is truly untenable for me and I feel that he is purposely delaying the processing of my INS papers to keep me at his mercy. Another factor to consider is that the lawyer we will be using for the I-140 will be the same one who will file my I-485. Can I invoke attorney-client privilege with regards to the I-485 so that they cannot tell my employer that I filed it earlier than he wanted? For that matter, can I use a different lawyer to file the I-485 that the one who filed the I-140?
Any opinions and suggestions regarding this matter will be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much and good luck to all!
My labor certification was recently approved via PERM. My employer will soon be signing the paperwork to file the I-140 with INS. My contract with him expires in February 2007, and he wants me to continue working for him beyond that. I, however, have expressed my desire NOT to stay with him any longer than I need to. Obviously, I will need to stay until 6 months have passed from the filing of my I-485 for portability to kick in.
Because of this, he wants me to WAIT until January 2007 to file my I-485. This way he is assured that I will be working for him until June 2007. My question is, does he have any right to coerce me to wait until January 2007 to file the I-485?
I initially agreed to this delay in filing because I was under the impression that BOTH the I-140 and I-485 were to be filed by the employer, and that I-485 processing took about 6 months. Now that I have learned that the I-485 is to be filed by me and that I-485 processing can take more than a year, are there any downsides to me filing the I-485 earlier than January 2007 WITHOUT MY EMPLOYER KNOWING?
I realize that "honesty is the best policy" but the situation is truly untenable for me and I feel that he is purposely delaying the processing of my INS papers to keep me at his mercy. Another factor to consider is that the lawyer we will be using for the I-140 will be the same one who will file my I-485. Can I invoke attorney-client privilege with regards to the I-485 so that they cannot tell my employer that I filed it earlier than he wanted? For that matter, can I use a different lawyer to file the I-485 that the one who filed the I-140?
Any opinions and suggestions regarding this matter will be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much and good luck to all!
more...
gc_chahiye
06-08 12:06 AM
But the letter doesn't seem to address the direct behaviour of the companies in question. Seems like a bunch of broader level issues were tackled - while true, it doesn't address H1B abuse in any way. Wasn't that the point?
no. The point was that neither of these companies do H1B abuse (small bodyshoppers in the US do), and trying to mix up immigration related rhetoric with international business is not a good idea.
If the senators had an issue, there are standard channels with which these can be taken up (both at ministries as well as trade-group levels). Public letters from these senators to the CEOs of our companies were essentially a publicity stunt to win votes and not a constructive way to find out if there is a problem and how it can be fixed. So in the same vein the NASSCOM reply is a broad response with good subtle hints that mixing immigration with India's business interests is not a good idea.
no. The point was that neither of these companies do H1B abuse (small bodyshoppers in the US do), and trying to mix up immigration related rhetoric with international business is not a good idea.
If the senators had an issue, there are standard channels with which these can be taken up (both at ministries as well as trade-group levels). Public letters from these senators to the CEOs of our companies were essentially a publicity stunt to win votes and not a constructive way to find out if there is a problem and how it can be fixed. So in the same vein the NASSCOM reply is a broad response with good subtle hints that mixing immigration with India's business interests is not a good idea.
desi3933
06-25 12:34 PM
You could argue that you don't need to have a job now, just that you need to be in a "same or similar"position when the 485 is approved. if your priority date is very backlogged, you have lots of time to find a job.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
As per this memo -
Question 14. Must the alien have a new offer of employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the I-140 portability provisions?
Answer: Yes. The alien cannot still be looking for “same or similar” employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the adjustment portability provisions. The alien must be able to show there is a new valid offer of employment at the time the I-485 is adjudicated.
While I-485 can be approved when PD is current, however, it can be denied anytime (does not matter if PD is current or not). The conditions for job offer must be maintained at all times while I-485 is pending.
With this, I am not sure, the defense of PD is not current is going to work.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
As per this memo -
Question 14. Must the alien have a new offer of employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the I-140 portability provisions?
Answer: Yes. The alien cannot still be looking for “same or similar” employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the adjustment portability provisions. The alien must be able to show there is a new valid offer of employment at the time the I-485 is adjudicated.
While I-485 can be approved when PD is current, however, it can be denied anytime (does not matter if PD is current or not). The conditions for job offer must be maintained at all times while I-485 is pending.
With this, I am not sure, the defense of PD is not current is going to work.
more...
WeShallOvercome
11-07 12:10 PM
If EB2 PD is 1 APR 2004 then what does the ProcessingTimeFrame Date(August 25, 2006) mean for I-485 in Texas Service Center.
Can anyone clarify. Guys exuse my Ignorance...I just want to know the rule
sury,
What that means is "All applications received before August 25, 2006 AND whose PD is current , are being processed"
If your PD is 2003 but you filed your I-485 after Aug'2006 your app will not be adjudicated.
If you filed before Aug'2006 but your PD is after Apr'2004, your app will not be adjudicated.
If your PD is before Apr'2004 and you filed your app before August 25, 2006, your app will be adjudicated..
This is to make sure people don't start expecting approvals and calling them left and right one day after filing if their PD is current. they need some time for every application, so they put in this 'processing date' which works in conjunction with 'priority date' to check if a case is approvable at any given time. They normally won't entertain calls enquiring about a case if the filing date does not fall within this processing date.
Can anyone clarify. Guys exuse my Ignorance...I just want to know the rule
sury,
What that means is "All applications received before August 25, 2006 AND whose PD is current , are being processed"
If your PD is 2003 but you filed your I-485 after Aug'2006 your app will not be adjudicated.
If you filed before Aug'2006 but your PD is after Apr'2004, your app will not be adjudicated.
If your PD is before Apr'2004 and you filed your app before August 25, 2006, your app will be adjudicated..
This is to make sure people don't start expecting approvals and calling them left and right one day after filing if their PD is current. they need some time for every application, so they put in this 'processing date' which works in conjunction with 'priority date' to check if a case is approvable at any given time. They normally won't entertain calls enquiring about a case if the filing date does not fall within this processing date.
retropain
09-01 11:08 AM
What's particularly interesting is the number of 'scare words' used in this selected testimony on aspects of the CIR bill. Its a lot like Loo Dobbs "War" on the middle class. Its clear CIS, Nusa, FAIR provide the script to him on immigration matters. I knew Loo wasn't that creative in the first place
=---
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL W. CUTLER
SEPTEMBER 1, 2006
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Hostettler, Ranking Members Conyers and Jackson Lee, members of Congress, distinguished members of the panel, ladies and gentlemen. It is a distinct honor and privilege to provide testimony at this hearing because the topic of the hearing is of truly critical significance. We are here to avert what I believe would be a catastrophe for the United States. The United States Senate passed a bill, S. 2611, that would provide incentives for a massive influx of illegal aliens, aided, abetted and induced to violate our nation’s immigration laws at a time that our nation is confronting the continuing threat of terrorism and the increasing involvement of violent gangs, comprised predominantly of deportable aliens, in a wide variety of violent crimes committed against our nation’s citizens. It is of critical importance that this hearing and others like it, illuminate why S. 2611 would expose our nation to unreasonable vulnerabilities especially in the post-9/11 world.
A nation’s primary responsibility is to provide for the safety and security of its citizens and yet, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom, the members of the Senate who voted for S. 2611 are seemingly oblivious to the lessons that the disastrous amnesty of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) should have taught us. That piece of legislation lead to the greatest influx of illegal aliens in the history of our nation. Fraud and a lack of integrity of the immigration system not only flooded our nation with illegal aliens who ran our borders, hoping that what had been billed as a “one time” amnesty would be repeated, but it also enabled a number of terrorists and many criminals to enter the United States and then embed themselves in the United States.
