marwan234
10-09 09:04 PM
not yet.
wallpaper Nice work, Blake Lively.
Libra
06-25 11:36 AM
I am paying for my whole GC process, from the labor to 485, my employer JUST supports me
neelu
01-02 11:43 PM
Hi Everyone viewing this thread,
Please help the Add ONE Member campaign. Introduce just ONE member to IV, by Jan 31st.
That will go a long way in helping all of us (be it CIR or SKIL or whatever vehicle our provisions ride on). Otherwise we will only be seeing movement like this (a week or so every month).
Please participate and help others participate in the 'Add ONE Member' campaign.
Thank you.
Neelu
Please help the Add ONE Member campaign. Introduce just ONE member to IV, by Jan 31st.
That will go a long way in helping all of us (be it CIR or SKIL or whatever vehicle our provisions ride on). Otherwise we will only be seeing movement like this (a week or so every month).
Please participate and help others participate in the 'Add ONE Member' campaign.
Thank you.
Neelu
2011 photo | Blake Lively
cerers
08-08 10:47 PM
FAQ #2 - clarified that forms with “Y” designation means that prior version of the form will not be rejected.
Q29: The version date on the new I-485 form is 7/30/07 and it has an "N" designation after it, meaning that the I-485 applications arriving at the service center on or after July 30, 2007 must use the new I-485 form or it will be rejected at the mailroom. Is this really true?
A29. No, the “N” designation on the new version was inadvertently uploaded to the USCIS website and has since been removed. The new and corrected I-485 application form that will be uploaded will have the “Y” designation which means that prior version of the form will not be rejected.
Q29: The version date on the new I-485 form is 7/30/07 and it has an "N" designation after it, meaning that the I-485 applications arriving at the service center on or after July 30, 2007 must use the new I-485 form or it will be rejected at the mailroom. Is this really true?
A29. No, the “N” designation on the new version was inadvertently uploaded to the USCIS website and has since been removed. The new and corrected I-485 application form that will be uploaded will have the “Y” designation which means that prior version of the form will not be rejected.
more...
485Question
10-11 12:51 PM
Did your certificate says your completion date or it just have the certificate issue date?
meridiani.planum
10-09 09:44 PM
E. EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
The receipt of demand from Citizenship and Immigration Services Offices has far exceeded their earlier indications of cases eligible for immediate processing. As a result, it has been necessary to hold most of the Employment cut-off dates for November. At this time, it is not possible to provide any estimates regarding future cut-off date movements.
:) Even if USCIS says that they cant predict future cut-off dates, its not going to slow down the prediction-pundits on IV. Soon we'll have a thread out for December Visa Bulletin prediction!!
The receipt of demand from Citizenship and Immigration Services Offices has far exceeded their earlier indications of cases eligible for immediate processing. As a result, it has been necessary to hold most of the Employment cut-off dates for November. At this time, it is not possible to provide any estimates regarding future cut-off date movements.
:) Even if USCIS says that they cant predict future cut-off dates, its not going to slow down the prediction-pundits on IV. Soon we'll have a thread out for December Visa Bulletin prediction!!
more...
aristotle
06-23 03:30 AM
If its any comfort, my lawyer said he couldn't think of a reason why tax returns are necessary for filing 485.
Hi,
I wanted to know how critical are the tax returns for GC processing. I am asking this because i have filed the tax returns for 2006 as married even though i got married in January'07.
Now my marriage certificate reflects jan'07 and the tax return for 2006 was filed as joint.
Will this be of issue in the processing? Is there a way out from this, like readjust the tax returns?
Any help in this regard with be greatly appreciated.
Thank you
Hi,
I wanted to know how critical are the tax returns for GC processing. I am asking this because i have filed the tax returns for 2006 as married even though i got married in January'07.
Now my marriage certificate reflects jan'07 and the tax return for 2006 was filed as joint.
Will this be of issue in the processing? Is there a way out from this, like readjust the tax returns?
Any help in this regard with be greatly appreciated.
Thank you
2010 Blake Lively has Gossip Girl
GCSOON-Ihope
11-02 10:25 AM
Can someone here on this forum list down all the documents that are required to file 140 and 485. Or if this has been discussed in a thread can you please point me to the right forum?
Are you sure you want to do it on your own? If it was that easy, everybody would do it. Considering all the potential pitfalls, it just puzzles me why somebody would go for such a process on their own.
