das0
06-18 11:55 AM
Once on EAD for one employer A, can anyone fall back to H1B for the same employer A?
sanan
06-01 07:10 PM
I feel your pain buddy!! :(
My attorney is taking his sweet ass time.. so mine will be around 10th..
My attorney is taking his sweet ass time.. so mine will be around 10th..
kaisersose
02-18 10:26 AM
This is how it works.
DOS will decide on a certain number ovisa to be released during a quarter. They will draw an estimate and set the cut-off to a certain date so that USCIS can request visa numbers.
As an example, let us say they decide to release 500 visa numbers for India EB2 the following month and set the cut off for that category to April 2004. USCIS will have a demand for thousands of visa numbers for EB2 India with PDs earlier than that date. DOS will release the 500 numbers and then they will push the date back to April 2002 or something to cut down supply till the next quarter. If there is demand for visa numbers even below this cut off date, they will reduce it further or change it to U.
We could have predicted the movement better if USCIS and DOS were one. But since they are not, it is almost impossible. Like how DOS shocked USCIS last year by unexpectedly setting all PDs to current. The other complication is since many EB3 are now changing over to EB2 with earlier PDs, forget DOS, even USCIS does not know how many EB2s it will have to process.
In short, continue to expect the same pattern of erratic movement.
DOS will decide on a certain number ovisa to be released during a quarter. They will draw an estimate and set the cut-off to a certain date so that USCIS can request visa numbers.
As an example, let us say they decide to release 500 visa numbers for India EB2 the following month and set the cut off for that category to April 2004. USCIS will have a demand for thousands of visa numbers for EB2 India with PDs earlier than that date. DOS will release the 500 numbers and then they will push the date back to April 2002 or something to cut down supply till the next quarter. If there is demand for visa numbers even below this cut off date, they will reduce it further or change it to U.
We could have predicted the movement better if USCIS and DOS were one. But since they are not, it is almost impossible. Like how DOS shocked USCIS last year by unexpectedly setting all PDs to current. The other complication is since many EB3 are now changing over to EB2 with earlier PDs, forget DOS, even USCIS does not know how many EB2s it will have to process.
In short, continue to expect the same pattern of erratic movement.
sdeshpan
07-13 09:47 AM
Hi Folks, I have a question about traveling to India...
Want to travel from US to Indore, India. As I need to change planes either Mumbai or Delhi, how does it work?
1. I came to know that in Mumbai, it is just change of terminals, not airports. Am I right?
2. How about Delhi? Once I arrive at International airport in Delhi, to catch a domestic flight to Indore, is it change of airports or just change of terminals? Is there a shuttle provided?
Thank you very much and I appreciate an accurate response...
RAYSAIKAT pretty much summed it up right...
@Mumbai...you get to the International Terminal and then depending on which domestic carrier you are flying with to Indore, most likely they will arrange for the shuttle to the Domestic Terminal. It is about a 10 min ride and you will have to pick up your luggage and go through customs/immigration before this. I know that Jet Airways (not sure about others) even checks in your bags at the Int'l terminal so you don't have to carry all that with you on the shuttle.
Having said that, if I were you I would definitely make sure that there is enough (at least 4 hrs, I feel) time between the two flights so you are not left running around gasping for breath! ;)
Sorry...not idea about Delhi...never took an Indore flight from there...only Mumbai...
Want to travel from US to Indore, India. As I need to change planes either Mumbai or Delhi, how does it work?
1. I came to know that in Mumbai, it is just change of terminals, not airports. Am I right?
2. How about Delhi? Once I arrive at International airport in Delhi, to catch a domestic flight to Indore, is it change of airports or just change of terminals? Is there a shuttle provided?
Thank you very much and I appreciate an accurate response...
RAYSAIKAT pretty much summed it up right...
@Mumbai...you get to the International Terminal and then depending on which domestic carrier you are flying with to Indore, most likely they will arrange for the shuttle to the Domestic Terminal. It is about a 10 min ride and you will have to pick up your luggage and go through customs/immigration before this. I know that Jet Airways (not sure about others) even checks in your bags at the Int'l terminal so you don't have to carry all that with you on the shuttle.
Having said that, if I were you I would definitely make sure that there is enough (at least 4 hrs, I feel) time between the two flights so you are not left running around gasping for breath! ;)
Sorry...not idea about Delhi...never took an Indore flight from there...only Mumbai...
more...
DallasBlue
11-10 02:55 PM
I would like to know what is the booth number?
Your Booth Name: IMMIGRATION VOICE
Your Booth Number: 15
is what I got from Needhelp. See you'll there !!
Your Booth Name: IMMIGRATION VOICE
Your Booth Number: 15
is what I got from Needhelp. See you'll there !!
Blog Feeds
10-15 06:30 PM
[Federal Register: October 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 192)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
agiridhar
01-28 02:07 PM
from dallas.
krishnam70
08-16 03:57 PM
i dont see any of the above said...:o..how lond does it take for us to receive rn in hand after the checks are cashed...I am starting to worry now.If everybody can see the rn why icant i!:o...The uscis cs is not telling the status...Is there a possiblity of appl rejection even after the checks are cleared.:confused::confused:
Thanks.
your checked it cashed means you will get the receipt notice soon. Why are you in such a hurry to know the receipt number? Never have so many people actually waited for their checks to be "CASHED" . so relax and take a break
cheers
Thanks.
your checked it cashed means you will get the receipt notice soon. Why are you in such a hurry to know the receipt number? Never have so many people actually waited for their checks to be "CASHED" . so relax and take a break
cheers
more...
.jpg "Indian Bridal Makeup")
ameryki
08-12 12:34 PM
Efiled for my wife May 17th to NSC got LIN number. No update so far. Next week will be 90 days.
gcspace
08-13 07:58 AM
I don't know the exact time my application reached on July 2nd.
I havn't yet received my receipts nor checks cashed.
Guess we just need to wait and wait..
I havn't yet received my receipts nor checks cashed.
Guess we just need to wait and wait..
more...
gcadream
12-10 07:43 AM
Its so depressing & frustrating Not to see any movement in EB2 dates. For the past 3 months there had been no movement in the EB2 dates. Every time I open with a hope that something will happen but its the same shit each time.
Don't know when this wait for GC will be over, friend of mine who spend equal or may be less time as me in UK had now got the PR of UK, some who went to AUS, S'Pore got PR within 1 yr and same with Canada...but this US is the only sucking place with screwed up policies which benefits only the business and govts.
Don't know when this wait for GC will be over, friend of mine who spend equal or may be less time as me in UK had now got the PR of UK, some who went to AUS, S'Pore got PR within 1 yr and same with Canada...but this US is the only sucking place with screwed up policies which benefits only the business and govts.
anuh1
03-16 04:15 PM
Mine was filed 2nd week of Feb and still waiting .....
more...
ars01
01-19 08:52 AM
Filed I-140 in October 2006 in EB3 category.
gcisadawg
02-03 02:09 PM
Hi
I hold a H1b Visa but did not work after coming to US.
Can anybody guide me regarding my current status.
My H1 was approved in 2007 quota and i entered US in march 2008..but was not successful in getting a job and my employer is not running any payroll..
can anybody help me with this??
thankyou
RUN buddy RUN! This forum is for LEGAL immigrants trying to get their employment based green cards. There are people from EB3 with PD from 2001 ( yeah, TWO THOUSAND AND ONE) who are maintaining their EB status diligently by having a steady job and waiting and waiting and waiting for their GC to come.
Now, you coolly come and say what you have just said and have the gall to ask for advice.
The same applies to other poster 'nehas' also who had a similar question.
Thanks,
GCisaDawg
I hold a H1b Visa but did not work after coming to US.
Can anybody guide me regarding my current status.
My H1 was approved in 2007 quota and i entered US in march 2008..but was not successful in getting a job and my employer is not running any payroll..
can anybody help me with this??
thankyou
RUN buddy RUN! This forum is for LEGAL immigrants trying to get their employment based green cards. There are people from EB3 with PD from 2001 ( yeah, TWO THOUSAND AND ONE) who are maintaining their EB status diligently by having a steady job and waiting and waiting and waiting for their GC to come.
Now, you coolly come and say what you have just said and have the gall to ask for advice.
The same applies to other poster 'nehas' also who had a similar question.
Thanks,
GCisaDawg
more...
purgan
12-18 06:40 PM
Immigrantion Restrictionist/Racists have been calling Congresional offices and pounding the privelege of their One vote each, so they can be spared of foreign competition even though US competitiveness goes down the drain. I guess each one to himself. Here are some of the more interesting conversations...
==
Senator Kyl:
Q. What is Senator Kyl's position to be on Cornyn's "dark of the night"
attempt to ramrod an H-1B increase?
A. Are you calling on behalf of any organization?
A. Yes, the org's name is Sandra. I only have one vote and no campaign
donations.
"Very low likelihood of this passing, and in the future Senator Kyl will
take into careful consideration such meansures."
A. You haven't answered my question. Kyl has been a consistent supporter
of H-1Bs
A. Senator hasn't made a decision and is still considering.
Q. How did the Senator vote on the H1-C two days ago?
A. I'm not finding a record.
Q. It was HR1285--on December 5.
A. Oh, that was a unanimous voice vote.
Q. So does that mean Senator Kyl voted for it?
A. I can check, just a moment........it was a unanimous voice vote
================================================== ========
Senator McCain:
Q What is McCain's position on Cornyn's "dark of the night" attempt to
ramrod an H-1B increase?
A. He hasn't yet taken a position.
================================================== ========
Senator Grassley (Casey Mills)
Asked for Casey but aide couldn't find him
Q. Does Grassley support H1-B increases?
A He doesn't know.
I gave him a rundown as if I were Debbie--nursing shortage is artificially
created. Grassley probably voted for H1-C, etc.
I retrained for a job after 20 years to go into nursing, and now find wages
are kept low by foreign nurses.
A. He'll pass concerns along.
================================================== ==============
Senator Dorgan
Express thanks to Senator Dorgan for opposing H1-Bs.
================================================== =================
Sandra
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +
I called Cornyn's office just now - male staffer got really annoyed when I
asked him if Senator Coryn supports displacing well-educated American
workers with Foreign H-1B Visa holders. He immediately passed me off to a
voice mail box of a staffer who handles immigration matters. (Yes, I know
H-1B's are so-called "non-immigrant Visas" but we all know most of these
people end up staying here -)
Of course the staffer did not pick up his phone - but the staffer's name is
Landon Bell. Why not ring up Senator Corn-Hole's office and ask for Landon
Bell, and ring Landon's bell a bit?
Gerard
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +
I called Cornyn's office just now - stated my opposition of course. The
person I spoke with said that Cornyn was trying to get his bill introduced
today, and he was not sure if it would be voted on today.
Hopefully Cornyn fails. I think he is getting our message, but I also
think he does not care.
Roy
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +
Maybe you all have different information that I just obtained from both
Senator Pete Domenici's office (Republican) and Senator Jeff Bingaman's
office (Democrat) -- both of New Mexico. But both of their offices claim
that Skil Bill "Access to High Skilled Foreign Workers" S 2691 has NOT left
committee yet and thus cannot be voted on yet. (It is certainly possible
that you all have different or better information than was conveyed to me
but this is what I obtained.)
Domenici's office staff person couldn't tell me which side of the fence he
was on as he hasn't "made a press release" yet. And, as long as it is in
committee he apparently doesn't voice an opinion.
Senator Bingaman's office staff also told me that he had not expressed an
opinion to him on his position on the bill. The young, female staff woman
who answered the DC phone seemed STUNNED when she pulled up the bill and
started to read parts of it. She thought they'd have to take some kind of
special test to get into the USA for these jobs -- no. I only wish she
were casting a vote as I know how she'd vote! Again, she told me that
the bill was not out of committee YET and the Senators are going home
tomorrow afternoon. They are doing "yesterday morning's" work tonight or
some such backward thinking. There has been no floor debate on the bill so
the staff claimed would mean there will NOT be a vote on the bill tonight.
No one would guarantee me that NO voting would take place tomorrow but did
say it was UNlikely.
Finally, when I got to the staff woman in DC she was a bit surprised
because someone had called her on the bill from one of the Senator's New
Mexico offices. (A bit strange unless it was my calling the Senator's 800
number which connected me some place in New Mexico and they called the DC
office for information regarding my inquiry.)
(BE careful when you call, however, one Bingaman's staff males that I
spoke with tried to give me the WRONG Senate Bill number reference. He
asked "This is Senate Bill 2626?" I said "The one I am calling on is
"Senate Bill 2691 "Access to High Skilled Foreign Workers" so unless the
bill has been reassigned a number that I don't know about -- I am calling
on the Skil Bill "Access to High Skilled Foreign Workers.")
Oh, yeah! the woman from Bingaman's office said "Oh, THAT's a
Republican sponsored bill!"
Cynthia
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +
I, too, phoned Cornyn's office and the person I spoke with kept insisting
that the H-1B's had to be paid the same as Americans and then he said the
senator wants to make America more competitive by bringing in skilled
workers. I directed him to Norm's article in the San Francisco paper and to
the Programmers Guild. I asked him how it would make our nation more
competetive to bring in a worldwide supply of cheaper labor to take our
jobs. Silence.
LC Evans
http://lcevans.com
Jobless Recovery
A satirical novel about American job losses
==
Senator Kyl:
Q. What is Senator Kyl's position to be on Cornyn's "dark of the night"
attempt to ramrod an H-1B increase?
A. Are you calling on behalf of any organization?
A. Yes, the org's name is Sandra. I only have one vote and no campaign
donations.
"Very low likelihood of this passing, and in the future Senator Kyl will
take into careful consideration such meansures."
A. You haven't answered my question. Kyl has been a consistent supporter
of H-1Bs
A. Senator hasn't made a decision and is still considering.
Q. How did the Senator vote on the H1-C two days ago?
A. I'm not finding a record.
Q. It was HR1285--on December 5.
A. Oh, that was a unanimous voice vote.
Q. So does that mean Senator Kyl voted for it?
A. I can check, just a moment........it was a unanimous voice vote
================================================== ========
Senator McCain:
Q What is McCain's position on Cornyn's "dark of the night" attempt to
ramrod an H-1B increase?
A. He hasn't yet taken a position.
================================================== ========
Senator Grassley (Casey Mills)
Asked for Casey but aide couldn't find him
Q. Does Grassley support H1-B increases?
A He doesn't know.
I gave him a rundown as if I were Debbie--nursing shortage is artificially
created. Grassley probably voted for H1-C, etc.
I retrained for a job after 20 years to go into nursing, and now find wages
are kept low by foreign nurses.
A. He'll pass concerns along.
================================================== ==============
Senator Dorgan
Express thanks to Senator Dorgan for opposing H1-Bs.
================================================== =================
Sandra
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +
I called Cornyn's office just now - male staffer got really annoyed when I
asked him if Senator Coryn supports displacing well-educated American
workers with Foreign H-1B Visa holders. He immediately passed me off to a
voice mail box of a staffer who handles immigration matters. (Yes, I know
H-1B's are so-called "non-immigrant Visas" but we all know most of these
people end up staying here -)
Of course the staffer did not pick up his phone - but the staffer's name is
Landon Bell. Why not ring up Senator Corn-Hole's office and ask for Landon
Bell, and ring Landon's bell a bit?
Gerard
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +
I called Cornyn's office just now - stated my opposition of course. The
person I spoke with said that Cornyn was trying to get his bill introduced
today, and he was not sure if it would be voted on today.
Hopefully Cornyn fails. I think he is getting our message, but I also
think he does not care.
Roy
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +
Maybe you all have different information that I just obtained from both
Senator Pete Domenici's office (Republican) and Senator Jeff Bingaman's
office (Democrat) -- both of New Mexico. But both of their offices claim
that Skil Bill "Access to High Skilled Foreign Workers" S 2691 has NOT left
committee yet and thus cannot be voted on yet. (It is certainly possible
that you all have different or better information than was conveyed to me
but this is what I obtained.)
Domenici's office staff person couldn't tell me which side of the fence he
was on as he hasn't "made a press release" yet. And, as long as it is in
committee he apparently doesn't voice an opinion.
Senator Bingaman's office staff also told me that he had not expressed an
opinion to him on his position on the bill. The young, female staff woman
who answered the DC phone seemed STUNNED when she pulled up the bill and
started to read parts of it. She thought they'd have to take some kind of
special test to get into the USA for these jobs -- no. I only wish she
were casting a vote as I know how she'd vote! Again, she told me that
the bill was not out of committee YET and the Senators are going home
tomorrow afternoon. They are doing "yesterday morning's" work tonight or
some such backward thinking. There has been no floor debate on the bill so
the staff claimed would mean there will NOT be a vote on the bill tonight.
No one would guarantee me that NO voting would take place tomorrow but did
say it was UNlikely.
Finally, when I got to the staff woman in DC she was a bit surprised
because someone had called her on the bill from one of the Senator's New
Mexico offices. (A bit strange unless it was my calling the Senator's 800
number which connected me some place in New Mexico and they called the DC
office for information regarding my inquiry.)
(BE careful when you call, however, one Bingaman's staff males that I
spoke with tried to give me the WRONG Senate Bill number reference. He
asked "This is Senate Bill 2626?" I said "The one I am calling on is
"Senate Bill 2691 "Access to High Skilled Foreign Workers" so unless the
bill has been reassigned a number that I don't know about -- I am calling
on the Skil Bill "Access to High Skilled Foreign Workers.")
Oh, yeah! the woman from Bingaman's office said "Oh, THAT's a
Republican sponsored bill!"
Cynthia
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +
I, too, phoned Cornyn's office and the person I spoke with kept insisting
that the H-1B's had to be paid the same as Americans and then he said the
senator wants to make America more competitive by bringing in skilled
workers. I directed him to Norm's article in the San Francisco paper and to
the Programmers Guild. I asked him how it would make our nation more
competetive to bring in a worldwide supply of cheaper labor to take our
jobs. Silence.
LC Evans
http://lcevans.com
Jobless Recovery
A satirical novel about American job losses
bfadlia
10-22 01:22 PM
I can't help but notice that progress at TSC.
They were processing July 16, 2007 2 - 3 months back.
One fine day, they updated dates saying that they processed till June 16, 2007. (-ve by a month)
Last month, they made progress till June 23, 2007.
Since last month, they made a progress of one day - June 24, 2007.
Is this correct? or I am a brain dead person? unable to understand CIS processing dates, particulary going backwards really baffles me.:(
Here's my interpretation:
say last month, for EB3 ROW, the priority date was Jan 1st 2005, so they pick the cases earlier than that date and start working on them. They then say in the processing website that the oldest case they have worked on among these is july 8th. The following month, the priority date becomes May 1st 2005, so now they have to pull the cases whose priority dates are between January and May and add them to the processing queue. Some of these cases will have receipt dates earlier than July 8th, therefore the processing date this month can rightfully move back to reflect that.
But of course we also know USCIS doesnt follow a consistent process in pulling cases.
They were processing July 16, 2007 2 - 3 months back.
One fine day, they updated dates saying that they processed till June 16, 2007. (-ve by a month)
Last month, they made progress till June 23, 2007.
Since last month, they made a progress of one day - June 24, 2007.
Is this correct? or I am a brain dead person? unable to understand CIS processing dates, particulary going backwards really baffles me.:(
Here's my interpretation:
say last month, for EB3 ROW, the priority date was Jan 1st 2005, so they pick the cases earlier than that date and start working on them. They then say in the processing website that the oldest case they have worked on among these is july 8th. The following month, the priority date becomes May 1st 2005, so now they have to pull the cases whose priority dates are between January and May and add them to the processing queue. Some of these cases will have receipt dates earlier than July 8th, therefore the processing date this month can rightfully move back to reflect that.
But of course we also know USCIS doesnt follow a consistent process in pulling cases.
more...
validIV
03-17 12:34 PM
Both EAD and H1-B are fine. I am on EAD/AP whereas my wife is on H1-B. We dont have any issues and the banks will recognize both. We use JP Morgan Chase.
ingegarcia
06-15 03:40 PM
Will continue contributing at least till guys stuck in the backlog centers get to file their I-140s.
What about the option
Refiling LC in PERM due to .... changing jobs, etc
What about the option
Refiling LC in PERM due to .... changing jobs, etc
jiraprapaasa
04-10 03:26 PM
Even she is 13 years old. She still need to purchase PIN and go for an interview.
nefrateedi
08-29 12:03 PM
Could someone please, help me with the following situation; HERE IS MY EXPLANATION:
....My permanent employment is in Massachusetts...so from what I read( from I-140 and 485 instructions) my permanent employment which is Massachusetts...does not correspond to the Nebraska Service Center...it corresponds to the Texas Service Center. I've noticed this only after my lawyer sent my package to NEBRASKA.
Please tell me if I'm accurate about this matter?
Will USCIS REJECT MY PACKAGE OF i-140 AND i-485 because of improperly filed?
Please help me!
Your help would be highly appreciated!
When were your applications filed? If it was before July 30, your I-485 could be filed at either Nebraska or Texas.
....My permanent employment is in Massachusetts...so from what I read( from I-140 and 485 instructions) my permanent employment which is Massachusetts...does not correspond to the Nebraska Service Center...it corresponds to the Texas Service Center. I've noticed this only after my lawyer sent my package to NEBRASKA.
Please tell me if I'm accurate about this matter?
Will USCIS REJECT MY PACKAGE OF i-140 AND i-485 because of improperly filed?
Please help me!
Your help would be highly appreciated!
When were your applications filed? If it was before July 30, your I-485 could be filed at either Nebraska or Texas.
immi_2006
02-13 10:35 AM
My 485 receipt Date is July 5, 2007. Today i got a mail saying they have sent an RFE on my 485 App. It could be for Original Employment Letter as i sent a copy of the letter.
FYI my PD is Sep, 2006 EB2 India
FYI my PD is Sep, 2006 EB2 India
No comments:
Post a Comment