A notable example of such a terrorist can be found in a review of the facts concerning Mahmud Abouhalima, a citizen of Egypt who entered the United States on a tourist visa, overstayed his authorized period of admission and then applied for amnesty under the agricultural worker provisions of IRCA. He succeeded in obtaining resident alien status through this process. During a 5 year period he drove a cab and had his license suspended numerous times for violations of law and ultimately demonstrated his appreciation for our nation’s generosity by participating in the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 that left 6 people dead, hundreds of people injured and an estimated one half billion dollars in damage inflicted, on that iconic, ill-fated complex. America had opened its doors to him so that he might participate in the “American Dream.” He turned that dream into our worst nightmare. The other terrorists who attacked our nation on subsequent attacks, including the attacks of September 11, 2001, similarly exploited our generosity, seeing in our nation’s kindness, weakness, gaming the immigration system to enter our country and then, hide in plain sight, among us.
As I recall, when IRCA was proposed, one of the selling points was that along with amnesty for what was believed to have been a population of some 1.5 million illegal aliens would be a new approach to turn off what has been described as the “magnet” that draws the majority of illegal aliens into the United States in the first place, the prospect of securing employment in the United States. In order to accomplish this important goal, IRCA imposed penalties against those unscrupulous employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens. My former colleagues and I were pleased to see that under the employer sanctions of IRCA, the unscrupulous employers of illegal aliens would be made accountable, or so we thought. We were frustrated that we had seen all too many employers hire illegal aliens and treat them horrendously They paid them sub-standard wages and created unsafe, indeed hazardous working conditions for the illegal aliens they hired, knowing full well that these aliens would not complain because they feared being reported to the INS. Meanwhile the employer would not face any penalty for his outrageous conduct. Finally, it seemed that the employer sanctions provisions of IRCA would discourage employers from hiring illegal aliens and would also make it less likely they would treat their employees as miserably as some of these employers did.
Of course, we now know that the relative handful of special agents who were assigned to conduct investigations of employers who hired illegal aliens made it unlikely that employers would face a significant risk of being caught violating these laws and that they would face an even smaller chance of being seriously fined. Furthermore, the way that the amnesty provisions of the law were enacted simply created a cottage industry of fraud document vendors who provided illegal aliens with counterfeit or altered identity documents and supporting documents to enable the illegal alien population to circumvent the immigration laws. Ultimately approximately 3.5 million illegal aliens emerged from the infamous shadows to participate in the amnesty program of 1986. I have never seen an explanation for the reason that more than twice as many aliens took advantage of the 1986 amnesty than was initially believed would but I believe that two factors came into play. It may well be that the number of illegal aliens in the country was underestimated. I also believe, however, that a large number of illegal aliens were able to gain entry into the United States long after the cutoff point and succeeded in making false claims that they had been present in the country for the requisite period of time.
To put this in perspective, I have read various estimates about the number of illegal aliens who are currently present in the United States. These estimates range from a low of 12 million to a high of 20 million. If, for argument sake, we figure on a number of 15 million illegal aliens, or ten times the number that had been estimated prior to the amnesty of 1986, and if the same sort of under counting occurs and if a comparable percentage of aliens succeed in racing into the United States and making a false claims that they had been here for the necessary period of time to be eligible to participate in the amnesty program that the Reid-Kennedy provisions would reward illegal aliens with, then we might expect some 35 million illegal aliens will ultimately participate in this insane program. Once they become citizens they would then be eligible to file applications to bring their family members to the United States, flooding our nation with tens of millions of additional new lawful immigrations while our nation’s porous borders, visa waiver program and extreme lack of resources to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States would allow many millions of illegal aliens to continue to enter the United States in violation of law.
The utterly inept and incompetent USCIS, which is now unable to carry out it’s most basic missions with even a modicum of integrity would undoubtedly disintegrate. The system would simply implode, crushed by the burden of its vicious cycle of attempting to deal with an ever increasing spiral of rampant fraud thereby encouraging still more fraudulent applications to be filed. Terrorists would not find gaming this system the least bit challenging and our government will have become their unwitting ally, providing them with official identity documents in false names and then, ultimately, providing them with the keys to the kingdom by conferring resident aliens status and then, United States citizenship upon those who would destroy our nation and slaughter our citizens.
I hope that this doomsday scenario will not be permitted to play out.
Insanity has been described as doing the same things the same way and expecting a different result. Where our nation’s security is concerned it would be indeed, insane to ignore the lessons of IRCA.
When I was a boy my dad used to tell me that there were no mistakes in life, only lessons, provided we learn from what goes wrong and make the appropriate changes in the way we do things. However, to repeat the same mistakes was to him and to me, simply unforgivable.
Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Hostettler, I commend your leadership in calling this hearing to make certain that these concerns are made public and are taken into account, especially as we approach the anniversary of the fifth anniversary of the attacks of September 11 and our nation continues to grapple with the immigration crisis.
America is at historic crossroads at this moment in time. Courageous decisions need to be made by our nation’s leaders. If our nation fails to select the proper path, there will be no going back. If our nation decides to provide amnesty to millions of undocumented and illegal aliens, I fear that our national security will suffer irreparable harm as we aid and abet alien terrorists who seek to enter our country and embed themselves within it in preparation for the deadly attacks they would carry out. The priority must be clear, national security must be given the highest consideration and priority where the security of our nation’s borders and the integrity of the immigration system are concerned.
=---
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL W. CUTLER
SEPTEMBER 1, 2006
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Hostettler, Ranking Members Conyers and Jackson Lee, members of Congress, distinguished members of the panel, ladies and gentlemen. It is a distinct honor and privilege to provide testimony at this hearing because the topic of the hearing is of truly critical significance. We are here to avert what I believe would be a catastrophe for the United States. The United States Senate passed a bill, S. 2611, that would provide incentives for a massive influx of illegal aliens, aided, abetted and induced to violate our nation’s immigration laws at a time that our nation is confronting the continuing threat of terrorism and the increasing involvement of violent gangs, comprised predominantly of deportable aliens, in a wide variety of violent crimes committed against our nation’s citizens. It is of critical importance that this hearing and others like it, illuminate why S. 2611 would expose our nation to unreasonable vulnerabilities especially in the post-9/11 world.
A nation’s primary responsibility is to provide for the safety and security of its citizens and yet, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom, the members of the Senate who voted for S. 2611 are seemingly oblivious to the lessons that the disastrous amnesty of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) should have taught us. That piece of legislation lead to the greatest influx of illegal aliens in the history of our nation. Fraud and a lack of integrity of the immigration system not only flooded our nation with illegal aliens who ran our borders, hoping that what had been billed as a “one time” amnesty would be repeated, but it also enabled a number of terrorists and many criminals to enter the United States and then embed themselves in the United States.
A notable example of such a terrorist can be found in a review of the facts concerning Mahmud Abouhalima, a citizen of Egypt who entered the United States on a tourist visa, overstayed his authorized period of admission and then applied for amnesty under the agricultural worker provisions of IRCA. He succeeded in obtaining resident alien status through this process. During a 5 year period he drove a cab and had his license suspended numerous times for violations of law and ultimately demonstrated his appreciation for our nation’s generosity by participating in the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 that left 6 people dead, hundreds of people injured and an estimated one half billion dollars in damage inflicted, on that iconic, ill-fated complex. America had opened its doors to him so that he might participate in the “American Dream.” He turned that dream into our worst nightmare. The other terrorists who attacked our nation on subsequent attacks, including the attacks of September 11, 2001, similarly exploited our generosity, seeing in our nation’s kindness, weakness, gaming the immigration system to enter our country and then, hide in plain sight, among us.
As I recall, when IRCA was proposed, one of the selling points was that along with amnesty for what was believed to have been a population of some 1.5 million illegal aliens would be a new approach to turn off what has been described as the “magnet” that draws the majority of illegal aliens into the United States in the first place, the prospect of securing employment in the United States. In order to accomplish this important goal, IRCA imposed penalties against those unscrupulous employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens. My former colleagues and I were pleased to see that under the employer sanctions of IRCA, the unscrupulous employers of illegal aliens would be made accountable, or so we thought. We were frustrated that we had seen all too many employers hire illegal aliens and treat them horrendously They paid them sub-standard wages and created unsafe, indeed hazardous working conditions for the illegal aliens they hired, knowing full well that these aliens would not complain because they feared being reported to the INS. Meanwhile the employer would not face any penalty for his outrageous conduct. Finally, it seemed that the employer sanctions provisions of IRCA would discourage employers from hiring illegal aliens and would also make it less likely they would treat their employees as miserably as some of these employers did.
