supers789
07-23 03:01 PM
got following from another iv thread..
btw, my fragomen attorney said, it will take 6 to 8 months clear the audit.
Thanks!
-------------------
<i>July 21, 2008
Fragomen and DOL Agree to Return to Normal Processing
For Newly Filed PERM Cases
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Department of Labor (DOL) has agreed that all new PERM applications filed by Fragomen will be processed normally and will not be subject to special audit.
After several weeks of discussions, the Department of Labor (DOL) and Fragomen have reached an interim agreement that will allow all new PERM applications filed by Fragomen to move forward in the normal processing queue without automatic audits. We are still talking with DOL regarding pending applications that have already been thrown into the special audit.
While we continue to have a major disagreement with DOL on its efforts to impede attorney-client communications, we have agreed to comply with DOL's new guidance bulletin, which presents a new and legally questionable interpretation of the PERM regulations regarding attorney actions. Until this interpretation is modified or judicially declared invalid, all immigration attorneys must conduct their representation in accordance with it.
Working with others in the immigration bar and business community, we will continue to pursue broader relief from DOL's misreading of the regulations and we have reserved every legal and equitable right to assert what we believe to be the proper interpretation of those regulations. Not only is this an infringement on employers' First Amendment rights, it contradicts specific language in the Department's regulations stating that employers may consult with counsel at all times "throughout the labor certification process."
If you have any questions about this alert, please contact the Fragomen attorney with whom you usually work.
Copyright � 2008 by Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, LLP</i>
btw, my fragomen attorney said, it will take 6 to 8 months clear the audit.
Thanks!
-------------------
<i>July 21, 2008
Fragomen and DOL Agree to Return to Normal Processing
For Newly Filed PERM Cases
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Department of Labor (DOL) has agreed that all new PERM applications filed by Fragomen will be processed normally and will not be subject to special audit.
After several weeks of discussions, the Department of Labor (DOL) and Fragomen have reached an interim agreement that will allow all new PERM applications filed by Fragomen to move forward in the normal processing queue without automatic audits. We are still talking with DOL regarding pending applications that have already been thrown into the special audit.
While we continue to have a major disagreement with DOL on its efforts to impede attorney-client communications, we have agreed to comply with DOL's new guidance bulletin, which presents a new and legally questionable interpretation of the PERM regulations regarding attorney actions. Until this interpretation is modified or judicially declared invalid, all immigration attorneys must conduct their representation in accordance with it.
Working with others in the immigration bar and business community, we will continue to pursue broader relief from DOL's misreading of the regulations and we have reserved every legal and equitable right to assert what we believe to be the proper interpretation of those regulations. Not only is this an infringement on employers' First Amendment rights, it contradicts specific language in the Department's regulations stating that employers may consult with counsel at all times "throughout the labor certification process."
If you have any questions about this alert, please contact the Fragomen attorney with whom you usually work.
Copyright � 2008 by Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, LLP</i>
wallpaper Justin Bieber
sss9i
06-12 10:54 AM
My question is:
My I-485 is pending for more than 180 days and I have I-140 approval as well.
I am planning to change job as soon as possible but I have to give 60 days notice before I resign my Job as per our Employment terms and conditions.
If they withdraw my approval I-140 status between 60 days, what is going to happen my I-485 Status? Still is valid my I-140 and Can I use Ac 21 as per UCCIS memos.
�Do I need to send AC 21 first before opting by the New Employer?
Thank you.
My I-485 is pending for more than 180 days and I have I-140 approval as well.
I am planning to change job as soon as possible but I have to give 60 days notice before I resign my Job as per our Employment terms and conditions.
If they withdraw my approval I-140 status between 60 days, what is going to happen my I-485 Status? Still is valid my I-140 and Can I use Ac 21 as per UCCIS memos.
�Do I need to send AC 21 first before opting by the New Employer?
Thank you.
visafreedom
07-03 11:15 AM
Well, here are the thoughts.
American Govt only listens when it sees an economic impact. Get thousands of such workers to not work a day, I am sure it would mean a huge economic impact. This is sending a signal that we dont tolerate this "pseudo-slavery" and that today we dont work a day but tomorrow we will be forced to leave this country (I know already several people who have done that and it is becoming more and more common for people to abstain from coming to this land of opportunity as the system is now less favorable)
If hundreds of thousands dont go to work, congress, corporates, press - the whole gamut would become sensitive to the issue. This is one way you can get them to lobby for our demands.
Taking out rally is also a very good way of doing it however if you did this in one place, the turnout will not be as impressive. Doing it in multiple cities needs an organization.
Bottomline, whatever you do, show solidarity, resolve, unity. That has never happened within this affected group of workers.
American Govt only listens when it sees an economic impact. Get thousands of such workers to not work a day, I am sure it would mean a huge economic impact. This is sending a signal that we dont tolerate this "pseudo-slavery" and that today we dont work a day but tomorrow we will be forced to leave this country (I know already several people who have done that and it is becoming more and more common for people to abstain from coming to this land of opportunity as the system is now less favorable)
If hundreds of thousands dont go to work, congress, corporates, press - the whole gamut would become sensitive to the issue. This is one way you can get them to lobby for our demands.
Taking out rally is also a very good way of doing it however if you did this in one place, the turnout will not be as impressive. Doing it in multiple cities needs an organization.
Bottomline, whatever you do, show solidarity, resolve, unity. That has never happened within this affected group of workers.
2011 Justin Bieber Photos - Justin
sobers
02-09 04:10 PM
While we all know loony loo tends to primarily go after illegals, we also are well aware of his anti-immigration stance and anti-H1B tirade.
Southern Poverty Law Center, a respected civil rights group from the MLK era, operates an "Immigration Watch".
This is what they said about him:
Broken Record
Lou Dobbs' daily 'Broken Borders' CNN segment has focused on immigration for years. But there's one issue Dobbs just won't take on.
Lou Dobbs is a genial sort, a pleasant-faced CNN anchorman who regularly presents himself as standing up for American working men and women against those who would injure them. Hosting "Lou Dobbs Tonight" for a prime-time hour every weekday, he is also well known and powerful. So when Dobbs focuses on an issue, millions of Americans learn just what it is that Dobbs thinks they should know.
For more than two years now, Dobbs has served up a populist approach to immigration on nightly segments of his newscast entitled "Broken Borders." He has relentlessly covered the issue, although hardly from a traditional news perspective -- Dobbs favors clamping down on illegal immigration, and his "reporting" never fails to make that clear. He has covered the same issues, and the same anti-immigration leaders, time after time after time. In recent months, Dobbs has run countless upbeat reports on the "citizen border patrols" that have sprung up around the country since last April's Minuteman Project, a paramilitary effort to seal the Arizona border.
But there's one thing Lou Dobbs won't do. No matter what others report about the movement, Dobbs has failed to present mounting and persistent evidence of anti-Hispanic racism in anti-immigration groups and citizen border patrols.
It's not that Dobbs hasn't allowed a pro-immigration activist or two to complain about efforts like the Minuteman Project ("vigilantes," according to President Bush), or even that he has made racist statements on his show. What the anchorman has done is repeatedly decline to present the evidence that links these groups to racism, calling the very idea "mind-boggling." On his July 29 show, he called the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center, which he said he liked in other ways, "despicable" and "reprehensible" for saying otherwise.
Consider some of what Dobbs has failed to report, despite the fact that in almost every case these developments were reported widely elsewhere:
GLENN SPENCER, head of the anti-immigration American Patrol, has been interviewed at least twice on the show, on Jan. 7 and June 4, 2004. Spencer's Web site is jammed with anti-Mexican vitriol and he pushes the idea that the Mexican government is involved in a secret plot to take over the Southwest -- facts never mentioned on Dobbs' show. Spencer's group is regarded as a hate group by both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League. Spencer has spoken at least twice to the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens, which has described blacks as "a retrograde species of humanity," and once to American Renaissance, a group that contends that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. Dobbs has never reported those ties, or mentioned Spencer's more wild-eyed contentions, such as his prediction that "thousands will die" in a supposedly forthcoming Mexican invasion. His CNN colleague Wolf Blitzer, on the hand, featured Spencer on his own show but reported Mexico's official response and SPLC's hate group designation.
In late 2004, it was revealed that the new head of a national advisory board to Protect Arizona Now, an anti-immigration organization, was a long-time white supremacist who was also an editorial adviser to the racist Council of Conservative Citizens. Although VIRGINIA ABERNETHY's controversial selection was reported prominently in virtually every Arizona paper -- and despite the fact that Dobbs heavily covered the anti-immigration referendum that Protect Arizona Now was advocating -- Dobbs never mentioned the affair at all.
A man named JOE MCCUTCHEN was quoted last April as part of a feature on the Minuteman Project, described by Dobbs as "a terrific group of concerned, caring Americans." No mention was made of the fact that McCutchen, who heads up an anti-immigration group called Protect Arkansas Now, had written a whole series of anti-Semitic letters to the editor and given a speech to the Council of Conservative Citizens -- facts revealed the prior January by SPLC, causing Arkansas' Republican governor to denounce McCutchen's group.
This August, BILL PARMLEY, a Minuteman leader in Goliad County, Texas, quit the group because of what he described as widespread racism. Similarly, in September, newspapers reported that another Texas Minuteman, Janet Ahrens, had resigned because members "wanted to shoot the taco meat." Dobbs never mentioned either of these people, who were featured prominently elsewhere.
On Oct. 4, Dobbs had PAUL STREITZ, a co-founder of Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control, as a guest on his show. Streitz denounced Mayor John DeStefano Jr. for "turning New Haven into a banana republic" by favoring identification cards for undocumented workers. Two days later, newspapers revealed that two of the group's other founders had just quit, saying Streitz had led it in a racially charged direction. Dobbs has never reported this.
BARBARA COE, leader of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, was quoted on a show last March bitterly attacking Home Depot for "betray[ing] Americans," apparently because Hispanic day laborers often gather in front of the store looking for work. Not mentioned were her group, listed by the SPLC as a hate group, or the fact that she routinely refers to Mexicans as "savages." Coe recently described herself as a member of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a "white pride" group formed from the remnants of the segregationist White Citizens Councils of the 1950s and 1960s that were once described by Thurgood Marshal as "the uptown Klan." She also told The Denver Post in November that she had given a speech to the group.
CHRIS SIMCOX, co-founder of the Minuteman Project and a top national anti-immigration leader, was arrested in 2003 by federal park rangers for carrying a weapon illegally while tracking border-crossers on federal parkland. While Simcox has been repeatedly interviewed on his show, Dobbs has failed to mention that arrest or bigoted anti-Hispanic comments Simcox made to the Intelligence Report several years ago.
Although Dobbs has steered clear of the racist comments that some of his guests have made elsewhere, he has warned of "illegal aliens who not only threaten our economy and security, but also our health and well-being," according to Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a media monitor. In 2003, FAIR added, a reporter on Dobbs' show grossly mischaracterized a National Academy of Sciences report. The report found that immigrants provided a net gain of $1 billion to $10 billion to the U.S. gross domestic product, but the CNN reporter said the report had found the economic impact of immigrants worked out to a net loss of up to $10 billion.
Dobbs is revered in anti-immigration quarters and on the far right generally. He is the winner of the 2004 Eugene Katz Award for Excellence in the Coverage of Immigration, given by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). CIS claims to be a "nonpartisan research institute," but in fact is a thinly disguised anti-immigration organization. The 2005 Katz Award went to the immigration beat reporter for The Washington Times, a hard-right newspaper based in Washington, D.C.
In general, Lou Dobbs has declined to report salient negative facts about anti-immigration leaders he approves of, or simply avoided mentioning certain of their views -- notably the conspiracy theories propounded by people like Spencer.
Still, Dobbs is hardly immune to the lure of the weird. Last September, he offered up Idaho meteorologist Scott Stevens as a guest on his show. Stevens had just left an Idaho television news program immediately after telling viewers of a bizarre theory that Hurricane Katrina was caused by unknown evildoers. "Terrorists were engaging in a type of eco-terrorism where they could alter the climate, set off earthquakes and volcanoes," he told Dobbs. Stevens said they were using "scalar waves," invented by the Japanese, to attack America with Category 5 storms.
"Intriguing assertion," Dobbs concluded at the end of the interview. Much the same might be said, and in the same spirit, about the news "reporting" that Dobbs presents as he doggedly explores and supports the anti-immigration movement.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=589
Southern Poverty Law Center, a respected civil rights group from the MLK era, operates an "Immigration Watch".
This is what they said about him:
Broken Record
Lou Dobbs' daily 'Broken Borders' CNN segment has focused on immigration for years. But there's one issue Dobbs just won't take on.
Lou Dobbs is a genial sort, a pleasant-faced CNN anchorman who regularly presents himself as standing up for American working men and women against those who would injure them. Hosting "Lou Dobbs Tonight" for a prime-time hour every weekday, he is also well known and powerful. So when Dobbs focuses on an issue, millions of Americans learn just what it is that Dobbs thinks they should know.
For more than two years now, Dobbs has served up a populist approach to immigration on nightly segments of his newscast entitled "Broken Borders." He has relentlessly covered the issue, although hardly from a traditional news perspective -- Dobbs favors clamping down on illegal immigration, and his "reporting" never fails to make that clear. He has covered the same issues, and the same anti-immigration leaders, time after time after time. In recent months, Dobbs has run countless upbeat reports on the "citizen border patrols" that have sprung up around the country since last April's Minuteman Project, a paramilitary effort to seal the Arizona border.
But there's one thing Lou Dobbs won't do. No matter what others report about the movement, Dobbs has failed to present mounting and persistent evidence of anti-Hispanic racism in anti-immigration groups and citizen border patrols.
It's not that Dobbs hasn't allowed a pro-immigration activist or two to complain about efforts like the Minuteman Project ("vigilantes," according to President Bush), or even that he has made racist statements on his show. What the anchorman has done is repeatedly decline to present the evidence that links these groups to racism, calling the very idea "mind-boggling." On his July 29 show, he called the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center, which he said he liked in other ways, "despicable" and "reprehensible" for saying otherwise.
Consider some of what Dobbs has failed to report, despite the fact that in almost every case these developments were reported widely elsewhere:
GLENN SPENCER, head of the anti-immigration American Patrol, has been interviewed at least twice on the show, on Jan. 7 and June 4, 2004. Spencer's Web site is jammed with anti-Mexican vitriol and he pushes the idea that the Mexican government is involved in a secret plot to take over the Southwest -- facts never mentioned on Dobbs' show. Spencer's group is regarded as a hate group by both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League. Spencer has spoken at least twice to the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens, which has described blacks as "a retrograde species of humanity," and once to American Renaissance, a group that contends that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. Dobbs has never reported those ties, or mentioned Spencer's more wild-eyed contentions, such as his prediction that "thousands will die" in a supposedly forthcoming Mexican invasion. His CNN colleague Wolf Blitzer, on the hand, featured Spencer on his own show but reported Mexico's official response and SPLC's hate group designation.
In late 2004, it was revealed that the new head of a national advisory board to Protect Arizona Now, an anti-immigration organization, was a long-time white supremacist who was also an editorial adviser to the racist Council of Conservative Citizens. Although VIRGINIA ABERNETHY's controversial selection was reported prominently in virtually every Arizona paper -- and despite the fact that Dobbs heavily covered the anti-immigration referendum that Protect Arizona Now was advocating -- Dobbs never mentioned the affair at all.
A man named JOE MCCUTCHEN was quoted last April as part of a feature on the Minuteman Project, described by Dobbs as "a terrific group of concerned, caring Americans." No mention was made of the fact that McCutchen, who heads up an anti-immigration group called Protect Arkansas Now, had written a whole series of anti-Semitic letters to the editor and given a speech to the Council of Conservative Citizens -- facts revealed the prior January by SPLC, causing Arkansas' Republican governor to denounce McCutchen's group.
This August, BILL PARMLEY, a Minuteman leader in Goliad County, Texas, quit the group because of what he described as widespread racism. Similarly, in September, newspapers reported that another Texas Minuteman, Janet Ahrens, had resigned because members "wanted to shoot the taco meat." Dobbs never mentioned either of these people, who were featured prominently elsewhere.
On Oct. 4, Dobbs had PAUL STREITZ, a co-founder of Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control, as a guest on his show. Streitz denounced Mayor John DeStefano Jr. for "turning New Haven into a banana republic" by favoring identification cards for undocumented workers. Two days later, newspapers revealed that two of the group's other founders had just quit, saying Streitz had led it in a racially charged direction. Dobbs has never reported this.
BARBARA COE, leader of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, was quoted on a show last March bitterly attacking Home Depot for "betray[ing] Americans," apparently because Hispanic day laborers often gather in front of the store looking for work. Not mentioned were her group, listed by the SPLC as a hate group, or the fact that she routinely refers to Mexicans as "savages." Coe recently described herself as a member of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a "white pride" group formed from the remnants of the segregationist White Citizens Councils of the 1950s and 1960s that were once described by Thurgood Marshal as "the uptown Klan." She also told The Denver Post in November that she had given a speech to the group.
CHRIS SIMCOX, co-founder of the Minuteman Project and a top national anti-immigration leader, was arrested in 2003 by federal park rangers for carrying a weapon illegally while tracking border-crossers on federal parkland. While Simcox has been repeatedly interviewed on his show, Dobbs has failed to mention that arrest or bigoted anti-Hispanic comments Simcox made to the Intelligence Report several years ago.
Although Dobbs has steered clear of the racist comments that some of his guests have made elsewhere, he has warned of "illegal aliens who not only threaten our economy and security, but also our health and well-being," according to Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a media monitor. In 2003, FAIR added, a reporter on Dobbs' show grossly mischaracterized a National Academy of Sciences report. The report found that immigrants provided a net gain of $1 billion to $10 billion to the U.S. gross domestic product, but the CNN reporter said the report had found the economic impact of immigrants worked out to a net loss of up to $10 billion.
Dobbs is revered in anti-immigration quarters and on the far right generally. He is the winner of the 2004 Eugene Katz Award for Excellence in the Coverage of Immigration, given by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). CIS claims to be a "nonpartisan research institute," but in fact is a thinly disguised anti-immigration organization. The 2005 Katz Award went to the immigration beat reporter for The Washington Times, a hard-right newspaper based in Washington, D.C.
In general, Lou Dobbs has declined to report salient negative facts about anti-immigration leaders he approves of, or simply avoided mentioning certain of their views -- notably the conspiracy theories propounded by people like Spencer.
Still, Dobbs is hardly immune to the lure of the weird. Last September, he offered up Idaho meteorologist Scott Stevens as a guest on his show. Stevens had just left an Idaho television news program immediately after telling viewers of a bizarre theory that Hurricane Katrina was caused by unknown evildoers. "Terrorists were engaging in a type of eco-terrorism where they could alter the climate, set off earthquakes and volcanoes," he told Dobbs. Stevens said they were using "scalar waves," invented by the Japanese, to attack America with Category 5 storms.
"Intriguing assertion," Dobbs concluded at the end of the interview. Much the same might be said, and in the same spirit, about the news "reporting" that Dobbs presents as he doggedly explores and supports the anti-immigration movement.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=589
more...
sanan
05-22 11:39 AM
huh?
EAD is Employment Authorization Document. It can filed with your I 485, it has nothing to do with 485 pending for 6 months! Where are you getting such info from?
People will be filing their I-485, not their EAD. EAD is something one gets after the 1-485 application has been pending for 6 months :)
EAD is Employment Authorization Document. It can filed with your I 485, it has nothing to do with 485 pending for 6 months! Where are you getting such info from?
People will be filing their I-485, not their EAD. EAD is something one gets after the 1-485 application has been pending for 6 months :)
Anders �stberg
June 18th, 2005, 09:44 AM
Very nice, great light! The first one is my favourite. I think I'd try sacrificing the top dark clouds for the composition, to me there is a bit too much space over the bird.
more...
roseball
04-02 12:53 PM
Thank you gc28262. It's just that my attorney havent seen this issue with Pre PERM cases. May be it is because PERM had more specific questions to answer so that there is little flexibility. Form 750 which was used before PERM did not have that many specific questions regarding labor conditions. So there was room for interpretation.
Thanks for murthy's link. Yes, It makes sense Gald I extended my H1 after returning on AP. So I am better positioned there.
Yes, actually the USCIS has argued the same in their revocation response which is that my labor requirements on Form 9089 aren't flexible enough to transfer me to EB3.
----
What your attorney is suggesting I believe is the right approach at this time. I would consult a reputed attorney and take his/her advise before taking any action. I would also have your company start a new PERM case in parallel, just incase. Yes, ETA-750 provides a little more flexibility w.r.t EB2 to EB3 downgrades when compared to 9089, but it depends on the educational requirements mentioned on the form. But your approach should be to get I-485 approval based on earlier I-140 and if that doesn't work out, then request for a downgrade. Hope it works out for you, good luck.
Thanks for murthy's link. Yes, It makes sense Gald I extended my H1 after returning on AP. So I am better positioned there.
Yes, actually the USCIS has argued the same in their revocation response which is that my labor requirements on Form 9089 aren't flexible enough to transfer me to EB3.
----
What your attorney is suggesting I believe is the right approach at this time. I would consult a reputed attorney and take his/her advise before taking any action. I would also have your company start a new PERM case in parallel, just incase. Yes, ETA-750 provides a little more flexibility w.r.t EB2 to EB3 downgrades when compared to 9089, but it depends on the educational requirements mentioned on the form. But your approach should be to get I-485 approval based on earlier I-140 and if that doesn't work out, then request for a downgrade. Hope it works out for you, good luck.
2010 Related Links: Justin Bieber,
h1bmajdoor
11-10 02:00 PM
Hi ,
My 180 days have passed and I have an approved 140. My job was filed in 2002 in EB2 as s/w engg. In this job i moved to project manager in IT. Now I am getting a job offer for an awesome company, nice pay and as a program manager. the role is still in IT but it will be more managing.
Would this be a safe bet to take by choosing AC-21?
Please reply. i need to respond to them in a couple of days....
/* I am not a lawyer - this is obvious but I have to put a disclaimer to satisfy some members here - anyway it is your life and you have to think and take the decisions */
IMO you should be OK. just don't do anything foolish like telling INS about your AC 21, and keep doing some technical work once in a while to justify your 140.
Unless you take risks you will not gain anything.
My 180 days have passed and I have an approved 140. My job was filed in 2002 in EB2 as s/w engg. In this job i moved to project manager in IT. Now I am getting a job offer for an awesome company, nice pay and as a program manager. the role is still in IT but it will be more managing.
Would this be a safe bet to take by choosing AC-21?
Please reply. i need to respond to them in a couple of days....
/* I am not a lawyer - this is obvious but I have to put a disclaimer to satisfy some members here - anyway it is your life and you have to think and take the decisions */
IMO you should be OK. just don't do anything foolish like telling INS about your AC 21, and keep doing some technical work once in a while to justify your 140.
Unless you take risks you will not gain anything.
more...
tabletpc
03-28 02:50 PM
I got this from different website(not sure if I can quote here).
Before going /planning for a perticular consualte, you can email the consulate with a i797 copy asking them to check if it exists in their system. If it doesn't then they will request concerned athorities to make it available in system so that you won't get stuck with PIMS delay. So far I have heard mexico/canada consualte responding to emails positively.
I will be mailing(canada consulate) them soon. Will keep you updated if i hear anything from them. if it works..its indeed a good options for us.:D
Before going /planning for a perticular consualte, you can email the consulate with a i797 copy asking them to check if it exists in their system. If it doesn't then they will request concerned athorities to make it available in system so that you won't get stuck with PIMS delay. So far I have heard mexico/canada consualte responding to emails positively.
I will be mailing(canada consulate) them soon. Will keep you updated if i hear anything from them. if it works..its indeed a good options for us.:D
hair Justin Bieber, wearing an
kondur_007
07-30 09:56 PM
then you are in a good shape. Make sure you keep ur employer and attorney aware of everything.
Good luck.
Good luck.
more...
looivy
08-15 11:24 AM
The answer to the FAQ clearly states that you should be fine and expect some processing delays. I am not sure what else you would like to know.
What I am looking for is how do they physically transfer the application? I am afraid of dealing with another incompetent organization such as USPS. Also, what type of processing delays should I expect?
How recent were the guidelines that I-485 be sent to the same center as I-140? Were these guidelines applicable on July 2nd.
What I am looking for is how do they physically transfer the application? I am afraid of dealing with another incompetent organization such as USPS. Also, what type of processing delays should I expect?
How recent were the guidelines that I-485 be sent to the same center as I-140? Were these guidelines applicable on July 2nd.
hot Justin Bieber Plays Basketball
at0474
01-09 02:52 PM
It would definately move..but movement would be backward. :-)
--LOL! I understand where you are coming from!! However, in reality, EB3's rear got so far up against the brick wall, it can't move back any further. It can only move forward.
Are there people with EB3 pds in 2000/2001 still waiting in that large number for GCs? I don't think so..
If not any movement, I won't be surprised. If any, it has to go forward for EB3.
--LOL! I understand where you are coming from!! However, in reality, EB3's rear got so far up against the brick wall, it can't move back any further. It can only move forward.
Are there people with EB3 pds in 2000/2001 still waiting in that large number for GCs? I don't think so..
If not any movement, I won't be surprised. If any, it has to go forward for EB3.
more...
house Tags: Justin Bieber
GotFreedom?
07-20 01:50 PM
If your I-485 is already approved, you already have a GC (your status is permanent resident) regardless if you have the physical card in possession or not. You do not need EAD to work in the US. You are allowed to work wherever you may choose without worrying about work authorization. Your GC is your work authorization as well.
Sorry to hear about your job loss. With I-485 already approved, you should be able to apply for the unemployment benefits but I do not know what kind of implications it might have when you go for citizenship. I beleive, you are elegible to reap the benefits of the social benefits even if its considered burden.
Sorry to hear about your job loss. With I-485 already approved, you should be able to apply for the unemployment benefits but I do not know what kind of implications it might have when you go for citizenship. I beleive, you are elegible to reap the benefits of the social benefits even if its considered burden.
tattoo Video of Justin Bieber playing
![justin bieber playing soccer in spain. [Video] Justin Bieber Playing](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tMnp6XZ45zH1qT__q65823ZCuPxlsIv8w_gsyiHFzheOuJhLoV30AsFCH7WGUy-DoT3TsRV-JCjGuAe6hU4jN-AKXx7lLSX0tq7YZsXZPaFIZCJ_Sl6ko9p4hutPLOcvvwayqKDKRJxyndU-awRWflW6we88BwlOSEPA=s0-d "[Video] Justin Bieber Playing")
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
pictures justin bieber soccer spain.
a_yaja
06-25 10:34 AM
I though such contracts are illegal in US?....It is employment at will.....that means they can kick you out anytime or you can leave anytime....maybe someone can clarify
It is "at will". But employers can have what is known as a "termination" clause. This clause can be anything (as long as it is legal):
- You cannot quit and join a competitor within 2 yrs
- You have to return all money paid for relocation if you quit within one yr
- You have to pay all costs associated with GC processing if you quit within 2 yrs
It looks like "2 yrs" is the max. time allowed by the law.
As long as the terms are reasonable, it will stand in the court of law. However, stuff like "you cannot do any programming for 2 yrs after quitting" will not hold in the court of law, because the agreement is preventing you from earning a livelyhood - which is illegal.
It is "at will". But employers can have what is known as a "termination" clause. This clause can be anything (as long as it is legal):
- You cannot quit and join a competitor within 2 yrs
- You have to return all money paid for relocation if you quit within one yr
- You have to pay all costs associated with GC processing if you quit within 2 yrs
It looks like "2 yrs" is the max. time allowed by the law.
As long as the terms are reasonable, it will stand in the court of law. However, stuff like "you cannot do any programming for 2 yrs after quitting" will not hold in the court of law, because the agreement is preventing you from earning a livelyhood - which is illegal.
dresses justin bieber soccer.
PixelPix
February 2nd, 2004, 11:32 PM
Here are the compatable lenses from the spec sheet:
Compatible Lenses
1) DX Nikkor : All functions supported
2) Type G or D AF Nikkor : All functions supported 3) Micro Nikkor 85 mm F2.8D : All functions supported except autofocus and some exposure modes 4) Other AF Nikkor*2 : All functions supported except 3D colour matrix metering, i-TTL balanced fill-fl ash for digital SLR
5) AI-P Nikkor : All functions supported except 3D colour matrix metering, i-TTL balanced fill-flash for digital SLR, and autofocus
6) Non-CPU : Can be used in exposure mode M, but exposure meter does not function; electronic range finder can be used if maximum aperture is f/5.6 or faster *1 IX Nikkor lenses can not be used; *2 Excluding lenses for F3AF
Not sure about the flash...maybe StevenT will see this and help you out. Also, not sure if you've seen the full official spec sheet, but here it is. Click here (http://www.dphoto.us/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=121).
WOW! That lens range sure is confusing.
Compatible Lenses
1) DX Nikkor : All functions supported
2) Type G or D AF Nikkor : All functions supported 3) Micro Nikkor 85 mm F2.8D : All functions supported except autofocus and some exposure modes 4) Other AF Nikkor*2 : All functions supported except 3D colour matrix metering, i-TTL balanced fill-fl ash for digital SLR
5) AI-P Nikkor : All functions supported except 3D colour matrix metering, i-TTL balanced fill-flash for digital SLR, and autofocus
6) Non-CPU : Can be used in exposure mode M, but exposure meter does not function; electronic range finder can be used if maximum aperture is f/5.6 or faster *1 IX Nikkor lenses can not be used; *2 Excluding lenses for F3AF
Not sure about the flash...maybe StevenT will see this and help you out. Also, not sure if you've seen the full official spec sheet, but here it is. Click here (http://www.dphoto.us/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=121).
WOW! That lens range sure is confusing.
more...
makeup Justin Bieber
lacrossegc
07-30 03:44 PM
Dude ,
to clarify: my question was after you submit all the forms 1485, EAD, AP et all.... when does USCIS send out FP notices .... given the huge volume even receipts will take longer
Within 4-10 days, after the USCIS sent the FP notice. :mad:
to clarify: my question was after you submit all the forms 1485, EAD, AP et all.... when does USCIS send out FP notices .... given the huge volume even receipts will take longer
Within 4-10 days, after the USCIS sent the FP notice. :mad:
girlfriend [Video] Justin Bieber Playing
alkg
10-25 06:38 PM
Dear IV Members,
I am 2nd July filer for I485,I-131,I-765.I got my receipts nos.a week ago by calling IO.
Now my question is that today when i called them to ask about the FP notices then they told me that our application was received on 13th August,2007 but our application was received on 2nd July and we have the proof.
Plz help me out as to how can i fix the exchanged dates ???????????
I will be really thankful to you
Thanking
alkg
I am 2nd July filer for I485,I-131,I-765.I got my receipts nos.a week ago by calling IO.
Now my question is that today when i called them to ask about the FP notices then they told me that our application was received on 13th August,2007 but our application was received on 2nd July and we have the proof.
Plz help me out as to how can i fix the exchanged dates ???????????
I will be really thankful to you
Thanking
alkg
hairstyles Pattie Mallette Stock Photos
snaidu
05-29 04:11 PM
AVS channel has an indian program every saturday starting 10am -12.00pm
I am sure many indians watch this.There is also 'free' immigration advise by some lawyers at the end of the program.
If some one has contacts at AVS may be IV could get more coverage.
Thinking out loud..
I am sure many indians watch this.There is also 'free' immigration advise by some lawyers at the end of the program.
If some one has contacts at AVS may be IV could get more coverage.
Thinking out loud..
Arjun
03-15 11:32 AM
I agree, I think you can recieve incentives, but you cannot work (as an employee) for a corporation other than the H1B sponsor. In any case, as long as you report all of your income you are fine. I do'nt think IRS checks your status to validate your income.
H1-B folks are permitted to have sources of passive income from entities other than their H1 sponsor. This includes bank interests, stock dividends, profits from stock transactions etc. Most of these incomes are taxable and reported to the IRS on 1099-INT or 1099-DIV forms. When you open a bank account and get a bonus of, say $200, it is considered as interest earned.
The vital point to remember, I guess, is that H1s are NOT allowed to generate an income from any source (other that H1 sponsor) that needs any tangible work to be done- investments do not count as tangible work.
H1-B folks are permitted to have sources of passive income from entities other than their H1 sponsor. This includes bank interests, stock dividends, profits from stock transactions etc. Most of these incomes are taxable and reported to the IRS on 1099-INT or 1099-DIV forms. When you open a bank account and get a bonus of, say $200, it is considered as interest earned.
The vital point to remember, I guess, is that H1s are NOT allowed to generate an income from any source (other that H1 sponsor) that needs any tangible work to be done- investments do not count as tangible work.
sheela
08-22 11:26 AM
I applied on June 12 (paper file) at TSC , Notice date June 18th , RD June 13th and received EAD cards on Aug 18th (CPO mail on Aug 15th).
Hope this info helps.
e-filed EAD renewal on 5/27 TSC
FP:6/21
still waiting....
EB2 i
PD:10/05, I140 approved 2/06
Hope this info helps.
e-filed EAD renewal on 5/27 TSC
FP:6/21
still waiting....
EB2 i
PD:10/05, I140 approved 2/06
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий