purplehazea
01-14 11:57 AM
Dude what are you talking about? The only thing that is linked to Feb 15 is that provision that IV is proposing for 485 filing/H1B increase.
As per immigration-law.com:
01/14/2007: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Legislation Likely Timeline
* Report indicates that the House and Senate special panel has been working hard to work out the new Comprehensive Immigration Reform Legislative bill. As everyone knows, this panel is led by Sen. McCain and S. Kenndy on the Senate side. It appears that the panel is targeting at introducing the bill first by March and pushing to pass the Senate by April, and the House then takes over the Senate passed bill and attempts to pass it quickly. We will have to wait and see whether or not this scenario will work as planned, but because of the changed political landscape, it is general opinion and concensus in the media and political circles that unlike the tragic experiences in the past few years, it will have a much better chance to make it this time on. If it fails to make it through as scheduled, the chance of the bill will turn slimmer because of the emerging 2008 national election politics and heat of passions involving politics. The AgJOBS bill which will legalize approximately 1.5 million farm workers on H-2A visa status currently receives a very strong support from legislators in both sides of the aisle, even though there is some difference between the White House and the Congress when it comes to the details. It is unknown whether this bill will eventually turn into a part of the CIR. AgJOBS bill is already nicknamed "Temporary Guest Worker" bill!
* As for the Appropriation bills for the federal departments other than Defense and DHS, since Continuing Resolution to temporarily fund these departments will expire on February 15, 2007, there is expected some legislative activity to pass some of the minor immigration bills including H-1B reform as part of the appropriation legislative process. Please stay tuned.
Nowadays immigration-law has more up to date information.
As per immigration-law.com:
01/14/2007: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Legislation Likely Timeline
* Report indicates that the House and Senate special panel has been working hard to work out the new Comprehensive Immigration Reform Legislative bill. As everyone knows, this panel is led by Sen. McCain and S. Kenndy on the Senate side. It appears that the panel is targeting at introducing the bill first by March and pushing to pass the Senate by April, and the House then takes over the Senate passed bill and attempts to pass it quickly. We will have to wait and see whether or not this scenario will work as planned, but because of the changed political landscape, it is general opinion and concensus in the media and political circles that unlike the tragic experiences in the past few years, it will have a much better chance to make it this time on. If it fails to make it through as scheduled, the chance of the bill will turn slimmer because of the emerging 2008 national election politics and heat of passions involving politics. The AgJOBS bill which will legalize approximately 1.5 million farm workers on H-2A visa status currently receives a very strong support from legislators in both sides of the aisle, even though there is some difference between the White House and the Congress when it comes to the details. It is unknown whether this bill will eventually turn into a part of the CIR. AgJOBS bill is already nicknamed "Temporary Guest Worker" bill!
* As for the Appropriation bills for the federal departments other than Defense and DHS, since Continuing Resolution to temporarily fund these departments will expire on February 15, 2007, there is expected some legislative activity to pass some of the minor immigration bills including H-1B reform as part of the appropriation legislative process. Please stay tuned.
Nowadays immigration-law has more up to date information.
wallpaper “The Empire Strikes Back”
neel_gump
05-22 12:02 PM
FAQs seems to be a great idea people.
popoye
01-15 01:40 AM
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2117058646892668334: Charlie Rose's Panel
2011 Star Wars: Episode V - The
transpass
08-04 11:10 AM
me too...NSC filer, but transferred to TSC...
RD july 2, PD 12/2005
RD july 2, PD 12/2005
more...
mrdelhiite
07-20 10:09 AM
I am a July fiasco survivor. My 485 has been filed through AOS, so no worries there. I was supposed to get married in a few months, but my fiancee has rushed down to the US on her tourist visa. The plan was to get a civil marriage certificate done and have her atach her AOS with mine. Lawyer has now informed me that she needs to stay here till she gets AP otherwise the application is considered 'abandoned'. She has a life in her home country that she needs to get back to, She can't just drop everything and park herself here for the 4-6 months that AP is likelt to take for July applicants. Does anyone have any advice, or a similar situation? As I see it, my options are -
1. File AOS for her and let her leave, and take the chance that they will track her departure and cancel her application. If this happens, is she allowed to refile if the PD becomes current later?
2. Rush out of the US with her to get her back in on H4 visa. Challenge here is that it is near impossible to get an appointment at a US consulate before the 17th Aug window closes.
3. File her application through CP. She doesn't get interim benefits that way. Given my PD of EB3-June 2006, I'm not expecting a GC for at least 3 years, so this option really sucks.
Any suggestions from the community out there?
""""2. Rush out of the US with her to get her back in on H4 visa. Challenge here is that it is near impossible to get an appointment at a US consulate before the 17th Aug window closes.""" --> FYI delhi still has August 3 onwards visa dates
1. File AOS for her and let her leave, and take the chance that they will track her departure and cancel her application. If this happens, is she allowed to refile if the PD becomes current later?
2. Rush out of the US with her to get her back in on H4 visa. Challenge here is that it is near impossible to get an appointment at a US consulate before the 17th Aug window closes.
3. File her application through CP. She doesn't get interim benefits that way. Given my PD of EB3-June 2006, I'm not expecting a GC for at least 3 years, so this option really sucks.
Any suggestions from the community out there?
""""2. Rush out of the US with her to get her back in on H4 visa. Challenge here is that it is near impossible to get an appointment at a US consulate before the 17th Aug window closes.""" --> FYI delhi still has August 3 onwards visa dates
mpadapa
08-15 02:28 PM
give the guy some credit. He might have taken the risk by jumping in the PERM bandwagon early while many like me took safe approach by filing traditional LC:mad:
One of my buddies got his GC approved yesterday and his Priority Date is June 2005, EB2 India. I am here waiting since 2004 March to file for my I485. There are no methods to USCIS Madness.
One of my buddies got his GC approved yesterday and his Priority Date is June 2005, EB2 India. I am here waiting since 2004 March to file for my I485. There are no methods to USCIS Madness.
more...
gcisadawg
07-31 11:50 AM
lol, but you have got to specify the exact date and time of your PD coz' the pace it moves at, ever second matters.
They did mention in one of the other threads that it will touch 2003 for ROW so I do not see any light at the end of the tunnel for EB3 I folks.
Just for fun, let me predict with all seriousness.
On Oct 2009 Visa Bulletin: EB3-I Cutoff date Dec 15th 2000
On Oct 2010 Visa Bulletin: EB3-I Cutoff date June 1st 2001
I'm hoping to see a movement of atleast 6 months for EB3-I during Fiscal year 2010.
They did mention in one of the other threads that it will touch 2003 for ROW so I do not see any light at the end of the tunnel for EB3 I folks.
Just for fun, let me predict with all seriousness.
On Oct 2009 Visa Bulletin: EB3-I Cutoff date Dec 15th 2000
On Oct 2010 Visa Bulletin: EB3-I Cutoff date June 1st 2001
I'm hoping to see a movement of atleast 6 months for EB3-I during Fiscal year 2010.
2010 Star Wars - Empire Strikes
Anders �stberg
June 17th, 2005, 05:37 AM
Nik, your pictures look fine to me. I think it's my Magpie that is a bit problematic, on my screen the blacks and greys look a bit washed out in your version,
more...
texcan
02-16 12:51 PM
Hi Everyone,
I will be laid off from an american company by the end of Feb 2009. I spoke to my previous desi employee as my H1b with his company is still valid and he din't revoked it until now
But he agrees to let me join his company but at the same time he worried about few things
Q1) I was with him for 6 months of 2008 and moved to an American Company so the total pay in the W2 for year 2008 is less than LCA amount.
Would that be a problem as i din't work with him for an entire year in which case it is bound to be less than LCA amount..
Mind you i'm looking at the Yearly wage if you look at month wise it is much higher than mentioned in LCA.
Would that be of any problem to both me and employeer.
Q2) He also said that when somebody re hires any one , the employeer is liable to pay back wages for the period of time he was out.
It sounds illogical atleast to me because he didn't terminate me from the job it was me who quit the job and transferred my H1b on a good note , but there is no official document saying i quit the job or he terminated me ....
I would appreciate if some could throw some light on this ....
My future is relied on these issues
Thanks
David
i somehow donot believe this guy....sounds fishy....
I will be laid off from an american company by the end of Feb 2009. I spoke to my previous desi employee as my H1b with his company is still valid and he din't revoked it until now
But he agrees to let me join his company but at the same time he worried about few things
Q1) I was with him for 6 months of 2008 and moved to an American Company so the total pay in the W2 for year 2008 is less than LCA amount.
Would that be a problem as i din't work with him for an entire year in which case it is bound to be less than LCA amount..
Mind you i'm looking at the Yearly wage if you look at month wise it is much higher than mentioned in LCA.
Would that be of any problem to both me and employeer.
Q2) He also said that when somebody re hires any one , the employeer is liable to pay back wages for the period of time he was out.
It sounds illogical atleast to me because he didn't terminate me from the job it was me who quit the job and transferred my H1b on a good note , but there is no official document saying i quit the job or he terminated me ....
I would appreciate if some could throw some light on this ....
My future is relied on these issues
Thanks
David
i somehow donot believe this guy....sounds fishy....
hair Star Wars- The Empire Strikes
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
delhiguy79
10-23 12:58 PM
Hi,
My mother-in-law is coming to US on 2nd Dec on a one-way ticket, she will be going back around March 09 i.e. in almost 4 months.
As we dont know abt the dates as such of return so we have booked a one-way ticket from India to US.
Will there be any problem due to that at port of entry?
Do she also need to carry travel insurance along with her?
Thanks in advance.
My mother-in-law is coming to US on 2nd Dec on a one-way ticket, she will be going back around March 09 i.e. in almost 4 months.
As we dont know abt the dates as such of return so we have booked a one-way ticket from India to US.
Will there be any problem due to that at port of entry?
Do she also need to carry travel insurance along with her?
Thanks in advance.
hot The Empire Strikes Back.
freddy22
07-20 12:59 AM
what if he is charged with 2 misdemenaors as a YOUTHFUL OFFENDER?
is the law not that these are NOT grounds for deportation proceedings?
is the law not that these are NOT grounds for deportation proceedings?
more...
house Star Wars: Episode V - The
GoneSouth
07-11 10:57 AM
Hi Folks,
Just thought I'd share with the group, I recently received my I-140 approval. I did it premium processing through the Nebraska service center (I think) and the application was approved in 3 days (!) - submitted 06/25, premium processing fee check cashed 06/26, approval 06/29.
Now if only they had premium processing for I-485s ! (I was impacted by this recent visa bulletin thing unfortunately ... my PD was current in June but now I have to wait till Oct to file I-485 ... sigh).
- GS
Just thought I'd share with the group, I recently received my I-140 approval. I did it premium processing through the Nebraska service center (I think) and the application was approved in 3 days (!) - submitted 06/25, premium processing fee check cashed 06/26, approval 06/29.
Now if only they had premium processing for I-485s ! (I was impacted by this recent visa bulletin thing unfortunately ... my PD was current in June but now I have to wait till Oct to file I-485 ... sigh).
- GS
tattoo Strikes Back star wars
gcisadawg
03-27 01:16 AM
There are more than 100,000 emails and more than 40,000 paper letters coming to Obama every day. I doubt, if all get acknowledged after somone reads them. Some sort of filtering process has to handle that task. With security I meant, checking on originating IP addresses against their watch-lists, certain words in the text, etc. As per reports, Obams is given some 10 letters (may be some emails) everyday to read.
u bet! :)
u bet! :)
more...
pictures 10 #39;Star Wars#39; Scenes We Want
learning01
05-22 12:48 PM
It is their level of competence and their best.
Who are you (or we) to label them otherwise. LOL.
No mention on incompetence on part of DOL?
Who are you (or we) to label them otherwise. LOL.
No mention on incompetence on part of DOL?
dresses Episode V: Empire Strikes Back
paulinasmith
08-10 09:05 PM
I am an EB3 applicant with PD of Sep 2004. I have an EAD but I haven't used it yet. I am still on H1-B.
I have 12 years of experience and a masters degree and given the hopeless EB3 backlog, I have been looking for other suitable employment opportunities (EB2) for the past few weeks.
I have a few questions for the IV members who have switched to new employers and have successfully ported EB3 to EB2:
1. Should I use my EAD and invoke AC21 to transfer to a new employer or should I ask them to file H1-B transfer.
2. How soon is it reasonable to ask the prospective employer to file EB2 labor? I do not want to blow up an opportunity being unreassonable.
In my mind, I am thinking about asking the employer to file for EB2 labor and use my EAD to start working. This is under the assumption that asking an employer to do H1-B transfer and also file EB2 labor might be too much to ask (expense wise) .
Any suggestions/ advice appreciated.
My employer started green card process in November 2009 and still PERM is not filled with DOL (August 2010).Getting a PERM into DOL system and getting it approved/certified is the biggest hurrdle these days.....
I have 12 years of experience and a masters degree and given the hopeless EB3 backlog, I have been looking for other suitable employment opportunities (EB2) for the past few weeks.
I have a few questions for the IV members who have switched to new employers and have successfully ported EB3 to EB2:
1. Should I use my EAD and invoke AC21 to transfer to a new employer or should I ask them to file H1-B transfer.
2. How soon is it reasonable to ask the prospective employer to file EB2 labor? I do not want to blow up an opportunity being unreassonable.
In my mind, I am thinking about asking the employer to file for EB2 labor and use my EAD to start working. This is under the assumption that asking an employer to do H1-B transfer and also file EB2 labor might be too much to ask (expense wise) .
Any suggestions/ advice appreciated.
My employer started green card process in November 2009 and still PERM is not filled with DOL (August 2010).Getting a PERM into DOL system and getting it approved/certified is the biggest hurrdle these days.....
more...
makeup Star Wars: The Empire Strikes
dixie
08-09 11:26 AM
It is true that big businesses are putting a lot of pressure to initiate legal immigration reform, so while there is certainly room for optimism, we cannot sit still and just wait for things to happen. That is what legal immigrants have been doing for generations and we now know the mess that we are in. In contrast, look at the illegal immigrants. They create a lot of sound and fury, and ultimately even though nobody likes illegal immigration, an amnesty(or something close) is almost inevitable every 20 years or so.
IV is the first organization to initiate activism among legal immigrants. We are not that powerful right now, but we have already seen what activism can do. See the dramatic increase in coverage of legal immigration issues in the media. I cannot recall anything being published about our plight before. Those who say IV has done is ineffective should remember that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.IV has taken that important first step.
I don't know.
My friend same something that it makes sense;
Don't expect to see any real improvement throughout the Pres. Bush Administration. Remember politicians do shows. Even the current SKIL bill seems to be way unilateral and that would not be welcome by American voters either. I think until lawmakers truly stop listening to lobbysts and bring a true balanced bill to the table, we will see lots of "shows", but no real result.
It may happen someday, but I don't count on it necessarily in 2007.
IV is the first organization to initiate activism among legal immigrants. We are not that powerful right now, but we have already seen what activism can do. See the dramatic increase in coverage of legal immigration issues in the media. I cannot recall anything being published about our plight before. Those who say IV has done is ineffective should remember that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.IV has taken that important first step.
I don't know.
My friend same something that it makes sense;
Don't expect to see any real improvement throughout the Pres. Bush Administration. Remember politicians do shows. Even the current SKIL bill seems to be way unilateral and that would not be welcome by American voters either. I think until lawmakers truly stop listening to lobbysts and bring a true balanced bill to the table, we will see lots of "shows", but no real result.
It may happen someday, but I don't count on it necessarily in 2007.
girlfriend Star Wars: Episode V - The
kimbhoot
09-15 09:45 AM
Hi,
I just got my I-140 approved, under EB3 I am waiting to file 485, now I got an offer from another department in the same company.. both are tech positions, my current title is Network Specialist although I do web development too, and this new one is programmer Analyst (mostly web programming), the job description matches a little bit, but they're not completely the same..
I would greatly appreciate if someone can tell me what I'm allowed to do and what not.. I don't want to go thru the PERM process again. I looked around and looks like if the job description is similar then I can but it depends how u define similar.. Please Help.
Also how do you report (if you need to report) that the position title or salary or responsibility changes to INS. if the new department is willing to change their description to match my current one will that be fine?
I just got my I-140 approved, under EB3 I am waiting to file 485, now I got an offer from another department in the same company.. both are tech positions, my current title is Network Specialist although I do web development too, and this new one is programmer Analyst (mostly web programming), the job description matches a little bit, but they're not completely the same..
I would greatly appreciate if someone can tell me what I'm allowed to do and what not.. I don't want to go thru the PERM process again. I looked around and looks like if the job description is similar then I can but it depends how u define similar.. Please Help.
Also how do you report (if you need to report) that the position title or salary or responsibility changes to INS. if the new department is willing to change their description to match my current one will that be fine?
hairstyles Star Wars The Empire Strikes
OlgaJ
February 20th, 2004, 07:25 AM
Don't you worry, Scott, my toes can take it. LOL!
Yes, you are right. I calculated that wrong. So let's see:
Assuming 12inch distance:
38mm (9.7) at f8, near 9.99, far 15
28mm (7.3) at f8, near 8.84, far 18.7
That does sound more reasonable given it's a digicam.
Olga
Yes, you are right. I calculated that wrong. So let's see:
Assuming 12inch distance:
38mm (9.7) at f8, near 9.99, far 15
28mm (7.3) at f8, near 8.84, far 18.7
That does sound more reasonable given it's a digicam.
Olga