GCNirvana007
10-05 11:11 PM
that was hilarious GCN007...BTW my wife got approved to finally....
Years ago or should I say ages ago not even in the US of A but at Heathrow at the American Airlines counter (that time I was a student for MS) the lady was going thru my I-20 and was asking for additional documents et al...so I had this bunch of documents in my folder...and her eyes landed on my degree certificate...she asked me you have a degree from IIT and you couldn't get a job still ? that's why you are going for your MS....i was like well I wanted to do research....why not in India? I was like this is not even USA and this is my 2nd visit to USA (after the Christmas break in the 2nd year)....why are they asking so many questions and this is pre-9/11.....
I was like why is she harassing me....Do you have intentions of staying back in the USA after you finish your MS....I said no I plan to do my PhD in the UK...She gave me a ugly look and stamped my passport and let me go....
SoP
Thanks and great news on your wife's approval bud.
Years ago or should I say ages ago not even in the US of A but at Heathrow at the American Airlines counter (that time I was a student for MS) the lady was going thru my I-20 and was asking for additional documents et al...so I had this bunch of documents in my folder...and her eyes landed on my degree certificate...she asked me you have a degree from IIT and you couldn't get a job still ? that's why you are going for your MS....i was like well I wanted to do research....why not in India? I was like this is not even USA and this is my 2nd visit to USA (after the Christmas break in the 2nd year)....why are they asking so many questions and this is pre-9/11.....
I was like why is she harassing me....Do you have intentions of staying back in the USA after you finish your MS....I said no I plan to do my PhD in the UK...She gave me a ugly look and stamped my passport and let me go....
SoP
Thanks and great news on your wife's approval bud.
wallpaper Disney/Pixar#39;s BRAVE - Blu-
karanp25
07-30 05:48 PM
FYI: Last year, my wife (Dependent) got her EAD before mine was approved. Like i said, if u start looking for trends (and something that makes sense) the way USCIS works, u will most likely be disappointed.
They just work randomly---there are so many June/July EAD filers who got their EADs approved in 3-4 weeks time frame, and then there are May filers (like me) who've just started seeing some approvals and some are still waiting with applications pending over 90 days.
I am in the same boat. I received " Card Order� notification today for my case..but wife's case is still pending. I think there is a trend.
Primary applicant's first.. dependents later.
Any one got approval for their dependents yet?
They just work randomly---there are so many June/July EAD filers who got their EADs approved in 3-4 weeks time frame, and then there are May filers (like me) who've just started seeing some approvals and some are still waiting with applications pending over 90 days.
I am in the same boat. I received " Card Order� notification today for my case..but wife's case is still pending. I think there is a trend.
Primary applicant's first.. dependents later.
Any one got approval for their dependents yet?
test101
06-14 09:32 PM
Hi
Can I file for the I-485 before july 1st 2007?
I doing my medical exam next week on the 20th, that's the earliest i could get in MA.
However i'm going to do my x-ray tomorrow, because i always test positive after the TB test, but x-ray negative. Does it hurt to do the x-ray earlier that the actual TB test (PPD)? my doctor said it does not hurt and he will accept it. Does any one know if there going to be a problem with that ?
thanks for your help.
Can I file for the I-485 before july 1st 2007?
I doing my medical exam next week on the 20th, that's the earliest i could get in MA.
However i'm going to do my x-ray tomorrow, because i always test positive after the TB test, but x-ray negative. Does it hurt to do the x-ray earlier that the actual TB test (PPD)? my doctor said it does not hurt and he will accept it. Does any one know if there going to be a problem with that ?
thanks for your help.
2011 Disney Pixar#39;s, #39;Brave#39;
MeraNaamJoker
09-17 10:35 AM
It is my request only!!! Can you please stop replying in 'Red' color? It is really annoying.
Imagine if everyone uses bold font:mad:
Every one has there own style. Since the answer was for a very important topic and I knew the answer to it. I did want it to catch attention. Hence did it like that.
Imagine if everyone uses bold font:mad:
Every one has there own style. Since the answer was for a very important topic and I knew the answer to it. I did want it to catch attention. Hence did it like that.
more...
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
akhilmahajan
05-03 06:51 AM
Seems like a lot of people are waiting........
hopefully things will move fast...........
hopefully things will move fast...........
more...
Appu
09-11 01:10 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/USCISToday_Sep_06.pdf
According to the illustrious director of uscis, Mr Emilio Gonzalez, the backlog reduction centers have made rapid progress. In feb 2004, form i140 took 11 months to clear, but as of july 2006, there are zero, i repeat 0 backlogs. It is awesome that he is focusing on the positive, but I would also like to know is how many hundreds of thousands are waiting for their first stage labor to clear.
Ha! If that is so, how come their own friggin website shows a 6 month backlog:
https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=Nebraska
According to the illustrious director of uscis, Mr Emilio Gonzalez, the backlog reduction centers have made rapid progress. In feb 2004, form i140 took 11 months to clear, but as of july 2006, there are zero, i repeat 0 backlogs. It is awesome that he is focusing on the positive, but I would also like to know is how many hundreds of thousands are waiting for their first stage labor to clear.
Ha! If that is so, how come their own friggin website shows a 6 month backlog:
https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=Nebraska
2010 Pixar#39;s Brave Casting Shake Up
paskal
11-07 03:30 PM
I am in Birmingham and would like to join the state cahpter.
some of you need to join up and start a state chapter. meeting and discussing it is a great idea. putting faces to names is a big step forward and creates a sense of trust and community.
some of you need to join up and start a state chapter. meeting and discussing it is a great idea. putting faces to names is a big step forward and creates a sense of trust and community.
more...
lazycis
12-27 04:53 PM
Do you have to use / file AC-21 if your I-140 is approved (long back in 2005) and you have passed 180 days of i485 received date?
You are automatically using AC21 if you are changing employers after 180 days. You may file AC21 letter/employment offer with the USCIS but you do not have to do it. It depends on your circumstances and preferences.
You are automatically using AC21 if you are changing employers after 180 days. You may file AC21 letter/employment offer with the USCIS but you do not have to do it. It depends on your circumstances and preferences.
hair The Pixar Blog has posted an
fromnaija
07-30 10:08 PM
Are you saying that a child will age out if the child's 485 cannot be immediately adjudicated due to retrogression and the child is over 21 when that 485 is eventually processed?
The priority date for children who might age out is fixed at the time of your I140 filing. So if you I140 took six months to approve this can be taken off the age of the child when the labor priority date becomes current. So even if you file when a child is 20 and a half and you have to wait for two years for the date to become current, unless the I140 took 1 and a half years their age will be over 21 when the green card can be processed so they age out of derivative status.
Good luck to those who are facing this. I do understand your anxiety since my son aged out while I was waiting three and half years for my labor cert. It would seem that this 'black hole' in the employment based process is non existent to the people who can change it.
Not sure what the future holds for such children, maybe there is some greater plan which we are not aware of yet.
I do see one advantage they cannot be called up for military service (for the USA) on a non-immigrant visa whereas they can if they have a green card. While I understand fighting is a noble cause I would not want my son to fight for our country of origin either.
The priority date for children who might age out is fixed at the time of your I140 filing. So if you I140 took six months to approve this can be taken off the age of the child when the labor priority date becomes current. So even if you file when a child is 20 and a half and you have to wait for two years for the date to become current, unless the I140 took 1 and a half years their age will be over 21 when the green card can be processed so they age out of derivative status.
Good luck to those who are facing this. I do understand your anxiety since my son aged out while I was waiting three and half years for my labor cert. It would seem that this 'black hole' in the employment based process is non existent to the people who can change it.
Not sure what the future holds for such children, maybe there is some greater plan which we are not aware of yet.
I do see one advantage they cannot be called up for military service (for the USA) on a non-immigrant visa whereas they can if they have a green card. While I understand fighting is a noble cause I would not want my son to fight for our country of origin either.
more...
kaarmaa
02-10 02:40 PM
In your sim city you can make these rule. However for the real world support IV initiatives for the best results.
what initiatives? Never seen any publicized...
what initiatives? Never seen any publicized...
hot Disney/Pixar released a few
TexDBoy
09-10 09:09 PM
If your Opt is till Dec ... why did you get H1B with no I-94 ...
I thought that only happens if you have gap between OPT and H1B ...
I thought that only happens if you have gap between OPT and H1B ...
more...
house Disney/Pixar#39;s Brave coming
mjadala
08-20 09:11 PM
I support this
tattoo Disney/Pixar film Brave.
Hey Ram GC
04-08 10:07 AM
PD before 31st 01 that too EB3
more...
pictures Teaser of Disney Pixar New
austingc
08-06 03:28 PM
Folks, Let us not use this forum for non-immigration matters.
This topic is posted under General Information > Interesting Topics
Billu did not post this under immigration matter, so dont read it if you dont want to.
This topic is posted under General Information > Interesting Topics
Billu did not post this under immigration matter, so dont read it if you dont want to.
dresses the Disney/Pixar machine
va_il
12-18 03:25 PM
With a EB3 PD of July 2002 from IN what can i expect after this May 1st hurdle being crossed.
Any insight would be appreciated.
Any insight would be appreciated.
more...
makeup wallpaper Disney/Pixar#39;s
waitingnwaiting
01-26 11:10 AM
01/26/2011: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill Introduced in the Senate 01/25/2011
* Yesterday, the Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid, introduced S.6 bill in the Senate to reform America's broken immigration system, co-sponsored by nine other Senators. This is one of the ten bills he placed in the Senate's priority agenda for the 112th Congress. This has a long way to go ahead, but it symbolizes the Senate Democrats' plan to initiate debate on this key issue. Please stay tuned to this web site for the development of this legislation.
* Text of S.6:
o Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
o SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
+ This Act may be cited as the ``Reform America's Broken Immigration System Act''.
o SEC. 2. SENSE OF THE SENATE.
o It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should--
+ (1) fulfill and strengthen our Nation's commitments regarding border security;
+ (2) pass legislation to support our national and economic security, such as the DREAM Act, which would allow students who came to America before turning 16 to earn citizenship by attending college or joining the armed forces, and AgJobs, which would help to ensure a stable and legal agricultural workforce and protect the sustainability of the American agricultural industry;
+ (3) implement a rational legal immigration system to ensure that the best and brightest minds of the world can come to the United States and create jobs for Americans while, at the same time, safeguarding the rights and wages of American workers;
+ (4) require all United States workers to obtain secure, tamper-proof identification to prevent employers from hiring people here illegally, and toughen penalties on employers who break labor and immigration laws;
+ (5) hold people accountable who are currently here illegally by requiring them to either earn legal status through a series of penalties, sanctions, and requirements, or face immediate deportation; and
+ (6) adopt practical and fair immigration reforms to help ensure that families are able to be together.
* Yesterday, the Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid, introduced S.6 bill in the Senate to reform America's broken immigration system, co-sponsored by nine other Senators. This is one of the ten bills he placed in the Senate's priority agenda for the 112th Congress. This has a long way to go ahead, but it symbolizes the Senate Democrats' plan to initiate debate on this key issue. Please stay tuned to this web site for the development of this legislation.
* Text of S.6:
o Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
o SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
+ This Act may be cited as the ``Reform America's Broken Immigration System Act''.
o SEC. 2. SENSE OF THE SENATE.
o It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should--
+ (1) fulfill and strengthen our Nation's commitments regarding border security;
+ (2) pass legislation to support our national and economic security, such as the DREAM Act, which would allow students who came to America before turning 16 to earn citizenship by attending college or joining the armed forces, and AgJobs, which would help to ensure a stable and legal agricultural workforce and protect the sustainability of the American agricultural industry;
+ (3) implement a rational legal immigration system to ensure that the best and brightest minds of the world can come to the United States and create jobs for Americans while, at the same time, safeguarding the rights and wages of American workers;
+ (4) require all United States workers to obtain secure, tamper-proof identification to prevent employers from hiring people here illegally, and toughen penalties on employers who break labor and immigration laws;
+ (5) hold people accountable who are currently here illegally by requiring them to either earn legal status through a series of penalties, sanctions, and requirements, or face immediate deportation; and
+ (6) adopt practical and fair immigration reforms to help ensure that families are able to be together.
girlfriend Pixar#39;s #39;Brave#39;
eb3retro
06-09 08:37 AM
Hi all,
I have come to texas on a B1 to the client location. I stayed with my colleague who has a apartment here. When we left to office ( my first day ) .I made a mistake leaving my passport and others in apartment. .
I have applied and got a new passport .
I have applied for I-94 by filing I-102 . The processing dates are very slow for this . I only have a reciept of this and nothing.
I am leaving 3july next month...what need to be done....i dont even have a VISA.
And what needs to be done for B1 VISA.
I emailed the chennai US embassy but couldnt get any reply............
PLEAASE...HELP:(:confused:
is this in dallas or houston?
I have come to texas on a B1 to the client location. I stayed with my colleague who has a apartment here. When we left to office ( my first day ) .I made a mistake leaving my passport and others in apartment. .
I have applied and got a new passport .
I have applied for I-94 by filing I-102 . The processing dates are very slow for this . I only have a reciept of this and nothing.
I am leaving 3july next month...what need to be done....i dont even have a VISA.
And what needs to be done for B1 VISA.
I emailed the chennai US embassy but couldnt get any reply............
PLEAASE...HELP:(:confused:
is this in dallas or houston?
hairstyles DISNEY*PIXAR#39;S quot;BRAVEquot;
swo
07-21 04:15 AM
I am moving July 25th,07 from New York to Phoenix.
Which address I should to give attorney to File AOS.
She plan to file before July 31st,07.
But so far we didn't found Apartment in Phoenix.
Thanks in Advance.
You better check to see if you are invalidating your entire petition.
You may get denied if they determine that the job you are taking is not where you originally stated. I say this because, if you haven't even filed for AoS then you clearly can't be using AC21 portability at this stage.
Which address I should to give attorney to File AOS.
She plan to file before July 31st,07.
But so far we didn't found Apartment in Phoenix.
Thanks in Advance.
You better check to see if you are invalidating your entire petition.
You may get denied if they determine that the job you are taking is not where you originally stated. I say this because, if you haven't even filed for AoS then you clearly can't be using AC21 portability at this stage.
sandy_anand
12-08 05:50 PM
"On December 4, 2009, we ordered production of your new card. Please allow 30 days for your card to be mailed to you."
My PD was Dec 4, 2004. EB2. Exactly 5 years from PD and over 10 years from first entry to US. Getting stuck in the BEC backlog and my wife getting stuck in India with 221(g) were among my most painful experiences through the journey. And not being able to take a fabulous offer at double my salary in 2007 hurt too.
Thanks for all the support. And congratulations again to the leaders of IV for creating a platform for Employment based GC applicants.
Feel free to contact me if you are starting high-growth businesses and need someone to bounce ideas off. And of course I am happy to help with IV initiatives to clear EB backlog.
Bpositive.
Congratulations!
My PD was Dec 4, 2004. EB2. Exactly 5 years from PD and over 10 years from first entry to US. Getting stuck in the BEC backlog and my wife getting stuck in India with 221(g) were among my most painful experiences through the journey. And not being able to take a fabulous offer at double my salary in 2007 hurt too.
Thanks for all the support. And congratulations again to the leaders of IV for creating a platform for Employment based GC applicants.
Feel free to contact me if you are starting high-growth businesses and need someone to bounce ideas off. And of course I am happy to help with IV initiatives to clear EB backlog.
Bpositive.
Congratulations!
vivaforever
12-17 09:36 PM
No luck yet
No comments:
Post a Comment