immi_grant
06-25 06:47 AM
Hi Gurus / Attorneys,
I have come to this country in 1999 and have worked for company A and after 7 years , I transferred my H1B to company B based company A's approved I-140 in 2007 before July fiasco. Hence missed the July 2007.
Now I have been working for company B for the last 3 years and got my I-140 approved again and applied for H1B extension. Received RFE asking for client letter.
Client was reluctant to give the letter and my H1B got denied.
Asking client for the letter : Client says that they can't give a letter, it's against their company policy :confused:
My Options :
1. MTR : I am not sure if I can get the client letter to open MTR and also file a new H1 in parallel.
2. Go back to my home country : My employer said that they will apply for a new H1B for consular processing (does this come under quota ?)
I own a home here and now leaving everything in a week is making me worried.
Also my priority date is Nov 2002 under EB3 and I am not sure how I can pursue this from my home country, if needed.
Thanks in advance for all your help and suggestions !!
I have come to this country in 1999 and have worked for company A and after 7 years , I transferred my H1B to company B based company A's approved I-140 in 2007 before July fiasco. Hence missed the July 2007.
Now I have been working for company B for the last 3 years and got my I-140 approved again and applied for H1B extension. Received RFE asking for client letter.
Client was reluctant to give the letter and my H1B got denied.
Asking client for the letter : Client says that they can't give a letter, it's against their company policy :confused:
My Options :
1. MTR : I am not sure if I can get the client letter to open MTR and also file a new H1 in parallel.
2. Go back to my home country : My employer said that they will apply for a new H1B for consular processing (does this come under quota ?)
I own a home here and now leaving everything in a week is making me worried.
Also my priority date is Nov 2002 under EB3 and I am not sure how I can pursue this from my home country, if needed.
Thanks in advance for all your help and suggestions !!
svr_76
06-17 03:04 PM
I had mine today. The Officer answered the following questions-
1. Assigned to Officer - Yes
2. Status of various checks- She said she could see 2 checks and both are complete FBI and NameCheck. She did nt say anything about IBIS (She said - "I just see 2 checks and both are done and good, sir. There might be other checks but its not showing up on my screen)
3. No transfered/interview scheduled.
4. Opened up a SR for me for followup.
1. Assigned to Officer - Yes
2. Status of various checks- She said she could see 2 checks and both are complete FBI and NameCheck. She did nt say anything about IBIS (She said - "I just see 2 checks and both are done and good, sir. There might be other checks but its not showing up on my screen)
3. No transfered/interview scheduled.
4. Opened up a SR for me for followup.
gc_on_demand
03-31 01:20 PM
For once, I like what Grassley is doing.
All antis says something good about one program and bad for rest.. they want to kill all program one by one. Today in hearing anti's tone was to reduce total immigration.
this is only way they can reduce is making one group happy while bashing at another, but you never know when is your turn.
I should say if they are really worried about L1 and its fraud why not to scrap L1 and grant GC for all l1holders. why don't they say like that ?
All antis says something good about one program and bad for rest.. they want to kill all program one by one. Today in hearing anti's tone was to reduce total immigration.
this is only way they can reduce is making one group happy while bashing at another, but you never know when is your turn.
I should say if they are really worried about L1 and its fraud why not to scrap L1 and grant GC for all l1holders. why don't they say like that ?
WeShallOvercome
07-30 03:28 PM
Do you get the FP notice by email or snail mail?
snail mail
snail mail
more...
Humhongekamyab
01-29 10:23 AM
this rumour sounds like its straight out of timesofindia :p;)
:d
:d
hebron
08-10 09:55 AM
I am an EB3 applicant with PD of Sep 2004. I have an EAD but I haven't used it yet. I am still on H1-B.
I have 12 years of experience and a masters degree and given the hopeless EB3 backlog, I have been looking for other suitable employment opportunities (EB2) for the past few weeks.
I have a few questions for the IV members who have switched to new employers and have successfully ported EB3 to EB2:
1. Should I use my EAD and invoke AC21 to transfer to a new employer or should I ask them to file H1-B transfer.
2. How soon is it reasonable to ask the prospective employer to file EB2 labor? I do not want to blow up an opportunity being unreassonable.
In my mind, I am thinking about asking the employer to file for EB2 labor and use my EAD to start working. This is under the assumption that asking an employer to do H1-B transfer and also file EB2 labor might be too much to ask (expense wise) .
Any suggestions/ advice appreciated.
I have 12 years of experience and a masters degree and given the hopeless EB3 backlog, I have been looking for other suitable employment opportunities (EB2) for the past few weeks.
I have a few questions for the IV members who have switched to new employers and have successfully ported EB3 to EB2:
1. Should I use my EAD and invoke AC21 to transfer to a new employer or should I ask them to file H1-B transfer.
2. How soon is it reasonable to ask the prospective employer to file EB2 labor? I do not want to blow up an opportunity being unreassonable.
In my mind, I am thinking about asking the employer to file for EB2 labor and use my EAD to start working. This is under the assumption that asking an employer to do H1-B transfer and also file EB2 labor might be too much to ask (expense wise) .
Any suggestions/ advice appreciated.
more...
alkg
08-13 08:41 PM
see the paragraph in bold letters.................
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
krishna_brc
09-08 11:29 AM
Ban is limited to Govt projects only which hardly is 5% of total outsourcing.
Thanks,
Krishna
Thanks,
Krishna
more...
chintu25
10-31 01:59 PM
Good job guys ...I am back was busy with some office mess that is now cleared . I am all in and active as ever .
sledge_hammer
07-16 08:33 AM
Hi,
Why would notification be necessary? Isn't an I-9 form (w/ EAD as proof of work permit) being present at the employer's location sufficient?
I haven't heard of any employer "notifying" USCIS about an employee's EAD status!
Thanks!
It is an error on USCIS part, may be because you (or your spouse's employer) have not notified the USCIS about your spouse using the EAD for employment.
Why would notification be necessary? Isn't an I-9 form (w/ EAD as proof of work permit) being present at the employer's location sufficient?
I haven't heard of any employer "notifying" USCIS about an employee's EAD status!
Thanks!
It is an error on USCIS part, may be because you (or your spouse's employer) have not notified the USCIS about your spouse using the EAD for employment.
more...
pappu
04-10 02:21 PM
Active members are requested to urge others to update their profile details for the tracker. If you find someone's profile has fake details, please give them a red dot.
Admins go through users with most red dots occasionally
Admins go through users with most red dots occasionally
kisana
04-11 10:16 PM
Sorry i keep on asking same questions again and again. I could not find any answer for that. What should I fill in "date of application" for priviously applied I-765, it should be date from EAD when they approved it or should it be the the date on which they received my application.
Also what should I fill in the
"Please provide information concerning your eligibility status"
Please suggest.
Also what should I fill in the
"Please provide information concerning your eligibility status"
Please suggest.
more...
zCool
04-16 11:37 PM
check expiry date on your passport. Visa date can not extend beyond Passport expiry date.
desi3933
03-03 11:54 AM
Thank you Desi!
Man, that is one heck of confusing language, I am still trying to understand it.
Main line is this -
In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b) (1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date.
Translation -
If person has multiple approved I-140 petitions under EB-1, EB-2, and Eb-3 sections, he./she can claim the earliest PD date to any of his/her I-140 approved petitions.
An example taken from Michael Aytes Memo (09/12/2006), section 22.2(d)(3) page 28:
Company A files a labor certification request on behalf of an alien ("Joe") as a janitor on January 10, 2003. The DOL issues the certification on March 20, 2003. Company A later files, and USCIS approves, a relating I-140 visa petition under the EB-3 category. On July 15, 2003, Joe files a second I-140 visa petition in his own behalf as a rocket scientist under the EB-1 category, which USCIS approves. Joe is entitled to use the January 10, 2003, priority date to apply for adjustment under either the EB-1 or the EB-3 classification.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Man, that is one heck of confusing language, I am still trying to understand it.
Main line is this -
In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b) (1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date.
Translation -
If person has multiple approved I-140 petitions under EB-1, EB-2, and Eb-3 sections, he./she can claim the earliest PD date to any of his/her I-140 approved petitions.
An example taken from Michael Aytes Memo (09/12/2006), section 22.2(d)(3) page 28:
Company A files a labor certification request on behalf of an alien ("Joe") as a janitor on January 10, 2003. The DOL issues the certification on March 20, 2003. Company A later files, and USCIS approves, a relating I-140 visa petition under the EB-3 category. On July 15, 2003, Joe files a second I-140 visa petition in his own behalf as a rocket scientist under the EB-1 category, which USCIS approves. Joe is entitled to use the January 10, 2003, priority date to apply for adjustment under either the EB-1 or the EB-3 classification.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
more...
saibaba
03-31 02:21 PM
Can we file taxes seperately on married status?
I mean, my CPA did estimates seperately and we found substantial difference...
Is there any problem in we filing seperately as we r into 485 peding stuff?...
From an Immigration perspective, what are the ramifications when 'Married and filing Jointly' versus 'Married and filing seperately'.
First of all, are they related?
I mean, my CPA did estimates seperately and we found substantial difference...
Is there any problem in we filing seperately as we r into 485 peding stuff?...
From an Immigration perspective, what are the ramifications when 'Married and filing Jointly' versus 'Married and filing seperately'.
First of all, are they related?
uma001
05-24 10:15 AM
Here is my case again:
MS (computer engg) in US
US IT experience more than 6 years
No TOEFEL ( what native english speaker??)
Worked in high growth technology/employer (I assume)
come under STEM.
My employer is sponsering my green card
How many points will i get??
MS (computer engg) in US
US IT experience more than 6 years
No TOEFEL ( what native english speaker??)
Worked in high growth technology/employer (I assume)
come under STEM.
My employer is sponsering my green card
How many points will i get??
more...
miguy
01-11 02:27 PM
My wife has started using her EAD so I understand that she would need to use the AP to re-enter US. But, I am still on H1 working for the same employer that is processing my greencard. Would I need to use AP to re-enter or can I re-enter on H1 ?....my lawyer suggests using AP but I've read at other places where they say you can continue to travel on H1
confused......
confused......
gbof
04-08 02:52 PM
Question regarding Current Immigration Status field on EAD renewal form:
I am applying for EAD renewal for my spouse. Currently she is on H-4 but I am soon planning to use EAD to start another job. I guess my spouse's status will also change from H-4 to AOS (I guess) at the same time. What should be current immigration status for my spouse when I have already started working on another job using EAD.
BTW, I used paper filing for both of us.
Thanks for your input.
I assume you are primary and she is derivative (as she is on H4). Now, If she has filed I-485, she is already in AOS irrespective of the fact that she is not using EAD.
I am applying for EAD renewal for my spouse. Currently she is on H-4 but I am soon planning to use EAD to start another job. I guess my spouse's status will also change from H-4 to AOS (I guess) at the same time. What should be current immigration status for my spouse when I have already started working on another job using EAD.
BTW, I used paper filing for both of us.
Thanks for your input.
I assume you are primary and she is derivative (as she is on H4). Now, If she has filed I-485, she is already in AOS irrespective of the fact that she is not using EAD.
GCMan007
03-12 09:30 PM
Did you get second finger print notice before approval? When did you go for first fingerprint notice?
I did not get a second finger printing notice (yet?). The 485 approval notice said that a biometric appt may be sent or the card will arrive. Just keeping my fingers crossed.
My first FP was done in Dec 2007
I did not get a second finger printing notice (yet?). The 485 approval notice said that a biometric appt may be sent or the card will arrive. Just keeping my fingers crossed.
My first FP was done in Dec 2007
gsrknth
08-22 12:16 PM
My RD is 7/2/08, still waiting for approval, not even an LUD after notice date. I see EB2 folks getting renewals within 30 days or so. Isn't this descrimination?
I am EB2 and EAD approval tool almost 60 days. Some folks got it in 30 days during June/July before implementing 2 yr EAD. I didnot hear anyone getting it in 30 days or less . May be some lucky ones are getting.
I am EB2 and EAD approval tool almost 60 days. Some folks got it in 30 days during June/July before implementing 2 yr EAD. I didnot hear anyone getting it in 30 days or less . May be some lucky ones are getting.
sanz
03-31 12:07 PM
Sen. Grassley calls for new L-1 visa probe
Raises concern that a 2006 report on L-1 visa was ignored
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa) has asked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) inspector general to investigate the L-1 visa program, saying he is increasingly concerned about loopholes in it.
Grassley on Tuesday released a letter to Charles Edwards, the DHS inspector general, asking him to dust off a 2006 inspector general report about the visa program and find out why the report's recommendations "were never implemented."
Grassley, who has been pressing for reforms of the H-1B visa, said he wants to find out the number of L-1 visa holders now living in the U.S.
The L-1 is used for multinational companies to bring employees into the U.S. and doesn't have has many restrictions as the H-1B visa, such as a prevailing wage requirement.
In his letter, Grassley wrote that "there's growing concern by many experts that companies are turning to L visas when the supply of H-1B visas are low. There is also a general consensus that L visas are being used to bring in 'rank and file' employees rather than top-level professionals with truly 'specialized knowledge.'" Specialized knowledge usually means advanced knowledge or expertise in a field.
In the 2006 study, the DHS's inspector general report referred to the L-1 visa as "the computer visa." It reported that from 1999 to 2004, nine of the 10 firms that petitioned for the most L-1 workers were computer and IT-related outsourcing service firms that specialized in labor from India. The number of L-1 petitions approved from 1995 to 2005, in most years, was just over 40,000. In 2001, nearly 60,000 were approved.
The report also found that the visa program was vulnerable to abuse and made several recommendations, including requiring immigration enforcement officers to assist in "checking the bona fides" of L visa petitions; putting in place a process for overseas verification of a petition; and clarifying what was meant by specialized knowledge, a requirement for the visa similar to what is asked for in H-1B visas.
Grassley said he wanted another look at the program because, "I have grown increasingly concerned that loopholes within the L-1 visa program have led to manipulation and broad overreach by those who use the program and have resulted in a great deal of fraud and abuse within the program
Raises concern that a 2006 report on L-1 visa was ignored
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa) has asked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) inspector general to investigate the L-1 visa program, saying he is increasingly concerned about loopholes in it.
Grassley on Tuesday released a letter to Charles Edwards, the DHS inspector general, asking him to dust off a 2006 inspector general report about the visa program and find out why the report's recommendations "were never implemented."
Grassley, who has been pressing for reforms of the H-1B visa, said he wants to find out the number of L-1 visa holders now living in the U.S.
The L-1 is used for multinational companies to bring employees into the U.S. and doesn't have has many restrictions as the H-1B visa, such as a prevailing wage requirement.
In his letter, Grassley wrote that "there's growing concern by many experts that companies are turning to L visas when the supply of H-1B visas are low. There is also a general consensus that L visas are being used to bring in 'rank and file' employees rather than top-level professionals with truly 'specialized knowledge.'" Specialized knowledge usually means advanced knowledge or expertise in a field.
In the 2006 study, the DHS's inspector general report referred to the L-1 visa as "the computer visa." It reported that from 1999 to 2004, nine of the 10 firms that petitioned for the most L-1 workers were computer and IT-related outsourcing service firms that specialized in labor from India. The number of L-1 petitions approved from 1995 to 2005, in most years, was just over 40,000. In 2001, nearly 60,000 were approved.
The report also found that the visa program was vulnerable to abuse and made several recommendations, including requiring immigration enforcement officers to assist in "checking the bona fides" of L visa petitions; putting in place a process for overseas verification of a petition; and clarifying what was meant by specialized knowledge, a requirement for the visa similar to what is asked for in H-1B visas.
Grassley said he wanted another look at the program because, "I have grown increasingly concerned that loopholes within the L-1 visa program have led to manipulation and broad overreach by those who use the program and have resulted in a great deal of fraud and abuse within the program
No comments:
Post a Comment