txh1b
04-20 10:50 AM
Do not ignore it. Go back to the POE (CBP deferred adjudication office) and they could have a date of 1 month on the top portion they keep and forgotten to put a date on the visitor's copy. They will check the system and put a date on the I-94. You may be risking their visa validity if they over stay. Do it ASAP.
wallpaper BMW 760i 760Li car wallpaper
checklaw
07-13 11:36 AM
Checklaw,
By Law, you must apply for an intended travel.
However it has been routine practice to get AP renewed because if there is an emergency and on your return if your GC is approved AP is handy.
I am July 2007 filer. I applied in 2007. Did not apply in 2008 (had a valid h1b visa stamped in Passport which expires in Sep 2009) and re applied in 2009. No Issues.
Thanks
Senthil
Thanks for responding akilaakka. I have always understood the emergency part and urgent travel part for AP renewal. As renewing AP for family is pretty expensive, what am trying to understand is:
Should one renew AP if there is no travel anticipated just to satisfy any legal mumbo jumbo?
Your scenario appears to be different in the sense you indicated you still have a unexpired valid visa stamped in passport.
Are AP extension gaps fine with respect to expired or no H1B visa.
BR
checklaw
By Law, you must apply for an intended travel.
However it has been routine practice to get AP renewed because if there is an emergency and on your return if your GC is approved AP is handy.
I am July 2007 filer. I applied in 2007. Did not apply in 2008 (had a valid h1b visa stamped in Passport which expires in Sep 2009) and re applied in 2009. No Issues.
Thanks
Senthil
Thanks for responding akilaakka. I have always understood the emergency part and urgent travel part for AP renewal. As renewing AP for family is pretty expensive, what am trying to understand is:
Should one renew AP if there is no travel anticipated just to satisfy any legal mumbo jumbo?
Your scenario appears to be different in the sense you indicated you still have a unexpired valid visa stamped in passport.
Are AP extension gaps fine with respect to expired or no H1B visa.
BR
checklaw
chris
02-05 02:10 PM
Our cases are assigned to IO more that 60 days ago. No LUD's sofar.
Called VSC, One officer told me that they have thousands of cases pending. :confused:
Any one got GC recently and pending with IO more that 60 days ?
Appricaite comments and advice.
Called VSC, One officer told me that they have thousands of cases pending. :confused:
Any one got GC recently and pending with IO more that 60 days ?
Appricaite comments and advice.
2011 mw e36 wallpaper. weitere BMW
kevinkris
11-17 02:12 PM
Since you applied for H1 extension it means that you are out of parolee status
and on H1 again.
Get visa stamping next time when you go for home country and come on H1 instead of using AP.
Use AP only if GC is approved when you are outside of country..
I think it's little risk if AP is approved and you are outside of country and wants to use it. They prohibit sending AP on postal mail.
All,
Any help in answering my queries is appreciated.
Thanks
and on H1 again.
Get visa stamping next time when you go for home country and come on H1 instead of using AP.
Use AP only if GC is approved when you are outside of country..
I think it's little risk if AP is approved and you are outside of country and wants to use it. They prohibit sending AP on postal mail.
All,
Any help in answering my queries is appreciated.
Thanks
more...
umndude
06-17 03:19 PM
Let's say there is a problem. What can you do to fix it? You want to start GC fresh?
Relax... I have seen many people who bought PDs from consultants paying 10k and got GCs too. Don't worry. If you post these kind of threads, it make people waiting for years more frustrating. Be happy for your luck. Go chill. Don't keep saying you are afraid and all.
I can empathize. I might me more luckier than you, and there are people *luckier* than me. (You know what I mean..) But, if for some reason I don't get my GC, and you get your GC in a few years, me being lucky to start with is of no use. Nothing is sure till GC is on-hand for anyone.
So, I would appreciate if someone could let me know if there are any disadvantages process-wise when it comes to I-485 adjudication on a pre-approved labor.
Thanks.
Relax... I have seen many people who bought PDs from consultants paying 10k and got GCs too. Don't worry. If you post these kind of threads, it make people waiting for years more frustrating. Be happy for your luck. Go chill. Don't keep saying you are afraid and all.
I can empathize. I might me more luckier than you, and there are people *luckier* than me. (You know what I mean..) But, if for some reason I don't get my GC, and you get your GC in a few years, me being lucky to start with is of no use. Nothing is sure till GC is on-hand for anyone.
So, I would appreciate if someone could let me know if there are any disadvantages process-wise when it comes to I-485 adjudication on a pre-approved labor.
Thanks.
jonty_11
05-07 01:29 PM
Also, keep in mind that CIS has said they are coming out with a regulation on AC21 sometime soon. There is no telling how favorable that will be.
I am suspecting it will not be favorable at all
I am suspecting it will not be favorable at all
more...
roseball
02-20 09:04 AM
I am starting my 10th year on H1 Visa, and thus my company has renewed a few times already. On one of those instances, through ignorance I suppose, my H1 was renewed but my dependents were not. There was an assumption, which I now understand to be wrong, that my renewal would cover my dependents as well. Since after that we have renewed for all of us successfully.
One of the dependents, the wife, traveled out of the country and re entered with a H4 Stamp, which I understand cures her status. My son, however has never done this. We all have I-485's pending and I am worried about what that means for him. I am thinking of travelling out of the country, like Canada, to get our visas stamped and re - enter on the H status.
Question is: Is there any risk in that? If we go to, say Toronto to get the visa renewal, is there any chance that they would deny him? We have the 797 approvals for all of us. The last thing I want is to get stuck outside the country. I have reason to believe we have been pre adjudicated, if this means anything, and it is possible that if I do nothing it would all work out. However, I do not want to take chances with my kid's future.
Any one have any insight? Would going to Canada and returning on H4 cure his status? And are there any risks to this strategy? Thanks for the insight.
Was your son's H4 status valid when you filed his I-485? If so, even though his H4 is not valid now, he will automatically be in legal status based on his pending I-485. So no need to go for stamping. However, if his H4 was not valid when you filed his I-485, then there is a risk of his I-485 getting denied. In which case, getting a H4 visa stamp and re-entering would clear his out-of-status issue. One more thing, when you applied for dependent H4s after realizing the mistake, were the approvals with attached I-94? If not, your son won't be in H4 status until he goes out of the country and re-enters after getting a H4 VISA stamp.
One of the dependents, the wife, traveled out of the country and re entered with a H4 Stamp, which I understand cures her status. My son, however has never done this. We all have I-485's pending and I am worried about what that means for him. I am thinking of travelling out of the country, like Canada, to get our visas stamped and re - enter on the H status.
Question is: Is there any risk in that? If we go to, say Toronto to get the visa renewal, is there any chance that they would deny him? We have the 797 approvals for all of us. The last thing I want is to get stuck outside the country. I have reason to believe we have been pre adjudicated, if this means anything, and it is possible that if I do nothing it would all work out. However, I do not want to take chances with my kid's future.
Any one have any insight? Would going to Canada and returning on H4 cure his status? And are there any risks to this strategy? Thanks for the insight.
Was your son's H4 status valid when you filed his I-485? If so, even though his H4 is not valid now, he will automatically be in legal status based on his pending I-485. So no need to go for stamping. However, if his H4 was not valid when you filed his I-485, then there is a risk of his I-485 getting denied. In which case, getting a H4 visa stamp and re-entering would clear his out-of-status issue. One more thing, when you applied for dependent H4s after realizing the mistake, were the approvals with attached I-94? If not, your son won't be in H4 status until he goes out of the country and re-enters after getting a H4 VISA stamp.
2010 iPhone wallpaper and iPod
krish2005
11-09 08:47 PM
I am opposing STEM cell bill then, I dont want to see Kaurava's running around...::-)
:D
"Science is a double edged". I would support stem cell research if there are ways control it and not to jeopardize nature's protocols.
lol. I could imagine the comical kaurava clowns running around when you put that post. :D:D:D
:D
"Science is a double edged". I would support stem cell research if there are ways control it and not to jeopardize nature's protocols.
lol. I could imagine the comical kaurava clowns running around when you put that post. :D:D:D
more...
monkeyman
02-26 11:26 PM
If you have filed for I-485 and you have your receipt # (starting with LIN) and you have a copy of the encashed check or the proof of the financial transaction (could be you, your employer or lawyer) and the online status says I-485 Adjustment of Status pending, then you have nothing to worry about. If you had moved or changed your address it may have been misplaced. But you have nothing to worry about if the checks are cashed and you have the Receipt #.
hair BMW X5 wallpaper has been
DDash
04-05 12:07 PM
Someone pls respond if you think you can help answer my questions. Pretty please.
more...
FUNTIMES
08-20 12:24 PM
Also one strange thing observed was that I have a receipt # SRC07264**** and my wife's case has a receipt # SRC07266****. Also we received the receipt notices 2 days apart.
IndiaNJ , GCWhru... Do see any thing like this on your receipt dates.
IndiaNJ , GCWhru... Do see any thing like this on your receipt dates.
hot Bmw M3 Wallpaper
Blog Feeds
09-27 10:50 AM
VIA USCIS.gov
Introduction
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced a final rule adjusting fees for immigration applications and petitions. Thefinal rule (http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2010-23725_PI.pdf)follows a period of public comment on a proposed version of the rule, which USCIS published in theFederal Register (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-13991.pdf)on June 11, 2010. After encouraging stakeholders to share their input, USCIS considered all 225 comments received. The final rule will increase overall fees by a weighted average of about 10 percent but will not increase the fee for the naturalization application. The rule will also reduce fees for six individual applications and petitions and will expand the availability of fee waivers to new categories. The final rule will be published in the Federal Register September 24, and the adjusted fees will go into effect on November 23, 2010.
USCIS is a primarily fee-based organization with about 90 percent of its budget coming from fees paid by applicants and petitioners for immigration benefits. The law requires USCIS to conduct fee reviews every two years to determine whether it is recovering its costs to administer the nation�s immigration laws, process applications, and provide the infrastructure needed to support those activities. Remaining funds come from appropriations provided annually by Congress. The final fee rule concludes a comprehensive fee review begun in 2009.
USCIS�s Fee-based Budget
Fees account for approximately $2.4 billion of USCIS�s $2.8 billion budget request for fiscal year (FY) 2011. More than two-thirds of the budget supports the adjudication of applications and petitions for immigration benefits at USCIS field offices, service centers, customer service call centers and records facilities. The remainder supports USCIS business transformation efforts and the funding of headquarters program offices.
The adjudication areas supported by fees include the following:
Family-based petitions - facilitating the process for close relatives to immigrate, gain permanent residency, travel and work;
Employment-based petitions - facilitating the process for current and prospective employees to immigrate to or stay in the U.S. temporarily;
Asylum and refugee processing - adjudicating asylum and processing refugees;
Naturalization - adjudicating eligibility for U.S. citizenship;
Special status programs - adjudicating eligibility for U.S. immigration status as a form of humanitarian aid to foreign nationals; and
Document issuance and renewal - verifying eligibility for, producing and issuing immigration documents.
USCIS�s fee revenue in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 was much lower than projected, and fee revenue in fiscal year 2010 remains low. While USCIS did receive appropriations from Congress and made budget cuts of approximately $160 million, this has not bridged the remaining gap between costs and anticipated revenue. A fee adjustment, as detailed in the final rule, is necessary to ensure USCIS recovers the costs of its operations while also meeting the application processing goals identified in the 2007 fee rule.
Highlights of the 2010 Final Fee Rule
The final fee rule will increase the average application and petition fees by approximately 10 percent. In recognition of the unique importance of naturalization, the final fee rule contains no increase in the naturalization application fee.
The final fee rule establishes three new fees for:
Regional center designation under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program (EB-5);
Individuals seeking civil surgeon designation (with an exemption for certain physicians who examine service members, veterans, and their families at U.S. government facilities); and
Recovery of the USCIS cost of processing immigrant visas granted by the Department of State.
The final fee rule adjusts fees for the premium processing service. This adjustment will ensure that USCIS can continue to modernize as an efficient and effective organization.
The final fee rule reduces fees for six individual applications and petitions:
Petition for Alien Fianc� (Form I-129F);
Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status (Form I-539);
Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent Resident (Form I-698);
Application for Family Unity Benefits (Form I-817);
Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document (Form N-565); and
Application for Travel Document (Form I-131), when filed for Refugee Travel Document.
The final fee rule eliminates two citizenship-related fees for those service members and veterans of the U.S. armed forces who are eligible to file an Application for Naturalization (Form N-400) with no fee:
Request for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings (Form N-336); and
Application for Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-600).
Lastly, the final fee rule expands the availability of fee waivers to new categories, including:
Individuals seeking humanitarian parole under an Application for Travel Document (Form I-131);
Individuals with any benefit request under the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008; and
Individuals filing a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) following a denial of any application or petition that did not initially require a fee.
Final Rule: Schedule of Fees
The following schedule lists the adjusted fees that will take effect on November 23, 2010, alongside the existing fees in effect until that date:
Form No.
Application/Petition Description
Existing Fees (effective through Nov. 22, 2010
Adjusted Fees (effective beginning Nov. 23, 2010)
I-90 Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card $290 $365 I-102 Application for Replacement/Initial Nonimmigrant Arrival-Departure Document $320 $330 I-129/129CW Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker $320 $325 I-129F Petition for Alien Fianc�(e) $455 $340 I-130 Petition for Alien Relative $355 $420 I-131 Application for Travel Document $305 $360 I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker $475 $580 I-191 Application for Advance Permission to Return to Unrelinquished Domicile $545 $585 I-192 Application for Advance Permission to Enter as Nonimmigrant $545 $585 I-193 Application for Waiver of Passport and/or Visa $545 $585 I-212 Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the U.S. after Deportation or Removal $545 $585 I-290B Notice of Appeal or Motion $585 $630 I-360 Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant $375 $405 I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status $930 $985 I-526 Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur $1,435 $1,500 I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status $300 $290 I-600/600A
I-800/800A Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative/Application for Advance Processing of Orphan Petition $670 $720 I-601 Application for Waiver of Ground of Excludability $545 $585 I-612 Application for Waiver of the Foreign Residence Requirement $545 $585 I-687 Application for Status as a Temporary Resident under Sections 245A or 210 of the Immigration and Nationality Act $710 $1,130 I-690 Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility $185 $200 I-694 Notice of Appeal of Decision under Sections 245A or 210 of the Immigration and Nationality Act $545 $755 I-698 Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent Resident (Under Section 245A of Public Law 99-603) $1,370 $1,020 I-751 Petition to Remove the Conditions of Residence $465 $505 I-765 Application for Employment Authorization $340 $380 I-817 Application for Family Unity Benefits $440 $435 I-824 Application for Action on an Approved Application or Petition $340 $405 I-829 Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions $2,850 $3,750 I-881 Application for Suspension of Deportation or Special Rule Cancellation of Removal (Pursuant to Section 203 of Public Law 105�110) $285 $285 I-907 Request for Premium Processing Service $1,000 $1,225 Civil Surgeon Designation $0 $615 I-924 Application for Regional Center under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program $0 $6,230 N-300 Application to File Declaration of Intention $235 $250 N-336 Request for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings $605 $650 N-400 Application for Naturalization $595 $595 N-470 Application to Preserve Residence for Naturalization Purposes $305 $330 N-565 Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document $380 $345 N-600/600K Application for Certification of Citizenship/ Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate under Section 322 $460 $600 Immigrant $0 $165 Biometrics Capturing, Processing, and Storing Biometric Information $80 $85
Last updated:09/23/2010
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2010/09/24/information-on-the-new-uscis-fee-increase.aspx?ref=rss)
Introduction
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced a final rule adjusting fees for immigration applications and petitions. Thefinal rule (http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2010-23725_PI.pdf)follows a period of public comment on a proposed version of the rule, which USCIS published in theFederal Register (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-13991.pdf)on June 11, 2010. After encouraging stakeholders to share their input, USCIS considered all 225 comments received. The final rule will increase overall fees by a weighted average of about 10 percent but will not increase the fee for the naturalization application. The rule will also reduce fees for six individual applications and petitions and will expand the availability of fee waivers to new categories. The final rule will be published in the Federal Register September 24, and the adjusted fees will go into effect on November 23, 2010.
USCIS is a primarily fee-based organization with about 90 percent of its budget coming from fees paid by applicants and petitioners for immigration benefits. The law requires USCIS to conduct fee reviews every two years to determine whether it is recovering its costs to administer the nation�s immigration laws, process applications, and provide the infrastructure needed to support those activities. Remaining funds come from appropriations provided annually by Congress. The final fee rule concludes a comprehensive fee review begun in 2009.
USCIS�s Fee-based Budget
Fees account for approximately $2.4 billion of USCIS�s $2.8 billion budget request for fiscal year (FY) 2011. More than two-thirds of the budget supports the adjudication of applications and petitions for immigration benefits at USCIS field offices, service centers, customer service call centers and records facilities. The remainder supports USCIS business transformation efforts and the funding of headquarters program offices.
The adjudication areas supported by fees include the following:
Family-based petitions - facilitating the process for close relatives to immigrate, gain permanent residency, travel and work;
Employment-based petitions - facilitating the process for current and prospective employees to immigrate to or stay in the U.S. temporarily;
Asylum and refugee processing - adjudicating asylum and processing refugees;
Naturalization - adjudicating eligibility for U.S. citizenship;
Special status programs - adjudicating eligibility for U.S. immigration status as a form of humanitarian aid to foreign nationals; and
Document issuance and renewal - verifying eligibility for, producing and issuing immigration documents.
USCIS�s fee revenue in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 was much lower than projected, and fee revenue in fiscal year 2010 remains low. While USCIS did receive appropriations from Congress and made budget cuts of approximately $160 million, this has not bridged the remaining gap between costs and anticipated revenue. A fee adjustment, as detailed in the final rule, is necessary to ensure USCIS recovers the costs of its operations while also meeting the application processing goals identified in the 2007 fee rule.
Highlights of the 2010 Final Fee Rule
The final fee rule will increase the average application and petition fees by approximately 10 percent. In recognition of the unique importance of naturalization, the final fee rule contains no increase in the naturalization application fee.
The final fee rule establishes three new fees for:
Regional center designation under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program (EB-5);
Individuals seeking civil surgeon designation (with an exemption for certain physicians who examine service members, veterans, and their families at U.S. government facilities); and
Recovery of the USCIS cost of processing immigrant visas granted by the Department of State.
The final fee rule adjusts fees for the premium processing service. This adjustment will ensure that USCIS can continue to modernize as an efficient and effective organization.
The final fee rule reduces fees for six individual applications and petitions:
Petition for Alien Fianc� (Form I-129F);
Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status (Form I-539);
Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent Resident (Form I-698);
Application for Family Unity Benefits (Form I-817);
Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document (Form N-565); and
Application for Travel Document (Form I-131), when filed for Refugee Travel Document.
The final fee rule eliminates two citizenship-related fees for those service members and veterans of the U.S. armed forces who are eligible to file an Application for Naturalization (Form N-400) with no fee:
Request for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings (Form N-336); and
Application for Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-600).
Lastly, the final fee rule expands the availability of fee waivers to new categories, including:
Individuals seeking humanitarian parole under an Application for Travel Document (Form I-131);
Individuals with any benefit request under the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008; and
Individuals filing a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) following a denial of any application or petition that did not initially require a fee.
Final Rule: Schedule of Fees
The following schedule lists the adjusted fees that will take effect on November 23, 2010, alongside the existing fees in effect until that date:
Form No.
Application/Petition Description
Existing Fees (effective through Nov. 22, 2010
Adjusted Fees (effective beginning Nov. 23, 2010)
I-90 Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card $290 $365 I-102 Application for Replacement/Initial Nonimmigrant Arrival-Departure Document $320 $330 I-129/129CW Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker $320 $325 I-129F Petition for Alien Fianc�(e) $455 $340 I-130 Petition for Alien Relative $355 $420 I-131 Application for Travel Document $305 $360 I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker $475 $580 I-191 Application for Advance Permission to Return to Unrelinquished Domicile $545 $585 I-192 Application for Advance Permission to Enter as Nonimmigrant $545 $585 I-193 Application for Waiver of Passport and/or Visa $545 $585 I-212 Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the U.S. after Deportation or Removal $545 $585 I-290B Notice of Appeal or Motion $585 $630 I-360 Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant $375 $405 I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status $930 $985 I-526 Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur $1,435 $1,500 I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status $300 $290 I-600/600A
I-800/800A Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative/Application for Advance Processing of Orphan Petition $670 $720 I-601 Application for Waiver of Ground of Excludability $545 $585 I-612 Application for Waiver of the Foreign Residence Requirement $545 $585 I-687 Application for Status as a Temporary Resident under Sections 245A or 210 of the Immigration and Nationality Act $710 $1,130 I-690 Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility $185 $200 I-694 Notice of Appeal of Decision under Sections 245A or 210 of the Immigration and Nationality Act $545 $755 I-698 Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent Resident (Under Section 245A of Public Law 99-603) $1,370 $1,020 I-751 Petition to Remove the Conditions of Residence $465 $505 I-765 Application for Employment Authorization $340 $380 I-817 Application for Family Unity Benefits $440 $435 I-824 Application for Action on an Approved Application or Petition $340 $405 I-829 Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions $2,850 $3,750 I-881 Application for Suspension of Deportation or Special Rule Cancellation of Removal (Pursuant to Section 203 of Public Law 105�110) $285 $285 I-907 Request for Premium Processing Service $1,000 $1,225 Civil Surgeon Designation $0 $615 I-924 Application for Regional Center under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program $0 $6,230 N-300 Application to File Declaration of Intention $235 $250 N-336 Request for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings $605 $650 N-400 Application for Naturalization $595 $595 N-470 Application to Preserve Residence for Naturalization Purposes $305 $330 N-565 Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document $380 $345 N-600/600K Application for Certification of Citizenship/ Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate under Section 322 $460 $600 Immigrant $0 $165 Biometrics Capturing, Processing, and Storing Biometric Information $80 $85
Last updated:09/23/2010
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2010/09/24/information-on-the-new-uscis-fee-increase.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
house mw sauber wallpaper.
sanjay02
06-29 08:35 PM
I guess the cases that are pre-adjucated are called for interview.
tattoo Back To Cars Wallpapers
nmdial
04-21 09:36 AM
Friends,
I will be relocating to Houston soon. I am new to the area. I would really appreciate if you can give your inputs on good neighborhoods, cost of living, etc.
Thanks,
nmdial
I will be relocating to Houston soon. I am new to the area. I would really appreciate if you can give your inputs on good neighborhoods, cost of living, etc.
Thanks,
nmdial
more...
pictures BMW x6 2009 wallpapers BMW x6
munnu77
04-15 03:21 PM
Continue with the GC..The wmployer has to pay the salry on the GC only after your I 485 is approved. Wht i think, wht you are getting now has no connection with GC,
if they are decresing your salry, inform the DOL , you will be alright if ur decreased salry is more thn wht is required by the DOL.
Contact an attorney, i am sure there is a way out.
if they are decresing your salry, inform the DOL , you will be alright if ur decreased salry is more thn wht is required by the DOL.
Contact an attorney, i am sure there is a way out.
dresses Untitled Wallpaper - BMW, logo
admin
06-01 03:27 PM
We have discussed this issue earlier on this forum.
IV really wishes that this is possible but the truth is that when CIR has already been passed in the Senate, there is no way that Frist (or any other senator for that matter) will allow for the introduction of another immigration bill now.
So if we need to proceed with a legal immigrant's only bill, we will atleast have to wait till CIR dies. So don't get your hopes high now.
IV really wishes that this is possible but the truth is that when CIR has already been passed in the Senate, there is no way that Frist (or any other senator for that matter) will allow for the introduction of another immigration bill now.
So if we need to proceed with a legal immigrant's only bill, we will atleast have to wait till CIR dies. So don't get your hopes high now.
more...
makeup car wallpaper. Bmw car
feblc2002
02-03 04:45 PM
Congratulaions ivar. I guess your dates became current couple of months ago. It took so long for them to approve it ? Could you please give some details on when you got approval notification?
girlfriend BMW 7 Series Wallpaper
justice4all
02-25 05:01 PM
My son got his FAFSA approved last year. I am on H1 and he is on H4. Your daughter either way on H4 or EAD qualifies for FAFSA. If you have questions, you can call FAFSA directly and they are very helpful.
Good Luck..
RV
Hi rameshvaid,
Are you sure, H4 qualifies for FAFSA. My wife is on H4 and she doesnt have SSN. I think if one has SSN, it doesnt matter whether they are in H1, H4, F1, EAD .. they can apply for FAFSA. Am I right?
thanks
Good Luck..
RV
Hi rameshvaid,
Are you sure, H4 qualifies for FAFSA. My wife is on H4 and she doesnt have SSN. I think if one has SSN, it doesnt matter whether they are in H1, H4, F1, EAD .. they can apply for FAFSA. Am I right?
thanks
hairstyles The New 2010 BMW S 1000 RR
Blog Feeds
02-01 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
mita
08-20 12:46 PM
I just called USCIS and according to the person I spoke with, it takes approximately 30 days from the date of approval of primary applicant for approval of dependents.
lp2007
01-19 07:40 PM
We are all proud of our accomplishments, EB2 or EB3 or EB1 , the degrees we have earned, the jobs we do and the achievements we have in our career. The relationships we have made and the list goes on.
I don't think being in a category of EB GC queue should define if you can be proud of an EB3 immigrant.
You almost make it sound like did a EB3 applicant become a "slumdog millionaire" ? :)
I don't think being in a category of EB GC queue should define if you can be proud of an EB3 immigrant.
You almost make it sound like did a EB3 applicant become a "slumdog millionaire" ? :)
No comments:
Post a Comment