trueguy
02-19 09:43 AM
Any predictions, expert thoughts on EB3-I movement in next 6 months?
SFSweta
07-11 02:12 PM
Just out of curiosity, what's stopping you from doing some of these things now? You probably cannot spend 3 months with your family in India and Dubai or go to culinary school full-time but you can definitely do all the rest while on H-1B/AOS.
- that's all and thanks for pointing it out :)
- that's all and thanks for pointing it out :)
ind_game
05-15 11:06 PM
Well, there you go. I am sure your congress liason will give you some good news next week.
thanks a lot for your wishes.....
thanks a lot for your wishes.....
Macaca
10-01 03:27 PM
Worldwide Limits
(a) FS Preference Limitation:
The overall ceiling for relatives is 480,000, from which the previous year's total of immediate relatives and other family classes which are exempt from the numerical ceiling are deducted to determine the level of family-based preference immigration. Although the difference could be greater or less than 226,000, that figure is established as a minimum for the FS preference immigrant limitation.
Specifically, if such family-related numerically-exempt immigrants and parolees are fewer than 254,000, the family-sponsored preferences will be entitled to more than 226,000 in the following fiscal year. On the other hand, if such family-related numerically-exempt immigrants and parolees exceed 254,000, the FS preferences are still provided at least 226,000 numbers by virtue of the minimum annual limit assured by Sec. 201(c).
So # legal immigrants/year = 480K (FS) + 140K (EB) + 50K (diversity) + Refugee + Asylum + ... = 670K + ... ~= 1M (reported in articles)
(a) FS Preference Limitation:
The overall ceiling for relatives is 480,000, from which the previous year's total of immediate relatives and other family classes which are exempt from the numerical ceiling are deducted to determine the level of family-based preference immigration. Although the difference could be greater or less than 226,000, that figure is established as a minimum for the FS preference immigrant limitation.
Specifically, if such family-related numerically-exempt immigrants and parolees are fewer than 254,000, the family-sponsored preferences will be entitled to more than 226,000 in the following fiscal year. On the other hand, if such family-related numerically-exempt immigrants and parolees exceed 254,000, the FS preferences are still provided at least 226,000 numbers by virtue of the minimum annual limit assured by Sec. 201(c).
So # legal immigrants/year = 480K (FS) + 140K (EB) + 50K (diversity) + Refugee + Asylum + ... = 670K + ... ~= 1M (reported in articles)
more...
desi3933
08-04 03:43 PM
I'm not getting what's your point. All I am telling this guy and others that I need some statistics and why it is important to me. People who like my point will write them and people who will not like my point but still have the problem will modify the letter accordingly and people who should not care since they are not affected should just ignore this thread and move....
My best wishes are with you.
Go ahead and send your letter, that includes line like Being stuck in a green card process keeps us bonded with 1 employer, job type etc.
Please keep us posted on updates. Thanks! ;)
My best wishes are with you.
Go ahead and send your letter, that includes line like Being stuck in a green card process keeps us bonded with 1 employer, job type etc.
Please keep us posted on updates. Thanks! ;)
nk2006
10-16 05:12 PM
add a poll to it
Added a poll. Please vote so we can keep track on how many letters we sent. Lets pick up the pace.
Added a poll. Please vote so we can keep track on how many letters we sent. Lets pick up the pace.
more...
icedgin
07-30 11:08 PM
Angel,
I have come across one interesting procedure in the USCIS website regarding beneficiaries of LPRs and I am asking a friend in the US in an immigration law firm to verify about this. I am just waiting for her to provide me the details and I will inform you about it since you can also be filed as derivative beneficiaries of your wife as an alternative way for you and your daughter to be with your wife.I do pray and hope she gives me a positive response.
I have come across one interesting procedure in the USCIS website regarding beneficiaries of LPRs and I am asking a friend in the US in an immigration law firm to verify about this. I am just waiting for her to provide me the details and I will inform you about it since you can also be filed as derivative beneficiaries of your wife as an alternative way for you and your daughter to be with your wife.I do pray and hope she gives me a positive response.
Jimi_Hendrix
11-20 09:49 PM
Got legal immigration?
Joe Adams holds on to his coffee cup while he anxiously reads the immigration news headlines on Google. The democrats have just won control in Washington and like all immigrants; Joe is hopeful that some immigration reform will emerge.
Joe, a native of United Kingdom first came to the United States in 1998. After graduating from Harvard Business School with an MBA he got his dream job in supply chain management. It was not long after that Joe’s company filed for his permanent residency. Life moved on and soon Joe and his wife Kathy had their first child. “The year was 2003” reminisces Joe, “I was really beginning to understand the U.S. immigration process. I was getting a handle on the numerous loops that lay ahead. It was soon apparent to me that immigration was no walk in the garden”.
Of the 940,000 legal immigrants in 2004, only 16% were skilled employment-based immigrants. About 40% of these skilled immigrants had advanced degrees, or 5 or more years of experience after a baccalaureate degree. The impact of these workers’ contributions to American competitiveness belies their small number. They add to the process of scientific discovery, technology development, and innovation, which in turn leads to greater productivity growth. Current immigration policy is abetting brain drain and forcing many of these immigrants to leave for countries like Canada and United Kingdom where skilled immigrants are given priority over undocumented and family-based immigrants.
Legal Immigration, Rewarding?
“Most importantly legal immigration has to be rewarding for legal residents and create a shining example for all other immigrants”, remarks Joe Adams. In the United States, all immigration reform for highly skilled immigrants is bundled with reform for undocumented workers. This phenomenon is representative of the apathy of U.S. immigration policy towards highly skilled legal immigrants. Many of them have advanced degrees in science and technology. They have trained and honed their skills while working in U.S. companies.
Currently permanent residency applications for skilled, employment based immigrants are backed 5-8 years. In the interim applicants are unable to change jobs, get promotions or make any major financial decisions. Highly skilled, legal immigrants need immigration reforms that will reduce massive process backlogs, improve processing by government agencies and better the quality of life while the application is pending.
Legal Immigration Myths
Extremist, anti-immigration advocacy groups have aggressively publicized myths about legal, skilled immigrants. Let us expound some of the common myths about employment based immigration.
Myth: Increasing green cards will enable more new immigrants to enter the country
Fact: Most immigrants who are caught in the employment-based immigration backlog have already spent 5-10 years in the United States. They have integrated socially and culturally. Companies have spent thousands of dollars on training these workers.
Myth: Employment based immigrants do not pay taxes and are a social burden
Fact: Employment based immigrants are required by law to file for federal and state tax returns each year. They pay social security taxes, medicare taxes, payroll taxes and all other applicable taxes. Employment based immigrants are not eligible to receive social security benefits unless their permanent residency applications are approved or unless they have worked in the U.S. for several years.
Myth: Employment based immigrants take away local jobs
Fact: Most progressive Americans realize that educated immigrant workers play a crucial role in stimulating the local economy. Highly skilled immigration fills the gaps in availability and makes the U.S. economy competitive and resilient. A recent study concludes that immigrants have fueled the US entrepreneurial economy, starting one in four venture-backed companies since 1990 and two in five in high technology. This is according to a study released by the National Venture Capital Association trade group to the U.S. Congress in November 2006.
Myth: H1B quota increase will result in more green cards
Fact: H1B has a separate quota from green card quotas. Even after an individual has approved security check, labor certification and employment eligibility; a visa number must be available for him to receive a green card. This quota is subject to annual numerical limits. Based on the current annual visa limit, applications are backlogged 6 years.
Future of Legal Immigration
It is presumed that legal immigration process works efficiently and in a clockwork fashion. However when you consider that legal applicants have to wait 5-8 years for a green card; this statement is false. In the current political environment pro and anti immigrant extremism exist side by side. A rational, middle of the road approach is largely missing. Such an approach would prioritize immigration based on the contribution of immigrants towards economic growth, the reduction of job outsourcing and most importantly rewarding those who chose to enter and continue to reside legally in USA.
Americans largely supports legal immigration. This year, the Secure Knowledge, Innovation and Leadership Bill was introduced in Senate and in the House of Representatives. This bill provides the much needed immigration reforms for highly skilled immigrants. However the democrat leadership has not yet declared immigration on their agenda for the first 100 hours of work. Unless congress collectively passes immigration relief for skilled workers, political considerations for the 2008 presidential elections will put this issue on the back burner again.
Joe Adams holds on to his coffee cup while he anxiously reads the immigration news headlines on Google. The democrats have just won control in Washington and like all immigrants; Joe is hopeful that some immigration reform will emerge.
Joe, a native of United Kingdom first came to the United States in 1998. After graduating from Harvard Business School with an MBA he got his dream job in supply chain management. It was not long after that Joe’s company filed for his permanent residency. Life moved on and soon Joe and his wife Kathy had their first child. “The year was 2003” reminisces Joe, “I was really beginning to understand the U.S. immigration process. I was getting a handle on the numerous loops that lay ahead. It was soon apparent to me that immigration was no walk in the garden”.
Of the 940,000 legal immigrants in 2004, only 16% were skilled employment-based immigrants. About 40% of these skilled immigrants had advanced degrees, or 5 or more years of experience after a baccalaureate degree. The impact of these workers’ contributions to American competitiveness belies their small number. They add to the process of scientific discovery, technology development, and innovation, which in turn leads to greater productivity growth. Current immigration policy is abetting brain drain and forcing many of these immigrants to leave for countries like Canada and United Kingdom where skilled immigrants are given priority over undocumented and family-based immigrants.
Legal Immigration, Rewarding?
“Most importantly legal immigration has to be rewarding for legal residents and create a shining example for all other immigrants”, remarks Joe Adams. In the United States, all immigration reform for highly skilled immigrants is bundled with reform for undocumented workers. This phenomenon is representative of the apathy of U.S. immigration policy towards highly skilled legal immigrants. Many of them have advanced degrees in science and technology. They have trained and honed their skills while working in U.S. companies.
Currently permanent residency applications for skilled, employment based immigrants are backed 5-8 years. In the interim applicants are unable to change jobs, get promotions or make any major financial decisions. Highly skilled, legal immigrants need immigration reforms that will reduce massive process backlogs, improve processing by government agencies and better the quality of life while the application is pending.
Legal Immigration Myths
Extremist, anti-immigration advocacy groups have aggressively publicized myths about legal, skilled immigrants. Let us expound some of the common myths about employment based immigration.
Myth: Increasing green cards will enable more new immigrants to enter the country
Fact: Most immigrants who are caught in the employment-based immigration backlog have already spent 5-10 years in the United States. They have integrated socially and culturally. Companies have spent thousands of dollars on training these workers.
Myth: Employment based immigrants do not pay taxes and are a social burden
Fact: Employment based immigrants are required by law to file for federal and state tax returns each year. They pay social security taxes, medicare taxes, payroll taxes and all other applicable taxes. Employment based immigrants are not eligible to receive social security benefits unless their permanent residency applications are approved or unless they have worked in the U.S. for several years.
Myth: Employment based immigrants take away local jobs
Fact: Most progressive Americans realize that educated immigrant workers play a crucial role in stimulating the local economy. Highly skilled immigration fills the gaps in availability and makes the U.S. economy competitive and resilient. A recent study concludes that immigrants have fueled the US entrepreneurial economy, starting one in four venture-backed companies since 1990 and two in five in high technology. This is according to a study released by the National Venture Capital Association trade group to the U.S. Congress in November 2006.
Myth: H1B quota increase will result in more green cards
Fact: H1B has a separate quota from green card quotas. Even after an individual has approved security check, labor certification and employment eligibility; a visa number must be available for him to receive a green card. This quota is subject to annual numerical limits. Based on the current annual visa limit, applications are backlogged 6 years.
Future of Legal Immigration
It is presumed that legal immigration process works efficiently and in a clockwork fashion. However when you consider that legal applicants have to wait 5-8 years for a green card; this statement is false. In the current political environment pro and anti immigrant extremism exist side by side. A rational, middle of the road approach is largely missing. Such an approach would prioritize immigration based on the contribution of immigrants towards economic growth, the reduction of job outsourcing and most importantly rewarding those who chose to enter and continue to reside legally in USA.
Americans largely supports legal immigration. This year, the Secure Knowledge, Innovation and Leadership Bill was introduced in Senate and in the House of Representatives. This bill provides the much needed immigration reforms for highly skilled immigrants. However the democrat leadership has not yet declared immigration on their agenda for the first 100 hours of work. Unless congress collectively passes immigration relief for skilled workers, political considerations for the 2008 presidential elections will put this issue on the back burner again.
more...
eb3_nepa
04-25 01:04 PM
So what happens to people who already have a PD based on the labor(LC) date?
I dont want to go a step back in the line just cuz someone who had been lethargic all his life just woke up on his last day of his 6th year and goes "Ohh you know what I think I might be interested in a GC" ,when I had planned or had the *intent* to apply for a GC a few years before by applying for LC.
I agree. Also it will be a MONUMENTAL fiasco at the UCSIS and DOL. How do we forsee changing existing applicants' PDs. That will be atleast a 4-6 month backlog and i am being optimistic here.
I dont want to go a step back in the line just cuz someone who had been lethargic all his life just woke up on his last day of his 6th year and goes "Ohh you know what I think I might be interested in a GC" ,when I had planned or had the *intent* to apply for a GC a few years before by applying for LC.
I agree. Also it will be a MONUMENTAL fiasco at the UCSIS and DOL. How do we forsee changing existing applicants' PDs. That will be atleast a 4-6 month backlog and i am being optimistic here.
sayantan76
01-07 09:07 AM
Please read my statements properly. I have taught about 100 (the number of students in my last 5 classes were about 70, 30, 25, 25, 12). My colleagues have been observing the same issues for last 5-7 years when the number of students from India started to surge. The number 1000 is the estimate for over the 5 year period. Both numbers are conservative estimates.
and why, pray, does your esteemed school keep accepting students from these so called "sub-standard" colleges in india? i would say 5-7 years of observed emperical evidence calls for some substantial action on your and your school's part in black-listing these institutions........so, either:
1. you are blowing smoke through eveyone's a** here or
2. the school is greedy for tuition fees - proving an earlier contention made in this thread about it being all about money....
P.S - i am not from one of these schools so no personal stake!
and why, pray, does your esteemed school keep accepting students from these so called "sub-standard" colleges in india? i would say 5-7 years of observed emperical evidence calls for some substantial action on your and your school's part in black-listing these institutions........so, either:
1. you are blowing smoke through eveyone's a** here or
2. the school is greedy for tuition fees - proving an earlier contention made in this thread about it being all about money....
P.S - i am not from one of these schools so no personal stake!
more...
nk2006
10-16 04:29 PM
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases – especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer – and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications – ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD’s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to: Ombudsman
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant’s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant’s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases – especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer – and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications – ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD’s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to: Ombudsman
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant’s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant’s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
bsbawa10
03-18 02:10 AM
Both people listed on a "married filing jointly" return must have valid SSNs to qualify for the payment � if only one has a valid SSN, neither can receive the payment.
more...
thomachan72
06-04 11:35 AM
OK here is a question.
Person working for past 4 years in the US.
Applied LC this February (2/26/07)
wants to go to canada and then reenter may be next year.
According to the new point based GC system--
1) Will the person get points for the 4 years of work in the US? (those 4 years were continuous, however, the person applies for GC after the canadian break of lets say 1 year)
Person working for past 4 years in the US.
Applied LC this February (2/26/07)
wants to go to canada and then reenter may be next year.
According to the new point based GC system--
1) Will the person get points for the 4 years of work in the US? (those 4 years were continuous, however, the person applies for GC after the canadian break of lets say 1 year)
JunRN
10-05 04:26 AM
In my opinion, the chance is really slim....I even think that it will never pass unless a stand-alone bill without any other attachment is the best option.
more...
ita
08-26 01:11 PM
Is it true that when we apply for NRI home loan we should repay the loan back in foreign currency.
If that is the case what will a person do if he applies for the NRI loan( long term) and moves back to India for good after few years .Will he have to pay back the loan in foreign currency before making the move?
Thank you.
If that is the case what will a person do if he applies for the NRI loan( long term) and moves back to India for good after few years .Will he have to pay back the loan in foreign currency before making the move?
Thank you.
EndlessWait
07-06 01:53 PM
I think you sent your application after july 2...:D
haha very funny..:cool:
haha very funny..:cool:
more...
nk2006
10-17 02:48 PM
NK2000:
Thanks a ton for this great job. I will mail out today
Thank you sheela - encourage your friends to do the same.
Thanks a ton for this great job. I will mail out today
Thank you sheela - encourage your friends to do the same.
ilwaiting
04-25 11:37 AM
H1B believe it or not is a "dual intent visa". F1 is NOT a dual intent visa. So what that means is even tho a person entered USA on H1B(which is Nonimmigrant visa) he can have a dual intent to "adjust status" and become a permanent resident.
So I would think it would very wise to be given a PD based on when a person started working on "H"
Coming in through H1 does'nt show your intention of becoming a permanent resident of this country. It only happens when the LC is applied. Although the entry date is an ingenious way, it will only create more issues. Now some one who comes in F1 can also ask for the same benefit when they move to H1, to take their entry date in F1 as their priority date. I believe the culprits are the labor substitution and the labor certification sales. Those are unfair. Stop labor substitutions, and if they need one, then use the 140 RD as the PD. That should solve most of the problems and people from using labor sub to jump the line.
So I would think it would very wise to be given a PD based on when a person started working on "H"
Coming in through H1 does'nt show your intention of becoming a permanent resident of this country. It only happens when the LC is applied. Although the entry date is an ingenious way, it will only create more issues. Now some one who comes in F1 can also ask for the same benefit when they move to H1, to take their entry date in F1 as their priority date. I believe the culprits are the labor substitution and the labor certification sales. Those are unfair. Stop labor substitutions, and if they need one, then use the 140 RD as the PD. That should solve most of the problems and people from using labor sub to jump the line.
ItIsNotFunny
03-12 03:46 PM
I already did. I just dont like this DONOR based thread idea.
Appreciate it. Lets not use hard language and insult each other. Keep in mind, united we stand.
Appreciate it. Lets not use hard language and insult each other. Keep in mind, united we stand.
tinamatthew
07-20 12:47 PM
Please look at the discussion topic and then post you comments. :mad: :mad:
Sorry ... but please do you have an answer
Sorry ... but please do you have an answer
ndny
07-14 05:17 PM
Done!
$11.00
BoA C# 7YBHX-VPQKG
Don't ask me the reason why $11 ? Let me clarify; the amount of $11, $21, $51 ..etc...are called lucky amounts...
$11.00
BoA C# 7YBHX-VPQKG
Don't ask me the reason why $11 ? Let me clarify; the amount of $11, $21, $51 ..etc...are called lucky amounts...
No comments:
Post a Comment