dc2007
12-17 12:57 PM
1. Good health (which we often take for granted)
YEs
2. US born kids (at least they are citizens, if that's important to you)
Not married no kids
3. US education (a different experience for sure)
No us education
4. Good savings (all said and done, your bank balance is very important no matter where you stay in the world)
No savings no big salary
5. Good work experience (this is transferable and more or less ensures a decent future)
Yeah just started career
6. Loving/caring family/friends (who will always love you the same and couldn't care less about GC or citizenship)
Dont know about that
Been herr from 7 years..
Dear,
What are you doing for 7 years in US if you have not studied here and just started career ? or I have mis-understood what you said above?
But to me if you are not saving some money while in US, its not worth it staying here, away from family/friends.
Good Luck
YEs
2. US born kids (at least they are citizens, if that's important to you)
Not married no kids
3. US education (a different experience for sure)
No us education
4. Good savings (all said and done, your bank balance is very important no matter where you stay in the world)
No savings no big salary
5. Good work experience (this is transferable and more or less ensures a decent future)
Yeah just started career
6. Loving/caring family/friends (who will always love you the same and couldn't care less about GC or citizenship)
Dont know about that
Been herr from 7 years..
Dear,
What are you doing for 7 years in US if you have not studied here and just started career ? or I have mis-understood what you said above?
But to me if you are not saving some money while in US, its not worth it staying here, away from family/friends.
Good Luck
wallpaper 2012 Honda Civic LX Sedan
mgos
07-20 02:17 PM
Thank you Aman & all the other immigration voice members who have spent so much time, energy and resources in advocating on behalf of all of us. I have been working in the non-profit sector for the past 8 years and from experience suggest that in order for this movement/advocacy campaign to sustain it is important for us to have a system in place where core campaign members are reimbursed for their past and recurring expenses. We have contributed to IV previously and would like to pledge $200 towards Aman's expenses.
desi3933
07-10 09:15 AM
INA: ACT 245 - ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF NONIMMIGRANT TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE
(a) The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States 1/ or the status of any other alien having an approved petition for classification as a VAWA self-petitioner 1aa/ may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if
(1) the alien makes an application for such adjustment,
(2) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and
(3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed.
[Emphasis added]
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=6778c6078a6f941bf84dd5cec7c73 772
___________________
Not a legal advice.
(a) The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States 1/ or the status of any other alien having an approved petition for classification as a VAWA self-petitioner 1aa/ may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if
(1) the alien makes an application for such adjustment,
(2) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and
(3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed.
[Emphasis added]
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=6778c6078a6f941bf84dd5cec7c73 772
___________________
Not a legal advice.
2011 2012 Honda Civic LX Sedan
Lisap
09-11 04:11 PM
Hi Lisap,
I got an email last night saying EAD card ordered on Sep8 which is a saturday.. This morning I got two emails again saying that same card was ordered on Sep 10. However this is the spouse's ead and I see the lud as 9/10 on 5 of our 485/ead/ap apps. However spouse AP (whose ead was ordered) still has 9/5. I don't understand y they approve one and take time for the other. I think their system has some issues...
Did ur case status say 'ordered' before you got the ead in mail?
Thanks.
No mine did not say that for myself or my husband. It just said approval notice sent. It still says the same thing it has never changed or been updated. It could be there system- who knows! I hope you get yours soon! Keep me updated.
I got an email last night saying EAD card ordered on Sep8 which is a saturday.. This morning I got two emails again saying that same card was ordered on Sep 10. However this is the spouse's ead and I see the lud as 9/10 on 5 of our 485/ead/ap apps. However spouse AP (whose ead was ordered) still has 9/5. I don't understand y they approve one and take time for the other. I think their system has some issues...
Did ur case status say 'ordered' before you got the ead in mail?
Thanks.
No mine did not say that for myself or my husband. It just said approval notice sent. It still says the same thing it has never changed or been updated. It could be there system- who knows! I hope you get yours soon! Keep me updated.
more...
GC08
05-04 09:08 PM
I have to say, no matter how reluctant I am, that I am pretty depressed about the whole green card thing. I have always tried to have a positive attitude and I definitely know that there are a lot of things much more important than green cards. However, I do feel the emotional toll of green card retrogression. Maybe admitting, instead of denying, of the frustration, depression, and even anger is better and may help face it up.
nmdial
09-09 10:03 AM
I read this as a status message of a CEO sometime back on linkedin:
An egg, when broken from inside, brings in new life but if broken from outside, kills it.
Please, don't let the immigration process break you. Join IV (and us) and fight it...until we break it for a better change.
An egg, when broken from inside, brings in new life but if broken from outside, kills it.
Please, don't let the immigration process break you. Join IV (and us) and fight it...until we break it for a better change.
more...
anzerraja
07-20 09:49 AM
Dear Members
For those of you joining us late, here is some info about this thread.
1. This is to do our least part to the core IV Team for their selfless sacrifice, for all of us getting the benefits of legal immigration. Note that , Aman Kapoor , the co-founder of IV has done his part by sacrificing $64,000/- from his own personal funds towards the administrative costs of IV. Yes you read it right , it is $64,000/- We come to know from his co-worker that he has sold his house towards running this show for us.
2. We have not yet figured out a way to reimburse these costs as IV does not yet have administrative costs part of the expenditure allocation, as we understand it. So instead of a wait and watch, we decided to go ahead with collecting the pledge from the members on the amount they are putting forth for reimbursing the amount. Once we come up with a strategy(members we look for your suggestions on how to get this done, please add your comments) we will instruct the members pledged to pay out.
Please help us spread the message about this thread in other threads by copy and pasting the following in other threads too.
There is a funding drive in this other thread towards reimbursing Aman and other core IV member's expenses towards the administrative costs of IV.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10708
Could you please pledge an amount ?
Thanks
Anzer
For those of you joining us late, here is some info about this thread.
1. This is to do our least part to the core IV Team for their selfless sacrifice, for all of us getting the benefits of legal immigration. Note that , Aman Kapoor , the co-founder of IV has done his part by sacrificing $64,000/- from his own personal funds towards the administrative costs of IV. Yes you read it right , it is $64,000/- We come to know from his co-worker that he has sold his house towards running this show for us.
2. We have not yet figured out a way to reimburse these costs as IV does not yet have administrative costs part of the expenditure allocation, as we understand it. So instead of a wait and watch, we decided to go ahead with collecting the pledge from the members on the amount they are putting forth for reimbursing the amount. Once we come up with a strategy(members we look for your suggestions on how to get this done, please add your comments) we will instruct the members pledged to pay out.
Please help us spread the message about this thread in other threads by copy and pasting the following in other threads too.
There is a funding drive in this other thread towards reimbursing Aman and other core IV member's expenses towards the administrative costs of IV.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10708
Could you please pledge an amount ?
Thanks
Anzer
2010 2012 Honda Civic EX Coupe
ryan
02-21 10:10 PM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/2301599-post1.html
Done! I just want to say, your efforts and drive, are incredibly commendable. Thanks.
Done! I just want to say, your efforts and drive, are incredibly commendable. Thanks.
more...
a_yaja
05-07 08:47 AM
I also think green card lottery, chain immigration, and refugee green cards should be eliminated and those visa numbers should be used for employment based immigrants because all these people can immigrate just like us through employment. We contribute more to the American society and should be given priority. I guess when we become American someday, we would like immigrants who contribute to our community too. Isn't that right? :)
Nice argument. I bet if you had your GC or if you were a US citizen before you got married you would support chain immigration - after all what good is to be in this country if you cannot bring your wife over here? How about when your parents get old and they need care? Then you will curse the system for being unfair towards family based immigration. Afterall what good is a job if you cannot bring your family here?
Try to think beyond yourself. If not, your are no better than those opposing immigration. After all, even NumbersUSA is for immigration - as long as it is restricted to a few thousand a year! So is ALIPAC - they are for legal immigration but against H1Bs immigrating to the US. How are you any different from either of these organizations? As far as a someone wanting to come to the US on the family based immigration route is concerned - you are anti-immigration too.
Nice argument. I bet if you had your GC or if you were a US citizen before you got married you would support chain immigration - after all what good is to be in this country if you cannot bring your wife over here? How about when your parents get old and they need care? Then you will curse the system for being unfair towards family based immigration. Afterall what good is a job if you cannot bring your family here?
Try to think beyond yourself. If not, your are no better than those opposing immigration. After all, even NumbersUSA is for immigration - as long as it is restricted to a few thousand a year! So is ALIPAC - they are for legal immigration but against H1Bs immigrating to the US. How are you any different from either of these organizations? As far as a someone wanting to come to the US on the family based immigration route is concerned - you are anti-immigration too.
hair 2012 Honda Civic EX-L Coupe
GreeNever
05-03 10:48 AM
I don't mean this to be subjective. Earlier, I hv also seen a few others raise this question on the Advanced Degrees and exemptions.
Master's Degree in the US from an accredited Instituiton plus five years of related Work experience but the employer may have chosen to file under EB3. In my case, my employer does not acknowledge the Advanced Degree indicating that the position for which the labor was granted for did not warrant a Master's Degree.
What are my options for availing the SKIL or STEM/PACE provisions? I seem to meet all clauses to be deemed portable. Can I port to a different employer who may be able to further the process through these provisions, as and when they come into effect and continue being on EB3, but being exempt from the limit? Does this shake the grounds of the labor approval (for EB3 and the position not mandating an Advanced Degree)? Am I stuck? I have even considered changing my category to EB2 and being able to avail the priority date...
Master's Degree in the US from an accredited Instituiton plus five years of related Work experience but the employer may have chosen to file under EB3. In my case, my employer does not acknowledge the Advanced Degree indicating that the position for which the labor was granted for did not warrant a Master's Degree.
What are my options for availing the SKIL or STEM/PACE provisions? I seem to meet all clauses to be deemed portable. Can I port to a different employer who may be able to further the process through these provisions, as and when they come into effect and continue being on EB3, but being exempt from the limit? Does this shake the grounds of the labor approval (for EB3 and the position not mandating an Advanced Degree)? Am I stuck? I have even considered changing my category to EB2 and being able to avail the priority date...
more...
sanju
03-07 11:31 AM
Look man, I don't know who you are and what's your story. But I do know this. Giving a false impression to others and misleading others on this forum and on any other forum is not going to help. You seem to project that only you care for the issue of country-limits. I think the better description is, you only care for the removal of country limits till the day you get your green card. You do NOT want to remove country limits on EB beyond the date you receive the approval of your application. Giving a false impression to a few on this forum that temporarily removal of country limits will be easier than permanent removal of country limits is just WRONG.
After IV admin posted for the media interview few days back, I sent them an email expressing my willingness to speak with the press. I spoke with Vivek Wadhwa at length last week about this issue. Vivek Wadhwa article in Washington Post covers the issue of country limits where as his previous articles have not covered this issue.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/06/AR2009030601926.html
"Yet rather than welcome these entrepreneurs, the U.S. government is confining many of them to a painful purgatory. As of Sept. 30, 2006, more than a million people were waiting for the 120,000 permanent-resident visas granted each year to skilled workers and their family members. No nation may claim more than 7 percent, so years may pass before immigrants from populous countries such as India and China are even considered".
I also called a member of IV core yesterday evening and they told me that they have told you not to do whatever that you are doing. I was told that you are hurting their effort and you have been told this pretty clearly. But you continue with this senseless and direction less ranting and you continue to cause damage to the effort for the removal of country-limits.
Its disgusting that rather than working with others to fix this complicated and difficult issue, you continue to beat your own drum, without actually doing anything, but at the same time hurting the issue you claim you care for. And on top of that you want to remove the country limits only until you get your green card. Is that rationale to you in any which way?????? No. Is your action selfish????? YES.
.
Good point, has anybody asked this to any lawyer ? Can we challenge this in court ? This is the definition of judiciary review...If we can proove the country cap to be unconstitutional..
Judicial Review is when the Supreme Court reviews an act of Congress to see if it is Constitutional.
Judicial Review is the power of the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutuion (violation against the laws of the Constitutuion).
After IV admin posted for the media interview few days back, I sent them an email expressing my willingness to speak with the press. I spoke with Vivek Wadhwa at length last week about this issue. Vivek Wadhwa article in Washington Post covers the issue of country limits where as his previous articles have not covered this issue.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/06/AR2009030601926.html
"Yet rather than welcome these entrepreneurs, the U.S. government is confining many of them to a painful purgatory. As of Sept. 30, 2006, more than a million people were waiting for the 120,000 permanent-resident visas granted each year to skilled workers and their family members. No nation may claim more than 7 percent, so years may pass before immigrants from populous countries such as India and China are even considered".
I also called a member of IV core yesterday evening and they told me that they have told you not to do whatever that you are doing. I was told that you are hurting their effort and you have been told this pretty clearly. But you continue with this senseless and direction less ranting and you continue to cause damage to the effort for the removal of country-limits.
Its disgusting that rather than working with others to fix this complicated and difficult issue, you continue to beat your own drum, without actually doing anything, but at the same time hurting the issue you claim you care for. And on top of that you want to remove the country limits only until you get your green card. Is that rationale to you in any which way?????? No. Is your action selfish????? YES.
.
Good point, has anybody asked this to any lawyer ? Can we challenge this in court ? This is the definition of judiciary review...If we can proove the country cap to be unconstitutional..
Judicial Review is when the Supreme Court reviews an act of Congress to see if it is Constitutional.
Judicial Review is the power of the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutuion (violation against the laws of the Constitutuion).
hot 2012 Honda Civic Si - Front
guru76
02-05 02:40 PM
Contributed $50.
more...
house 2012 Honda Civic Recalled to
raghav0
09-24 01:03 PM
I cant believe that this kind of "Crab Mentality" would still exist especially now when we need to stop cribbing about these petty issues and unite to fight for our cause...Please GROW UP!!!
tattoo 2012 Honda Civic
Gravitation
07-20 10:10 AM
I pledge $100.
more...
pictures 2012 Honda Civic Si
NKR
04-25 08:28 PM
Atleast your DESI employers start GC early maybe after 6 months. Most american employers dont even start GC until you are in 5th year of H1. Employers are employers, they dont come with nationalities on their forehead. There are so many american companies who have filed bankruptcy when a large payment was pending and your desi employer attempted to recover it.
Yes, he will recover it and say that he never got paid so he can keep all that to himself.
Yes, he will recover it and say that he never got paid so he can keep all that to himself.
dresses 2012 Honda Civic concept 2 at
greensignal
08-13 10:44 AM
Hi,
My employer filed my wife's and my EAD paper based application on Jul 25, 2008 (TSC Received Date). But I still haven't received the Receipt notices for the same.
Generally how long does take to get the receipt notices?
Please let me know if any has filed around same date and received the receipts?
Thank you!
My employer filed my wife's and my EAD paper based application on Jul 25, 2008 (TSC Received Date). But I still haven't received the Receipt notices for the same.
Generally how long does take to get the receipt notices?
Please let me know if any has filed around same date and received the receipts?
Thank you!
more...
makeup 2012 Honda Civic:
bobzibub
05-23 07:06 PM
Dear Senator ____;
Subject: Treating the currently backlogged legal skilled immigrants at parity with undocumented immigrants and family-based applicants in the Immigration Reform bill S. 1348.
I am a member of Immigration Voice (www.immigrationvoice.org). Immigration Voice represents the interest of 500,000 legal skilled immigrants in the United States on the path to green cards who have been stuck in enormous backlogs and delays in immigration process.
The career growth, job mobility and quality of life of a half a million legal skilled immigrants is subverted by the bill in its current form.
Specifically, the restrictions on employment mobility of current applicants affected by this bill, limit improvements in all wage rates. This is because when the market for highly skilled staff improves (as it is doing today), we have significant bureaucratic barriers placed that prevent us from changing jobs. This creates a mis-allocation of scarce talent and limits the growth of the high tech industry as a whole.
The permanent residency process currently takes a great many years, but technologies change fast. Staying in the same job can make a tech career stagnant. Few Americans in the technology field are willing to stay in the same position within their current company for that many years. So, Again, this limits growth in the technology industry because scarce skills are being miss-allocated.
It is not just about changing jobs: I also get requests from friends that want me to improve their website or even join a start-up. They are dumbfounded when I tell them I may not because it is illegal for me to do so. Nor may I volunteer my time. Nor may I start my own company because I may not work for myself. The economic cost of a half-million highly skilled people not being able to start a business must be staggering.
Personally, since moving to the "land of the free", I find it ironic that I lost my economic freedom. It is also heartbreaking to see the rug pulled out from beneath us when we've been such law-abiding and dedicated participants in the current system all these years. In terms of years, in terms of opportunity lost, and in terms of money wasted on lawyers, we humbly request an equitable solution for all skilled, law-abiding immigrants.
Here are some specific reasons why the current CIR bill fails us, and fails the US economy. Also suggestions on improvements that can be made:
1. Section 501(b) reduces the number of green cards to legal skilled immigrants from the current 140,000/year to 90,000/year and diverts the major portion of those green cards to future low-skills guest workers under the Y visa program. Instead of increasing that number to reduce the backlogs this section take a step backwards and would exacerbate the backlogs. On the other hand, 503(f)(2) of this act would allocate an estimated 11 million green cards over a time frame of 5 years – 2.2 million a year – to undocumented immigrants. Immigration Voice requests congress to treat legal skilled immigrants at parity with undocumented immigrants and increase the number of green cards to at least 250,000 for 5 years for currently backlogged applicants defined under Sec. 502(d)(2) in order to reduce to current backlog before the untested points based merit system is functional.
2. Immigration Voice requests congress to waive per-country ceilings on backlogged petitions to be processed under Sec. 502(d)(2) in order to make the backlog reduction more efficient. The bill provides a very similar waiver from per-country ceilings to family based pending petitions in section 508(b).
3. Immigration Voice requests congress to allow legal skilled immigrants to file for adjustment of status for those applicants who have been certified by DOL to be doing jobs no US citizen is willing, qualified or able to do. This would be at parity with provisions for undocumented immigrants who would qualify for instant work permit (probationary card) that allows them to work without employer sponsor and without department of labor’s certification simply by registering.
We at Immigration Voice strongly opposes the bill S 1348 in its current form and requests congress to amend this bill and treat the legal skilled immigrants at parity with undocumented immigrants, future guest-workers and pending family-based applicants.
Sincerely,
<your name>
Subject: Treating the currently backlogged legal skilled immigrants at parity with undocumented immigrants and family-based applicants in the Immigration Reform bill S. 1348.
I am a member of Immigration Voice (www.immigrationvoice.org). Immigration Voice represents the interest of 500,000 legal skilled immigrants in the United States on the path to green cards who have been stuck in enormous backlogs and delays in immigration process.
The career growth, job mobility and quality of life of a half a million legal skilled immigrants is subverted by the bill in its current form.
Specifically, the restrictions on employment mobility of current applicants affected by this bill, limit improvements in all wage rates. This is because when the market for highly skilled staff improves (as it is doing today), we have significant bureaucratic barriers placed that prevent us from changing jobs. This creates a mis-allocation of scarce talent and limits the growth of the high tech industry as a whole.
The permanent residency process currently takes a great many years, but technologies change fast. Staying in the same job can make a tech career stagnant. Few Americans in the technology field are willing to stay in the same position within their current company for that many years. So, Again, this limits growth in the technology industry because scarce skills are being miss-allocated.
It is not just about changing jobs: I also get requests from friends that want me to improve their website or even join a start-up. They are dumbfounded when I tell them I may not because it is illegal for me to do so. Nor may I volunteer my time. Nor may I start my own company because I may not work for myself. The economic cost of a half-million highly skilled people not being able to start a business must be staggering.
Personally, since moving to the "land of the free", I find it ironic that I lost my economic freedom. It is also heartbreaking to see the rug pulled out from beneath us when we've been such law-abiding and dedicated participants in the current system all these years. In terms of years, in terms of opportunity lost, and in terms of money wasted on lawyers, we humbly request an equitable solution for all skilled, law-abiding immigrants.
Here are some specific reasons why the current CIR bill fails us, and fails the US economy. Also suggestions on improvements that can be made:
1. Section 501(b) reduces the number of green cards to legal skilled immigrants from the current 140,000/year to 90,000/year and diverts the major portion of those green cards to future low-skills guest workers under the Y visa program. Instead of increasing that number to reduce the backlogs this section take a step backwards and would exacerbate the backlogs. On the other hand, 503(f)(2) of this act would allocate an estimated 11 million green cards over a time frame of 5 years – 2.2 million a year – to undocumented immigrants. Immigration Voice requests congress to treat legal skilled immigrants at parity with undocumented immigrants and increase the number of green cards to at least 250,000 for 5 years for currently backlogged applicants defined under Sec. 502(d)(2) in order to reduce to current backlog before the untested points based merit system is functional.
2. Immigration Voice requests congress to waive per-country ceilings on backlogged petitions to be processed under Sec. 502(d)(2) in order to make the backlog reduction more efficient. The bill provides a very similar waiver from per-country ceilings to family based pending petitions in section 508(b).
3. Immigration Voice requests congress to allow legal skilled immigrants to file for adjustment of status for those applicants who have been certified by DOL to be doing jobs no US citizen is willing, qualified or able to do. This would be at parity with provisions for undocumented immigrants who would qualify for instant work permit (probationary card) that allows them to work without employer sponsor and without department of labor’s certification simply by registering.
We at Immigration Voice strongly opposes the bill S 1348 in its current form and requests congress to amend this bill and treat the legal skilled immigrants at parity with undocumented immigrants, future guest-workers and pending family-based applicants.
Sincerely,
<your name>
girlfriend 2012 Honda Civic coupe 41 2012
GreenMe
07-03 12:40 PM
Hello folks looks like that link for the "sweetheart roses" doesn't work anymore (They probably ran out!)! The cheapest flowers I could find now are these -
http://www.ftd.com/350/catalog/product.epl?product_id=FFCB&index_id=product_roses
http://www.ftd.com/528/catalog/product_search.epl?expresslane=Yes&AID=search&flc=FTD&website_id=528&SLI_searchintegration=1&search_box=F488&Go.x=13&Go.y=9
Try this link one more time ..
http://www.ftd.com/350/catalog/product.epl?product_id=FFCB&index_id=product_roses
http://www.ftd.com/528/catalog/product_search.epl?expresslane=Yes&AID=search&flc=FTD&website_id=528&SLI_searchintegration=1&search_box=F488&Go.x=13&Go.y=9
Try this link one more time ..
hairstyles The all-new 2012 Honda Civic
knnmbd
05-02 02:56 PM
Hm....
Then what is the real need of Eb2 and Eb1 if everything is going to flow to Eb3?
Technically under which conditions and criteria Eb1 and Eb2 would be applicable?
Because you still have the following still not a part of the exemption:
EB1 or Priority Workers : Multinational Executive or Manager
Employment Based Second Preference (EB2) : "aliens of exceptional ability."
Then what is the real need of Eb2 and Eb1 if everything is going to flow to Eb3?
Technically under which conditions and criteria Eb1 and Eb2 would be applicable?
Because you still have the following still not a part of the exemption:
EB1 or Priority Workers : Multinational Executive or Manager
Employment Based Second Preference (EB2) : "aliens of exceptional ability."
JazzByTheBay
09-28 04:36 PM
Given the number of questions and concerns IV members have about AC21 in general and "what after EAD/AP", it makes sense to coordinate with USCIS (and lawmakers if required) on this and get some favorable responses that allay everyone's concerns.
If EAD+AP are like a "provisional GC", USCIS should perhaps not delve too much into the job description of work done after the 180 days past AOS filing, imo. Just as in the case of GCs, the bar of intent to be employed in that job is met by working for that employer for 90-180 days (the latter to be on the safe side). The only reason this is such a huge issue is because of the unreasonable waiting time induced on the GC process due to retrogression.
As a result, folks from retrogression-affected countries suffer from these anxities, whereas those from unaffected countries get their GCs, and are free birds after the 90-180 day period.
It's unreasonable to expect folks from retrogressed countries to be employed in the same position, or to otherwise limit their options by imposing restrictions of new job being the same job description as the one on the approved labor cert.
jazz
First there is not enough AC21 cases to give feed back how their 485s were handled (approved/detail of RFE/denied) due to job change. Becase, almost all guys who used ac21 still in waiting game due to retrogression.
The main thing what I see here is, USCIS has not yet published the final regulation to interpret AC21 act, even after 7 years of passing AC21 act. They are issuing internal field office memo. These memos are non-binding. In other words, one cannot firmly relay on memos or challange the USCIS decision on AC21 portability according to these memos.
However, sofar, these memos are very favorable to workers, including allowing self-employment, one can port even before 140 approval ect...However, USCIS were cautioning in each memos, that the final regulation may be restrictive than memos. If they took restrictive position in final regulation, it will be a huge problem for most peoples, as they might have violated the final regulation.
Another issue is, definition of "same or similar occupational classification". This is going to be very subjective based on how uscis adjudicator going to compare old and new jobs. The memo says by comparing job duties both old and new jobs and based on SOC or ONET code of old and new job they have to decide both jobs are same or similar. As there is no clear regulation it is big issue to go howmuch level of similarity between jobs. For example one guy may think "database administrator" and "network administrator" are similar job to port. The USCIS may think it may not. It is not quantified.
I feel IV should advocate on liberal/quantifyable defintion for similar jobs in AC21 interpretation. For example, all computer professional jobs should be considered as similar jobs as well as all engineering jobs should be considered similar to port. For example mining engineer can port to chemical engineer job etc...
Also, if any one port to self employment in similar job, there is no much information available wheter one should open a company in his/her name or not (by just working in 1099 etc.. for multiple positions). This needs to have a flexible option for workers, like one can work in 1099 w/o opening a bussiness.
Also, IV should advocate on not to have any restrictive interpretation in final regulation.
If EAD+AP are like a "provisional GC", USCIS should perhaps not delve too much into the job description of work done after the 180 days past AOS filing, imo. Just as in the case of GCs, the bar of intent to be employed in that job is met by working for that employer for 90-180 days (the latter to be on the safe side). The only reason this is such a huge issue is because of the unreasonable waiting time induced on the GC process due to retrogression.
As a result, folks from retrogression-affected countries suffer from these anxities, whereas those from unaffected countries get their GCs, and are free birds after the 90-180 day period.
It's unreasonable to expect folks from retrogressed countries to be employed in the same position, or to otherwise limit their options by imposing restrictions of new job being the same job description as the one on the approved labor cert.
jazz
First there is not enough AC21 cases to give feed back how their 485s were handled (approved/detail of RFE/denied) due to job change. Becase, almost all guys who used ac21 still in waiting game due to retrogression.
The main thing what I see here is, USCIS has not yet published the final regulation to interpret AC21 act, even after 7 years of passing AC21 act. They are issuing internal field office memo. These memos are non-binding. In other words, one cannot firmly relay on memos or challange the USCIS decision on AC21 portability according to these memos.
However, sofar, these memos are very favorable to workers, including allowing self-employment, one can port even before 140 approval ect...However, USCIS were cautioning in each memos, that the final regulation may be restrictive than memos. If they took restrictive position in final regulation, it will be a huge problem for most peoples, as they might have violated the final regulation.
Another issue is, definition of "same or similar occupational classification". This is going to be very subjective based on how uscis adjudicator going to compare old and new jobs. The memo says by comparing job duties both old and new jobs and based on SOC or ONET code of old and new job they have to decide both jobs are same or similar. As there is no clear regulation it is big issue to go howmuch level of similarity between jobs. For example one guy may think "database administrator" and "network administrator" are similar job to port. The USCIS may think it may not. It is not quantified.
I feel IV should advocate on liberal/quantifyable defintion for similar jobs in AC21 interpretation. For example, all computer professional jobs should be considered as similar jobs as well as all engineering jobs should be considered similar to port. For example mining engineer can port to chemical engineer job etc...
Also, if any one port to self employment in similar job, there is no much information available wheter one should open a company in his/her name or not (by just working in 1099 etc.. for multiple positions). This needs to have a flexible option for workers, like one can work in 1099 w/o opening a bussiness.
Also, IV should advocate on not to have any restrictive interpretation in final regulation.
lost_in_migration
05-01 04:36 PM
INA: ACT 203 - ALLOCATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVA...16a4cb816838a4
PART 2 [CONTD.]
(II) No permanent resident visa may be issued to an alien physician described in subclause (I) by the Secretary of State under section 204(b) , and the Attorney General may not adjust the status of such an alien physician from that of a nonimmigrant alien to that of a permanent resident alien under section 245 , until such time as the alien has worked full time as a physician for an aggregate of 5 years (not including the time served in the status of an alien described in section 101(a)(15)(J) ), in an area or areas designated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as having a shortage of health care professionals or at a health care facility under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
(III) Nothing in this subparagraph may be construed to prevent the filing of a petition with the Attorney General for classification under section 204(a) , or the filing of an application for adjustment of status under section 245 , by an alien physician described in subclause (I) prior to the date by which such alien physician has completed the service described in subclause (II).
(IV) The requirements of this subsection do not affect waivers on behalf of alien physicians approved under section 203(b)(2)(B) before the enactment date of this subsection. In the case of a physician for whom an application for a waiver was filed under section 203(b)(2)(B) prior to November 1, 1998, the Attorney General shall grant a national interest waiver pursuant to section 203(b)(2)(B) except that the alien is required to have worked full time as a physician for an aggregate of 3 years (not including time served in the status of an alien described in section 101(a)(15)(J) ) before a visa can be issued to the alien under section 204(b) or the status of the alien is adjusted to permanent resident under section 245 .
(C) Determination of exceptional ability. - In determining under subparagraph (A) whether an immigrant has exceptional ability, the possession of a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning or a license to practice or certification for a particular profession or occupation shall not by itself be considered sufficient evidence of such exceptional ability.
(3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers.-
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), to the following classes of aliens who are not described in paragraph (2):
(i) Skilled workers. - Qualified immigrants who are capable, at the time of petitioning for classification under this paragraph, of performing skilled labor (requiring at least 2 years training or experience), not of a temporary or seasonal nature, for which qualified workers are not available in the United States.
(ii) Professionals. - Qualified immigrants who hold baccalaureate degrees and who are members of the professions.
(iii) Other workers. - Other qualified immigrants who are capable, at the time of petitioning for classification under this paragraph, of performing unskilled labor, not of a temporary or seasonal nature, for which qualified workers are not available in the United States.
(B) Limitation on other workers. - Not more than 10,000 of the visas made available under this paragraph in any fiscal year may be available for qualified immigrants described in subparagraph (A)(iii).
(C) Labor certification required.- An immigrant visa may not be issued to an immigrant under subparagraph (A) until the consular officer is in receipt of a determination made by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the provisions of section 212(a)(5)(A) .
(4) Certain special immigrants. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified special immigrants described in section 101(a)(27) (other than those described in subparagraph (A) or (B) thereof), of which not more than 5,000 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants described in subclause (II) or (III) of section 101(a)(27)(C)(ii) , 2/ and not more than 100 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants, excluding spouses and children, who are described in section 101(a)(27)(M) .
(5) Employment creation. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial 4/ enterprise (including a limited partnership)--
(i) 4/ in which such alien has invested (after the date of the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1990) or, is actively in the process of investing, capital in an amount not less than the amount specified in subparagraph (C), and
(ii) 4/ which will benefit the United States economy and create full-time employment for not fewer than 10 United States citizens or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence or other immigrants lawfully authorized to be employed in the United States (other than the immigrant and the immigrant's spouse, sons, or daughters).
(B) Set-aside for targeted employment areas.-
(i) In general. - Not less than 3,000 of the visas made available under this paragraph in each fiscal year shall be reserved for qualified immigrants who 4/ invest in a new commercial enterprise described in subparagraph (A) which will create employment in a targeted employment area.
(ii) Targeted employment area defined. - In this paragraph, the term ``targeted employment area'' means, at the time of the investment, a rural area or an area which has experienced high unemployment (of at least 150 percent of the national average rate).
(iii) Rural area defined. - In this paragraph, the term ``rural area'' means any area other than an area within a metropolitan statistical area or within the outer boundary of any city or town having a population of 20,000 or more (based on the most recent decennial census of the United States).
(C) Amount of capital required. -
(i) In general. - Except as otherwise provided in this subparagraph, the amount of capital required under subparagraph (A) shall be $1,000,000. The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of State, may from time to time prescribe regulations increasing the dollar amount specified under the previous sentence.
(ii) Adjustment for targeted employment areas.- The Attorney General may, in the case of investment made in a targeted employment area, specify an amount of capital required under subparagraph (A) that is less than (but not less than 1/2 of) the amount specified in clause (i).
(iii) Adjustment for high employment areas.-In the case of an investment made in a part of a metropolitan statistical area that at the time of the investment -
(I) is not a targeted employment area, and
(II) is an area with an unemployment rate significantly below the national average unemployment rate, the Attorney General may specify an amount of capital required under subparagraph (A) that is greater than (but not greater than 3 times) the amount specified in clause (I).
(D) 4/ Full-time employment defined.--In this paragraph, the term `full-time employment' means employment in a position that requires at least 35 hours of service per week at any time, regardless of who fills the position.
(6) Special rules for "k" special immigrants. -
(A) Not counted against numerical limitation in year involved. - Subject to subparagraph (B), the number of immigrant visas made available to special immigrants under section 101(a)(27)(K) in a fiscal year shall not be subject to the numerical limitations of this subsection or of section 202(a).
(B) Counted against numerical limitations in following year.-
(i) Reduction in employment-based immigrant classifications. - The number of visas made available in any fiscal year under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) shall each be reduced by 1/3 of the number of visas made available in the previous fiscal year to special immigrants described in section 101(a)(27)(K) .
(ii) Reduction in per country level. - The number of visas made available in each fiscal year to natives of a foreign state under section 202(a) shall be reduced by the number of visas made available in the previous fiscal year to special immigrants described in section 101(a)(27)(K) who are natives of the foreign state.
(iii) Reduction in employment-based immigrant classifications within per country ceiling. - In the case of a foreign state subject to section 202(e) in a fiscal year (and in the previous fiscal year), the number of visas made available and allocated to each of paragraphs (1) through (3) of this subsection in the fiscal year shall be reduced by 1/3 of the number of visas made available in the previous fiscal year to special immigrants described in section 101(a)(27)(K) who are natives of the forei gn state.(C)[Subparagraph (C) was stricken by Sec. 212(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-416 , 108 Stat. 4314, Oct. 25, 1994)]
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVA...16a4cb816838a4
PART 2 [CONTD.]
(II) No permanent resident visa may be issued to an alien physician described in subclause (I) by the Secretary of State under section 204(b) , and the Attorney General may not adjust the status of such an alien physician from that of a nonimmigrant alien to that of a permanent resident alien under section 245 , until such time as the alien has worked full time as a physician for an aggregate of 5 years (not including the time served in the status of an alien described in section 101(a)(15)(J) ), in an area or areas designated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as having a shortage of health care professionals or at a health care facility under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
(III) Nothing in this subparagraph may be construed to prevent the filing of a petition with the Attorney General for classification under section 204(a) , or the filing of an application for adjustment of status under section 245 , by an alien physician described in subclause (I) prior to the date by which such alien physician has completed the service described in subclause (II).
(IV) The requirements of this subsection do not affect waivers on behalf of alien physicians approved under section 203(b)(2)(B) before the enactment date of this subsection. In the case of a physician for whom an application for a waiver was filed under section 203(b)(2)(B) prior to November 1, 1998, the Attorney General shall grant a national interest waiver pursuant to section 203(b)(2)(B) except that the alien is required to have worked full time as a physician for an aggregate of 3 years (not including time served in the status of an alien described in section 101(a)(15)(J) ) before a visa can be issued to the alien under section 204(b) or the status of the alien is adjusted to permanent resident under section 245 .
(C) Determination of exceptional ability. - In determining under subparagraph (A) whether an immigrant has exceptional ability, the possession of a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning or a license to practice or certification for a particular profession or occupation shall not by itself be considered sufficient evidence of such exceptional ability.
(3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers.-
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), to the following classes of aliens who are not described in paragraph (2):
(i) Skilled workers. - Qualified immigrants who are capable, at the time of petitioning for classification under this paragraph, of performing skilled labor (requiring at least 2 years training or experience), not of a temporary or seasonal nature, for which qualified workers are not available in the United States.
(ii) Professionals. - Qualified immigrants who hold baccalaureate degrees and who are members of the professions.
(iii) Other workers. - Other qualified immigrants who are capable, at the time of petitioning for classification under this paragraph, of performing unskilled labor, not of a temporary or seasonal nature, for which qualified workers are not available in the United States.
(B) Limitation on other workers. - Not more than 10,000 of the visas made available under this paragraph in any fiscal year may be available for qualified immigrants described in subparagraph (A)(iii).
(C) Labor certification required.- An immigrant visa may not be issued to an immigrant under subparagraph (A) until the consular officer is in receipt of a determination made by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the provisions of section 212(a)(5)(A) .
(4) Certain special immigrants. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified special immigrants described in section 101(a)(27) (other than those described in subparagraph (A) or (B) thereof), of which not more than 5,000 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants described in subclause (II) or (III) of section 101(a)(27)(C)(ii) , 2/ and not more than 100 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants, excluding spouses and children, who are described in section 101(a)(27)(M) .
(5) Employment creation. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial 4/ enterprise (including a limited partnership)--
(i) 4/ in which such alien has invested (after the date of the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1990) or, is actively in the process of investing, capital in an amount not less than the amount specified in subparagraph (C), and
(ii) 4/ which will benefit the United States economy and create full-time employment for not fewer than 10 United States citizens or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence or other immigrants lawfully authorized to be employed in the United States (other than the immigrant and the immigrant's spouse, sons, or daughters).
(B) Set-aside for targeted employment areas.-
(i) In general. - Not less than 3,000 of the visas made available under this paragraph in each fiscal year shall be reserved for qualified immigrants who 4/ invest in a new commercial enterprise described in subparagraph (A) which will create employment in a targeted employment area.
(ii) Targeted employment area defined. - In this paragraph, the term ``targeted employment area'' means, at the time of the investment, a rural area or an area which has experienced high unemployment (of at least 150 percent of the national average rate).
(iii) Rural area defined. - In this paragraph, the term ``rural area'' means any area other than an area within a metropolitan statistical area or within the outer boundary of any city or town having a population of 20,000 or more (based on the most recent decennial census of the United States).
(C) Amount of capital required. -
(i) In general. - Except as otherwise provided in this subparagraph, the amount of capital required under subparagraph (A) shall be $1,000,000. The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of State, may from time to time prescribe regulations increasing the dollar amount specified under the previous sentence.
(ii) Adjustment for targeted employment areas.- The Attorney General may, in the case of investment made in a targeted employment area, specify an amount of capital required under subparagraph (A) that is less than (but not less than 1/2 of) the amount specified in clause (i).
(iii) Adjustment for high employment areas.-In the case of an investment made in a part of a metropolitan statistical area that at the time of the investment -
(I) is not a targeted employment area, and
(II) is an area with an unemployment rate significantly below the national average unemployment rate, the Attorney General may specify an amount of capital required under subparagraph (A) that is greater than (but not greater than 3 times) the amount specified in clause (I).
(D) 4/ Full-time employment defined.--In this paragraph, the term `full-time employment' means employment in a position that requires at least 35 hours of service per week at any time, regardless of who fills the position.
(6) Special rules for "k" special immigrants. -
(A) Not counted against numerical limitation in year involved. - Subject to subparagraph (B), the number of immigrant visas made available to special immigrants under section 101(a)(27)(K) in a fiscal year shall not be subject to the numerical limitations of this subsection or of section 202(a).
(B) Counted against numerical limitations in following year.-
(i) Reduction in employment-based immigrant classifications. - The number of visas made available in any fiscal year under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) shall each be reduced by 1/3 of the number of visas made available in the previous fiscal year to special immigrants described in section 101(a)(27)(K) .
(ii) Reduction in per country level. - The number of visas made available in each fiscal year to natives of a foreign state under section 202(a) shall be reduced by the number of visas made available in the previous fiscal year to special immigrants described in section 101(a)(27)(K) who are natives of the foreign state.
(iii) Reduction in employment-based immigrant classifications within per country ceiling. - In the case of a foreign state subject to section 202(e) in a fiscal year (and in the previous fiscal year), the number of visas made available and allocated to each of paragraphs (1) through (3) of this subsection in the fiscal year shall be reduced by 1/3 of the number of visas made available in the previous fiscal year to special immigrants described in section 101(a)(27)(K) who are natives of the forei gn state.(C)[Subparagraph (C) was stricken by Sec. 212(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-416 , 108 Stat. 4314, Oct. 25, 1994)]
No comments:
Post a Comment