chi_shark
06-24 05:56 AM
Yes I am still waiting. No luds other than the ones for supporting documents.
Same here.
I applied on May 18th and my EAD expires on Aug 10th. There were three SLUDs in a row two weeks after I applied, and there is no update after that.
Did you notice any LUDs in your case? Are you still waiting for a decision? Please update.
Same here.
I applied on May 18th and my EAD expires on Aug 10th. There were three SLUDs in a row two weeks after I applied, and there is no update after that.
Did you notice any LUDs in your case? Are you still waiting for a decision? Please update.
wallpaper sunflower tattoo back. flower
vallabhu
01-14 12:22 PM
The source is Immigration-law.com
This bill was introduced by Rep. Shela Jackson-Lee of Texas. Here is the full-text of the bill. It is a shocker, highly prejudiced against the employment-based immigration. Another shocker is a proposal to increaase Diversity Visa from 55,000 to 110,000 when the general opinion in the Congress was even to eliminate the DV program.
SEC. 701. UNFAIR IMMIGRATION-RELATED EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES.
Section 274B (8 U.S.C. 1324b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(5)--
(A) by amending the paragraph heading to read `Prohibition of Intimidation, Retaliation, or Unlawful Discrimination in Employment';
(B) by moving the text down and to the right 2 ems;
(C) by inserting before such text the following: `(A) IN GENERAL- '; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
`(B) FEDERAL LABOR OR EMPLOYMENT LAWS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer to directly or indirectly threaten any individual with removal or any other adverse consequences pertaining to that individual's immigration status or employment benefits for the purpose of intimidating, pressuring, or coercing any such individual not to exercise any right protected by State or Federal labor or employment law (including section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 157)), or for the purpose of retaliating against any such individual for having exercised or having stated an intention to exercise any such right.
`(C) DISCRIMINATION BASED ON IMMIGRATION STATUS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer, except to the extent specifically authorized or required by law, to discriminate in any term or condition of employment against any individual employed by such employer on the basis of such individual's immigration status.'; and
(2) in subsection (c)(2), by adding at the end the following: `The Special Counsel shall not disclose to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, and shall not cause to be published in a manner that discloses to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, any information obtained by the Special Counsel in any manner concerning the immigration status of any individual who has filed a charge under this section, or the identity of any individual or entity that is a party or witness to a proceedings brought pursuant to such charge. The Secretary of Homeland Security may not rely, in whole or in part, in any enforcement action or removal proceeding, upon any information obtained as a result of the filing or prosecution of an unfair immigration-related employment practice charge. For purposes of this paragraph, the term `Special Counsel' includes individuals formerly appointed to the position of Special Counsel and any current or former employee of the office of the Special Counsel. Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits information to be used in violation of this paragraph shall be fined not more than $10,000.'.
SEC. 702. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TASK FORCE.
The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall conduct a national study of American workplaces to determine the causes, extent, circumstances, and consequences, of exploitation of undocumented alien workers by their employers. As part of this study, the Secretary of Labor shall create a plan for targeted review of Federal labor law enforcement in industries with a substantial immigrant workforce, for the purpose of identifying, monitoring, and deterring frequent or egregious violators of wage and hour, antidiscrimination, National Labor Relations Act, and workplace safety and health requirements. Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall submit to the Congress a report describing the results of the study and the Secretary's recommendations based on the study.
SEC. 703. RECRUITMENT OF AMERICAN WORKERS.
Section 214 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (m) (as added by section 105 of Public Law 106-313), (n) (as added by section 107(e) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1513(c) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1102(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act), and (p) (as added by section 1503(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act) as subsections (n), (o), (p), (q), and (r), respectively; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(s)(1) No petition to accord employment status under the nonimmigrant classifications described in sections 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) and (H) shall be granted in the absence of an affidavit from the petitioner describing the efforts that were made to recruit an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence or a citizen of the United States before resorting to a petition to obtain a foreign employee. The recruitment efforts must have included substantial attempts to find employees in minority communities. Recruitment efforts in minority communities should include at least one of the following, if appropriate for the employment being advertised:
`(A) Advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker in local newspapers in the labor market that is likely to be patronized by a potential worker for at least 5 consecutive days.
`(B) Undertake efforts to advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker through advertisements in public transportation systems.
`(C) To the extent permitted by local laws and regulations, engage in recruitment activities in secondary schools, recreation centers, community centers, and other places throughout the communities within 50 miles of the job site that serve minorities.
`(2)(A) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a 10 percent surcharge on all fees collected for petitions to accord employment status and shall use these funds to establish an employment training program which will include unemployed workers in the United States who need to be trained or retrained. The purpose of this program shall be to increase the number of lawful permanent residents and citizens of the United States who are available for employment in the occupations that are the subjects of such petitions. At least 50 percent of the funds generated by this provision must be used to train American workers in rural and inner-city areas.
`(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall reserve and make available to the Secretary of Labor a portion of the funds collected under this paragraph. Such funds shall be used by the Secretary of Labor to establish an `Office to Preserve American Jobs' within the Department of Labor. The purpose of this office shall be to establish policies intended to ensure that employers in the United States will hire available workers in the United States before resorting to foreign labor, giving substantial emphasis to hiring minority workers in the United States.'.
This bill was introduced by Rep. Shela Jackson-Lee of Texas. Here is the full-text of the bill. It is a shocker, highly prejudiced against the employment-based immigration. Another shocker is a proposal to increaase Diversity Visa from 55,000 to 110,000 when the general opinion in the Congress was even to eliminate the DV program.
SEC. 701. UNFAIR IMMIGRATION-RELATED EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES.
Section 274B (8 U.S.C. 1324b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(5)--
(A) by amending the paragraph heading to read `Prohibition of Intimidation, Retaliation, or Unlawful Discrimination in Employment';
(B) by moving the text down and to the right 2 ems;
(C) by inserting before such text the following: `(A) IN GENERAL- '; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
`(B) FEDERAL LABOR OR EMPLOYMENT LAWS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer to directly or indirectly threaten any individual with removal or any other adverse consequences pertaining to that individual's immigration status or employment benefits for the purpose of intimidating, pressuring, or coercing any such individual not to exercise any right protected by State or Federal labor or employment law (including section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 157)), or for the purpose of retaliating against any such individual for having exercised or having stated an intention to exercise any such right.
`(C) DISCRIMINATION BASED ON IMMIGRATION STATUS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer, except to the extent specifically authorized or required by law, to discriminate in any term or condition of employment against any individual employed by such employer on the basis of such individual's immigration status.'; and
(2) in subsection (c)(2), by adding at the end the following: `The Special Counsel shall not disclose to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, and shall not cause to be published in a manner that discloses to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, any information obtained by the Special Counsel in any manner concerning the immigration status of any individual who has filed a charge under this section, or the identity of any individual or entity that is a party or witness to a proceedings brought pursuant to such charge. The Secretary of Homeland Security may not rely, in whole or in part, in any enforcement action or removal proceeding, upon any information obtained as a result of the filing or prosecution of an unfair immigration-related employment practice charge. For purposes of this paragraph, the term `Special Counsel' includes individuals formerly appointed to the position of Special Counsel and any current or former employee of the office of the Special Counsel. Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits information to be used in violation of this paragraph shall be fined not more than $10,000.'.
SEC. 702. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TASK FORCE.
The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall conduct a national study of American workplaces to determine the causes, extent, circumstances, and consequences, of exploitation of undocumented alien workers by their employers. As part of this study, the Secretary of Labor shall create a plan for targeted review of Federal labor law enforcement in industries with a substantial immigrant workforce, for the purpose of identifying, monitoring, and deterring frequent or egregious violators of wage and hour, antidiscrimination, National Labor Relations Act, and workplace safety and health requirements. Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall submit to the Congress a report describing the results of the study and the Secretary's recommendations based on the study.
SEC. 703. RECRUITMENT OF AMERICAN WORKERS.
Section 214 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (m) (as added by section 105 of Public Law 106-313), (n) (as added by section 107(e) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1513(c) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1102(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act), and (p) (as added by section 1503(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act) as subsections (n), (o), (p), (q), and (r), respectively; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(s)(1) No petition to accord employment status under the nonimmigrant classifications described in sections 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) and (H) shall be granted in the absence of an affidavit from the petitioner describing the efforts that were made to recruit an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence or a citizen of the United States before resorting to a petition to obtain a foreign employee. The recruitment efforts must have included substantial attempts to find employees in minority communities. Recruitment efforts in minority communities should include at least one of the following, if appropriate for the employment being advertised:
`(A) Advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker in local newspapers in the labor market that is likely to be patronized by a potential worker for at least 5 consecutive days.
`(B) Undertake efforts to advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker through advertisements in public transportation systems.
`(C) To the extent permitted by local laws and regulations, engage in recruitment activities in secondary schools, recreation centers, community centers, and other places throughout the communities within 50 miles of the job site that serve minorities.
`(2)(A) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a 10 percent surcharge on all fees collected for petitions to accord employment status and shall use these funds to establish an employment training program which will include unemployed workers in the United States who need to be trained or retrained. The purpose of this program shall be to increase the number of lawful permanent residents and citizens of the United States who are available for employment in the occupations that are the subjects of such petitions. At least 50 percent of the funds generated by this provision must be used to train American workers in rural and inner-city areas.
`(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall reserve and make available to the Secretary of Labor a portion of the funds collected under this paragraph. Such funds shall be used by the Secretary of Labor to establish an `Office to Preserve American Jobs' within the Department of Labor. The purpose of this office shall be to establish policies intended to ensure that employers in the United States will hire available workers in the United States before resorting to foreign labor, giving substantial emphasis to hiring minority workers in the United States.'.
.jpg "star tattoos small")
carbon
12-30 08:15 PM
Hi,
I just got my 2nd 3 year extension (Nov 2006 to Nov 2009) on my H1B after completing six years.
My PD is June 2005 and I-140 approved on July 2006. I am thinking of
changing my job. I am puzzling about the following questions:
1. Can I change the job and use my 3 year extension for the next job?
2. Can I keep my PD of June 2005 if my current employer doesn't revoke
my I-140 ?
3. If I apply for GC again with new employer and get my I-140 approved , can
I keep getting 3 year extensions on that job ?
PLEASE HELP!.
Thank you,
I just got my 2nd 3 year extension (Nov 2006 to Nov 2009) on my H1B after completing six years.
My PD is June 2005 and I-140 approved on July 2006. I am thinking of
changing my job. I am puzzling about the following questions:
1. Can I change the job and use my 3 year extension for the next job?
2. Can I keep my PD of June 2005 if my current employer doesn't revoke
my I-140 ?
3. If I apply for GC again with new employer and get my I-140 approved , can
I keep getting 3 year extensions on that job ?
PLEASE HELP!.
Thank you,
2011 Flower Tattoos for Girls,
sweet_jungle
10-23 01:02 PM
so brooklyn then?
it is in west coast, my dear. I am surprised that nobody wants to answer the question.
nobody seems to be interested in MBA
it is in west coast, my dear. I am surprised that nobody wants to answer the question.
nobody seems to be interested in MBA
more...
Dhundhun
08-06 06:43 PM
Updated for today (08/06/2008).
lacrossegc
12-05 09:49 PM
You mean Visa Bulletin programmer?
Hillarious !! you the man pappu !:eek:
Hillarious !! you the man pappu !:eek:
more...
ghost
07-12 07:55 PM
1) 140 MUST be approved for your 5-26-01 application with your old company.
2) With your new company, get your LC approved under PERM
3) While applying for 140 with your new company, use your old company's 140 to port your 5-26-01 priority date.
Good Luck.
PS: Murthy version is reliable compared to Khanna, it is better to apply for porting during 140 stage rather than 485 stage.
Hi Friends My lc approved under 245i 05-26-01 world wide,my question is if I file perm with new company and if Ican get 140 approved can I use my old priority lc number and apply for 485.PLEASE HELP THANKYOU.
2) With your new company, get your LC approved under PERM
3) While applying for 140 with your new company, use your old company's 140 to port your 5-26-01 priority date.
Good Luck.
PS: Murthy version is reliable compared to Khanna, it is better to apply for porting during 140 stage rather than 485 stage.
Hi Friends My lc approved under 245i 05-26-01 world wide,my question is if I file perm with new company and if Ican get 140 approved can I use my old priority lc number and apply for 485.PLEASE HELP THANKYOU.
2010 star tattoos small
MartinR
February 16th, 2005, 03:14 AM
I have found a site that calculates the focal length:
http://www.jvcpro.co.uk/solu/networks/calcfocal
I have just checked the focal length at the wide angle end of the scale using a tape measure and got surprisingly close (7.02mm) agreement with the manufacturer's figure (7mm). With that, I can now find where on the scale the standard (50mm) length would be - just for interest's sake.
Many thanks to everyone for their help.
Martin
http://www.jvcpro.co.uk/solu/networks/calcfocal
I have just checked the focal length at the wide angle end of the scale using a tape measure and got surprisingly close (7.02mm) agreement with the manufacturer's figure (7mm). With that, I can now find where on the scale the standard (50mm) length would be - just for interest's sake.
Many thanks to everyone for their help.
Martin
more...
snathan
03-29 11:57 AM
I understand that IV needs the money to get things done. But money is not the only thing IV needs. It needs people to volunteer, make calls, meet lawmakers, participate in rallys, general conference calls and start motivating campaigns like the one availing FOIA. If money contributions are the only way for people to be up-to-date about status of IV activities, then what about the people who contribute in other forms?
IV may get the money needed, but at what cost?
So what do you suggest as the alternate to get the needed fund...?
IV may get the money needed, but at what cost?
So what do you suggest as the alternate to get the needed fund...?
hair Tattoo Pictures With Female
girishvar
08-21 11:50 AM
I have changed the job on EAD and used AP for returning back. To be on the safeside I have notified USCIS service center about my AC21 change and kept the copy of the package sent to USCIS.
On our return in EWR, we have been sent to secondary inspection. IO asked whom I am working? I said my new employer's name? He took our copies of AP and stamped I-94 as parolled.
On our return in two days our greencard was also approved without any RFEs.
Again it depends on I/O in the port of entry I guess.
On our return in EWR, we have been sent to secondary inspection. IO asked whom I am working? I said my new employer's name? He took our copies of AP and stamped I-94 as parolled.
On our return in two days our greencard was also approved without any RFEs.
Again it depends on I/O in the port of entry I guess.
more...
Canadianindian
07-06 11:25 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/06/30/DI2007063000525.html
Please post on the question on USCIS/DOS mess up, if there are enough people asking the same question then they migh answer it
This is what I asked:
Can the USCIS explain the mental, physical and financial trauma caused to 400,000 LEGAL immigrants. This illegal and reckless actions by the USCIS needs immediate attention by the law makers.
What is USCIS doing to address this 300 million dollar fiasco. We need some response and justice. Please help (www.immigrationvoice.org)
Please post on the question on USCIS/DOS mess up, if there are enough people asking the same question then they migh answer it
This is what I asked:
Can the USCIS explain the mental, physical and financial trauma caused to 400,000 LEGAL immigrants. This illegal and reckless actions by the USCIS needs immediate attention by the law makers.
What is USCIS doing to address this 300 million dollar fiasco. We need some response and justice. Please help (www.immigrationvoice.org)
hot Tattoos Girls
bestin
10-21 10:59 PM
Congrats!!!Any Idea about minimum salary requirement for Eb2 position?
Currently mine is less than what is approved in labor.In the second RFE they asked to prove A2P since the time i filed 140.
Currently mine is less than what is approved in labor.In the second RFE they asked to prove A2P since the time i filed 140.
more...
house flower hip tattoos. GIRLS
HV000
10-13 11:07 AM
Here's the extract from the Transcript of Oral Testimony by Bill Gates to the senate
http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/exec/billg/speeches/2007/03-07Senate.mspx
SEN. GREGG: We also have something called a lottery system, which allows 50,000 people in the country, simply because they win a lottery, and they could be a truck driver from the Ukraine. And last year I offered an amendment, which would have taken that system and required 60 percent of those to be people with advanced degrees in order to participate in the lottery, so you'd have to be a physicist from the Ukraine before you could win the lottery. Do you think that would be a better approach maybe?
BILL GATES: Well, I don't � I'm not an expert on the various categories that exist, and I don't actually know that lottery system. I know the engineers at Microsoft, nobody comes up to me and says, "Hey, I won this lottery."
Its so FRUSTRATING to see that people in Congress are sooo IGNORANT!!
Unfortunately, we are caught between the partisan politics of DEMOCRATS and REPUBLICANS..
http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/exec/billg/speeches/2007/03-07Senate.mspx
SEN. GREGG: We also have something called a lottery system, which allows 50,000 people in the country, simply because they win a lottery, and they could be a truck driver from the Ukraine. And last year I offered an amendment, which would have taken that system and required 60 percent of those to be people with advanced degrees in order to participate in the lottery, so you'd have to be a physicist from the Ukraine before you could win the lottery. Do you think that would be a better approach maybe?
BILL GATES: Well, I don't � I'm not an expert on the various categories that exist, and I don't actually know that lottery system. I know the engineers at Microsoft, nobody comes up to me and says, "Hey, I won this lottery."
Its so FRUSTRATING to see that people in Congress are sooo IGNORANT!!
Unfortunately, we are caught between the partisan politics of DEMOCRATS and REPUBLICANS..
tattoo Flower Tattoo 9: Back
gc_chahiye
07-09 04:25 PM
ok.. what about july 2nd filers...have i filed or not filed?
no. Do not count any I-485 filed in July 2007. Perhaps I should have changed that to "Filed 485 and have receipt" :)
no. Do not count any I-485 filed in July 2007. Perhaps I should have changed that to "Filed 485 and have receipt" :)
more...
pictures japanese flower tattoo flash
gc28262
07-14 08:29 AM
I apologize for hijacking this thread. I could not find a way to create a new thread. I subscribed for monthly contributions almost 5 days back and still don't have access to Donor's forum. Emailed the admins, still no response. Can the admins take a look at this one please?
And also how do I create a new thread? I did this some time back, but could not find it where to start.
Thanks
To start a thread:
Click on Forums menu-->Select an appropriate Discussion topic till you see a "New Thread" button. Click on the "New Thread" button to start a thread.
And also how do I create a new thread? I did this some time back, but could not find it where to start.
Thanks
To start a thread:
Click on Forums menu-->Select an appropriate Discussion topic till you see a "New Thread" button. Click on the "New Thread" button to start a thread.
dresses Bumble Bee on Sunflower
JazzByTheBay
02-23 01:17 PM
+1 on that.
The Hritik Roshan, Govinda and Daniel Craig (James Bond) images in the user profile section of each post in forum threads are quite distracting. What's the point of this feature, anyways?
I would like to put a face to every alias I come across, but not Hritik's, Govinda's or Daniel Craig's even if the resemblance with you is shocking! :)
Just removed the small image I had in my signature as well.
jazz
I am not sure about others, but since IV changed the look of this webpage, something is discouraging me from being as active as i was before. I gave myself sometime to adjust but that does not seem to happen.
Admins, please do some stats on hits, number of posts by users etc and see how the new look impacted the site activity?
Two points that I am not a fan of:
1) The front page top 10 forum items still need to be improved. We need complete text display (wrapped if long), the tooltip is not working. I do not want to mouse over every thread to read it completely.
2) User images (i know i have one myself) are making the webpage cluttered and distracting from the real content.
The Hritik Roshan, Govinda and Daniel Craig (James Bond) images in the user profile section of each post in forum threads are quite distracting. What's the point of this feature, anyways?
I would like to put a face to every alias I come across, but not Hritik's, Govinda's or Daniel Craig's even if the resemblance with you is shocking! :)
Just removed the small image I had in my signature as well.
jazz
I am not sure about others, but since IV changed the look of this webpage, something is discouraging me from being as active as i was before. I gave myself sometime to adjust but that does not seem to happen.
Admins, please do some stats on hits, number of posts by users etc and see how the new look impacted the site activity?
Two points that I am not a fan of:
1) The front page top 10 forum items still need to be improved. We need complete text display (wrapped if long), the tooltip is not working. I do not want to mouse over every thread to read it completely.
2) User images (i know i have one myself) are making the webpage cluttered and distracting from the real content.
more...
makeup flower tattoos and fairy
sankap
07-05 03:28 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB118359095890657571.html
Reversal Frustrates Green-Card Applicants
By MIRIAM JORDAN
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: July 5, 2007
The U.S. government's surprise offer, then abrupt reversal, of an opportunity for thousands of skilled foreign workers to obtain permanent residency in the U.S. highlights the problems of the overtaxed immigration system and the frenzy that results from a rare chance to apply for a green card.
The scramble has put tens of thousands of workers and their families in limbo after many of them and their employers spent thousands of dollars in hopes of securing permanent residency. It may result in a class-action lawsuit against the government by frustrated applicants.
The problem began June 12 when the government seemed to open the door for thousands of foreign workers and their families to end the long wait to apply for a green card. That is when the State Department published a Visa Bulletin, which is a monthly notice closely watched by immigration attorneys and their clients because it determines who is eligible to file a green-card application the next month. The June bulletin announced that practically all skilled foreign workers who had been previously deemed eligible for an employer-sponsored visa could now take the final step of applying for a green card.
By law, the U.S. can issue about 140,000 employment-based green cards each year. Last year, the government fell short by about 10,000, despite the long waiting list; leftover visas can't be rolled over to the next year. The June announcement aimed to prevent the visa slot from going to waste, according to a State Department spokeswoman.
[Green-Card Limbo]
The announcement was greeted with a mix of jubilation and panic by thousands of engineers, lab scientists and other high-skilled foreigners who had waited years for their place in line. Working ahead of a July 2 date for filing the application, intending immigrants rushed to gather documents, complete paperwork and obtain medical exams. Many of their dependents -- such as children enrolled in college overseas -- boarded planes for the U.S. to meet a requirement that all family members be present at the time of filing.
"The bulletin created a land rush among legal immigrants desperate to finalize their green-card applications," said Steve Miller, a Seattle-based immigration attorney and head of the state chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Then, on July 2, the State Department issued an "update" that reversed the previous bulletin. It stated, effective immediately, there would be no further authorizations for employment-based cases. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which processes the applications, said it would instead simply process existing applications to meet this year's quota. "We already had sufficient applications pending without new applicants," an agency spokesman said.
Mike Aytes, head of domestic operations for the USCIS, said all 147,141 employment-based green cards have now been issued for the year. "We are very sympathetic to the fact that people really had expectations � Folks spent a lot of time and effort, but it turned out they couldn't file, after all," he said.
In the July 2 announcement, USCIS said it was "rejecting applications" to secure green cards, and the agency spokesman said it would return the paperwork of all the applicants. New cases will be entertained again in the government's next fiscal year, starting Oct. 1. However, applicants must wait their turn again, which might not happen for years.
News of the revocation of the previously announced bulletin dashed the hopes of thousands of foreign workers, many of them currently on an H-1B professional visa normally valid for up to six years. These workers face the possibility of being forced to return home if their visa expires before they get the chance to apply for a green card.
"My employer and I spent tens of thousands of dollars preparing for the day when we could file for our Change in Status application, only to have the [government] pull the rug out from under us," said Lawrence LeBlanc, a Canadian executive at AES Corp. in Arlington, Virginia. "We were devastated to hear this unprecedented news. We're not sure how we're going to tell our children."
Because there are more employer-based applicants for immigrant visas than are available each year, people wait each month to see whether they have gotten to the front of the line. Often people wait years for the green light to apply, especially if they come from countries like India and China.
The June 12 announcement set off a stampede to government-approved doctors, because green-card applicants must pass medical exams. Apurva Pratap, a Seattle-based senior manager for a multinational corporation, said he and his wife traveled 40 miles for a medical exam after they couldn't secure an appointment in town. To fulfill a requirement for a vaccination, they waited eight hours in a line that snaked around a mobile unit in Tacoma. Mr. Pratap, a native of India, has been in the U.S. since 1999.
A spokeswoman for the American Immigration Lawyers Association said it has called for a congressional investigation. An affiliated organization is expected to take legal action via a class-action lawsuit. "This is an example of how badly our immigration system is broken," says Kathleen Walker, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Write to Miriam Jordan at miriam.jordan@wsj.com1
Reversal Frustrates Green-Card Applicants
By MIRIAM JORDAN
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: July 5, 2007
The U.S. government's surprise offer, then abrupt reversal, of an opportunity for thousands of skilled foreign workers to obtain permanent residency in the U.S. highlights the problems of the overtaxed immigration system and the frenzy that results from a rare chance to apply for a green card.
The scramble has put tens of thousands of workers and their families in limbo after many of them and their employers spent thousands of dollars in hopes of securing permanent residency. It may result in a class-action lawsuit against the government by frustrated applicants.
The problem began June 12 when the government seemed to open the door for thousands of foreign workers and their families to end the long wait to apply for a green card. That is when the State Department published a Visa Bulletin, which is a monthly notice closely watched by immigration attorneys and their clients because it determines who is eligible to file a green-card application the next month. The June bulletin announced that practically all skilled foreign workers who had been previously deemed eligible for an employer-sponsored visa could now take the final step of applying for a green card.
By law, the U.S. can issue about 140,000 employment-based green cards each year. Last year, the government fell short by about 10,000, despite the long waiting list; leftover visas can't be rolled over to the next year. The June announcement aimed to prevent the visa slot from going to waste, according to a State Department spokeswoman.
[Green-Card Limbo]
The announcement was greeted with a mix of jubilation and panic by thousands of engineers, lab scientists and other high-skilled foreigners who had waited years for their place in line. Working ahead of a July 2 date for filing the application, intending immigrants rushed to gather documents, complete paperwork and obtain medical exams. Many of their dependents -- such as children enrolled in college overseas -- boarded planes for the U.S. to meet a requirement that all family members be present at the time of filing.
"The bulletin created a land rush among legal immigrants desperate to finalize their green-card applications," said Steve Miller, a Seattle-based immigration attorney and head of the state chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Then, on July 2, the State Department issued an "update" that reversed the previous bulletin. It stated, effective immediately, there would be no further authorizations for employment-based cases. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which processes the applications, said it would instead simply process existing applications to meet this year's quota. "We already had sufficient applications pending without new applicants," an agency spokesman said.
Mike Aytes, head of domestic operations for the USCIS, said all 147,141 employment-based green cards have now been issued for the year. "We are very sympathetic to the fact that people really had expectations � Folks spent a lot of time and effort, but it turned out they couldn't file, after all," he said.
In the July 2 announcement, USCIS said it was "rejecting applications" to secure green cards, and the agency spokesman said it would return the paperwork of all the applicants. New cases will be entertained again in the government's next fiscal year, starting Oct. 1. However, applicants must wait their turn again, which might not happen for years.
News of the revocation of the previously announced bulletin dashed the hopes of thousands of foreign workers, many of them currently on an H-1B professional visa normally valid for up to six years. These workers face the possibility of being forced to return home if their visa expires before they get the chance to apply for a green card.
"My employer and I spent tens of thousands of dollars preparing for the day when we could file for our Change in Status application, only to have the [government] pull the rug out from under us," said Lawrence LeBlanc, a Canadian executive at AES Corp. in Arlington, Virginia. "We were devastated to hear this unprecedented news. We're not sure how we're going to tell our children."
Because there are more employer-based applicants for immigrant visas than are available each year, people wait each month to see whether they have gotten to the front of the line. Often people wait years for the green light to apply, especially if they come from countries like India and China.
The June 12 announcement set off a stampede to government-approved doctors, because green-card applicants must pass medical exams. Apurva Pratap, a Seattle-based senior manager for a multinational corporation, said he and his wife traveled 40 miles for a medical exam after they couldn't secure an appointment in town. To fulfill a requirement for a vaccination, they waited eight hours in a line that snaked around a mobile unit in Tacoma. Mr. Pratap, a native of India, has been in the U.S. since 1999.
A spokeswoman for the American Immigration Lawyers Association said it has called for a congressional investigation. An affiliated organization is expected to take legal action via a class-action lawsuit. "This is an example of how badly our immigration system is broken," says Kathleen Walker, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Write to Miriam Jordan at miriam.jordan@wsj.com1
girlfriend tattoo pictures girls
mrdelhiite
07-11 01:05 PM
^^^^^^^^^
hairstyles Water, Koi And Flower Tattoo
Robert Kumar
02-24 05:04 PM
I am also looking for answer on this..Anyone please??
Any inputs pls.
Any inputs pls.
asdfgh
11-27 11:58 PM
Finished FP this morning. Got LUD on 485 45 mins after FP completion. Status language changed from
"The I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS was transferred and is now pending standard processing at a USCIS office. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you...blah..blah..blah"
to
"On October 9, 2007, we transferred this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS to our LINCOLN, NE location for processing because they now have jurisdiction over the case...blah..blah..blah"
Then got second LUD this evening with a 11/28 date on it, even though it was still 11/27, even on East coast. No change in mesg.
Any thoughts???
"The I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS was transferred and is now pending standard processing at a USCIS office. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you...blah..blah..blah"
to
"On October 9, 2007, we transferred this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS to our LINCOLN, NE location for processing because they now have jurisdiction over the case...blah..blah..blah"
Then got second LUD this evening with a 11/28 date on it, even though it was still 11/27, even on East coast. No change in mesg.
Any thoughts???
solaris27
12-07 08:53 AM
you can get 3 years extesion
change this lawer , he do't kow aything or trying to save company money .
change this lawer , he do't kow aything or trying to save company money .
