sareesh
04-28 10:22 AM
Used AP. Not even single question asked.
Gave AP & PP only. Did not show my EAD either.
Thanks,
SG.
Gave AP & PP only. Did not show my EAD either.
Thanks,
SG.
wallpaper funny animated emoticons.
itsmesabby
07-06 02:57 PM
Using AP does not change one's immigration status. It is just a travel document. You will continue to maintain your H1-B even if you use the AP to re-enter.
Using AP has no relation to using EAD. I have confirmed this with my attorney as well.
Using AP has no relation to using EAD. I have confirmed this with my attorney as well.
imm_pro
05-20 01:13 PM
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26605
looks like the Agjobs amendment tagged to this bill is drawing lot of attention and negative publicity..
This is why we keep close watch on Congress. In a bipartisan effort accomplished quickly and virtually under the table, Sens. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) -- in Senate Appropriations markup of the War Supplemental bill -- obtained approval of an amendment that would create an amnesty for illegal alien farm workers. The measure, called the Emergency Agriculture Relief Act, was added to the War Supplemental bill in a 17-12 vote last Thursday.
Known as the AgJob amendment, the Feinstein-Craig measure revived instantaneously the controversy that caused conservatives to lash out at the White House and Congress last summer.
The measure would grant temporary legal status to 1.35 million illegal immigrants and their families currently working in the agricultural field. The legislation was passed out of committee at the request of agribusiness interests who have been insisting that they need illegal aliens to harvest crops and run horse shows. The legislation is nothing less than �comprehensive immigration reform� on a smaller scale.
What supporters of the amendment are calling �emergency� and �temporary�, opponents have labeled an �amnesty visa.� Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) said he considered the amendment amnesty and that �all these immigration issues should be addressed through the regular order."
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) opposes the amendment and said he will be working to remove it from the supplemental bill.
�Instead of ensuring that American troops are provided with the tools and resources that they need to protect our homeland, some in the Senate have instead chosen to jeopardize this funding by inserting provisions that are -- at best -- counterproductive to the efforts of our military members,� said Vitter in a press release.
According to Feinstein, the legislation is supported by the American Farm Bureau, the United Farm Workers, and other similar organizations but this is likely because it allows those employers to continue paying excessively low wages.
Feinstein assured the Appropriations Committee that the bill was not an amnesty because it requires the individuals work at least 100 days a year in the agricultural industry for the next five years.
�It is an emergency agricultural worker bill, which will give protected status to those workers who have worked in agriculture within the last 48 months,� she said, also noting that the U.S. would lose $5-9 billion to foreign competition without it.
Those are the same arguments that we heard last summer. In truth, Feinstein-Craig DOES provide amnesty for an unknown number of illegal workers. It provides, as the Bush-McCain-Kennedy bill did, a path to citizenship for some illegal aliens.
The amendment will go through the Senate this week as they consider the Iraq spending bill as a whole. At this writing, it isn�t clear that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will bring the measure to the floor for a vote.
NumbersUSA, an organization fighting illegal immigration, called the amendment �outrageous� and urged constituents to contact their political leaders. They noted that because families can also obtain temporary legal status through the amendment, it could reach almost 3 million people.
�The most important point to stress is that there is no need for an amnesty to provide growers with workers�there already is an H-2A foreign agricultural worker program that provides growers with an unlimited number of temporary workers if the growers agree to pay a decent wage and ensure that they go home at the end of the season,� said NumbersUSA news release.
Some farming organizations, like the Northwest Growers Association, not only support the measure but don�t think it does enough. They claim the AgJobs amendment doesn�t do enough for illegal aliens because it includes an �unrealistic visa cap.�
But the H-2A visa program exists and works without a cap. While Craig and others claim �oranges are rotting� on trees and needs illegal aliens to tend to our agriculture, places like the North Carolina Grower�s Association (NCGA, spotlighted on Michelle Malkin�s blog), oppose the amendment and have fared well with H-2A. NCGA utilizes H-2A to its fullest capacity as other agricultural organizations do not.
Additionally, AgJobs would maximize H-2B visas (lower skill, non-agricultural seasonal workers) and push an influx of more illegal immigrants, which clashes with what the American people want. They demonstrated their disapproval of amnesty proposals last year by a bipartisan grassroots effort to kill the immigration reform bill of 2007.
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md) also slipped in an amendment supporting illegal immigrants in the supplemental bill. Mikulski hopes to extend a program for temporary workers to re-enter the country without being subject to the limits on H2B visas. In a Congress Daily article, she said, "If you like Maryland crabs, vote for this amendment.�
"It seems that the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee love our troops�but for entirely different reasons: they provide convenient cover for passing special interest legislation to benefit illegal aliens and powerful business lobbies," wrote Ira Mehlman, Media Director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in an opinion piece yesterday.
Mehlman also reported that Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wa.) added a provision that would include 218,000 visas for skilled foreign workers. Part of the problem is this: Right now, America�s population is 300 million. At the rate we are going with illegal immigrants (sped up by amendments like these), the US Census Bureau estimates the population will be 450 million by 2050. If a Democrat, entitlement-oriented government sinks its teeth in, taxes will be higher than ever and freedom will be in jeopardy.
The Senate will begin debate on the supplemental bill tomorrow and is likely to vote on it before the end of the week. Some Republican senators -- including Alabama�s Jeff Sessions and others -- are working hard to expunge the illegal alien amnesty provisions. The only thing that may save the day is that the Democrats are including many of the antiwar measures that the president has vetoed in previous bills. If the bill passes, it�s likely to be vetoed.
And Congress will be back to ground zero after Memorial Day.
looks like the Agjobs amendment tagged to this bill is drawing lot of attention and negative publicity..
This is why we keep close watch on Congress. In a bipartisan effort accomplished quickly and virtually under the table, Sens. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) -- in Senate Appropriations markup of the War Supplemental bill -- obtained approval of an amendment that would create an amnesty for illegal alien farm workers. The measure, called the Emergency Agriculture Relief Act, was added to the War Supplemental bill in a 17-12 vote last Thursday.
Known as the AgJob amendment, the Feinstein-Craig measure revived instantaneously the controversy that caused conservatives to lash out at the White House and Congress last summer.
The measure would grant temporary legal status to 1.35 million illegal immigrants and their families currently working in the agricultural field. The legislation was passed out of committee at the request of agribusiness interests who have been insisting that they need illegal aliens to harvest crops and run horse shows. The legislation is nothing less than �comprehensive immigration reform� on a smaller scale.
What supporters of the amendment are calling �emergency� and �temporary�, opponents have labeled an �amnesty visa.� Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) said he considered the amendment amnesty and that �all these immigration issues should be addressed through the regular order."
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) opposes the amendment and said he will be working to remove it from the supplemental bill.
�Instead of ensuring that American troops are provided with the tools and resources that they need to protect our homeland, some in the Senate have instead chosen to jeopardize this funding by inserting provisions that are -- at best -- counterproductive to the efforts of our military members,� said Vitter in a press release.
According to Feinstein, the legislation is supported by the American Farm Bureau, the United Farm Workers, and other similar organizations but this is likely because it allows those employers to continue paying excessively low wages.
Feinstein assured the Appropriations Committee that the bill was not an amnesty because it requires the individuals work at least 100 days a year in the agricultural industry for the next five years.
�It is an emergency agricultural worker bill, which will give protected status to those workers who have worked in agriculture within the last 48 months,� she said, also noting that the U.S. would lose $5-9 billion to foreign competition without it.
Those are the same arguments that we heard last summer. In truth, Feinstein-Craig DOES provide amnesty for an unknown number of illegal workers. It provides, as the Bush-McCain-Kennedy bill did, a path to citizenship for some illegal aliens.
The amendment will go through the Senate this week as they consider the Iraq spending bill as a whole. At this writing, it isn�t clear that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will bring the measure to the floor for a vote.
NumbersUSA, an organization fighting illegal immigration, called the amendment �outrageous� and urged constituents to contact their political leaders. They noted that because families can also obtain temporary legal status through the amendment, it could reach almost 3 million people.
�The most important point to stress is that there is no need for an amnesty to provide growers with workers�there already is an H-2A foreign agricultural worker program that provides growers with an unlimited number of temporary workers if the growers agree to pay a decent wage and ensure that they go home at the end of the season,� said NumbersUSA news release.
Some farming organizations, like the Northwest Growers Association, not only support the measure but don�t think it does enough. They claim the AgJobs amendment doesn�t do enough for illegal aliens because it includes an �unrealistic visa cap.�
But the H-2A visa program exists and works without a cap. While Craig and others claim �oranges are rotting� on trees and needs illegal aliens to tend to our agriculture, places like the North Carolina Grower�s Association (NCGA, spotlighted on Michelle Malkin�s blog), oppose the amendment and have fared well with H-2A. NCGA utilizes H-2A to its fullest capacity as other agricultural organizations do not.
Additionally, AgJobs would maximize H-2B visas (lower skill, non-agricultural seasonal workers) and push an influx of more illegal immigrants, which clashes with what the American people want. They demonstrated their disapproval of amnesty proposals last year by a bipartisan grassroots effort to kill the immigration reform bill of 2007.
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md) also slipped in an amendment supporting illegal immigrants in the supplemental bill. Mikulski hopes to extend a program for temporary workers to re-enter the country without being subject to the limits on H2B visas. In a Congress Daily article, she said, "If you like Maryland crabs, vote for this amendment.�
"It seems that the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee love our troops�but for entirely different reasons: they provide convenient cover for passing special interest legislation to benefit illegal aliens and powerful business lobbies," wrote Ira Mehlman, Media Director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in an opinion piece yesterday.
Mehlman also reported that Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wa.) added a provision that would include 218,000 visas for skilled foreign workers. Part of the problem is this: Right now, America�s population is 300 million. At the rate we are going with illegal immigrants (sped up by amendments like these), the US Census Bureau estimates the population will be 450 million by 2050. If a Democrat, entitlement-oriented government sinks its teeth in, taxes will be higher than ever and freedom will be in jeopardy.
The Senate will begin debate on the supplemental bill tomorrow and is likely to vote on it before the end of the week. Some Republican senators -- including Alabama�s Jeff Sessions and others -- are working hard to expunge the illegal alien amnesty provisions. The only thing that may save the day is that the Democrats are including many of the antiwar measures that the president has vetoed in previous bills. If the bill passes, it�s likely to be vetoed.
And Congress will be back to ground zero after Memorial Day.
2011 yellow funny smiley face
logiclife
08-02 02:19 PM
If I were you, I would spend a couple of hundred dollars and do a paid phone consultation with a lawyer, probably a good one at that. And send questions ahead of time so that the lawyer too does his research before talking to you on the phone.
When you decisions can have a lasting effect on your career, you may not want to rely on advice on forums. Members here are not lawyers.
If you do get advice here, then be aware of the chances that it could be not applicable to your situation.
Good Luck.
When you decisions can have a lasting effect on your career, you may not want to rely on advice on forums. Members here are not lawyers.
If you do get advice here, then be aware of the chances that it could be not applicable to your situation.
Good Luck.
more...
surabhi
09-16 02:21 PM
Hello Gurus,
I am July 2nd filer like so many others. I have changed employer after 9 month of filing I-485. I-140 was approved in Jun 2007. I have AP approved.
My question : Is it advisable to travel to India and come back on AP? the reason I am asking is I have changed the employer? Will that affect my entry back to USA in any way at immigration check? Please advise.
Thanks in advance.
--Srinivas
There is no risk. I recently traveled and came back on AP and I changed jobs and no longer work with sponsoring employer.
There is always a nut case if you are not lucky and will probably cause some grief, but will not stop you from entering US.
I am July 2nd filer like so many others. I have changed employer after 9 month of filing I-485. I-140 was approved in Jun 2007. I have AP approved.
My question : Is it advisable to travel to India and come back on AP? the reason I am asking is I have changed the employer? Will that affect my entry back to USA in any way at immigration check? Please advise.
Thanks in advance.
--Srinivas
There is no risk. I recently traveled and came back on AP and I changed jobs and no longer work with sponsoring employer.
There is always a nut case if you are not lucky and will probably cause some grief, but will not stop you from entering US.
kirupa
11-11 01:07 PM
This is multi-week process ritwik. I wouldn't expect the public poll to go up any sooner than the 18th.
:)
:)
more...
raj2007
06-14 08:40 PM
lets say we dont apply for ead and ap now...will that affect filing ead and ap in the future if the priority dates retrogress?
No..you can file later based on pending 485 but why you want to wait to save some bucks.
No..you can file later based on pending 485 but why you want to wait to save some bucks.
2010 QOOP.com - Smiley Face FAIL
ajju
02-25 12:04 AM
what am I missing here? other than the hassle of getting paper copies filled out/ printed and the advantage of getting a refund a few weeks earlier, what is the advantage of e-filing?
at the end its matter of choice... but having choice is always good :-)
at the end its matter of choice... but having choice is always good :-)
more...
rahul98
07-17 07:07 PM
Great job IV..I am proud to be a part of IV.
Contributed $100...
Order Details - Jul 17, 2007 16:16 GMT-07:00
Google Order #10xxxxxxxxxxx3
Contributed $100...
Order Details - Jul 17, 2007 16:16 GMT-07:00
Google Order #10xxxxxxxxxxx3
hair funny-smiley-face-coffee-cups
silpa_23
05-19 06:08 PM
Greetings,
In brief, I have applied for I-485 when I was single and now priority dates are current. I need to add my spouse. Do I need to apply for I-485 for myself again? Below are the timelines.
Thanks in advance.
In August 2006.
1. Employer A
2. I was Single.
3. Files I-140 and I-485 concurrently.
4. Schedule A expired.
5. Application moved to Eb3.
In June 2007
1.Employer B (Moved in June 2007 via H1b transfer).
Married in 2008.
April 2010.
1. Employer B.
2. New I-140 filed in EB2, approved.
3. Ported EB3 PD of Aug 2006.
May 2011.
1. PD will be current in June 2011.
2. I need apply I-485 for my spouse.
Do I need to re-apply for I-485 and G-235a for the principal applicant.
In brief, I have applied for I-485 when I was single and now priority dates are current. I need to add my spouse. Do I need to apply for I-485 for myself again? Below are the timelines.
Thanks in advance.
In August 2006.
1. Employer A
2. I was Single.
3. Files I-140 and I-485 concurrently.
4. Schedule A expired.
5. Application moved to Eb3.
In June 2007
1.Employer B (Moved in June 2007 via H1b transfer).
Married in 2008.
April 2010.
1. Employer B.
2. New I-140 filed in EB2, approved.
3. Ported EB3 PD of Aug 2006.
May 2011.
1. PD will be current in June 2011.
2. I need apply I-485 for my spouse.
Do I need to re-apply for I-485 and G-235a for the principal applicant.
more...
newbee7
07-04 06:33 PM
Thanks for sharing your story! All the best..
hot 2011 happy face cartoon
chapsi29
06-25 10:58 AM
Thanks for your quick response.
As much as I want the W2 ASAP, the issue is what is the amount that should be on the W2 as I did not get paid in 2007. The W2 legally should only contain the wages that you have received in that year.
As much as I want the W2 ASAP, the issue is what is the amount that should be on the W2 as I did not get paid in 2007. The W2 legally should only contain the wages that you have received in that year.
more...
house Smiley face spider! How funny!
lord_labaku
10-05 06:20 PM
Guys,
These are standard trick questions. Its done quite frequently...maybe you guys dont travel frequently....but enforcing officers...like cops, security people, immigration check post officials are all trained to ask obvious, simple straightforward questions and supposed to judge your behavior, body language....not the exact answer....next time....try giving like a really long winding answer and see if they even care.....half way through your answer...they would have already stamped your passport.
These are standard trick questions. Its done quite frequently...maybe you guys dont travel frequently....but enforcing officers...like cops, security people, immigration check post officials are all trained to ask obvious, simple straightforward questions and supposed to judge your behavior, body language....not the exact answer....next time....try giving like a really long winding answer and see if they even care.....half way through your answer...they would have already stamped your passport.
tattoo Smiley Face
mrane1
11-05 02:32 AM
I too missed the chance ( formy wife and son) and waiting for the next chance and not sure when it is going to happen.
-sundar
Unfortunately it will be a long wait, unless your PD is 2003 or prior... I doubt there will be another July type fiasco... However, with USCIS you can never predict... so no harm in hoping... But be prepared for long haul!
-sundar
Unfortunately it will be a long wait, unless your PD is 2003 or prior... I doubt there will be another July type fiasco... However, with USCIS you can never predict... so no harm in hoping... But be prepared for long haul!
more...
pictures Funny quot;Sad Facequot; and Smiley
diptam
01-26 10:45 AM
If you want to track how fast are they processing - you have to go by "Notice Date" because that's the day they first saw your Application. If you want to charge AC21 or calculate iVisa Bulletion's Retrogression do by "Receipt Date" for calculating "180 days Portability" etc....
In the "Pre-July 2nd world" those 2 dates used to vary by 1 or 2 days so no one used to care.
Well - so NSC is doing I-140 for Apr 23rd and Texas is July 21st... I would have got my freedom by now if i had filed I-140 at Texas :) Another good thing in this Bulletin Vermont H1b extension processing have moved a lot - from Apr 23rd to Oct 1st 2007 - wow !!!
Good Luck folks!!
In terms of processing dates, which date is relevant?
USCIS Received Date: E.g., July 25, 2007
OR
USCIS Notice Date: E.g., Sept 12, 2007?
Thanks.
GG_007
In the "Pre-July 2nd world" those 2 dates used to vary by 1 or 2 days so no one used to care.
Well - so NSC is doing I-140 for Apr 23rd and Texas is July 21st... I would have got my freedom by now if i had filed I-140 at Texas :) Another good thing in this Bulletin Vermont H1b extension processing have moved a lot - from Apr 23rd to Oct 1st 2007 - wow !!!
Good Luck folks!!
In terms of processing dates, which date is relevant?
USCIS Received Date: E.g., July 25, 2007
OR
USCIS Notice Date: E.g., Sept 12, 2007?
Thanks.
GG_007
dresses It#39;s Why People Are Happy
rock
03-14 06:01 PM
Is there any way we can track that I-140 is either revoked or not by the old employer?
more...
makeup Thumbs Up Smiley Face Pinback
pitha
06-28 03:12 PM
This is a very common issue. Most of the times the HR title and job title and Labor title do not match.
You need to use "Programmer Analyst" for Employment verification letter, but Employment offer letter, you need to use "Software Programmer Engineer".
This is 100% correct.
Employment verification letter is for current occupation what you mentioned in LCA when applying for H1. If you say something else, then you are voilating what you mentioned. Then it is going to problem if a strict USCIS officer observes that.
But for Employment offer letter, since it is for future emploment, you need to have the title mentioned in PERM application.
You need to use "Programmer Analyst" for Employment verification letter, but Employment offer letter, you need to use "Software Programmer Engineer".
This is 100% correct.
Employment verification letter is for current occupation what you mentioned in LCA when applying for H1. If you say something else, then you are voilating what you mentioned. Then it is going to problem if a strict USCIS officer observes that.
But for Employment offer letter, since it is for future emploment, you need to have the title mentioned in PERM application.
girlfriend Happy Face Graphic
newuser
05-31 12:55 PM
Could you please also fax to all the senators if not faxed already.
called senators from my state
contributing $ 50 per month
called senators from my state
contributing $ 50 per month
hairstyles funny smiley faces.
eb3retro
07-22 08:04 PM
Hi Suk,
We have been already working on this. Please see:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_25_EAD_03-20-06.pdf
On July 30, 2004, an interim rule "Employment Authorization Documents." 69 Fed. Reg. 45555 removed regulatory language limiting EAD validity periods to one-year increments and provides for USCIS issuance of multi-year EADs. The intent of this rule is - USCIS is to begin issuance of EADs with validity periods of more than one year. The reason for this interim rule was that 80%-90% of adjustment of status applications remain pending for longer than one year. Therefore applying for renewal of the EAD every year, as mentioned in the July 2004 interim rule, "creates burden on the applicant" and "creates avoidable additional workload for USCIS".
This change to the EAD issuance policy and practice will benefit employers and individuals, as well as USCIS. Issuance of multi-year EADs and EADs with full periods of validity will also help to reduce USCIS workload and improve process efficiency. With the current practice, issuing EADs with one-year validity periods�in cases where it is likely that re-issuance of the EAD will be necessary�requires USCIS to perform redundant adjudications.
Thanks for your help!
Walden pond, is there anyway we can do a rigorous push for this. Is there something that we can do about it. Also, after this letter to USCIS, was there any response from their end...thanks for your time, btw, congratulations on receiving your green card. You really deserve it and trust me, every single soul in IV is happy for you.
We have been already working on this. Please see:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_25_EAD_03-20-06.pdf
On July 30, 2004, an interim rule "Employment Authorization Documents." 69 Fed. Reg. 45555 removed regulatory language limiting EAD validity periods to one-year increments and provides for USCIS issuance of multi-year EADs. The intent of this rule is - USCIS is to begin issuance of EADs with validity periods of more than one year. The reason for this interim rule was that 80%-90% of adjustment of status applications remain pending for longer than one year. Therefore applying for renewal of the EAD every year, as mentioned in the July 2004 interim rule, "creates burden on the applicant" and "creates avoidable additional workload for USCIS".
This change to the EAD issuance policy and practice will benefit employers and individuals, as well as USCIS. Issuance of multi-year EADs and EADs with full periods of validity will also help to reduce USCIS workload and improve process efficiency. With the current practice, issuing EADs with one-year validity periods�in cases where it is likely that re-issuance of the EAD will be necessary�requires USCIS to perform redundant adjudications.
Thanks for your help!
Walden pond, is there anyway we can do a rigorous push for this. Is there something that we can do about it. Also, after this letter to USCIS, was there any response from their end...thanks for your time, btw, congratulations on receiving your green card. You really deserve it and trust me, every single soul in IV is happy for you.
ganesha
02-20 06:15 PM
Any enquiry on 140 can only be done by the company or the lawyer. You have no other option except being nice with them:mad:
My husband's I-140 is pending at TSC receipt date Dec 07. The processing date is in Jan 2008. how can we enquire why his I-140 is still pending. no LUD what so ever.
Contacted his HR. they say, they are waiting for reply from law firm.
Other than form 7001 that needs employer signature, are there any ways to enquire into the delay?.
Thanks.
My husband's I-140 is pending at TSC receipt date Dec 07. The processing date is in Jan 2008. how can we enquire why his I-140 is still pending. no LUD what so ever.
Contacted his HR. they say, they are waiting for reply from law firm.
Other than form 7001 that needs employer signature, are there any ways to enquire into the delay?.
Thanks.
gcdreamer05
12-18 08:33 PM
hi goel,
Can you find out if you had applied for Change of Status - to change from h4 to h1... talk to your company attornies to find out about it.
Can you find out if you had applied for Change of Status - to change from h4 to h1... talk to your company attornies to find out about it.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét