Googler
02-14 05:22 PM
Great ruling. The analysis is totally applicable to AOS. Moreover, the government admitted that it was wrong in recent memo.
"In the context of removal proceedings, ICE has determined that FBI fingerprint checks and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) checks are the required checks for purposes of the applicable regulations."
Wait a minute, isn't immigration judge able to grant AOS in removal proceedings? It means that the DHS acknowledges that it wrongfully interpreted regulations for all these years and that name check is not required by law (at least for AOS) as we were saying all along!
I love also this part: "in the unlikely event that FBI name checks reveal actionable information".
As judge Baylson pointed out, "name check" is nowhere to found in laws and regs.
Good point about the recent memo -- happily there are multiple pdfs of it floating around so they can't make that language disappear -- and and immigration judge granting AOS. Those two points should do.
About "name check" nowhere found in laws -- i.e no language in some obscure subsection -- I just want to make sure that the interpretation is ironclad for AOS, we know it is for naturalization.
Yep, I *love* the "unlikely event" part.
"In the context of removal proceedings, ICE has determined that FBI fingerprint checks and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) checks are the required checks for purposes of the applicable regulations."
Wait a minute, isn't immigration judge able to grant AOS in removal proceedings? It means that the DHS acknowledges that it wrongfully interpreted regulations for all these years and that name check is not required by law (at least for AOS) as we were saying all along!
I love also this part: "in the unlikely event that FBI name checks reveal actionable information".
As judge Baylson pointed out, "name check" is nowhere to found in laws and regs.
Good point about the recent memo -- happily there are multiple pdfs of it floating around so they can't make that language disappear -- and and immigration judge granting AOS. Those two points should do.
About "name check" nowhere found in laws -- i.e no language in some obscure subsection -- I just want to make sure that the interpretation is ironclad for AOS, we know it is for naturalization.
Yep, I *love* the "unlikely event" part.
wallpaper fairy fantasy free wallpaper
CADude
02-08 12:36 AM
Mean Nothing if you PD is not CURRENT. If your PD is current you will get GC Soon.:D
What I am asking is "what does processing date mean"?
Does it mean that they have started working on my application?
or that the cases on that date have been finalised either by way of approval OR denial ?
What I am asking is "what does processing date mean"?
Does it mean that they have started working on my application?
or that the cases on that date have been finalised either by way of approval OR denial ?
wandmaker
10-12 04:25 PM
My wife got her H1b in 2007 and she was working for the company for 1 year and then she delivered in Oct 08 and since Oct 2008 she's on maternity leave. She was supposed to join back but because of the downturn her employer asked to extend the maternity leave and its an year almost. During this whole period her employer is ok and he has not removed her job. Is my wife is in status? I read on the web that the maternity leave is mutual as long as the employer and employee exists its ok. But my question is that is there a time limit on that. Also she's not getting paid for the full year when she was on maternity leave. The state remains the same now also. So what are right steps to do.....
Change to H4 till the employer asks to join back and then change to H1?
Please suggest
As other posted mentioned, 6 months is ok and justifiable because most of the companies allow mothers to bond with the kid. 1 year seems a stretch! I agree with gcformeornot and my2cents, if you are unable to justify and prove the employer-employee relationship then she is out of status.
Change to H4 till the employer asks to join back and then change to H1?
Please suggest
As other posted mentioned, 6 months is ok and justifiable because most of the companies allow mothers to bond with the kid. 1 year seems a stretch! I agree with gcformeornot and my2cents, if you are unable to justify and prove the employer-employee relationship then she is out of status.
2011 hair Free Fairy wallpaper amp;
krishna.ahd
06-18 06:47 PM
Gurus,
Myy EAD is expiring and Renewal is taking more than 1 year as per new processing times.
Can I switch back to H1-B. I am in EAD and I dont have any H1-B status now. I have used 5 1/2 years of h1B previously. Six years is not utilized
What are pros and cons..
Please help..
As per my understanding , as long as you file for renew your EAD before the expiry you are in status , so why do you want to go back to H1??
Myy EAD is expiring and Renewal is taking more than 1 year as per new processing times.
Can I switch back to H1-B. I am in EAD and I dont have any H1-B status now. I have used 5 1/2 years of h1B previously. Six years is not utilized
What are pros and cons..
Please help..
As per my understanding , as long as you file for renew your EAD before the expiry you are in status , so why do you want to go back to H1??
more...
sduddukuri
02-24 07:40 AM
My wife didnot apply for green card yet. I have EAD and AP. Since dates are not current my wife couldnt apply for GC
Suva
01-10 12:05 PM
Visa number is allocation depending on country of birth. Country of citizenship doesn't matter. So if your country of birth is one of the retrogressed countries then you have to wait for long time to get a I-485 visa number.
EB-2, 485 and 140 submitted in June 2007 concurrently, RD and PD both are June 2007. I borrowed my husband's Swiss nationality. Now 140 approved, AP and EAD got, but NC is still pending.
Just curious: When will USCIS process my 485? According to my nationality or my husband's? If it's mine, god, I may have to wait for 4, 5 years because of the terrible VB backlog! Is it after 485, everyone no matter which nationality, the processing time should be the same. All the world line up together. Please correct me if I am wrong.
EB-2, 485 and 140 submitted in June 2007 concurrently, RD and PD both are June 2007. I borrowed my husband's Swiss nationality. Now 140 approved, AP and EAD got, but NC is still pending.
Just curious: When will USCIS process my 485? According to my nationality or my husband's? If it's mine, god, I may have to wait for 4, 5 years because of the terrible VB backlog! Is it after 485, everyone no matter which nationality, the processing time should be the same. All the world line up together. Please correct me if I am wrong.
more...
485_spouse
05-25 02:53 PM
Does anyone have recent experience with the Chicago office of Consulate of India for passport renewal. How long does it take? 2 weeks, 3 weeks, more than 3 weeks.
did it last month.
It will take atleast 6 weeks.
485_Spouse
did it last month.
It will take atleast 6 weeks.
485_Spouse
2010 Download Free Blossom Fairy
mn1975
07-16 12:40 PM
I think the best way is to bring her back, because its Preferable to go to the same doctor
were you had done intial exams
Moreover to the best of my knowledge this cannot be done in india
I had to call my wife back for the same reason in May
hope this helps
were you had done intial exams
Moreover to the best of my knowledge this cannot be done in india
I had to call my wife back for the same reason in May
hope this helps
more...
DSLStart
03-11 08:14 PM
No you don't have to walk into any bank. Just visit
https://remit.onlinesbi.com/
Everything is self explainotary.
Gurus,
Can some body advise what is the best way to send money to India using SBI online?
Do i have to have an account with SBI? NRE/NRO/Regular
I have an account with State Bank of Bikarner and Jaipur, can i send money from my US account into SBBJ and then to SBI (parents account) ONLINE?
I live in Colorado and hence do not have the luxury of walking into an SBI US branch.
Any advise is appreciated.
Thanks
https://remit.onlinesbi.com/
Everything is self explainotary.
Gurus,
Can some body advise what is the best way to send money to India using SBI online?
Do i have to have an account with SBI? NRE/NRO/Regular
I have an account with State Bank of Bikarner and Jaipur, can i send money from my US account into SBBJ and then to SBI (parents account) ONLINE?
I live in Colorado and hence do not have the luxury of walking into an SBI US branch.
Any advise is appreciated.
Thanks
hair winter fairy wallpaper
sukhyani
12-20 01:00 PM
Recently, Tom Vilsack, Governor of Iowa appeared on Jon Stewart after his announcement as a candidate for 2008 from the democrat party.
Wonder what is the Governor's stance on legal immigration?
Do you know if he has a website? We can look for his position on different issues on his website too.
Wonder what is the Governor's stance on legal immigration?
Do you know if he has a website? We can look for his position on different issues on his website too.
more...
kum31
10-04 02:06 PM
OK . Thanks for your quick response.
hot Animated www free wall paper
villamonte6100
10-15 10:03 AM
Why would anybody ask for visa to issue a driver's license? How is one's driving privilege dependent upon visa? No one has ever asked me or my wife or my friends for a visa to issue a driver's license. Is this some law specific to some states?
When did you renew your DL?
Homeland Security is getting tough these days and DMV will ask for your H1 or H4 visa or EAD.
In other words, they check for your immigration status.
There is even a "SAVE" program on other states which makes it difficult to renew. The SAVE program first verifies your immigration status with USCIS, and after being cleared, then DMV could renew your DL,
When did you renew your DL?
Homeland Security is getting tough these days and DMV will ask for your H1 or H4 visa or EAD.
In other words, they check for your immigration status.
There is even a "SAVE" program on other states which makes it difficult to renew. The SAVE program first verifies your immigration status with USCIS, and after being cleared, then DMV could renew your DL,
more...
house Free Flying Fairy Photos
2008FebEb2
09-17 04:27 PM
Plase make those Calls...
Is'nt the voting on the bill scheduled today? :confused:
Is'nt the voting on the bill scheduled today? :confused:
tattoo free fairy wallpaper
learning01
02-25 05:03 PM
This is the most compelling piece I read about why this country should do more for scientists and engineers who are on temporary work visas. Read it till the end and enjoy.
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
more...
pictures free fairy wallpaper
solaris27
10-01 09:11 AM
yes and yes
dresses Fairy Princess Walltastic
pal351
05-05 04:34 PM
You will get your GC before your AP and EAD for sure. You missed the 2 year EAD and AP man. ;)
You mean , if we renew our EAD will they will give for 2 Years?? confused..
Thaks,
Pal
You mean , if we renew our EAD will they will give for 2 Years?? confused..
Thaks,
Pal
more...
makeup lt;a hrefquot;http://www.free-foto-
helpful_leo
06-17 03:31 PM
thnx
girlfriend girlfriend Free Fairy
Steve Mitchell
March 22nd, 2004, 01:45 PM
Actually they are very loose regarding cameras and fans. Can't say I've seen any L's on fans. I have seen fans with 10D's however.
hairstyles Fairy wallpaper by
gsc999
07-15 04:42 PM
We were successful in getting good media coverage with flower campaign. Our San Jose rally is getting good regional coverage. Yes, we haven't had the expected success with national media yet but we are gaining traction at an amazing pace.
This is not a big corporation with some PR dept. that is working with hundred of employees writing press releases et al. Volunteers like you and me have to take on that action item if you want to see results otherwise please continue on with your discussion
This is not a big corporation with some PR dept. that is working with hundred of employees writing press releases et al. Volunteers like you and me have to take on that action item if you want to see results otherwise please continue on with your discussion
sai
03-25 11:43 AM
How can a attorney help in getting H1 stamped at a Canadian US consulate ?
kshitijnt
11-12 08:49 PM
Just a thought.... Don't waste your time with dishonest employers. I have wasted 2 years on my previous employer. I would have my PD 2001. My friend wasted 3 years. Now and me and my friend work for different companies, with very good relationship, having no problem interacting with lawyers or having our employers sign any paper CIS might ask. I had victim mentality until I realized that it's a market economy. You sell, your employer buys. If you don't like to deal with him, start looking for another "buyer". Don't rush. Find a good job, transfer your H1, and start everything afresh - I know it's hard, but that's a way to go. Don't be stuck to your employer for 5 years and later cry "my employer didn't want to apply for I-140, didn't give me latter for I-485", "my lawyer didn't respond to RFE, now I'm in trouble", etc. etc. CIS/DOL will give you enough headache even without employer's "assistance".
And, btw, I have waited 9 months for my PERM to be approved. No RFE, no nothing - just 9 freaking months.
I fully agree. Its a market economy. Everything depends on demand and supply, your SKILLS and value to the employer.
And, btw, I have waited 9 months for my PERM to be approved. No RFE, no nothing - just 9 freaking months.
I fully agree. Its a market economy. Everything depends on demand and supply, your SKILLS and value to the employer.
No comments:
Post a Comment