gc_75
07-17 04:45 PM
Here is the link:
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3269.html
Please refer to following para about July bulletin:
D. JULY EMPLOYMENT-BASED VISA AVAILABILITY
After consulting with Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Visa Office advises readers that Visa Bulletin #107 (dated June 12) should be relied upon as the current July Visa Bulletin for purposes of determining Employment visa number availability, and that Visa Bulletin #108 (dated July 2) is hereby withdrawn.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3269.html
Please refer to following para about July bulletin:
D. JULY EMPLOYMENT-BASED VISA AVAILABILITY
After consulting with Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Visa Office advises readers that Visa Bulletin #107 (dated June 12) should be relied upon as the current July Visa Bulletin for purposes of determining Employment visa number availability, and that Visa Bulletin #108 (dated July 2) is hereby withdrawn.
snowshoe
01-01 09:00 AM
I just returned from my 4 days cruise with a stop at Calica, Mexico. Here is my experience with the Customs and Border Patrol officer at the Port of Miami:
I told him that we had applied for green card and handed him the original AP approval notices. He went through our passports to look at our visa stamps. He pointed out that the Visa stamps in our passports had expired, he asked me if I still work with the same company, I answered "Yes" and handed him our new H1 extension approval notices. He looked at the documents (guess looked at name and validity dates) and then took all the documents to another officer.
After returning to his desk he justed entered some data into their system (I think our passport numbers) and told us we were good to go. He did not take our AP notices and did not issue new I-94.
(while embarkation the Carnival staff had looked at our AP notices and hence had not asked for our old I-94s).
I wish all of us a very happy new year.
I told him that we had applied for green card and handed him the original AP approval notices. He went through our passports to look at our visa stamps. He pointed out that the Visa stamps in our passports had expired, he asked me if I still work with the same company, I answered "Yes" and handed him our new H1 extension approval notices. He looked at the documents (guess looked at name and validity dates) and then took all the documents to another officer.
After returning to his desk he justed entered some data into their system (I think our passport numbers) and told us we were good to go. He did not take our AP notices and did not issue new I-94.
(while embarkation the Carnival staff had looked at our AP notices and hence had not asked for our old I-94s).
I wish all of us a very happy new year.
go_guy123
03-12 09:42 PM
My friend is in the I-140 stage of green card processing
She needs to choose between Counselor Processing or I485
Which one is better Counselor Processing or I485 ?
Your feedback is greatly appreciated
She needs to choose between Counselor Processing or I485
Which one is better Counselor Processing or I485 ?
Your feedback is greatly appreciated
freddy22
07-20 07:34 AM
The outcome in a case like this depends on the specific State's criminal code, and the individual's specific record. I cannot tell you for sure that USCIS will seek to remove your son, but I would strongly advise your son and his criminal lawyer to consult with an experienced immigration lawyer before going further.
Some states have special
courts, processes and/or dispositions for certain juveniles that are different than for those in adult court. Some such dispositions are not considered �convictions� for immigration purposes
(although they may still become a problem for discretionary forms of relief or where �admitting to a crime� is enough). For example, in New York:
- A �Youthful Offender� disposition for people under the age of 19 at time of conduct is not a �conviction� for immigration purposes. In fact, a Y.O. for a more serious offense is
sometimes better than a straight conviction for a lesser offense.
- A �Juvenile Delinquency� disposition in Family Court for people under age 16 at time of
conduct is not a �conviction� for immigration purposes.
- However, a �Juvenile Offender� disposition is considered a conviction for immigration
purposes and does not have the same benefits.
Note: The federal government and every state has its own system for treating juveniles in the criminal justice system � some will be safer for immigrant youth, and some will not. Every state also has its own rules for the maximum age at which a young person may qualify for this treatment � for example, one state may place a 15-year-old in adult court with no special dispositions, while another state may place a 17-year old in the juvenile justice system.
Consider going to trial instead of pleading guilty. This is not always the best option, but you may want to consider it if, for example, the evidence against you is weak and/or the benefits of the plea offer are not worth the immigration consequences to you.
Some states have special
courts, processes and/or dispositions for certain juveniles that are different than for those in adult court. Some such dispositions are not considered �convictions� for immigration purposes
(although they may still become a problem for discretionary forms of relief or where �admitting to a crime� is enough). For example, in New York:
- A �Youthful Offender� disposition for people under the age of 19 at time of conduct is not a �conviction� for immigration purposes. In fact, a Y.O. for a more serious offense is
sometimes better than a straight conviction for a lesser offense.
- A �Juvenile Delinquency� disposition in Family Court for people under age 16 at time of
conduct is not a �conviction� for immigration purposes.
- However, a �Juvenile Offender� disposition is considered a conviction for immigration
purposes and does not have the same benefits.
Note: The federal government and every state has its own system for treating juveniles in the criminal justice system � some will be safer for immigrant youth, and some will not. Every state also has its own rules for the maximum age at which a young person may qualify for this treatment � for example, one state may place a 15-year-old in adult court with no special dispositions, while another state may place a 17-year old in the juvenile justice system.
Consider going to trial instead of pleading guilty. This is not always the best option, but you may want to consider it if, for example, the evidence against you is weak and/or the benefits of the plea offer are not worth the immigration consequences to you.
more...
go_gc_way
05-25 10:37 PM
My sincere , Thanks for your support & help provided to IV.
YOU ARE GREAT.
YOU ARE GREAT.
simple1
06-18 01:47 PM
Recently multiple threads have been created in IV forum about
* Illegal’s (now conveniently called undocumented immigrants) * their anchor babies * and CIR.
We should not support Illegal’s and their agenda.
Support CIR only after seeing something for EB non-ROW or atleast legal immigration in general.
We need to oppose CIR till we see such a provision.
* Illegal’s (now conveniently called undocumented immigrants) * their anchor babies * and CIR.
We should not support Illegal’s and their agenda.
Support CIR only after seeing something for EB non-ROW or atleast legal immigration in general.
We need to oppose CIR till we see such a provision.
more...
gc_chahiye
10-05 05:08 PM
If it is certain that he/she is not eligible for EB2, why should apply in EB2 and get denied. It is better to apply in EB3 to get it approved. The best option is apply in EB3 now. After few years (once he got 5 year exp), apply new LC and 140 with EB2 and transfer the PD. That will be the wise decision. In the current situation, it is funny to talk about EB2 and EB3 for a persion with PD 2007, particularly Indian orgin.
I agree with Ramba here. Go with EB3 now and get the I-140 approval so you can lock in the PD. After a few years can apply again in EB2 (through this, or some other employer) and port the PD over. Best of both worlds.
I agree with Ramba here. Go with EB3 now and get the I-140 approval so you can lock in the PD. After a few years can apply again in EB2 (through this, or some other employer) and port the PD over. Best of both worlds.
jthomas
03-25 10:56 AM
Give us some relief during the period of recession and make some rules for H1B guys to stay legal and claim unemployment benifits
1. Allow H1B holders to stay unemployed but legal during this time of recession. They should be allowed unemployment insurance for the amount of money they contributed during the years of their work.
2. Don't send RFE to those in EAD during the this time of recession.
1. Allow H1B holders to stay unemployed but legal during this time of recession. They should be allowed unemployment insurance for the amount of money they contributed during the years of their work.
2. Don't send RFE to those in EAD during the this time of recession.
more...
she81
01-09 03:03 PM
--LOL! I understand where you are coming from!! However, in reality, EB3's rear got so far up against the brick wall, it can't move back any further. It can only move forward.
Are there people with EB3 pds in 2000/2001 still waiting in that large number for GCs? I don't think so..
If not any movement, I won't be surprised. If any, it has to go forward for EB3.
I know at least 5 colleagues with early-mid 2001 PDs who applied 485 last year. They're still waiting. Admire their patience.
Are there people with EB3 pds in 2000/2001 still waiting in that large number for GCs? I don't think so..
If not any movement, I won't be surprised. If any, it has to go forward for EB3.
I know at least 5 colleagues with early-mid 2001 PDs who applied 485 last year. They're still waiting. Admire their patience.
krustycat
03-09 07:26 PM
I have a quick question on salary issue with 485. My EB2 I-140 states that my yearly salary 87k per annum. It got approved last year. I realized that my w-2 only reflects 64k for last year. I did not work for 2 months because of some personal reason. Is this less salary going to affect my 485 application? I thougt, GC is for future jobs so its okay. Can somebody please clarify this ?
You will be fine if you company can prove 'ability to pay' (the financial capability to pay the wages being offered for the position).
Adjudicators should make a favorable decision if the case contains proof of one of three specific matters.
the company's net income is equal to or greater than the wage that is offered
the company's current net assets are equal to or greater than the offered wage
the petitioner is employing the beneficiary and paying the beneficiary a wage in an amount equal to the prevailing wage
Point #3 will fail, then your company must prove #1 or #2 in order to be approved.
#2 => net income = taxable income
#3 => net current assets = current assets - current liabilities
You will be fine if you company can prove 'ability to pay' (the financial capability to pay the wages being offered for the position).
Adjudicators should make a favorable decision if the case contains proof of one of three specific matters.
the company's net income is equal to or greater than the wage that is offered
the company's current net assets are equal to or greater than the offered wage
the petitioner is employing the beneficiary and paying the beneficiary a wage in an amount equal to the prevailing wage
Point #3 will fail, then your company must prove #1 or #2 in order to be approved.
#2 => net income = taxable income
#3 => net current assets = current assets - current liabilities
more...
gcisadawg
04-07 06:52 PM
Folks,
Thanks for taking time to answer my question. Seems the risk is greater than the reward. We would just ask her to travel on her original scheduled date!
Regards,
gcisadawg
Thanks for taking time to answer my question. Seems the risk is greater than the reward. We would just ask her to travel on her original scheduled date!
Regards,
gcisadawg
eb3India
05-21 10:26 PM
oh well,
we got a bigger fish to fry, I am sure those who might be using labour subs are legals here at one point and they do have a job,
we are not going to gain much by these ammendments,
I am just curious how much authority does USCIS and DOS have to alter our situation.
I am still waiting for response from IV core members
we got a bigger fish to fry, I am sure those who might be using labour subs are legals here at one point and they do have a job,
we are not going to gain much by these ammendments,
I am just curious how much authority does USCIS and DOS have to alter our situation.
I am still waiting for response from IV core members
more...
snathan
03-31 01:42 PM
You were one of them, if I remember right..
However, I appreciate the rest of your post. It makes a lot of sense. We should talk only about things that benefit EB community. Leave things like this to the anti's.
When anti's strike, we should counter-strike by saying: So solution is, grant GC etc :D
Care to explain...? I never used this in any argument.
However, I appreciate the rest of your post. It makes a lot of sense. We should talk only about things that benefit EB community. Leave things like this to the anti's.
When anti's strike, we should counter-strike by saying: So solution is, grant GC etc :D
Care to explain...? I never used this in any argument.
immi_2006
01-16 01:21 PM
I may be wrong but i read on murthy that in the 6 years of H1 if you are out of the country for few days/months/years you can file H1B as a new H1 claiming missed days/months/years. (note: your H1 will be valid for only those missed period and not another 6 years) If it is for few days/weeks it is not worth to file for recapturing.
This option was given in murthy.com for people who are on EAD and then their 485 application gets rejected. In order to extend their status for few more months they can apply for recapturing of missed period.
This option was given in murthy.com for people who are on EAD and then their 485 application gets rejected. In order to extend their status for few more months they can apply for recapturing of missed period.
more...
tnite
09-27 09:36 AM
Even i got the Section: UNKNOWN thing from NSC. My 140 approved on MAY 2007, But online case status is still showing case pending, Is it because of this?
Just to add to the pile, Mine says "UNKNOWN".
So what? Move on guys and if you're still worried take it with you to FP and ask the IO
Just to add to the pile, Mine says "UNKNOWN".
So what? Move on guys and if you're still worried take it with you to FP and ask the IO
supers789
07-23 03:01 PM
got following from another iv thread..
btw, my fragomen attorney said, it will take 6 to 8 months clear the audit.
Thanks!
-------------------
<i>July 21, 2008
Fragomen and DOL Agree to Return to Normal Processing
For Newly Filed PERM Cases
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Department of Labor (DOL) has agreed that all new PERM applications filed by Fragomen will be processed normally and will not be subject to special audit.
After several weeks of discussions, the Department of Labor (DOL) and Fragomen have reached an interim agreement that will allow all new PERM applications filed by Fragomen to move forward in the normal processing queue without automatic audits. We are still talking with DOL regarding pending applications that have already been thrown into the special audit.
While we continue to have a major disagreement with DOL on its efforts to impede attorney-client communications, we have agreed to comply with DOL's new guidance bulletin, which presents a new and legally questionable interpretation of the PERM regulations regarding attorney actions. Until this interpretation is modified or judicially declared invalid, all immigration attorneys must conduct their representation in accordance with it.
Working with others in the immigration bar and business community, we will continue to pursue broader relief from DOL's misreading of the regulations and we have reserved every legal and equitable right to assert what we believe to be the proper interpretation of those regulations. Not only is this an infringement on employers' First Amendment rights, it contradicts specific language in the Department's regulations stating that employers may consult with counsel at all times "throughout the labor certification process."
If you have any questions about this alert, please contact the Fragomen attorney with whom you usually work.
Copyright � 2008 by Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, LLP</i>
btw, my fragomen attorney said, it will take 6 to 8 months clear the audit.
Thanks!
-------------------
<i>July 21, 2008
Fragomen and DOL Agree to Return to Normal Processing
For Newly Filed PERM Cases
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Department of Labor (DOL) has agreed that all new PERM applications filed by Fragomen will be processed normally and will not be subject to special audit.
After several weeks of discussions, the Department of Labor (DOL) and Fragomen have reached an interim agreement that will allow all new PERM applications filed by Fragomen to move forward in the normal processing queue without automatic audits. We are still talking with DOL regarding pending applications that have already been thrown into the special audit.
While we continue to have a major disagreement with DOL on its efforts to impede attorney-client communications, we have agreed to comply with DOL's new guidance bulletin, which presents a new and legally questionable interpretation of the PERM regulations regarding attorney actions. Until this interpretation is modified or judicially declared invalid, all immigration attorneys must conduct their representation in accordance with it.
Working with others in the immigration bar and business community, we will continue to pursue broader relief from DOL's misreading of the regulations and we have reserved every legal and equitable right to assert what we believe to be the proper interpretation of those regulations. Not only is this an infringement on employers' First Amendment rights, it contradicts specific language in the Department's regulations stating that employers may consult with counsel at all times "throughout the labor certification process."
If you have any questions about this alert, please contact the Fragomen attorney with whom you usually work.
Copyright � 2008 by Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, LLP</i>
more...
immi2006
05-04 01:26 PM
Please go through the stuff for the last one year plus from immigration.com on PERM processing, need to look at each entry in the diferenet excel sheets, it is not consistent from the data perspective (we all have our regular work too :-) ) so cannot pull up URLs for you, the above site is the pointer, please do your homework too :-) - Since you are really interested in specifics, appreciate if you can get this directly, it will take you couple of hours at the very least to get this data.
I've been monitoring BEC&PERM for the past 30 days and delved deeper on all labor processing thread, but found none on denials of conversion, please point out some reference URLs for PERM conversion denials that would be helpful.
I've been monitoring BEC&PERM for the past 30 days and delved deeper on all labor processing thread, but found none on denials of conversion, please point out some reference URLs for PERM conversion denials that would be helpful.
gene-O
10-20 05:57 PM
Still looking for a knowledgeable response specifically to the questions asked.
conundrum
05-25 09:32 AM
Finally made the call to Kennedy's office. :)
javadeveloper
07-20 04:16 PM
Let's assume Two people A and B entered into US on Jan 1st 2004 with Visa stamping Valid till June 2006.
A is without payslips for 2 years , that is until Dec 2005(730 days).A travels out side US and re enters into US in jan 2006 , after that he'll get the payslips and stays legal , then applies for his 485 in March 2006.Then he is maintaining
100% legal status as he is having continious payslips after his re entry.
B doesn't have payslips for period of 185 days(aggregate) in his whole stay in US , rest of the time he maintains legal status , but he never travels outside US and applies for his 485 in March 2006.
In this case B is under risk of illegal status for more than 180 days , as he never travelled outside US.How come this is fair law??This thought bugging me since coupe of days.Guys please share your ideas.
A is without payslips for 2 years , that is until Dec 2005(730 days).A travels out side US and re enters into US in jan 2006 , after that he'll get the payslips and stays legal , then applies for his 485 in March 2006.Then he is maintaining
100% legal status as he is having continious payslips after his re entry.
B doesn't have payslips for period of 185 days(aggregate) in his whole stay in US , rest of the time he maintains legal status , but he never travels outside US and applies for his 485 in March 2006.
In this case B is under risk of illegal status for more than 180 days , as he never travelled outside US.How come this is fair law??This thought bugging me since coupe of days.Guys please share your ideas.
eb3India
05-21 10:26 PM
oh well,
we got a bigger fish to fry, I am sure those who might be using labour subs are legals here at one point and they do have a job,
we are not going to gain much by these ammendments,
I am just curious how much authority does USCIS and DOS have to alter our situation.
I am still waiting for response from IV core members
we got a bigger fish to fry, I am sure those who might be using labour subs are legals here at one point and they do have a job,
we are not going to gain much by these ammendments,
I am just curious how much authority does USCIS and DOS have to alter our situation.
I am still waiting for response from IV core members
No comments:
Post a Comment