Of course, we now know that the relative handful of special agents who were assigned to conduct investigations of employers who hired illegal aliens made it unlikely that employers would face a significant risk of being caught violating these laws and that they would face an even smaller chance of being seriously fined. Furthermore, the way that the amnesty provisions of the law were enacted simply created a cottage industry of fraud document vendors who provided illegal aliens with counterfeit or altered identity documents and supporting documents to enable the illegal alien population to circumvent the immigration laws. Ultimately approximately 3.5 million illegal aliens emerged from the infamous shadows to participate in the amnesty program of 1986. I have never seen an explanation for the reason that more than twice as many aliens took advantage of the 1986 amnesty than was initially believed would but I believe that two factors came into play. It may well be that the number of illegal aliens in the country was underestimated. I also believe, however, that a large number of illegal aliens were able to gain entry into the United States long after the cutoff point and succeeded in making false claims that they had been present in the country for the requisite period of time.
To put this in perspective, I have read various estimates about the number of illegal aliens who are currently present in the United States. These estimates range from a low of 12 million to a high of 20 million. If, for argument sake, we figure on a number of 15 million illegal aliens, or ten times the number that had been estimated prior to the amnesty of 1986, and if the same sort of under counting occurs and if a comparable percentage of aliens succeed in racing into the United States and making a false claims that they had been here for the necessary period of time to be eligible to participate in the amnesty program that the Reid-Kennedy provisions would reward illegal aliens with, then we might expect some 35 million illegal aliens will ultimately participate in this insane program. Once they become citizens they would then be eligible to file applications to bring their family members to the United States, flooding our nation with tens of millions of additional new lawful immigrations while our nation’s porous borders, visa waiver program and extreme lack of resources to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States would allow many millions of illegal aliens to continue to enter the United States in violation of law.
The utterly inept and incompetent USCIS, which is now unable to carry out it’s most basic missions with even a modicum of integrity would undoubtedly disintegrate. The system would simply implode, crushed by the burden of its vicious cycle of attempting to deal with an ever increasing spiral of rampant fraud thereby encouraging still more fraudulent applications to be filed. Terrorists would not find gaming this system the least bit challenging and our government will have become their unwitting ally, providing them with official identity documents in false names and then, ultimately, providing them with the keys to the kingdom by conferring resident aliens status and then, United States citizenship upon those who would destroy our nation and slaughter our citizens.
I hope that this doomsday scenario will not be permitted to play out.
Insanity has been described as doing the same things the same way and expecting a different result. Where our nation’s security is concerned it would be indeed, insane to ignore the lessons of IRCA.
When I was a boy my dad used to tell me that there were no mistakes in life, only lessons, provided we learn from what goes wrong and make the appropriate changes in the way we do things. However, to repeat the same mistakes was to him and to me, simply unforgivable.
Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Hostettler, I commend your leadership in calling this hearing to make certain that these concerns are made public and are taken into account, especially as we approach the anniversary of the fifth anniversary of the attacks of September 11 and our nation continues to grapple with the immigration crisis.
America is at historic crossroads at this moment in time. Courageous decisions need to be made by our nation’s leaders. If our nation fails to select the proper path, there will be no going back. If our nation decides to provide amnesty to millions of undocumented and illegal aliens, I fear that our national security will suffer irreparable harm as we aid and abet alien terrorists who seek to enter our country and embed themselves within it in preparation for the deadly attacks they would carry out. The priority must be clear, national security must be given the highest consideration and priority where the security of our nation’s borders and the integrity of the immigration system are concerned.
more...
scorpioduo
10-14 03:42 PM
Hi all,
I have to go to India on 1st jan , 2009 for 2 weeks , for my brother's marriage on jan 14,2009, but my existing advance parole expires on jan 12 2009.
I have filed for the renewal of advance parole but I want to know as to what other option do I have , if I dont get my renewal advance parole by jan 1st ?
If my AP expires on jan 12th and I come back on jan 16th and tell the customs agents that i have applied for a renewal and just didnt get it before I left, is that acceptable?
Thanks for your help in advance!
I have to go to India on 1st jan , 2009 for 2 weeks , for my brother's marriage on jan 14,2009, but my existing advance parole expires on jan 12 2009.
I have filed for the renewal of advance parole but I want to know as to what other option do I have , if I dont get my renewal advance parole by jan 1st ?
If my AP expires on jan 12th and I come back on jan 16th and tell the customs agents that i have applied for a renewal and just didnt get it before I left, is that acceptable?
Thanks for your help in advance!
camberiu
06-13 12:51 PM
Hello everyone,
I am on the EB3 category and have a PD of March 19, 2002. Also, I am from a non-retrogressed country (Brazil). Would any of the wise members of this forum be willing to estimate how much longer I'd have to wait until I am concurrent? Thanks in advance.
I am on the EB3 category and have a PD of March 19, 2002. Also, I am from a non-retrogressed country (Brazil). Would any of the wise members of this forum be willing to estimate how much longer I'd have to wait until I am concurrent? Thanks in advance.
more...
somegchuh
11-16 01:13 PM
Guys,
My understanding was that automatic revalidation was stopped a few years ago?
I would say that getting an appointment and a new visa stamp is the safest bet. If that's not a possibility and you have to go, I will suggest travel by road instead of air. From what I have heard they tend to be more lenient when you are driving across.
Do check thoroughly before travelling on an expired visa.
Take Care
Power of internet, thanks for all the input.
That is right my previous I-94 has expired and I should get the latest I-94 as part of new I-797. My US multiple visa expired last August.
My question is thoroughly answered that I could use the "Automatic revalidation rule" to come back into US using my I-94 and I-797.
One more question to the folks who became Canadian PRs. When I exit out
of US can they force me to give up I-94 as I am landing as Canadian PR. In others words,
can they override "Automatic revalidation rule" in this case.
Part of me says they are two different teams one working for US to track I-94
and the other looking for Canadian PR so they can never rationalize this. If they talk then that could be an issue. Isn't that right?
My understanding was that automatic revalidation was stopped a few years ago?
I would say that getting an appointment and a new visa stamp is the safest bet. If that's not a possibility and you have to go, I will suggest travel by road instead of air. From what I have heard they tend to be more lenient when you are driving across.
Do check thoroughly before travelling on an expired visa.
Take Care
Power of internet, thanks for all the input.
That is right my previous I-94 has expired and I should get the latest I-94 as part of new I-797. My US multiple visa expired last August.
My question is thoroughly answered that I could use the "Automatic revalidation rule" to come back into US using my I-94 and I-797.
One more question to the folks who became Canadian PRs. When I exit out
of US can they force me to give up I-94 as I am landing as Canadian PR. In others words,
can they override "Automatic revalidation rule" in this case.
Part of me says they are two different teams one working for US to track I-94
and the other looking for Canadian PR so they can never rationalize this. If they talk then that could be an issue. Isn't that right?
logiclife
12-04 11:59 AM
I'm with you, why is everyone so afraid?
God knows there would be enough people for a class action lawsuit against DOL.
My congressman called DOL and they said my case had been withdrawn: but it had been withdrawn b/c of THEIR errors, TWICE!
Both times it was reinstated and proved to be their error, and they are still using it as an excuse for not processing it yet.
And I thought "developed" countries worked differently than "developing" countries.
If IV has enough people interested I would certainly be interested to participate in a CA suit against DOL. I am losing hope that diplomacy will bring any results for us to be helpful.
USCIS only works faster when there have been mandamus suits filed against them, unfortunately no one seems to have done anything with DOL. Maybe it's time
For the lawsuit.
This isnt the first time people have thought that lawsuit against DOL is a good idea.
That is not true. Nothing will be gained from the lawsuit. There have been lawsuits against DOL before for exactly the ineffciency and slowness. Those lawsuits have failed. They will fail again. Being inefficient is not against the law. See the IV document on DOL- backlogs here :
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=67&Itemid=50
Also, read about the lawsuit Liberty Fund v. Chao and judge's opinion on that lawsuit.
And BTW, earlier this year, there were few people on immigration portal collecting money for lawsuit against DOL. I dont know how far it went.
God knows there would be enough people for a class action lawsuit against DOL.
My congressman called DOL and they said my case had been withdrawn: but it had been withdrawn b/c of THEIR errors, TWICE!
Both times it was reinstated and proved to be their error, and they are still using it as an excuse for not processing it yet.
And I thought "developed" countries worked differently than "developing" countries.
If IV has enough people interested I would certainly be interested to participate in a CA suit against DOL. I am losing hope that diplomacy will bring any results for us to be helpful.
USCIS only works faster when there have been mandamus suits filed against them, unfortunately no one seems to have done anything with DOL. Maybe it's time
For the lawsuit.
This isnt the first time people have thought that lawsuit against DOL is a good idea.
That is not true. Nothing will be gained from the lawsuit. There have been lawsuits against DOL before for exactly the ineffciency and slowness. Those lawsuits have failed. They will fail again. Being inefficient is not against the law. See the IV document on DOL- backlogs here :
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=67&Itemid=50
Also, read about the lawsuit Liberty Fund v. Chao and judge's opinion on that lawsuit.
And BTW, earlier this year, there were few people on immigration portal collecting money for lawsuit against DOL. I dont know how far it went.
more...
superdude
07-17 10:41 PM
you are OK
qwert_47
09-26 01:17 AM
Thanks for the advices/suggestions.
The reason my h1b was denied because the consultant showed that I would be working for him instead of working for client. I suspect he didn't respond well for the RFE earlier in the case.
Is it possible to submit a motion for reconsideration by a new employer(when I find one in the next month or so)? To make things worse, I am having a hard time concentrating on possible upcoming interview because of my h1b visa denial. Pls tell me what options do I have if I am made an offer by a private(profit) employer. BTW my master is in comp. engg and I completed my masters in Dec 06.
Its really disheartening to wait one more year to start work along with my increasing debts. Its bad being job-searching-graduated-student in USA with this situation.
TIA
The reason my h1b was denied because the consultant showed that I would be working for him instead of working for client. I suspect he didn't respond well for the RFE earlier in the case.
Is it possible to submit a motion for reconsideration by a new employer(when I find one in the next month or so)? To make things worse, I am having a hard time concentrating on possible upcoming interview because of my h1b visa denial. Pls tell me what options do I have if I am made an offer by a private(profit) employer. BTW my master is in comp. engg and I completed my masters in Dec 06.
Its really disheartening to wait one more year to start work along with my increasing debts. Its bad being job-searching-graduated-student in USA with this situation.
TIA
brick2006
04-21 03:44 PM
well.. my attorney says.. i can be on LOP for 3-4 weeks..at the most..so i may have to change to H4..
If the company gives a letter of avaliablity of the job..will that be binding?
i.e. should i work for that firm..after getting a GC..
Hey don't get too hasty here.
You are lucky that you are on extended LOP. Try to stay as long as you can on this. This is 100% legal. In parallel look for a job.
Here are my answers:
BTW are you from IT BHU?
If the company gives a letter of avaliablity of the job..will that be binding?
i.e. should i work for that firm..after getting a GC..
Hey don't get too hasty here.
You are lucky that you are on extended LOP. Try to stay as long as you can on this. This is 100% legal. In parallel look for a job.
Here are my answers:
BTW are you from IT BHU?
vdlrao
08-15 04:45 AM
No I havent got my GC yet.
Ann Ruben
05-13 03:20 PM
I you manage a team of engineers who themselves hold university degrees, you may very well qualify for L-1A status and your chance of getting an approval could be better than if you refile the L-1B.
