REEF�
06-06 05:21 PM
Nice work vd...lol I only see one path...
uma001
05-24 10:15 AM
Here is my case again:
MS (computer engg) in US
US IT experience more than 6 years
No TOEFEL ( what native english speaker??)
Worked in high growth technology/employer (I assume)
come under STEM.
My employer is sponsering my green card
How many points will i get??
MS (computer engg) in US
US IT experience more than 6 years
No TOEFEL ( what native english speaker??)
Worked in high growth technology/employer (I assume)
come under STEM.
My employer is sponsering my green card
How many points will i get??
reddy77
08-09 08:10 AM
Even I did the same thing, MY PD was current in July Bulletin, So I applied (Premium processing) for 3 years extension based on approved 140 in Jun 2nd week and got the approval in Jun 3rd week for 3 years ...
mrajatish
05-21 12:34 PM
How about making sure individuals do not get the original PD when they use labor substitution. This will stop illegal labor trade and help a lot of us.
An USCIS memo in mid 1990's had this:
The memo (priority dates retrogression) of Mr. Rajiv S.Khanna states that beneficiary of substituted labor certificate would get the same priority date.
I was just searching uscis.gov and I found this very interesting !
Now the question is: Who is wright?
Check this out!
d) Priority date. * * * If the United States employer substitutes another alien on a labor certification, the priority date shall be the date the employer requests the substitution.
" The Service has concluded that it is unfair to other aliens who seek to immigrate to the United States on employment-based petitions if the substituted alien gains the priority date of the original alien beneficiary, since those aliens would receive a later priority date than a substituted alien. Currently, in certain employment-based immigrant categories, such as the third preference "other worker" category, an alien who benefits from a labor certification substitution can immigrate ahead of another alien who has been waiting for an immigrant visa for several years. Not only would allowing substituted aliens to receive the earlier priority date be unfair to other intending immigrants, it would also be contrary to the Service's policy of assigning a priority date to the alien rather than to the employer (see 8 CFR 204.5(e)).
Providing a priority date based on an employer's substitution of a labor certification beneficiary also carries the potential for fraud and abuse. Continuing this practice may encourage the creation of a market for labor certifications, particularly in categories in which there is a lengthy wait to receive an immigrant visa. For instance, it is conceivable that the original alien beneficiary might be induced to engage in the fraudulent practice of selling his or her status as a labor certification beneficiary to a substituted alien.
The Service, therefore, proposes to set the priority date for an alien who has been substituted for another alien on a labor certification as the date the employer requested the substitution. This proposed rule will be fair to other aliens who apply under employment-based immigrant categories, and would be consistent with the Service's policy of according a priority date to the alien rather than to the employer, thereby eliminating an inducement to commit fraud.
An USCIS memo in mid 1990's had this:
The memo (priority dates retrogression) of Mr. Rajiv S.Khanna states that beneficiary of substituted labor certificate would get the same priority date.
I was just searching uscis.gov and I found this very interesting !
Now the question is: Who is wright?
Check this out!
d) Priority date. * * * If the United States employer substitutes another alien on a labor certification, the priority date shall be the date the employer requests the substitution.
" The Service has concluded that it is unfair to other aliens who seek to immigrate to the United States on employment-based petitions if the substituted alien gains the priority date of the original alien beneficiary, since those aliens would receive a later priority date than a substituted alien. Currently, in certain employment-based immigrant categories, such as the third preference "other worker" category, an alien who benefits from a labor certification substitution can immigrate ahead of another alien who has been waiting for an immigrant visa for several years. Not only would allowing substituted aliens to receive the earlier priority date be unfair to other intending immigrants, it would also be contrary to the Service's policy of assigning a priority date to the alien rather than to the employer (see 8 CFR 204.5(e)).
Providing a priority date based on an employer's substitution of a labor certification beneficiary also carries the potential for fraud and abuse. Continuing this practice may encourage the creation of a market for labor certifications, particularly in categories in which there is a lengthy wait to receive an immigrant visa. For instance, it is conceivable that the original alien beneficiary might be induced to engage in the fraudulent practice of selling his or her status as a labor certification beneficiary to a substituted alien.
