dionysus
01-24 11:24 AM
My view is that IV must reassess and realign its goals. The goal of I-485 filing without a current PD is too ambitious to start with. Remember, I-485 is the most time-consuming and lengthy stage of a GC, what with security and background checks, tax records checks, prior legal stays in US and medical tests to name just a few. CIS is swamped with many I-485 applications as it is. If it opens the flood gates for 485 filing, its system will simply collapse under the stampede of estimated 1 million GC seekers. There is no chance in hell that CIS will throw open the gates of I-485 filing for all and sundry.
Moreover, there is this case of spouses becoming eligible for jobs after I-485 and EAD filing. No politician is going to stick his/her neck out on this. Remember, politicians are driven just by people�s mood, and average American simply despises any additions to his or her dreamland.
In the light of this revelation by me (hint - just kidding), IV must set realistic goals for itself. One of which is greater flexibility of movement between jobs for a GC seeker. In short, the GC stages that have been completed by a GC seeker should remain completed even if the GC aspirant moves between the similar profile jobs. So for example, if an applicant whose labor has been cleared leaves the job after this stage, at his/her new job he should be able to file I-140 at his/her new job without having to file a labor all over again. All that the applicant should be asked are the papers confirming the old labor approval and a supporting letter from the new employer that the new job matches the old job description.
Similarly, applicants with approved I-140 should be allowed to switch job while still retaining the validity of old I-140. At the new job they should not be required to go thru the first stages again. An employee should be able to attach his/her approved I-140 from a previous company at the time of filing I-485 in the new company instead of being required to obtain a new I-140 approval.
This is the goal that will sit easy with the politician, because it does not add any new job seekers in the employment market. Also, it has the ring of more freedom for the workers, some of them are actually stuck in a quasi-slavery like situation in their companies in the hope of a GC. Words like these are going to have more impact on politicians rather than a clamoring for employment authorization documents.
Moreover, there is this case of spouses becoming eligible for jobs after I-485 and EAD filing. No politician is going to stick his/her neck out on this. Remember, politicians are driven just by people�s mood, and average American simply despises any additions to his or her dreamland.
In the light of this revelation by me (hint - just kidding), IV must set realistic goals for itself. One of which is greater flexibility of movement between jobs for a GC seeker. In short, the GC stages that have been completed by a GC seeker should remain completed even if the GC aspirant moves between the similar profile jobs. So for example, if an applicant whose labor has been cleared leaves the job after this stage, at his/her new job he should be able to file I-140 at his/her new job without having to file a labor all over again. All that the applicant should be asked are the papers confirming the old labor approval and a supporting letter from the new employer that the new job matches the old job description.
Similarly, applicants with approved I-140 should be allowed to switch job while still retaining the validity of old I-140. At the new job they should not be required to go thru the first stages again. An employee should be able to attach his/her approved I-140 from a previous company at the time of filing I-485 in the new company instead of being required to obtain a new I-140 approval.
This is the goal that will sit easy with the politician, because it does not add any new job seekers in the employment market. Also, it has the ring of more freedom for the workers, some of them are actually stuck in a quasi-slavery like situation in their companies in the hope of a GC. Words like these are going to have more impact on politicians rather than a clamoring for employment authorization documents.
wallpaper nissan skyline
mambarg
08-05 11:44 PM
I took some time to compile the list of INDIA only EB3 and EB2 categories for past 2 years and from the trend, it is very easy to predict the Oct bulletin.
It does not need a attorney or spies. You just need to work up the numbers.
I did this only for INDIA. Any chinese can complile it for China.
MONTH EB2 EB3
Aug 05 C 01APR01
Sep 05 C U
Oct 05 01NOV99 01JAN98
Nov 05 01NOV99 01JAN98
Dec 05 01JUL00 1-Jan-99
Jan 06 01JAN01 01JUN99
Feb 06 01AUG01 01JAN00
Mar 06 01JAN02 01JAN01
Apr 06 01JUL02 01FEB01
May 06 01JAN03 01MAR01
Jun 06 01JAN03 08APR01
Jul 06 01JAN03 15APR01
Aug 06 U 01APR01
Sep 06 U 15APR01
Oct 06 15JUN02 22-Apr-01
Nov 06 01JAN03 APRIL01
Dec 06 08JAN03
Jan 07 Jan03 May01
Feb 07 Jan03 May01
Mar 07 Jan03 May01
Apr 07 Jan03 May01
May 07 Jan03 May01
Jun 07 Apr04 Jun03
Jul 07 C C
Aug 07 U U
Sep 07 Jan03 May01
Oct 07 Jan03 May01
Nov 07 Jul03 June02
Dec 07 Jul03 Jun02
Jan 08 Jan04 Jun02
Feb 08 Jan04 Jun02
Here is my analysis.
Bulletin dates moves by six months as max jump for EB2 and 1 month for EB3.
Begining of New year in Oct, they conservatively pull back the numbers so as to flush out pending apps.
Now since they have already flushed apps in June/July, in Nov they will move EB2 by six months and possibly either stop there or make it one full year by moving it by another six months.
For EB3, they like to get it stuck at mid year so Jun02.
Guys, give a thought to this trend and see if you can guess more accurately.
It does not need a attorney or spies. You just need to work up the numbers.
I did this only for INDIA. Any chinese can complile it for China.
MONTH EB2 EB3
Aug 05 C 01APR01
Sep 05 C U
Oct 05 01NOV99 01JAN98
Nov 05 01NOV99 01JAN98
Dec 05 01JUL00 1-Jan-99
Jan 06 01JAN01 01JUN99
Feb 06 01AUG01 01JAN00
Mar 06 01JAN02 01JAN01
Apr 06 01JUL02 01FEB01
May 06 01JAN03 01MAR01
Jun 06 01JAN03 08APR01
Jul 06 01JAN03 15APR01
Aug 06 U 01APR01
Sep 06 U 15APR01
Oct 06 15JUN02 22-Apr-01
Nov 06 01JAN03 APRIL01
Dec 06 08JAN03
Jan 07 Jan03 May01
Feb 07 Jan03 May01
Mar 07 Jan03 May01
Apr 07 Jan03 May01
May 07 Jan03 May01
Jun 07 Apr04 Jun03
Jul 07 C C
Aug 07 U U
Sep 07 Jan03 May01
Oct 07 Jan03 May01
Nov 07 Jul03 June02
Dec 07 Jul03 Jun02
Jan 08 Jan04 Jun02
Feb 08 Jan04 Jun02
Here is my analysis.
Bulletin dates moves by six months as max jump for EB2 and 1 month for EB3.
Begining of New year in Oct, they conservatively pull back the numbers so as to flush out pending apps.
Now since they have already flushed apps in June/July, in Nov they will move EB2 by six months and possibly either stop there or make it one full year by moving it by another six months.
For EB3, they like to get it stuck at mid year so Jun02.
Guys, give a thought to this trend and see if you can guess more accurately.
ksairi
08-16 02:38 PM
Please advice
2011 Nissan Skyline R34 Models:
nagio
11-08 12:36 PM
Keep checking the dates. As mentioned in the earlier post, dates were opening just before two weeks. I would not recommend taking emergency appointment unless it is a true emergency.
more...
buehler
06-03 08:52 AM
I posted the list sometime ago. Do a search for "list of stem disciplines" on the forums.
akred,
The list that you had posted earlier - http://online.onetcenter.org/find/stem/title?t=0&g=Go are the Occupations that might require a STEM Education. What Bogdan wants here, is the list of degrees considered as STEM. There is a big difference between the two.
akred,
The list that you had posted earlier - http://online.onetcenter.org/find/stem/title?t=0&g=Go are the Occupations that might require a STEM Education. What Bogdan wants here, is the list of degrees considered as STEM. There is a big difference between the two.
fromnaija
08-21 03:43 PM
From http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=56&Itemid=25
"The annual limit for EB visa numbers is 140,000. This number also includes the dependents of an EB applicant. In addition there is a per-country limit set at 7% of the total."
By these numbers, it looks like there are 7%x140K = 9,800 GC approvals for India in each year. If we factor in 1 dependent for each GC applicant, the number of primary applicants approved is roughly 9,800/2 = 4900 Indians per year. And this supposedly includes the EB1, EB2, EB3 categories. If we divide that equally, it could mean hardly 4900/3 =1633 primary applicants get approved each year in each category !! Is my inferences incorrect ? [someone tell me its better than this]
I don't know how many Indians are waiting for their GCs, but it sure seems like everybody I meet on the street is waiting for his GC .. so, I guess its going to be a long long wait.
[I am an Indian and hence, I took the example of Indians above. I guess the numbers are similar for all other countries. My Labor PD is Jul-2002]
That is not the whole story. Unused visas from other countries are added into the pool for over-subscribed countries. For instance last year, India got about 49,000 immigrant visas in the EB category, while my country got only 1350.
"The annual limit for EB visa numbers is 140,000. This number also includes the dependents of an EB applicant. In addition there is a per-country limit set at 7% of the total."
By these numbers, it looks like there are 7%x140K = 9,800 GC approvals for India in each year. If we factor in 1 dependent for each GC applicant, the number of primary applicants approved is roughly 9,800/2 = 4900 Indians per year. And this supposedly includes the EB1, EB2, EB3 categories. If we divide that equally, it could mean hardly 4900/3 =1633 primary applicants get approved each year in each category !! Is my inferences incorrect ? [someone tell me its better than this]
I don't know how many Indians are waiting for their GCs, but it sure seems like everybody I meet on the street is waiting for his GC .. so, I guess its going to be a long long wait.
[I am an Indian and hence, I took the example of Indians above. I guess the numbers are similar for all other countries. My Labor PD is Jul-2002]
That is not the whole story. Unused visas from other countries are added into the pool for over-subscribed countries. For instance last year, India got about 49,000 immigrant visas in the EB category, while my country got only 1350.
more...
NolaIndian32
02-13 02:03 PM
This is one IV you don't want to be left without: IV - Immigration Voice, working for the Employment Based Legal Immigrant Community
2010 Wallpapers nissan skyline
FredG
April 17th, 2004, 08:15 PM
Sounds like a soap opera to me. :rolleyes:
Fred
Fred
more...
gc28262
01-16 04:45 PM
AC21: if my new employer is open to do either EAD or H1, what should I prefer? I want to take the least risky route.
If employer offers H1B transfer, use that and also invoke AC21.
If employer offers H1B transfer, use that and also invoke AC21.
hair +nissan+skyline+wallpaper
immi_grant
06-25 03:36 PM
Thanks to all who responded so far !!
I saw the denial letter and here is the gist of it from what I understood :
Got an RFE asking for client letter (since when my case was filed in Jan 2010, I was working for the client). From then onward I am off and on with the same client depending on their schedules / needs.
So when we got the RFE, I was not working for the client. My attorney replied to the RFE stating that I completed my project before time and now internally working on product development (which we do ) and produced the time sheets and everything for the internal project as well as for the client till the date of completion.
My case got denied reasons pertaining that USCIS asked for client letter, but you (petetioner) submitted papers that he is not working for the client anymore and now working for an internal project. OK. But where is the client letter that we asked for ? Since you didn't produce that, we are denying the case.
I saw the denial letter and here is the gist of it from what I understood :
Got an RFE asking for client letter (since when my case was filed in Jan 2010, I was working for the client). From then onward I am off and on with the same client depending on their schedules / needs.
So when we got the RFE, I was not working for the client. My attorney replied to the RFE stating that I completed my project before time and now internally working on product development (which we do ) and produced the time sheets and everything for the internal project as well as for the client till the date of completion.
My case got denied reasons pertaining that USCIS asked for client letter, but you (petetioner) submitted papers that he is not working for the client anymore and now working for an internal project. OK. But where is the client letter that we asked for ? Since you didn't produce that, we are denying the case.
more...
snram4
01-25 03:09 PM
Even CIR comes most pro immigrants groups will oppose. CIR will not have Guest workers program for low skilled workers because of high unemployment. So Business and pro illegal group will oppose. EB reform will be there in the CIR. But that will come with Grassley's restrictive bill on H1b. So, for that most high skilled group including IV will oppose. So CIR will be opposed by everyone. Status quo will continue till some compromise is reached.
When it is piecemeal people say we want comprehensive reform.
When it is comprehensive reform they say it is too broad to pass .
When it is summer they say Immigration Bill be introduced as early as Winter .
When it is winter they say it immigration bill will be introduced as early as summer .
When it is between spring(between winter and summer) they say now there is not adequate support for the bill.
This is a clear motive of hanging immigration reform like a bone in front of the dog and making him run around it and pay taxes .
When it is piecemeal people say we want comprehensive reform.
When it is comprehensive reform they say it is too broad to pass .
When it is summer they say Immigration Bill be introduced as early as Winter .
When it is winter they say it immigration bill will be introduced as early as summer .
When it is between spring(between winter and summer) they say now there is not adequate support for the bill.
This is a clear motive of hanging immigration reform like a bone in front of the dog and making him run around it and pay taxes .
hot nissan skyline r34 wallpaper
michael_trs
05-13 11:56 AM
I have my company�s lawyer that I have to use but he is not experienced with this. My company wouldn�t be happy if I suggest switching to another lawyer so I need to control this myself.
Actually what I realized out of my experience with GC processing � it�s better to be involved into this process as much as possible.
Actually what I realized out of my experience with GC processing � it�s better to be involved into this process as much as possible.
more...
house nissan skyline wallpapers
rp0lol
03-30 08:40 PM
Congratulations!!!
tattoo 2007 Nissan Skyline Review
EndlessWait
12-13 02:55 PM
its a "carrot dangling" technique used by the immigration system here to make u "modern day slave" to get things done....they will take ur SS taxes and make u wait until you realize and give up and go back
i really wish the reality of this immigration was known to me when I came..I wasted my career waiting in this GC wait.... :mad:
i really wish the reality of this immigration was known to me when I came..I wasted my career waiting in this GC wait.... :mad:
more...
pictures nissan skyline gtr r35
jg888
07-20 10:06 AM
I am a July fiasco survivor. My 485 has been filed through AOS, so no worries there. I was supposed to get married in a few months, but my fiancee has rushed down to the US on her tourist visa. The plan was to get a civil marriage certificate done and have her atach her AOS with mine. Lawyer has now informed me that she needs to stay here till she gets AP otherwise the application is considered 'abandoned'. She has a life in her home country that she needs to get back to, She can't just drop everything and park herself here for the 4-6 months that AP is likelt to take for July applicants. Does anyone have any advice, or a similar situation? As I see it, my options are -
1. File AOS for her and let her leave, and take the chance that they will track her departure and cancel her application. If this happens, is she allowed to refile if the PD becomes current later?
2. Rush out of the US with her to get her back in on H4 visa. Challenge here is that it is near impossible to get an appointment at a US consulate before the 17th Aug window closes.
3. File her application through CP. She doesn't get interim benefits that way. Given my PD of EB3-June 2006, I'm not expecting a GC for at least 3 years, so this option really sucks.
Any suggestions from the community out there?
1. File AOS for her and let her leave, and take the chance that they will track her departure and cancel her application. If this happens, is she allowed to refile if the PD becomes current later?
2. Rush out of the US with her to get her back in on H4 visa. Challenge here is that it is near impossible to get an appointment at a US consulate before the 17th Aug window closes.
3. File her application through CP. She doesn't get interim benefits that way. Given my PD of EB3-June 2006, I'm not expecting a GC for at least 3 years, so this option really sucks.
Any suggestions from the community out there?
dresses wallpaper of Nissan skyline
prdgl
06-17 06:19 PM
I was under the impression that the bill have already died and its very hard that they will get the bill this year. I myself haven't applied my LC yet.
After the seeing the June VB, I am deciding to move to another company which will file my LC ASAP because my current employer is dragging his feet.
can anyone tell me that I should wait or should go ahead and change employer to file my LC, because if the bill's May15th cut-off date becomes effective, then I will have moved for no reason (all is waste)
Your suggestions are highly valued.
Thanks
After the seeing the June VB, I am deciding to move to another company which will file my LC ASAP because my current employer is dragging his feet.
can anyone tell me that I should wait or should go ahead and change employer to file my LC, because if the bill's May15th cut-off date becomes effective, then I will have moved for no reason (all is waste)
Your suggestions are highly valued.
Thanks
more...
makeup Nissan Skyline R34 Concept by
bitzbytz
07-30 03:43 PM
Within 4-10 days, after the USCIS sent the FP notice. :mad:
but you need to improve
but you need to improve
girlfriend Nissan Skyline R31
alterego
01-02 08:14 PM
Best Answer:- No-one but god knows the answer to your question.
Here are a few points to consider.
1) If you are from EB India, then you know that there are thousands perhaps hundreds of thousands with PD ahead of yours, at 2800 a year per EB category, you do the math.
2) Filing of 485 is dependent on more than just approvals, PDs sometimes move based on quirky decisions made by the State Dep't on the basis of nothing more than gesticulation. That said, the 4th quarter of every year is a lottery for anyone with a late PD whichever EB category, witness the July VB fiasco.
3) Legislation even just recapture (like AC21) can alter the dynamic for years, 4 yrs in the case of AC21 and provide heavily retrogressed countries like India and China especially with a boost.
4) A new President and a better immigration system might help you. One can only hope.
Absent the above caveats, sorry my friend but I don't expect the PD to move past the July 2007 VB fiasco date for decades. However, I don't expect the US to lock out Indian IT talent for that amount of time either. Much will depend on how much lobbying is done on this issue, and that will in turn depend on the energy shown by those like you.
Here are a few points to consider.
1) If you are from EB India, then you know that there are thousands perhaps hundreds of thousands with PD ahead of yours, at 2800 a year per EB category, you do the math.
2) Filing of 485 is dependent on more than just approvals, PDs sometimes move based on quirky decisions made by the State Dep't on the basis of nothing more than gesticulation. That said, the 4th quarter of every year is a lottery for anyone with a late PD whichever EB category, witness the July VB fiasco.
3) Legislation even just recapture (like AC21) can alter the dynamic for years, 4 yrs in the case of AC21 and provide heavily retrogressed countries like India and China especially with a boost.
4) A new President and a better immigration system might help you. One can only hope.
Absent the above caveats, sorry my friend but I don't expect the PD to move past the July 2007 VB fiasco date for decades. However, I don't expect the US to lock out Indian IT talent for that amount of time either. Much will depend on how much lobbying is done on this issue, and that will in turn depend on the energy shown by those like you.
hairstyles Nissan Skyline 2003
Blog Feeds
07-09 12:30 PM
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)
Rajeev
08-11 08:22 AM
does it have any impact, if a lot of people vote this bill on this site?
Also, there is no time lines on when its going to be set for voting in House.
It will definitely have an impact, but surprisingly very few persons are interested in pursuing this.
Also, there is no time lines on when its going to be set for voting in House.
It will definitely have an impact, but surprisingly very few persons are interested in pursuing this.
hebron
04-17 12:15 AM
Hi Roseball and others, Are you sure about this atatement - "Once your I-140 is approved with your current employer, with the copy of your 140 approval, your new employer can file for a 3 yr H1 extension."
My thought was that 3 year extension based on approved I140 can be applied only if you are with the same employer who filed your labor certification.
Could you please confirm.
One of my friends is in the same situation. His 8-th year H1 extension based on aproved labor is expiring in next two months. He has not received his I-140 yet. Now he has received an RFE for his 9-th year H1 and also his I-140. The RFE is big one and is for the employer. Since he has couple of months on his current H1-B What are his options/backup plans (if the RFE response doesn't work)
1. Would it be possible for a new employer to file his H1 for 9-th year based on approved labor? Since he doesn't have approved I-140, can he still extend his H1 with a new employer?
2. If the post by Roseball is true, my friend can respond to his I-140 RFE and apply for premium processing and hope that I-140 clears in the next two months and then based on this approval he can get 3 years H1 extension. Could anyone please confirm if this assumption is correct.
Thanks
Once your I-140 is approved with your current employer, with the copy of your 140 approval, your new employer can file for a 3 yr H1 extension. Though it is safe to do so after you get your 3 yr H1 extension based on approved 140 from the current employer and then change jobs, this is also another option which is seldom tried by applicants...But it does work as I have seen some of my friends do so. So the key for you is to get your pending 140 cleared asap......and then ask your new employer to file for your 3 yr H1 extension in premium processing and only resign from your current job after getting H1 approved....Ofcourse, this option only works if you can secure a copy of your I-140 approval from your current employer...Else, go with option 3....
My thought was that 3 year extension based on approved I140 can be applied only if you are with the same employer who filed your labor certification.
Could you please confirm.
One of my friends is in the same situation. His 8-th year H1 extension based on aproved labor is expiring in next two months. He has not received his I-140 yet. Now he has received an RFE for his 9-th year H1 and also his I-140. The RFE is big one and is for the employer. Since he has couple of months on his current H1-B What are his options/backup plans (if the RFE response doesn't work)
1. Would it be possible for a new employer to file his H1 for 9-th year based on approved labor? Since he doesn't have approved I-140, can he still extend his H1 with a new employer?
2. If the post by Roseball is true, my friend can respond to his I-140 RFE and apply for premium processing and hope that I-140 clears in the next two months and then based on this approval he can get 3 years H1 extension. Could anyone please confirm if this assumption is correct.
Thanks
Once your I-140 is approved with your current employer, with the copy of your 140 approval, your new employer can file for a 3 yr H1 extension. Though it is safe to do so after you get your 3 yr H1 extension based on approved 140 from the current employer and then change jobs, this is also another option which is seldom tried by applicants...But it does work as I have seen some of my friends do so. So the key for you is to get your pending 140 cleared asap......and then ask your new employer to file for your 3 yr H1 extension in premium processing and only resign from your current job after getting H1 approved....Ofcourse, this option only works if you can secure a copy of your I-140 approval from your current employer...Else, go with option 3....