What are you trying to achieve? Save some bucks or show that you are smarter than other people? Even to save a lot of bucks, I don't see how I would do it without a reputed attorney.
Yes they are expensive, but there is a good reason for it: you are buying their expertise. Don't you think that it is worth it?
Anyway, that's just me...Good luck to you.
Are you sure you want to do it on your own? If it was that easy, everybody would do it. Considering all the potential pitfalls, it just puzzles me why somebody would go for such a process on their own.
What are you trying to achieve? Save some bucks or show that you are smarter than other people? Even to save a lot of bucks, I don't see how I would do it without a reputed attorney.
Yes they are expensive, but there is a good reason for it: you are buying their expertise. Don't you think that it is worth it?
Anyway, that's just me...Good luck to you.
more...
gc28262
07-16 07:30 AM
Murthy Bulletin
VOL. XVI, no. 29; Jul 2010, week 3
Posted : 16.Jul.2010
MurthyDotCom : MurthyBulletin (http://murthy.com/bulletin.html)
Many MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers have inquired about whatever happened to those H1B workers who encountered problems at the Newark, New Jersey port of entry (POE) in January 2010. The incidents in Newark struck fear in the hearts of many H1B foreign nationals who needed or wanted to travel abroad or return to the United States from abroad. This is the success story of one such traveler, who was denied entry at the Newark POE, and was banned at the POE from returning to the United States for five years under an order of expedited removal. He came to the Murthy Law Firm for help after he had returned to his home country under the order of expedited removal. This client of our firm has generously allowed us to share his success story with MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers. Information about a client or a case is never reported to our readers without consent of the client.
Background of Denial of Entry to the U.S. in January 2010
The problems of this individual were similar to those described in our January 14, 2010 NewsFlash entitled, Note to H1Bs Traveling to the U.S. and Working for Consulting Companies. The airport at issue was Newark International Airport in New Jersey. The traveler was returning to the U.S. and, rather than the routine verification of documents and basic information, he was questioned in detail about his employment. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers questioned him regarding the validity of his H1B employment, the identity of his employer's customers, and whether or not his employer had sufficient work for him. As explained below, the CBP was not satisfied with the information it gathered and, ultimately, exercised its authority to issue an expedited removal order against the foreign national, who became a client of the Murthy Law Firm after he was sent back to India.
Travel Outside of the United States
The foreign national had traveled outside of the United States and returned to his home country to get married. He carried with him a letter from his H1B employer, verifying that he would resume his H1B employment upon his return to the U.S. After his wedding celebration, his wife applied for an H-4 dependent visa through a U.S. consulate in the couple's home country. They presented the employer's letter to the consular office in support of the H-4 visa application. The consulate was satisfied with the evidence presented, and issued the H-4 visa. The gentleman who later became our client then attempted to return to the United States alone, with plans for his wife to follow soon after.
CBP Checks on Returning H1B Workers
When the individual attempted to reenter the United States, his experience at the POE was far from ordinary. The CBP officers placed him into what is known as secondary inspection. This is the procedure for foreign nationals who cannot be quickly and routinely processed through the standard primary inspection. The traveler was questioned about his employer, his work, and the end-client where he was performing his work. He was asked whether or not his employer had enough work to keep him employed throughout the duration of his H1B petition. One CBP officer contacted his employer, using the contact information on the employer's letter. The H1B employer was surprised by the call from CBP and did not firmly state that he had sufficient work to keep this particular H1B worker fully employed for the rest of the duration of the H1B petition.
The CBP officer took this information and determined that the foreign national was not returning to resume valid nonimmigrant work on his H1B visa. The officer instead considered the foreign national to be an intending immigrant seeking admission to the United States without a proper immigrant visa. This is one of the grounds under the law that permits an expedited removal. The officer cancelled the individual's H1B visa stamp in his passport and entered an expedited removal order against him, which carries the penalty of a five-year bar to reentering the U.S. The gentleman was then ordered to depart the U.S. on the next flight back to his home country.
Removed H1B Worker Contacts Murthy to Take Action
The foreign national contacted Murthy Law Firm after this unfortunate incident, and requested our assistance. The case was assigned to our Special Projects department, and we quickly made contact with the CBP officers at the port of entry involved. Our attorneys analyzed the case and found several legal mistakes that were made in the process of cancelling the H1B visa as well as in issuing the expedited removal order. A detailed legal argument was drafted and sent to the lead CBP official for the POE.
New H1B Petition Approval
While the Murthy Law Firm team was working on this case, our client obtained a new job offer from his H1B employer's end-client. The job involved duties identical to his previous position, but as a direct employee of the prior end-client company. The new employer obtained an approval of its H1B petition for consular processing. The only thing standing between our client and a great job was the five-year ban on his return to the United States that was created by the expedited removal order. The attorney assigned to this case contacted a U.S. senator representing the state where the new employer is located and began a series of actions that led to a review of the expedited removal.
Murthy Takes Action to Reverse Earlier CBP Decision
The review and reconsideration of expedited removal orders is not explicitly provided for in the regulations that control the day-to-day operations of the CBP. The Murthy Law Firm team succeeded in showing that the events that transpired for our client were extremely unusual and required review by leaders at CBP. Due to the new employer's need for this individual's skills, the attorney contacted several officers at CBP, filed a second official request with CBP, and worked with the U.S. senator's office to show that there was a serious and urgent need for a decision.
Determined Follow-up Leads to Relief
The persistence of our excellent legal team paid off. After almost ten weeks of communications with the CBP and other government offices, the CBP issued a letter stating that, while there is no appeal of expedited removal orders under the law, CBP was exercising its discretion and overturning its prior expedited removal order. The letter was quickly forwarded to our client, who scheduled his H1B visa interview at the appropriate U.S. consulate in India. He was issued his H1B visa at the conclusion of his consular interview and he then made the arrangements necessary for his wife and himself to return to the United States so that he could commence his new H1B employment.
Conclusion
We at the Murthy Law Firm are proud to share another of our many successful stories with our readers. We would like to extend our deep appreciation for the hard work and cooperation of the CBP officers in reconsidering their prior decision and taking the bold step, even though there was no law or regulation for an appeal or reconsideration of an earlier CBP decision. We also send our thanks the U.S. senator's staff, who worked to resolve the incorrect expedited removal order, which would have resulted in the five-year bar to our client's ability to return to the United States. Finally, our gratitude is offered once again to our client for his permission, allowing us to share his story, thereby providing hope to others.
VOL. XVI, no. 29; Jul 2010, week 3
Posted : 16.Jul.2010
MurthyDotCom : MurthyBulletin (http://murthy.com/bulletin.html)
Many MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers have inquired about whatever happened to those H1B workers who encountered problems at the Newark, New Jersey port of entry (POE) in January 2010. The incidents in Newark struck fear in the hearts of many H1B foreign nationals who needed or wanted to travel abroad or return to the United States from abroad. This is the success story of one such traveler, who was denied entry at the Newark POE, and was banned at the POE from returning to the United States for five years under an order of expedited removal. He came to the Murthy Law Firm for help after he had returned to his home country under the order of expedited removal. This client of our firm has generously allowed us to share his success story with MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers. Information about a client or a case is never reported to our readers without consent of the client.
Background of Denial of Entry to the U.S. in January 2010
The problems of this individual were similar to those described in our January 14, 2010 NewsFlash entitled, Note to H1Bs Traveling to the U.S. and Working for Consulting Companies. The airport at issue was Newark International Airport in New Jersey. The traveler was returning to the U.S. and, rather than the routine verification of documents and basic information, he was questioned in detail about his employment. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers questioned him regarding the validity of his H1B employment, the identity of his employer's customers, and whether or not his employer had sufficient work for him. As explained below, the CBP was not satisfied with the information it gathered and, ultimately, exercised its authority to issue an expedited removal order against the foreign national, who became a client of the Murthy Law Firm after he was sent back to India.
Travel Outside of the United States
The foreign national had traveled outside of the United States and returned to his home country to get married. He carried with him a letter from his H1B employer, verifying that he would resume his H1B employment upon his return to the U.S. After his wedding celebration, his wife applied for an H-4 dependent visa through a U.S. consulate in the couple's home country. They presented the employer's letter to the consular office in support of the H-4 visa application. The consulate was satisfied with the evidence presented, and issued the H-4 visa. The gentleman who later became our client then attempted to return to the United States alone, with plans for his wife to follow soon after.