The Service, therefore, proposes to set the priority date for an alien who has been substituted for another alien on a labor certification as the date the employer requested the substitution. This proposed rule will be fair to other aliens who apply under employment-based immigrant categories, and would be consistent with the Service's policy of according a priority date to the alien rather than to the employer, thereby eliminating an inducement to commit fraud.
more...
glus
05-31 09:10 AM
Thank you for contributing!!!!
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Berkeleybee
05-24 11:33 PM
To reinforce our fax campaign, we should start calling the senators and start reinforcing our message to them. Please do not hesitate or be shy of doing this. Now is the time that you can make a difference.
Please stick to directions and talking points, stay on message and be calm, polite. Avoid sarcasm and rhetoric at all costs even if they disagree with you completely.
Here are the instructions of what you should do
Call the Washington DC Phone numbers of the following Senators. Check this post during the day because we may add to this list:
We want to reach them as early as possible before the vote on the Bingaman Amendments S.A. 4181 and 4182 take place. The Senate reconvenes at 9:15 am tomorrow (May 25, Thursday), we do not know at when the vote on these amendments will take place, so call as early as possible:
• John Cornyn (TX) - 202-224-2934
• Ed Kennedy (MA) – 202-224-4543
• Arlen Specter (PA) – 202-224-4254
• John McCain (AZ) – 202-224-2235
• Larry Craig (ID)– 202-224-2752
• Lindsey Graham (SC) –202-224-5972
• Jeff Bingaman (NM) - (202) 224-5521
• Dick Durbin (IL) – 202-224-2152
WHY IT IS OK TO CALL SENATORS WHO ARE NOT FROM YOUR STATE
Even if a senator is not from your state and if that questions comes up during phone call, explain the reason for calling by saying that "Since Immigration laws are federal laws and every senator's vote affects us in all 50 states, your time and the senators support would be highly appreciated".
Once they pick up the phone:
1. Introduce yourself
My name is _______ I am a member of a volunteer organization called Immigration Voice which advocates legislative changes for improving the GC processing for legal immigrants.
I have been a legal resident of the USA for x years and my employer is sponsoring me for a greencard.
2. Ask for the Immigration Counsel/ Staffer
3. Talking Points
• Very Briefly Express Overall Support for the Bill
Request the Senator to support the Comprehensive Immigration Bill, especially those provisions that support the highly skilled immigrants. Reiterate that all of us are LEGAL immigrants and have obeyed the laws of immigration at all times. Reiterate the fact that many of us have been waiting here for more than 5 years to get our green cards.
• Oppose the Bingaman Amendments S.A. 4181 and S.A. 4182
At present the CIR bill has a provision of not counting dependents against the cap. This is the way it should be because employment based visa quotas are properly meant for essential highly skilled workers, they shouldn’t be wasted on their dependents. After all the American business that is trying to stay competitive by hiring this workers is petitioning to get a skilled worker, not a dependent child.
The Bingaman Amendments S.A. 4181 and S.A. 4182 try to once again include dependents in the calculations of the annual quota for employment based highly skilled workers. This is harmful for American competitiveness, and will waste visas meant for highly skilled essential workers on their dependents.
Urge the Senator to vote against these amendments. Remind them that Sen Bingaman’s own PACE Education bill (S. 2198) does not include dependents in the calculation of the annual quota for high skilled workers.
• Thank the staffer for their time.
Post Here. Once you have called these senators, post back here so that it will motivate others to do the same.
Please stick to directions and talking points, stay on message and be calm, polite. Avoid sarcasm and rhetoric at all costs even if they disagree with you completely.
Here are the instructions of what you should do
Call the Washington DC Phone numbers of the following Senators. Check this post during the day because we may add to this list:
We want to reach them as early as possible before the vote on the Bingaman Amendments S.A. 4181 and 4182 take place. The Senate reconvenes at 9:15 am tomorrow (May 25, Thursday), we do not know at when the vote on these amendments will take place, so call as early as possible:
• John Cornyn (TX) - 202-224-2934
• Ed Kennedy (MA) – 202-224-4543
• Arlen Specter (PA) – 202-224-4254
• John McCain (AZ) – 202-224-2235
• Larry Craig (ID)– 202-224-2752
• Lindsey Graham (SC) –202-224-5972
• Jeff Bingaman (NM) - (202) 224-5521
• Dick Durbin (IL) – 202-224-2152
WHY IT IS OK TO CALL SENATORS WHO ARE NOT FROM YOUR STATE
Even if a senator is not from your state and if that questions comes up during phone call, explain the reason for calling by saying that "Since Immigration laws are federal laws and every senator's vote affects us in all 50 states, your time and the senators support would be highly appreciated".
Once they pick up the phone:
1. Introduce yourself
My name is _______ I am a member of a volunteer organization called Immigration Voice which advocates legislative changes for improving the GC processing for legal immigrants.
I have been a legal resident of the USA for x years and my employer is sponsoring me for a greencard.
2. Ask for the Immigration Counsel/ Staffer
3. Talking Points
• Very Briefly Express Overall Support for the Bill
Request the Senator to support the Comprehensive Immigration Bill, especially those provisions that support the highly skilled immigrants. Reiterate that all of us are LEGAL immigrants and have obeyed the laws of immigration at all times. Reiterate the fact that many of us have been waiting here for more than 5 years to get our green cards.
• Oppose the Bingaman Amendments S.A. 4181 and S.A. 4182
At present the CIR bill has a provision of not counting dependents against the cap. This is the way it should be because employment based visa quotas are properly meant for essential highly skilled workers, they shouldn’t be wasted on their dependents. After all the American business that is trying to stay competitive by hiring this workers is petitioning to get a skilled worker, not a dependent child.
The Bingaman Amendments S.A. 4181 and S.A. 4182 try to once again include dependents in the calculations of the annual quota for employment based highly skilled workers. This is harmful for American competitiveness, and will waste visas meant for highly skilled essential workers on their dependents.
Urge the Senator to vote against these amendments. Remind them that Sen Bingaman’s own PACE Education bill (S. 2198) does not include dependents in the calculation of the annual quota for high skilled workers.
• Thank the staffer for their time.
Post Here. Once you have called these senators, post back here so that it will motivate others to do the same.
more...
murali77
06-16 01:55 AM
AMSGC
Will this be a problem in name check process of I-485. I have contacted my lawyer and waiting on his reponse. If he gives me a go ahead I am going to fix it first thing monday morning.
Thanks
Murali
Will this be a problem in name check process of I-485. I have contacted my lawyer and waiting on his reponse. If he gives me a go ahead I am going to fix it first thing monday morning.
Thanks
Murali
vin13
01-15 03:40 PM
I agree.
Visa Recapture or remove country limit for skilled labor (EB category). these would probably be the only ones that will fly.
Maybe they should also keep it low key so less people oppose it;)
Send it through when Mr.King is on vacation:D
Visa Recapture or remove country limit for skilled labor (EB category). these would probably be the only ones that will fly.
Maybe they should also keep it low key so less people oppose it;)
Send it through when Mr.King is on vacation:D
more...
dvb
07-28 02:24 PM
Your Payments When You Are Outside The United States (http://ssa.gov/international/countrylist4.htm) ??? What does this mean .... looks like you can claim benefits.
gcformeornot
06-06 06:55 PM
Job should be same or similar responsibilities and salary
salary is not requirement. It can not be less off course. It can be equal or more than LC.
Currently only 2 requirements
140 Approved and 485 pending more than 180 days.
Job should be same or similar title. Yes title only job duties do not matter.
This is per my lawyer.
salary is not requirement. It can not be less off course. It can be equal or more than LC.
Currently only 2 requirements
140 Approved and 485 pending more than 180 days.
Job should be same or similar title. Yes title only job duties do not matter.
This is per my lawyer.
more...
gcbeku
08-10 01:13 PM
Gurus,
A very close friend of mine has filed EB3-I 485 with Sep 2003 PD. The job, at present, requires EB2 level qualifications, however, the employer is not too keen on sponsoring a change to EB2.
