ajay
03-14 09:30 PM
Dear members,
If you have received letters from USCIS asking for $5K for your FOIA request, Please fax a copy of that letter to Immigration Voice.
We want to collect those letters and proceed with some big effort on this issue. It is thus important that we have lots of such letters from members.
Please note the fax number
Fax : (202) 403-3853
or email the scanned copy to info at immigrationvoice.org
Time is short and we need letters in the next couple of days if possible.
I also just emailed.
thanks.
If you have received letters from USCIS asking for $5K for your FOIA request, Please fax a copy of that letter to Immigration Voice.
We want to collect those letters and proceed with some big effort on this issue. It is thus important that we have lots of such letters from members.
Please note the fax number
Fax : (202) 403-3853
or email the scanned copy to info at immigrationvoice.org
Time is short and we need letters in the next couple of days if possible.
I also just emailed.
thanks.
wallpaper hot hayley williams twitter
aachoo
02-21 01:33 AM
You are not alone�
This is the case for most people, for instance, my current salary is at least 10K higher than my LC wage.
Bottom line is, you need to have a job in the "same or similar occupational classification" as the position which was the subject of the labor certification application. Salary does not matter, as long as it does not seem to evidence a totally different type of position.
My job is in the same company, same classification etc. I am not worried about that. The problem (I guess the GC mess can make you twist the best things into problems) is the $40K+ in raises I have received since then...
-a
This is the case for most people, for instance, my current salary is at least 10K higher than my LC wage.
Bottom line is, you need to have a job in the "same or similar occupational classification" as the position which was the subject of the labor certification application. Salary does not matter, as long as it does not seem to evidence a totally different type of position.
My job is in the same company, same classification etc. I am not worried about that. The problem (I guess the GC mess can make you twist the best things into problems) is the $40K+ in raises I have received since then...
-a
gg_ny
08-21 09:20 AM
Is there a chance to attach SKIL provisions towards higher degree GC retrogressed applicants to this appropriation efforts?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
2011 hayley williams twitter
gc4me
07-30 11:50 AM
I guess you meant 'Spouse related difficult GC question'. :D
I liked the joke.. the title originally was: "Difficult Spouse related GC question" ;)
I will definitely consider doing that. I am just afraid that I might get my GC even before I get a chance to do a court marriage.
Thanks for the input.
I liked the joke.. the title originally was: "Difficult Spouse related GC question" ;)
I will definitely consider doing that. I am just afraid that I might get my GC even before I get a chance to do a court marriage.
Thanks for the input.
more...
vin13
03-31 03:22 PM
Thanks all for your help and great inputs. IV has helped me a lot.
I wish you all the best ...
TKs, GG
Congratulations!
You have a Oct 04 priority date. Your date was current for quite some time. What took them so long? Did you switch from Eb3 to Eb2?
I wish you all the best ...
TKs, GG
Congratulations!
You have a Oct 04 priority date. Your date was current for quite some time. What took them so long? Did you switch from Eb3 to Eb2?
greenguru
03-31 03:26 PM
Yes. I applied for EB2 again in Jan 2009 and ported from EB3 to EB2.
So that is why it took me so long
So that is why it took me so long
more...
sunny1000
07-23 01:38 AM
For Labor substitution cases, is there premium processing for I-140? Earlier, USCIS announced that from 05/18/2007 to 07/16/2007, it was stopping premium processing for Labor substitution cases. Any change now?
No PP for labor subs. No PP for other EB cases until 8/2/07 atleast. They may extend that because of the I-485 filings which will happen until 8/17.
No PP for labor subs. No PP for other EB cases until 8/2/07 atleast. They may extend that because of the I-485 filings which will happen until 8/17.
2010 hayley williams twitter.
lostinbeta
10-03 01:19 PM
HEY.......YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!!!!!!!!
Well fine, if you want to play like that.....
SPAM*(INFINITY*(INFINITY+1)*(INFINITY^INFINITY))
:::Runs and ducks behind a building in a dark alley, gets mugged by some thugs:::
:::evil chuckle is still heard, but is much fainter than before:::
Well fine, if you want to play like that.....
SPAM*(INFINITY*(INFINITY+1)*(INFINITY^INFINITY))
:::Runs and ducks behind a building in a dark alley, gets mugged by some thugs:::
:::evil chuckle is still heard, but is much fainter than before:::
more...
cool_guy_onnet1
03-10 12:16 PM
How does USCIS know about salary ? I understand that if they send rfe, we need to send the w-2 but does IRS also send the w2 information to USCIS? The other question is whats the criteria of judging the salary? Is it w-2 or pay stub ? My pay stub has been showing the correct salary but w-2 does not reflect that much since I was out of the work for quite sometime.
I MAY switch my job and this is an emergency.
Please pardon the relevancy.
Thanks
I MAY switch my job and this is an emergency.
Please pardon the relevancy.
Thanks
hair hairstyles hayley williams
kalwinhobbess
08-28 06:16 PM
Its writern in the RFE. I got an RFE and in that letter its clearly mentioned by when you need to submit the required docs.
more...
loudoggs
07-30 01:14 PM
Congrats!!!
I guess timing really matters......and you were at the right place at the right time....
I have got my case approved as well. I also received my GC cards. Thanks for all the info and Best of Luck,
I guess timing really matters......and you were at the right place at the right time....
I have got my case approved as well. I also received my GC cards. Thanks for all the info and Best of Luck,
hot hair Hayley Williams keeps on
Ψ
06-09 06:51 PM
dude i have...soo many problems posting an image.....well anywayz ill keep tryin...k i try to put my sex goddess here.lllolllhttp://img62.photobucket.com/albums/v188/_azzy_/sexcopy.jpg
more...
house william moseley girlfriend.
Mayday
04-05 11:00 AM
If I leave US now, will I be banned 3 years to enter, even though my H1-B and I-94 now have all valid dates?
I doubt they will find out your were out of status at border - as they must only check current I-94 and they have troubles finding all your I-94s or even any I-94s you have if you do not have them with you. So I am pretty sure they will only check the latest one you have in your hand (though I am not border patrol officer but I have gone through the procedure of looking-up my status at border control checkpoint inside USA).
But green card application process requires to look through all your history and this is when it will be brought up. You need a better attorney on this question then your current attorney is. I guess it would be a good idea to exclude this period somehow from green card application by applying later or a good lawyer might be able to appeal to some regulations that could resolve it as it was not entirely your fault, since I-94 does not have to match passport validity dates and so it was border patrol officer mistake at first.
I doubt they will find out your were out of status at border - as they must only check current I-94 and they have troubles finding all your I-94s or even any I-94s you have if you do not have them with you. So I am pretty sure they will only check the latest one you have in your hand (though I am not border patrol officer but I have gone through the procedure of looking-up my status at border control checkpoint inside USA).
But green card application process requires to look through all your history and this is when it will be brought up. You need a better attorney on this question then your current attorney is. I guess it would be a good idea to exclude this period somehow from green card application by applying later or a good lawyer might be able to appeal to some regulations that could resolve it as it was not entirely your fault, since I-94 does not have to match passport validity dates and so it was border patrol officer mistake at first.
tattoo dresses hayley williams
Blog Feeds
07-08 11:30 AM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
more...
pictures hayley williams twitter.
franklin
07-21 06:42 PM
OR change your birth country to England :)
Sorry that won't help :)
Sorry that won't help :)
dresses horse pictures to colour for
JunRN
08-11 06:00 PM
True. But USCIS doesn't care anymore because I-140 is already approved. The ability to pay is for I-140, not for AOS. There is no point for USCIS to get the ability to pay for AC21 cases because the adjudication is based on the approved I-140. If you will read the USCIS guidelines on this, it explains the reasons why.
more...
makeup Re: Hailey Dunn Pictures, Maps, etc. « Reply #18 on: March 23, 2011,
am001
07-28 03:57 PM
Just wanted to let you all know I got my name change in the passport ( Indian Embessy NY)
thanks for all your help
Can you tell the entire process what you did. I have same case with my son's possport except we are in DC.
thanks for all your help
Can you tell the entire process what you did. I have same case with my son's possport except we are in DC.
girlfriend Disneyland with Hayley
tnite
07-26 09:27 AM
Hello everyone,
I got to know about this website recently and I wish I had known it earlier.
Anyway, I need advice/conformation
I got married recently outside the US. However, I did not come back with my wife b/c of a couple of reasons. And I cannot bring her here in the next 3 weeks. (My H1B is getting renewed...)
The company's lawyer is advising me not file for I-485 and wait till I become current again and apply with my wife then. (I am EB3 and my PD is March 2005)
After reading this web and others, if I go ahead and apply now the following are the choices that I have later. Please confirm if I am right or wrong
1. Get every document ready for my wife at all times and apply for I-485 immediately after I become current. As long as they receive her I-485 before they approve mine, she is going to be fine. She will be fine even if they receive her I-485 a day before they approve mine.
2. If my I-485 gets approved before my wife’s I-485 get there, under section 245(k), she has 180 days to send in her I-485 as long as PD is current. And there is no penalty and no other problem with this. She can stay in the country and wait for her I-485 to approve.
3. If I though that it was a grave mistake to apply for my I-485, I can withdraw it before it gets approved and reapply later with my wife’s when I become current again. No problem with this other than paying the fees again.
4. My wife and change her H4 to F1 any time she wants to as long as she goes to school full time. She could be on F1 and apply for I-485 when I become current (I feel uneasy on this one).
Please, let me know if what I listed above is right. These are the only choices that I have ready about. If there are more choices please, let me know that too. I have to make a decision by the end of tomorrow. Thank you all!
I think your lawyer is too optimistic about EB3 March 2005 being current in the immediate future.Maybe he's right .I dont know
But looking at the possible choice you have mentioned :
1.This is the best option . ie you apply for I485 right now and add you wife when she's in the US later when the date is current.The reason being that for USCIS to approve your GC the date should be current and if its current then you're eligible to apply for your wife's I485.Its a loop. For one thing(GC Approval) to happen the other thing(Date being current) has to happen.
2.The 2nd choice is same as the 1st one. Many here are prediciting that there will be severe retrogression in the Oct bulletin and no one with a right state of mind can even guess the dates at this point of time.
3.Why do you think it would be a grave mistake in life? If you think u'r taking a big risk then make your wife's status independent of your's by applying for H1b or F1 which is option 4. You should talk to a lawyer about the intent issues on F1 visa. I am not aware of that. I know that if one's one F1 or any other non-dual intent visa they shouldnt(risky and chances are higher for denial) apply for any immigrant visa within 90 days of their arrival or in your wife's case change of status.Search for more info on the web.
But my choice would be the first one. It's not risky for the reasons I had mentioned.
my 2 cents
I got to know about this website recently and I wish I had known it earlier.
Anyway, I need advice/conformation
I got married recently outside the US. However, I did not come back with my wife b/c of a couple of reasons. And I cannot bring her here in the next 3 weeks. (My H1B is getting renewed...)
The company's lawyer is advising me not file for I-485 and wait till I become current again and apply with my wife then. (I am EB3 and my PD is March 2005)
After reading this web and others, if I go ahead and apply now the following are the choices that I have later. Please confirm if I am right or wrong
1. Get every document ready for my wife at all times and apply for I-485 immediately after I become current. As long as they receive her I-485 before they approve mine, she is going to be fine. She will be fine even if they receive her I-485 a day before they approve mine.
2. If my I-485 gets approved before my wife’s I-485 get there, under section 245(k), she has 180 days to send in her I-485 as long as PD is current. And there is no penalty and no other problem with this. She can stay in the country and wait for her I-485 to approve.
3. If I though that it was a grave mistake to apply for my I-485, I can withdraw it before it gets approved and reapply later with my wife’s when I become current again. No problem with this other than paying the fees again.
4. My wife and change her H4 to F1 any time she wants to as long as she goes to school full time. She could be on F1 and apply for I-485 when I become current (I feel uneasy on this one).
Please, let me know if what I listed above is right. These are the only choices that I have ready about. If there are more choices please, let me know that too. I have to make a decision by the end of tomorrow. Thank you all!
I think your lawyer is too optimistic about EB3 March 2005 being current in the immediate future.Maybe he's right .I dont know
But looking at the possible choice you have mentioned :
1.This is the best option . ie you apply for I485 right now and add you wife when she's in the US later when the date is current.The reason being that for USCIS to approve your GC the date should be current and if its current then you're eligible to apply for your wife's I485.Its a loop. For one thing(GC Approval) to happen the other thing(Date being current) has to happen.
2.The 2nd choice is same as the 1st one. Many here are prediciting that there will be severe retrogression in the Oct bulletin and no one with a right state of mind can even guess the dates at this point of time.
3.Why do you think it would be a grave mistake in life? If you think u'r taking a big risk then make your wife's status independent of your's by applying for H1b or F1 which is option 4. You should talk to a lawyer about the intent issues on F1 visa. I am not aware of that. I know that if one's one F1 or any other non-dual intent visa they shouldnt(risky and chances are higher for denial) apply for any immigrant visa within 90 days of their arrival or in your wife's case change of status.Search for more info on the web.
But my choice would be the first one. It's not risky for the reasons I had mentioned.
my 2 cents
hairstyles Posted by the Help Find Hailey
hanu0913
10-08 11:03 AM
You'd have to wait for PD to become current to add spouse.
Furthermore, if you get married before I-485 is approved, spouse may be added once PD becomes current, even though by then you have your GC.
can you please make sure that some one can add spouse once the PD is current after the GC got approved and if some one is married before I-485 approval
Furthermore, if you get married before I-485 is approved, spouse may be added once PD becomes current, even though by then you have your GC.
can you please make sure that some one can add spouse once the PD is current after the GC got approved and if some one is married before I-485 approval
GCNaseeb
11-04 10:46 AM
Initially my last name was misspelled on my I-485, I-131 and I-765 Receipt Notices. My Attorney sent a letter to USCIS informing the typo to correct it. USCIS sent me the letter saying that the typo error has been attached to my case. When I called USCIS for my FP Notice last week, I mentioned the IO that my Last Name is mis-spelled. But the IO instead of correcting it just on my case , he changed on all other 3 derivative cases with the same mispelled Last Name. Our FP is scheduled next friday. Now we have all our FP Notices with misspelled Last Name. I am going to call USCIS tomorrow. Also I read in other thread that, you don't need any tracking number for your FP. Here's the thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13522
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13522
kadarm
01-09 03:16 PM
any more inputs??
Still waiting. Applied in Jan 2007. EB2
Still waiting. Applied in Jan 2007. EB2