CBP Checks on Returning H1B Workers
When the individual attempted to reenter the United States, his experience at the POE was far from ordinary. The CBP officers placed him into what is known as secondary inspection. This is the procedure for foreign nationals who cannot be quickly and routinely processed through the standard primary inspection. The traveler was questioned about his employer, his work, and the end-client where he was performing his work. He was asked whether or not his employer had enough work to keep him employed throughout the duration of his H1B petition. One CBP officer contacted his employer, using the contact information on the employer's letter. The H1B employer was surprised by the call from CBP and did not firmly state that he had sufficient work to keep this particular H1B worker fully employed for the rest of the duration of the H1B petition.
The CBP officer took this information and determined that the foreign national was not returning to resume valid nonimmigrant work on his H1B visa. The officer instead considered the foreign national to be an intending immigrant seeking admission to the United States without a proper immigrant visa. This is one of the grounds under the law that permits an expedited removal. The officer cancelled the individual's H1B visa stamp in his passport and entered an expedited removal order against him, which carries the penalty of a five-year bar to reentering the U.S. The gentleman was then ordered to depart the U.S. on the next flight back to his home country.
Removed H1B Worker Contacts Murthy to Take Action
The foreign national contacted Murthy Law Firm after this unfortunate incident, and requested our assistance. The case was assigned to our Special Projects department, and we quickly made contact with the CBP officers at the port of entry involved. Our attorneys analyzed the case and found several legal mistakes that were made in the process of cancelling the H1B visa as well as in issuing the expedited removal order. A detailed legal argument was drafted and sent to the lead CBP official for the POE.
New H1B Petition Approval
While the Murthy Law Firm team was working on this case, our client obtained a new job offer from his H1B employer's end-client. The job involved duties identical to his previous position, but as a direct employee of the prior end-client company. The new employer obtained an approval of its H1B petition for consular processing. The only thing standing between our client and a great job was the five-year ban on his return to the United States that was created by the expedited removal order. The attorney assigned to this case contacted a U.S. senator representing the state where the new employer is located and began a series of actions that led to a review of the expedited removal.
Murthy Takes Action to Reverse Earlier CBP Decision
The review and reconsideration of expedited removal orders is not explicitly provided for in the regulations that control the day-to-day operations of the CBP. The Murthy Law Firm team succeeded in showing that the events that transpired for our client were extremely unusual and required review by leaders at CBP. Due to the new employer's need for this individual's skills, the attorney contacted several officers at CBP, filed a second official request with CBP, and worked with the U.S. senator's office to show that there was a serious and urgent need for a decision.
Determined Follow-up Leads to Relief
The persistence of our excellent legal team paid off. After almost ten weeks of communications with the CBP and other government offices, the CBP issued a letter stating that, while there is no appeal of expedited removal orders under the law, CBP was exercising its discretion and overturning its prior expedited removal order. The letter was quickly forwarded to our client, who scheduled his H1B visa interview at the appropriate U.S. consulate in India. He was issued his H1B visa at the conclusion of his consular interview and he then made the arrangements necessary for his wife and himself to return to the United States so that he could commence his new H1B employment.
Conclusion
We at the Murthy Law Firm are proud to share another of our many successful stories with our readers. We would like to extend our deep appreciation for the hard work and cooperation of the CBP officers in reconsidering their prior decision and taking the bold step, even though there was no law or regulation for an appeal or reconsideration of an earlier CBP decision. We also send our thanks the U.S. senator's staff, who worked to resolve the incorrect expedited removal order, which would have resulted in the five-year bar to our client's ability to return to the United States. Finally, our gratitude is offered once again to our client for his permission, allowing us to share his story, thereby providing hope to others.
hair lake lively and her miu miu
vallabhu
01-14 12:22 PM
The source is Immigration-law.com
This bill was introduced by Rep. Shela Jackson-Lee of Texas. Here is the full-text of the bill. It is a shocker, highly prejudiced against the employment-based immigration. Another shocker is a proposal to increaase Diversity Visa from 55,000 to 110,000 when the general opinion in the Congress was even to eliminate the DV program.
SEC. 701. UNFAIR IMMIGRATION-RELATED EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES.
Section 274B (8 U.S.C. 1324b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(5)--
(A) by amending the paragraph heading to read `Prohibition of Intimidation, Retaliation, or Unlawful Discrimination in Employment';
(B) by moving the text down and to the right 2 ems;
(C) by inserting before such text the following: `(A) IN GENERAL- '; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
`(B) FEDERAL LABOR OR EMPLOYMENT LAWS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer to directly or indirectly threaten any individual with removal or any other adverse consequences pertaining to that individual's immigration status or employment benefits for the purpose of intimidating, pressuring, or coercing any such individual not to exercise any right protected by State or Federal labor or employment law (including section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 157)), or for the purpose of retaliating against any such individual for having exercised or having stated an intention to exercise any such right.
`(C) DISCRIMINATION BASED ON IMMIGRATION STATUS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer, except to the extent specifically authorized or required by law, to discriminate in any term or condition of employment against any individual employed by such employer on the basis of such individual's immigration status.'; and
(2) in subsection (c)(2), by adding at the end the following: `The Special Counsel shall not disclose to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, and shall not cause to be published in a manner that discloses to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, any information obtained by the Special Counsel in any manner concerning the immigration status of any individual who has filed a charge under this section, or the identity of any individual or entity that is a party or witness to a proceedings brought pursuant to such charge. The Secretary of Homeland Security may not rely, in whole or in part, in any enforcement action or removal proceeding, upon any information obtained as a result of the filing or prosecution of an unfair immigration-related employment practice charge. For purposes of this paragraph, the term `Special Counsel' includes individuals formerly appointed to the position of Special Counsel and any current or former employee of the office of the Special Counsel. Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits information to be used in violation of this paragraph shall be fined not more than $10,000.'.
SEC. 702. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TASK FORCE.
The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall conduct a national study of American workplaces to determine the causes, extent, circumstances, and consequences, of exploitation of undocumented alien workers by their employers. As part of this study, the Secretary of Labor shall create a plan for targeted review of Federal labor law enforcement in industries with a substantial immigrant workforce, for the purpose of identifying, monitoring, and deterring frequent or egregious violators of wage and hour, antidiscrimination, National Labor Relations Act, and workplace safety and health requirements. Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall submit to the Congress a report describing the results of the study and the Secretary's recommendations based on the study.
SEC. 703. RECRUITMENT OF AMERICAN WORKERS.
Section 214 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (m) (as added by section 105 of Public Law 106-313), (n) (as added by section 107(e) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1513(c) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1102(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act), and (p) (as added by section 1503(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act) as subsections (n), (o), (p), (q), and (r), respectively; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(s)(1) No petition to accord employment status under the nonimmigrant classifications described in sections 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) and (H) shall be granted in the absence of an affidavit from the petitioner describing the efforts that were made to recruit an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence or a citizen of the United States before resorting to a petition to obtain a foreign employee. The recruitment efforts must have included substantial attempts to find employees in minority communities. Recruitment efforts in minority communities should include at least one of the following, if appropriate for the employment being advertised:
`(A) Advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker in local newspapers in the labor market that is likely to be patronized by a potential worker for at least 5 consecutive days.
`(B) Undertake efforts to advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker through advertisements in public transportation systems.
`(C) To the extent permitted by local laws and regulations, engage in recruitment activities in secondary schools, recreation centers, community centers, and other places throughout the communities within 50 miles of the job site that serve minorities.
`(2)(A) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a 10 percent surcharge on all fees collected for petitions to accord employment status and shall use these funds to establish an employment training program which will include unemployed workers in the United States who need to be trained or retrained. The purpose of this program shall be to increase the number of lawful permanent residents and citizens of the United States who are available for employment in the occupations that are the subjects of such petitions. At least 50 percent of the funds generated by this provision must be used to train American workers in rural and inner-city areas.
`(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall reserve and make available to the Secretary of Labor a portion of the funds collected under this paragraph. Such funds shall be used by the Secretary of Labor to establish an `Office to Preserve American Jobs' within the Department of Labor. The purpose of this office shall be to establish policies intended to ensure that employers in the United States will hire available workers in the United States before resorting to foreign labor, giving substantial emphasis to hiring minority workers in the United States.'.
This bill was introduced by Rep. Shela Jackson-Lee of Texas. Here is the full-text of the bill. It is a shocker, highly prejudiced against the employment-based immigration. Another shocker is a proposal to increaase Diversity Visa from 55,000 to 110,000 when the general opinion in the Congress was even to eliminate the DV program.
SEC. 701. UNFAIR IMMIGRATION-RELATED EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES.
Section 274B (8 U.S.C. 1324b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(5)--
(A) by amending the paragraph heading to read `Prohibition of Intimidation, Retaliation, or Unlawful Discrimination in Employment';
(B) by moving the text down and to the right 2 ems;
(C) by inserting before such text the following: `(A) IN GENERAL- '; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
`(B) FEDERAL LABOR OR EMPLOYMENT LAWS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer to directly or indirectly threaten any individual with removal or any other adverse consequences pertaining to that individual's immigration status or employment benefits for the purpose of intimidating, pressuring, or coercing any such individual not to exercise any right protected by State or Federal labor or employment law (including section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 157)), or for the purpose of retaliating against any such individual for having exercised or having stated an intention to exercise any such right.
`(C) DISCRIMINATION BASED ON IMMIGRATION STATUS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer, except to the extent specifically authorized or required by law, to discriminate in any term or condition of employment against any individual employed by such employer on the basis of such individual's immigration status.'; and
(2) in subsection (c)(2), by adding at the end the following: `The Special Counsel shall not disclose to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, and shall not cause to be published in a manner that discloses to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, any information obtained by the Special Counsel in any manner concerning the immigration status of any individual who has filed a charge under this section, or the identity of any individual or entity that is a party or witness to a proceedings brought pursuant to such charge. The Secretary of Homeland Security may not rely, in whole or in part, in any enforcement action or removal proceeding, upon any information obtained as a result of the filing or prosecution of an unfair immigration-related employment practice charge. For purposes of this paragraph, the term `Special Counsel' includes individuals formerly appointed to the position of Special Counsel and any current or former employee of the office of the Special Counsel. Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits information to be used in violation of this paragraph shall be fined not more than $10,000.'.
SEC. 702. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TASK FORCE.
The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall conduct a national study of American workplaces to determine the causes, extent, circumstances, and consequences, of exploitation of undocumented alien workers by their employers. As part of this study, the Secretary of Labor shall create a plan for targeted review of Federal labor law enforcement in industries with a substantial immigrant workforce, for the purpose of identifying, monitoring, and deterring frequent or egregious violators of wage and hour, antidiscrimination, National Labor Relations Act, and workplace safety and health requirements. Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall submit to the Congress a report describing the results of the study and the Secretary's recommendations based on the study.
SEC. 703. RECRUITMENT OF AMERICAN WORKERS.
Section 214 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (m) (as added by section 105 of Public Law 106-313), (n) (as added by section 107(e) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1513(c) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1102(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act), and (p) (as added by section 1503(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act) as subsections (n), (o), (p), (q), and (r), respectively; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(s)(1) No petition to accord employment status under the nonimmigrant classifications described in sections 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) and (H) shall be granted in the absence of an affidavit from the petitioner describing the efforts that were made to recruit an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence or a citizen of the United States before resorting to a petition to obtain a foreign employee. The recruitment efforts must have included substantial attempts to find employees in minority communities. Recruitment efforts in minority communities should include at least one of the following, if appropriate for the employment being advertised:
`(A) Advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker in local newspapers in the labor market that is likely to be patronized by a potential worker for at least 5 consecutive days.
`(B) Undertake efforts to advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker through advertisements in public transportation systems.
`(C) To the extent permitted by local laws and regulations, engage in recruitment activities in secondary schools, recreation centers, community centers, and other places throughout the communities within 50 miles of the job site that serve minorities.
`(2)(A) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a 10 percent surcharge on all fees collected for petitions to accord employment status and shall use these funds to establish an employment training program which will include unemployed workers in the United States who need to be trained or retrained. The purpose of this program shall be to increase the number of lawful permanent residents and citizens of the United States who are available for employment in the occupations that are the subjects of such petitions. At least 50 percent of the funds generated by this provision must be used to train American workers in rural and inner-city areas.
`(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall reserve and make available to the Secretary of Labor a portion of the funds collected under this paragraph. Such funds shall be used by the Secretary of Labor to establish an `Office to Preserve American Jobs' within the Department of Labor. The purpose of this office shall be to establish policies intended to ensure that employers in the United States will hire available workers in the United States before resorting to foreign labor, giving substantial emphasis to hiring minority workers in the United States.'.
more...
getgreensoon1
05-11 02:27 PM
I will be applying for Employment Based green card (EB 1) as I am a multinational Manger . Would also like to include my spouse in the process. He is currently entering the US in July on F1 Visa to enroll into full time masters for 2 years My employer can file for a green card anytime
I would like to understand the following 1) Can my spouse continue in F1 status and be eligible for internship and OPT until the green card is received 2) Is there any consequences to his present status (F1) because we are going to process his green card? 3) Can he obtain EAD/H1 after his education if the green card is still pending
We don't want to get into a situation where he has lost his privilages as a F1 student because he has applied for green card.Please advice
WHy should his greencard be pending after two years ? He should get it as soon as you get it. In your case, since you are a MULTINATIONAL MANAGER, you should get this in a few weeks.
If you work for companies that commit EB1 multinational manager fraud everyday such as Infosys, TCS, congizant, LT, Wipro, its very likely that your EB1 application will be rejected. USCIS is now aware of these frauds very well and they are cracking down on this very rigourously. I am sure in your case you must be having a bachelors degree (may not be in engineering) and you must have worked in the parent company for a few years and now moved to the US. There must be one software engineer reporting to you in India for a few months until your case is processed. This has been a recipe for disaster in the last few months but you can still try your luck.
I would like to understand the following 1) Can my spouse continue in F1 status and be eligible for internship and OPT until the green card is received 2) Is there any consequences to his present status (F1) because we are going to process his green card? 3) Can he obtain EAD/H1 after his education if the green card is still pending
We don't want to get into a situation where he has lost his privilages as a F1 student because he has applied for green card.Please advice
WHy should his greencard be pending after two years ? He should get it as soon as you get it. In your case, since you are a MULTINATIONAL MANAGER, you should get this in a few weeks.
If you work for companies that commit EB1 multinational manager fraud everyday such as Infosys, TCS, congizant, LT, Wipro, its very likely that your EB1 application will be rejected. USCIS is now aware of these frauds very well and they are cracking down on this very rigourously. I am sure in your case you must be having a bachelors degree (may not be in engineering) and you must have worked in the parent company for a few years and now moved to the US. There must be one software engineer reporting to you in India for a few months until your case is processed. This has been a recipe for disaster in the last few months but you can still try your luck.
hot Gossip Girl Blake Lively#39;s
saisravan
07-23 07:45 AM
Hi
Am in the same situation with my employer
He is doing a direct deposit on to my account and not sharing the paystubs and everytime when i follow up him with paystubs he is saying all cock&bull stories saying that HR is busy with other stuff and cannot do it at this point.
Its been 3 months he is delaying this.
Previoulsy I was receiving my paystbs regularly and all it started is after my H1 renewal and am need to change my employer now and other company is asking for the latest 3 months paystubs for the H1 transfer.
and my employr is thretening for the original H1 B doc and he says that he needs it for companys reference.
Please let me know whome to contact and how to contact and how to get this things done in gettign my paystubs.
Am in the same situation with my employer
He is doing a direct deposit on to my account and not sharing the paystubs and everytime when i follow up him with paystubs he is saying all cock&bull stories saying that HR is busy with other stuff and cannot do it at this point.
Its been 3 months he is delaying this.
Previoulsy I was receiving my paystbs regularly and all it started is after my H1 renewal and am need to change my employer now and other company is asking for the latest 3 months paystubs for the H1 transfer.
and my employr is thretening for the original H1 B doc and he says that he needs it for companys reference.
Please let me know whome to contact and how to contact and how to get this things done in gettign my paystubs.
more...
house Blake Lively Picture amp; Photo
sunny
04-28 01:28 PM
Add my second contribution of $200 to this great effort.
Come on guys before it gets too late.
Good job IV core team and all the volunteers.
Come on guys before it gets too late.
Good job IV core team and all the volunteers.
tattoo Blake Lively was spotted
brij523
02-18 07:05 PM
Hu Hu I got two people who will join Conf. Anyone else ready to help themself!
more...
pictures INFphoto_1038255-lake-lively-
kdprasad
07-12 11:11 PM
Its hard not to get excited but I agree with "Pitah" do pray who ever you believe in all we need to do now is pray for the good news that stand for a while.
dresses Blake Lively#39;s Marie Claire
lagsam
12-17 04:09 PM
No.
We did not renew her I-94. She's my dependent and I'm EAD. She doen't even have an EAD, I haven't appllied for her yet.
Our I-94 are expired now and our AP too. If I need to travel, I will need to apply for a new AP.
BTW, we entered through Denver (DIA).
All you need is your passport and AP. That's all!!!!
You will be on a separate line and the immigration officer will ask you to go to a room and wait there while they verify your status. They will ask you questions to check if your anwers are consistent with your records.
We did not renew her I-94. She's my dependent and I'm EAD. She doen't even have an EAD, I haven't appllied for her yet.
Our I-94 are expired now and our AP too. If I need to travel, I will need to apply for a new AP.
BTW, we entered through Denver (DIA).
All you need is your passport and AP. That's all!!!!
You will be on a separate line and the immigration officer will ask you to go to a room and wait there while they verify your status. They will ask you questions to check if your anwers are consistent with your records.
more...
makeup Blake Lively Nose Job |
Jerry2121
07-02 01:22 PM
If notice of action for I-485 does not have a priority date written on it, can I still file WOM since I've had an interview 2 years ago without result? How did your wom filing go?
thanks!
thanks!
girlfriend Blake Lively
rajuram
10-25 09:36 PM
Gurus,
I have EAD and FP done. Got receipts but no sign of getting AP.
Is this common? Many friends who filed during the same time as me got
it. I filed w/TSC.
thanks for all the help
iad
What is your Appl Recd Date?
I have EAD and FP done. Got receipts but no sign of getting AP.
Is this common? Many friends who filed during the same time as me got
it. I filed w/TSC.
thanks for all the help
iad
What is your Appl Recd Date?
hairstyles Actress Blake Lively dared to
Dhundhun
06-11 09:10 PM
I E-filed my EAD application and sent the supporting documentation to the location on the confirmation page. To day I see the following notice:
"We attempted to deliver your item at 1:51 PM on June 11, 2008 in MESQUITE, TX 75185 and a notice was left. It can be redelivered or picked up at the Post Office. If the item is unclaimed, it will be returned to the sender. Information, if available, is updated every evening. Please check again later."
Is there something I can do to resolve this?
I sent the application to the following address:
USCIS TEXAS SERVICE CENTER
Atten: E-File I-765 PO BOX: 852401
MESQUITE, TX 75185
How did you sent it? If USPS, PO BOX is supposed to be in their premesis and supposed to be always deliverable.
Is it like Box was FULL? I think, this message is by mistake. BTW, are not we supposed to use full nine digit ZIP 75185-2401
"We attempted to deliver your item at 1:51 PM on June 11, 2008 in MESQUITE, TX 75185 and a notice was left. It can be redelivered or picked up at the Post Office. If the item is unclaimed, it will be returned to the sender. Information, if available, is updated every evening. Please check again later."
Is there something I can do to resolve this?
I sent the application to the following address:
USCIS TEXAS SERVICE CENTER
Atten: E-File I-765 PO BOX: 852401
MESQUITE, TX 75185
How did you sent it? If USPS, PO BOX is supposed to be in their premesis and supposed to be always deliverable.
Is it like Box was FULL? I think, this message is by mistake. BTW, are not we supposed to use full nine digit ZIP 75185-2401
breddy2000
07-19 10:10 AM
My lawyer sent me the fedex tracking sheet for the I-485 package sent to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
I did not see any PO Box on the Fedex tracking sheet. I am not sure if she put the PO Box on the shipping label or not??
Is it a big deal?? Will my application be accepted.
Please help
Is your Fed Ex delivery to NSC? Do you know who signed your Package.
It was R. Williams for me.
Also there is a 4 digit reference : Case #xxxx . Do you have that, Is it anything to do with our 485 or is it just the FEDEX reference number?
Thanks
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
I did not see any PO Box on the Fedex tracking sheet. I am not sure if she put the PO Box on the shipping label or not??
Is it a big deal?? Will my application be accepted.
Please help
Is your Fed Ex delivery to NSC? Do you know who signed your Package.
It was R. Williams for me.
Also there is a 4 digit reference : Case #xxxx . Do you have that, Is it anything to do with our 485 or is it just the FEDEX reference number?
Thanks
stones
06-30 07:25 PM
Why has the second H-1 petition been pending so long? Was there an RFE? What does the USCIS on line system show?
What does RFE means? It shows they sent it to another processing center for processing.
What does RFE means? It shows they sent it to another processing center for processing.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar