images Common Grackle ~ If you see a
viveckj99
08-24 03:41 PM
Hi All,
I have one labor subsitution(PD EB3 Dec 2004) done before July 16 from another employer.Now I filed my I 485 with June 2006 PD and approved I-140 under perm with my current employer.Now my question is can I apply I-140 with another employer who has labor PD EB3 Dec 2004 with my pending I-485?
I have one labor subsitution(PD EB3 Dec 2004) done before July 16 from another employer.Now I filed my I 485 with June 2006 PD and approved I-140 under perm with my current employer.Now my question is can I apply I-140 with another employer who has labor PD EB3 Dec 2004 with my pending I-485?
wallpaper Common Grackle female. I haven#39;t had a Grackle in this coloring before.
ken
10-05 01:04 PM
Do you have any LUD's on your case ? What about your wife case did you see any soft LUD's. From my experience if you have soft LUD's continuous for 2 or 3 days then its a sign of getting a decesion in a day or two.
GCwaitforever
11-12 07:50 AM
Looks like the law suit worked. Congratulations to the Emeries. The other case will be resolved with Dream act. Is not there a TPS for Honduras citizens?
2011 Carib Grackle, female
sledge_hammer
02-18 12:08 PM
If the question is whether AC21 can be used or not, then the answer is YES. If the question is whether it is legal or not, then the answer is illegal. If the applicant never had the intention to work for the company that filed for GC, then it is fraud.
Besides, with VSG Inc. in such a big mess, who knows what USCIS is going to decide about these cases!
Incorrect.
As per Yates memo (link (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/I140_AC21_8403.pdf))
It should be noted that there is no requirement in statute or regulations that a beneficiary of a Form I-140 actually be in the underlying employment until permanent residence is authorized. Therefore, it is possible for an alien to qualify for the provisions of �106(c) of AC21 even if he or she has never been employed by the prior petitioning employer or the subsequent employer under section 204(j) of the Act.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
Besides, with VSG Inc. in such a big mess, who knows what USCIS is going to decide about these cases!
Incorrect.
As per Yates memo (link (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/I140_AC21_8403.pdf))
It should be noted that there is no requirement in statute or regulations that a beneficiary of a Form I-140 actually be in the underlying employment until permanent residence is authorized. Therefore, it is possible for an alien to qualify for the provisions of �106(c) of AC21 even if he or she has never been employed by the prior petitioning employer or the subsequent employer under section 204(j) of the Act.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
more...
Life2Live
02-09 03:57 PM
I remember one of my colligue got I-94 extended till visa period at Jacksonville, FLORIDA. I do not know which state you are living in. Anyway...atleast I know that is possible since you have valid visa stamped on your passport.
raysaikat
05-30 01:22 PM
Hi,
I am on OPT till August 2009.
However my F1 visa expires May 30 2009.
Also I do not have a job at present.
Does my OPT override the F1 visa expiration?Can I stay legally in the US till August even if I do not have a job?
Worried,
P
The visa stamp on your passport does not determine your status once you are inside USA. Visa stamp on the passport is used just for entering the US. It is like a movie ticket. You will need the visa stamp on the passport only if you go out and need to come back again. The expiry date on the visa stamp simply means you cannot use that stamp to enter US after that date.
Once you are inside US, usually it is I-94 that determines how long you can stay. In the case of F1, usually I-94 says D/S, which means "Duration of Status" --- i.e., as long as your F1 status holds according to I-20, you are good. OPT is a part of F1. So as long as you do not stay beyond the date of OPT expiration, you are good.
I am on OPT till August 2009.
However my F1 visa expires May 30 2009.
Also I do not have a job at present.
Does my OPT override the F1 visa expiration?Can I stay legally in the US till August even if I do not have a job?
Worried,
P
The visa stamp on your passport does not determine your status once you are inside USA. Visa stamp on the passport is used just for entering the US. It is like a movie ticket. You will need the visa stamp on the passport only if you go out and need to come back again. The expiry date on the visa stamp simply means you cannot use that stamp to enter US after that date.
Once you are inside US, usually it is I-94 that determines how long you can stay. In the case of F1, usually I-94 says D/S, which means "Duration of Status" --- i.e., as long as your F1 status holds according to I-20, you are good. OPT is a part of F1. So as long as you do not stay beyond the date of OPT expiration, you are good.
more...
gapala
02-26 10:46 AM
Did you talk to a good lawyer yet? Or just hanging out in this forum?
I suggest you talk to a lawyer and get his advise.
As someone suggested, going back to school is always an option for you. By the way, you could have posted this info in the same thread that you opened few days ago on this very same topic.
I suggest you talk to a lawyer and get his advise.
As someone suggested, going back to school is always an option for you. By the way, you could have posted this info in the same thread that you opened few days ago on this very same topic.
2010 female common grackle. female.
h1techSlave
04-15 09:39 AM
There is already one for this.
CAn some one create survey for this?
CAn some one create survey for this?
more...
krishmunn
03-04 12:31 PM
do you know what is the cost of filing a LCA amendment, and is it necessary to take a copy of that LCA and hang it on the client notice board ????????
There is no cost to file a LCA unless you engage a lawyer. The LCA process seems to be pretty easy but again, it is something your employer should (and allowed to ) do, not you. One reason why employer might be avoiding filing a new LCA is if the new location has a higher wage requirement (eg. moving from mid-west to New York city) , the LCA should reflect that and they need to pay you accordingly.
There is no cost to file a LCA unless you engage a lawyer. The LCA process seems to be pretty easy but again, it is something your employer should (and allowed to ) do, not you. One reason why employer might be avoiding filing a new LCA is if the new location has a higher wage requirement (eg. moving from mid-west to New York city) , the LCA should reflect that and they need to pay you accordingly.
hair common grackle female. common
Kapils573
06-15 03:11 PM
I believe it is the number which is assigned to you when your I-140 is approved. It is mentioned on your I -140 approval notice. and it is used to fill your AR-11 form
more...
rvr_jcop
02-17 11:33 AM
Ok ..
Now I dont want to change my employer .
But my employer doent pay when I am on bench . So I may not having paystubs after March .
Will it cause any problem to H1 extention ?
Ofcourse, if H1-extension requires the last couple of pay checks, there is a possibility they would ask for the 'latest', as opposed to March pay stubs, if you apply for extension say in August. Again, if you apply for extension in April with March paystubs (within 6 months of expiry), then there is a less possibility. But you cant rule that out if they ask for latest stubs in the potential RFE in the future. So its up to you.
Now I dont want to change my employer .
But my employer doent pay when I am on bench . So I may not having paystubs after March .
Will it cause any problem to H1 extention ?
Ofcourse, if H1-extension requires the last couple of pay checks, there is a possibility they would ask for the 'latest', as opposed to March pay stubs, if you apply for extension say in August. Again, if you apply for extension in April with March paystubs (within 6 months of expiry), then there is a less possibility. But you cant rule that out if they ask for latest stubs in the potential RFE in the future. So its up to you.
hot stock photo : A Common Grackle
vicky007
05-10 12:16 PM
Sorry, the link is not working anymore.
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
more...
house girlfriend common grackle
pappu
05-08 02:14 PM
Subscription Payment Sent (Unique Transaction ID #82G15598SR169690U)
In reference to: S-4UL2252729966384J
-cheers
kris
Thanks. Great to see someone active and contributing despite getting the greencard.
If we have more people like you we can work on trying to get the eligibility start time for citizenship counted from the time I140 gets approved rather than the day you get Greencard.
This maybe a big change and even help us politically as more people will become citizens earlier and can vote.
This is something for all IV GC holder members and all other GC holders everywhere to think about. They are invited to have a dialogue and participation in such an effort if interested.
In reference to: S-4UL2252729966384J
-cheers
kris
Thanks. Great to see someone active and contributing despite getting the greencard.
If we have more people like you we can work on trying to get the eligibility start time for citizenship counted from the time I140 gets approved rather than the day you get Greencard.
This maybe a big change and even help us politically as more people will become citizens earlier and can vote.
This is something for all IV GC holder members and all other GC holders everywhere to think about. They are invited to have a dialogue and participation in such an effort if interested.
tattoo female common grackle.
siva008
02-24 09:08 PM
Hi NoUserName,
here more details:
Bachelors in Civil
Masters in Civil
And having 3+ years experience as computer systems analyst
My lawyer is saying just educational evaluation is fine but after I read the query they are looking for more.
I really confused how to answer this query, if you have any ideal please help me
Thank you
here more details:
Bachelors in Civil
Masters in Civil
And having 3+ years experience as computer systems analyst
My lawyer is saying just educational evaluation is fine but after I read the query they are looking for more.
I really confused how to answer this query, if you have any ideal please help me
Thank you
more...
pictures common grackle female.
hemanth22
07-02 03:52 PM
srikondiji,
I agree with your input, all of us have lost money, time and a lot of effort scrambling to get ready to file.
what i feel is that they realized that they will be getting only $1000 * 200 k in july and that they will be getting $2000 * 200k when they make the dates current later on. the difference is huge , now that CIR is dead and they cant raise the $4.5 billion they said for border protection
As to what we have spent on medical reports , tickets , lawyers etc etc, they do not care
But we should stay away from branding any body as not following the rules.
there a lot of mexicans who are here legally and are hard-working.
hemanth
I agree with your input, all of us have lost money, time and a lot of effort scrambling to get ready to file.
what i feel is that they realized that they will be getting only $1000 * 200 k in july and that they will be getting $2000 * 200k when they make the dates current later on. the difference is huge , now that CIR is dead and they cant raise the $4.5 billion they said for border protection
As to what we have spent on medical reports , tickets , lawyers etc etc, they do not care
But we should stay away from branding any body as not following the rules.
there a lot of mexicans who are here legally and are hard-working.
hemanth
dresses and Common Grackle at the
MSCapBust
07-20 06:41 PM
Thanks everyone for replying.
However, the opinions seems to be conflicting. Is there a place where I can verify precisely what the law says?
I have not stayed outside the US for more than 3 months since 2002. Does this exempt me from the cap?
I need to be sure, otherwise, I would have to apply for a H1-B right now with a consultant who is ready to sponsor me.
I'm quite reluctant to do this because the work involved with the consultant is not in my field and does not allow for good long term prospects. Plus there might be contractual obligations.
Please advice.
Thanks very much,
Sick with worry.
However, the opinions seems to be conflicting. Is there a place where I can verify precisely what the law says?
I have not stayed outside the US for more than 3 months since 2002. Does this exempt me from the cap?
I need to be sure, otherwise, I would have to apply for a H1-B right now with a consultant who is ready to sponsor me.
I'm quite reluctant to do this because the work involved with the consultant is not in my field and does not allow for good long term prospects. Plus there might be contractual obligations.
Please advice.
Thanks very much,
Sick with worry.
more...
makeup The Common Grackle is a large
vxg
08-31 01:30 PM
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, please read my earlier posts on re-using finger prints through the BSS (Biometrics Storage System) implemented a while back by USCIS. Only a small number of applicants will get a second FP notice. See the below for more information:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum5-all-other-green-card-issues/23795-2nd-finger-printing-notice-anyone.html#post318744
I read your post and trusted the BSS system memo from DHS however the lawyer and the IO from TSC says FP expired and need redone. I recall fully that my FP was digital. With USCIS nothing can bet trusted and everything is a mystery.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum5-all-other-green-card-issues/23795-2nd-finger-printing-notice-anyone.html#post318744
I read your post and trusted the BSS system memo from DHS however the lawyer and the IO from TSC says FP expired and need redone. I recall fully that my FP was digital. With USCIS nothing can bet trusted and everything is a mystery.
girlfriend Brown-headed Cowbird Female
LongJourny
01-23 12:56 PM
Hi guys,
Please respond to my previous post and help me, if you can, as soon as possible. I planning to fix an appointment. Your help is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Please respond to my previous post and help me, if you can, as soon as possible. I planning to fix an appointment. Your help is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
hairstyles female common grackle.
abcdefgh
10-30 04:07 PM
They check the contenct before they post it
krishmunn
05-21 07:29 AM
AFAIK DS 156 and DS !57 are no longer required. These have been replaced with DS 160.
My last experience in Mumbai consulate was 2 years back after I changed job and went to India. My experience was very good -- not a single question asked . An Indian lady called me and said your Visa is issued. Collected Passport in evening at VFS Office (BTW, there is a very long queue for passport collection)
However, I do not work for consulting company, never worked for any Desi Consulting and I already had a couple of H1 and L1 visa stamps in my passport.
I am travelling again now but avoiding the hassle of stamping. Returning with current stamp whcih will be valid for 10 more days after my return (I already have the extended 797)
My last experience in Mumbai consulate was 2 years back after I changed job and went to India. My experience was very good -- not a single question asked . An Indian lady called me and said your Visa is issued. Collected Passport in evening at VFS Office (BTW, there is a very long queue for passport collection)
However, I do not work for consulting company, never worked for any Desi Consulting and I already had a couple of H1 and L1 visa stamps in my passport.
I am travelling again now but avoiding the hassle of stamping. Returning with current stamp whcih will be valid for 10 more days after my return (I already have the extended 797)
gonecrazyonh4
01-29 12:06 PM
Agreement Reached to Re-evaluate Rule Requiring Federal Contractors to Use E-Verify
Yesterday, the U.S. government agreed to delay until May 21, 2009, implementation of a new rule requiring federal contractors to use the federal government�s E-Verify employment eligibility system.
SHRM and other associations requested this extension after the president�s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, issued a memorandum to all agencies stating that agencies should consider extending the effective dates of all regulations that were published in the Federal Register but that have not yet taken effect.
While SHRM, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Associated Builders and Contractors, HR Policy Association, and the American Council on International Personnel still have a lawsuit pending against the government challenging the legality of the federal contractor mandate, this agreement suspends court proceedings in order to allow the Obama Administration an opportunity to review the rule.
Yesterday, the U.S. government agreed to delay until May 21, 2009, implementation of a new rule requiring federal contractors to use the federal government�s E-Verify employment eligibility system.
SHRM and other associations requested this extension after the president�s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, issued a memorandum to all agencies stating that agencies should consider extending the effective dates of all regulations that were published in the Federal Register but that have not yet taken effect.
While SHRM, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Associated Builders and Contractors, HR Policy Association, and the American Council on International Personnel still have a lawsuit pending against the government challenging the legality of the federal contractor mandate, this agreement suspends court proceedings in order to allow the Obama Administration an opportunity to review the rule.