So, what options do we have ?
a) when is EB3-I Sep 2003 PD likely to be come current? 12m? 18m from now?
b) can AC21 approach be used to port this to a EB2 category ?
c) can his spouse separately file for EB2-I PERM, I140 and file for 485?
(I am assuming that EB2-I will be current approximately around this time next year).
Thanks.
A very close friend of mine has filed EB3-I 485 with Sep 2003 PD. The job, at present, requires EB2 level qualifications, however, the employer is not too keen on sponsoring a change to EB2.
So, what options do we have ?
a) when is EB3-I Sep 2003 PD likely to be come current? 12m? 18m from now?
b) can AC21 approach be used to port this to a EB2 category ?
c) can his spouse separately file for EB2-I PERM, I140 and file for 485?
(I am assuming that EB2-I will be current approximately around this time next year).
Thanks.
hsm2007
09-20 08:58 PM
Yes I am going to consult either Murthy or Rajeev. But my problem is that my company which is a big corporate will only give a EVL based on the format that the company's attorney prepare. So even though I can consult Murthy but no way I will be able to use their advice as my current employer will only do what their attorney tells them.
I am in a fix as to what to do? My current employer is a big corporate and don't work with personal attorneys. And HR policies are also very stringent.
Even if I want I can't use Murthy/Rajeev/Ron to respond to this RFE.
So confused what to do
I am in a fix as to what to do? My current employer is a big corporate and don't work with personal attorneys. And HR policies are also very stringent.
Even if I want I can't use Murthy/Rajeev/Ron to respond to this RFE.
So confused what to do
more...
ksairi
05-12 02:59 PM
Thanks
md2003
11-19 10:53 AM
Does it required 6 months pay stub (till Dec 29th -- for July 2nd files) or after 180 days we can move to any company whether you have last month pay stub or not. Generally most of the companies hold 15 days amount.
more...
optimystic
04-06 11:41 PM
there is no difference between using AC-21 or not. When you get your GC, the general line of thinking is that you stay with the current sponsoring employer for 6 months or more. AC-21 is merely a way of changing your 'current sponsoring employer'.
I can't say how much weight this statment holds...
I mean, there are ongoing discussions in other posts about some employers reluctant to accept EAD holders (willing to use AC21) since they may have to do some amount of 'sponsorship' for such people and suggestions that these people claim that they don't need any 'sponsorship' theoretically from the employers ...they can file EAD extensions themselves.....
In light of that it seems as if once you invoke AC21 you can choose to support your I-485 status & EAD, attorneys etc completely yourself, and thus the concept of 'sposoring employer' totally vanishes.
Its possible that USCIS can still hold you to the (diluted)intent of "continuing to work in the same job role as originally claimed in I-140/I-485" for a general period of time after getting GC, but not necessarily stick with the same current employer. The AC21 invokers already cut themselves off from the original sponsor....doesn't make much sense to force them to stick to current employer, who may or may not have sponsored anything at all towards the employee's GC.
So AC21 invokers get a degree of freedom ( --can't tell what level of freedom though, with the impending restrictions possibly in future in AC21 -- ) regarding showing the *original intent* after getting GC.
And since people stuck with same original sponsoring employer and get GC while still with them, can not invoke AC21 after getting GC to port their "original intent", it seems they would continue to be stuck with the same employer for 6-12 more months (unless fired/laid off of course, in which case one becomes a free bird :) )
[Not sure if I put my line of thiking properly in the above paragraphs...if you get confused, please ignore the post :) . It would definitely have been worse, if I tried to speak , rather that write this :D )
I can't say how much weight this statment holds...
I mean, there are ongoing discussions in other posts about some employers reluctant to accept EAD holders (willing to use AC21) since they may have to do some amount of 'sponsorship' for such people and suggestions that these people claim that they don't need any 'sponsorship' theoretically from the employers ...they can file EAD extensions themselves.....
In light of that it seems as if once you invoke AC21 you can choose to support your I-485 status & EAD, attorneys etc completely yourself, and thus the concept of 'sposoring employer' totally vanishes.
Its possible that USCIS can still hold you to the (diluted)intent of "continuing to work in the same job role as originally claimed in I-140/I-485" for a general period of time after getting GC, but not necessarily stick with the same current employer. The AC21 invokers already cut themselves off from the original sponsor....doesn't make much sense to force them to stick to current employer, who may or may not have sponsored anything at all towards the employee's GC.
So AC21 invokers get a degree of freedom ( --can't tell what level of freedom though, with the impending restrictions possibly in future in AC21 -- ) regarding showing the *original intent* after getting GC.
And since people stuck with same original sponsoring employer and get GC while still with them, can not invoke AC21 after getting GC to port their "original intent", it seems they would continue to be stuck with the same employer for 6-12 more months (unless fired/laid off of course, in which case one becomes a free bird :) )
[Not sure if I put my line of thiking properly in the above paragraphs...if you get confused, please ignore the post :) . It would definitely have been worse, if I tried to speak , rather that write this :D )
rjgleason
June 4th, 2004, 08:40 PM
Who remembers "The Prisoner"?
Patrick McGoohan............Number 6...........The Village.........mid 60's I think.
Patrick McGoohan............Number 6...........The Village.........mid 60's I think.
more...
mps
08-15 05:00 PM
:p You just killed spirit of "AC21"
:D Now you may want to add that - USCIS should request proof of employement each year from anyone who gets GC in EB category right !
I noticed a flaw in GC process with respect to �Ability to pay� and �AC21�
Here are the definitions
Ability to pay - Suppose a company files for I-140, it has to prove its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary.
AC21 states that an employee can change jobs to a similar position if I-485 is pending for more than 180 days. This could happen when I-485 is pending for more than 180 days or after its approval.
Let�s consider the following scenario
1) Company A files for I-140 and I-485 concurrently and proves its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary at I-140 stage.
2) I-140 gets approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days.
3) The employee quits employer A and remains idle (or) becomes self employed (or) joins employer B in a different position.
4) During the I-485 adjudication he provides an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A and says that he intends to work with employer C after I-485 approval.
5) I-485 gets approved.
Here is the flaw. USCIS doesn�t check if employer C has the ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary. All it asks for is an offer letter with wage, duties and annual salary.
What if company C is running in loss and not in a position to pay the proffered wage.
Why should USCIS make a big deal out of ability to pay when it�s not checked across all employers where the beneficiary intends to work?
:D Now you may want to add that - USCIS should request proof of employement each year from anyone who gets GC in EB category right !
I noticed a flaw in GC process with respect to �Ability to pay� and �AC21�
Here are the definitions
Ability to pay - Suppose a company files for I-140, it has to prove its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary.
AC21 states that an employee can change jobs to a similar position if I-485 is pending for more than 180 days. This could happen when I-485 is pending for more than 180 days or after its approval.
Let�s consider the following scenario
1) Company A files for I-140 and I-485 concurrently and proves its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary at I-140 stage.
2) I-140 gets approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days.
3) The employee quits employer A and remains idle (or) becomes self employed (or) joins employer B in a different position.
4) During the I-485 adjudication he provides an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A and says that he intends to work with employer C after I-485 approval.
5) I-485 gets approved.
Here is the flaw. USCIS doesn�t check if employer C has the ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary. All it asks for is an offer letter with wage, duties and annual salary.
What if company C is running in loss and not in a position to pay the proffered wage.
Why should USCIS make a big deal out of ability to pay when it�s not checked across all employers where the beneficiary intends to work?
PrayForEveryone
07-11 11:10 AM
140 (EB3) was upgraded to Premium Processing on June 27th 2007 (just before the USCIS suspended premium processing on 140).
It got approved yesterday!
It got approved yesterday!
gcgreen
08-15 12:45 PM
your description is pretty vague. please provide more details of the precise job description in the labor petition, and the occupational classification code in the application.
Hello Gurus,
This is my first post. I had filed 485/140 in Aug. 2007. 140 got approved this March 2008. I donot have pay stub for last 3 months. I am looking for change. My labor is a substituted one( PD 2004). It has skills mentioned of Oracle EBS. I am working on Java/J2EE. I am looking for a new Job with Java/J2EE skills. I am worried that my new offer letter with Java skills mentioned would create a problem for me.
Please Gurus, can you advice me as to whether I can do that? Will staying on bench create a problem, as I donot get salary on bench.
Please help me.:confused::confused::confused:
Hello Gurus,
This is my first post. I had filed 485/140 in Aug. 2007. 140 got approved this March 2008. I donot have pay stub for last 3 months. I am looking for change. My labor is a substituted one( PD 2004). It has skills mentioned of Oracle EBS. I am working on Java/J2EE. I am looking for a new Job with Java/J2EE skills. I am worried that my new offer letter with Java skills mentioned would create a problem for me.
Please Gurus, can you advice me as to whether I can do that? Will staying on bench create a problem, as I donot get salary on bench.
Please help me.:confused::confused::confused:
Slowhand
07-18 09:32 AM
See below:
Taken from www.immigration-law.com
07/18/2007: Reinstatement of Original July Visa Bulletin and Uncertain Impact on Pre-July "Tagged" EB-485 Applications and Processing Time of I-485 Applications in the Future
The other EB-485 waiters will turn out to be a big victim to the DOS/USCIS decision yesterday. Since there will be no visa numbers available until October 1, 2007, the people whose EB-485 applications were "not tagged" before July 1 will experience a tremendous delay in obtaining the green card. When it comes to the delays in obtaining the green card approvals, the new filers in July and those filers before August 17 will also witness a tremendous delays and will have to endure a long and long journey to leave the pipeline of the green card process. Why? As we reported quite earlier in this visa fiasco, we even estimated that approximately 750,000 individual EB-485 applications can be poured into the system during this unusual period of visa number availability as affected by the upcoming filing fee increases and more importantantly the anticipated potential huge visa number retrogression ahead during when they may not be able to file their 485 applications because of the retrogression. After all, the system has only 140,000 numbers for the entire EB categories for each year. Go figure! What would look like the waiting time for the current EB-485 filers and the current EB-485 filers before July 1, 2007!
Mr.Oh's opinion is flawed on many counts but most of all assuming what he says is correct, this delay will be/would have been the same either way. i.e the 750000 applicants will apply all at once or at regular intervals. The bright side is that spouses will get their EADs.
Mr.Oh also assumes that USCIS processing procedure and speed will not change.
It sounds like fluff reporting that popular media does. All fluff, no value.:D
Taken from www.immigration-law.com
07/18/2007: Reinstatement of Original July Visa Bulletin and Uncertain Impact on Pre-July "Tagged" EB-485 Applications and Processing Time of I-485 Applications in the Future
The other EB-485 waiters will turn out to be a big victim to the DOS/USCIS decision yesterday. Since there will be no visa numbers available until October 1, 2007, the people whose EB-485 applications were "not tagged" before July 1 will experience a tremendous delay in obtaining the green card. When it comes to the delays in obtaining the green card approvals, the new filers in July and those filers before August 17 will also witness a tremendous delays and will have to endure a long and long journey to leave the pipeline of the green card process. Why? As we reported quite earlier in this visa fiasco, we even estimated that approximately 750,000 individual EB-485 applications can be poured into the system during this unusual period of visa number availability as affected by the upcoming filing fee increases and more importantantly the anticipated potential huge visa number retrogression ahead during when they may not be able to file their 485 applications because of the retrogression. After all, the system has only 140,000 numbers for the entire EB categories for each year. Go figure! What would look like the waiting time for the current EB-485 filers and the current EB-485 filers before July 1, 2007!
Mr.Oh's opinion is flawed on many counts but most of all assuming what he says is correct, this delay will be/would have been the same either way. i.e the 750000 applicants will apply all at once or at regular intervals. The bright side is that spouses will get their EADs.
Mr.Oh also assumes that USCIS processing procedure and speed will not change.
It sounds like fluff reporting that popular media does. All fluff, no value.:D
jasmin45
07-16 07:05 PM
There's already a thread floating in the forum to discuss this. Did you search the forum before conveniently created this dupicate thread. Please be considerate to resources on IV. It will be very difficult to desseminate the information all over the place.
Please request admins to delete this one if you could not do so.
Please request admins to delete this one if you could not do so.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario