ramaonline
01-10 07:24 PM
EAD Renewal can be filed if EAD has expired or will expire within 120 days. The process is the same for both and can be done on your own - Its really simple
If you efile you have to go for biometrics. If you paper file you need to send photos. I don't think there is much difference in the time for approval
If you efile you have to go for biometrics. If you paper file you need to send photos. I don't think there is much difference in the time for approval
vallabhu
06-11 10:14 PM
I have used all my H1 years... I was not eligible for extension as my labor /perm was filed < 365 days. Currently on EAD with I 140 pending.. Am I eligible? :cool:
Even I am situation due to I140 denial I am in 9th year extension, I have to start new process soon but I will work on it only I will be eligible for PP of I140.
Even I am situation due to I140 denial I am in 9th year extension, I have to start new process soon but I will work on it only I will be eligible for PP of I140.
ek_bechara
05-14 12:02 PM
If you don't know something please keep quiet. Don't spread nonsense rumors. First of all the primary GC applicant is not affected in anyway. Spouse GC will show up anywhere between 7 to 12 months depending upon how the documentation is done.
This might delay your GC for another 2years. Mainly due to security concerns after 9 / 11. Better option is to get your GC and then apply as family. Will take at least 4 to 5 years.
This might delay your GC for another 2years. Mainly due to security concerns after 9 / 11. Better option is to get your GC and then apply as family. Will take at least 4 to 5 years.
Blog Feeds
01-14 08:20 AM
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQVE1f0on-nsOsHVUBmtYVlkUJ4RMaOs64Iio6Y7lnrsDNowE2QHPFhN9CVL58bRfpPeP6tU0JKa45bw2tFe311yqPHPbzGlmkANmJ336WplppQJqfb47j4Q5dohlT1Cuv-RAgpCzH7pQH/s200/uscisLogo.gif (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQVE1f0on-nsOsHVUBmtYVlkUJ4RMaOs64Iio6Y7lnrsDNowE2QHPFhN9CVL58bRfpPeP6tU0JKa45bw2tFe311yqPHPbzGlmkANmJ336WplppQJqfb47j4Q5dohlT1Cuv-RAgpCzH7pQH/s1600-h/uscisLogo.gif)
The US Citizenship and Immigration Service has issued a long memorandum (http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf) on what constitutes an "employer-employee" relationship for H-1B purposes. This should be especially interesting to H-1B workers and employers with consulting or contracting arrangements.
US immigration regulations (8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(ii)) require, among other things, that a H-1B petitioner "Has an employer-employee relationship with respect to employees under this part, as indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of any such employee"
CIS acknowledges that the lack of guidance defining what constitutes a valid employer-employee relationship has caused problems, especially when employees such as consultants or contractors are placed at 3rd-party sites. In these situations, the petitioner might not be able to show the required control over the employee's work. CIS considers that the "right to control" the employee's work is critical. The memo stresses that the right to control is different to actual control. To analyze the control, CIS looks at:
Does the petitioner supervise the beneficiary and is such supervision off-site or on-site?
If the supervision is off-site, how does the petitioner maintain such supervision, i. e. weekly calls, reporting back to main office routinely, or site visits by the petitioner?
Does the petitioner have the right to control the work of the beneficiary on a day-to-day basis if such control is required?
Does the petitioner provide the tools or instrumentalities needed for the beneficiary to perform the duties of employment?
Does the petitioner hire, pay, and have the ability to fire the beneficiary?
Does the petitioner evaluate the work-product of the beneficiary, i.e. progress/performance reviews?
Does the petitioner claim the beneficiary for tax purposes?
Does the petitioner provide the beneficiary with any type of employee benefits?
Does the beneficiary use proprietary information of the petitioner in order to perform the duties of employment?
Does the beneficiary produce an end-product that is directly linked to the petitioner's line of business?
Can the petitioner control the manner and means in which the work product of the beneficiary is accomplished?
The CIS Memo describes various different employment relationships, and states whether they meet the regulatory requirements. Those which CIS considers do not comply with regulations include:
Self employment;
Independent contractors;
"Job shops".
The memo describes, in detail, the evidence that can be submitted to prove an employer-employee relationship, especially where the employee will be working off-site.
The memo also notes that petitions must show compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) which states:
Service or training in more than one location. A petition that requires services to be performed or training to be received in more than one location must include an itinerary with the dates and locations of the services or training and must be filed with USCIS as provided in the form instructions. The address that the petitioner specifies as its location on the Form I-129 shall be where the petitioner is located for purposes of this paragraph.
The memo notes that to satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B), the petitioner must "submit a complete itinerary of services or engagements that specifies the dates of each service or engagement, the names and addresses of the actual employers, and the names and addresses of the establishment, venues, or locations where the services will be performed for the period of time requested. Compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) assists USCIS in determining that the petitioner has concrete plans in place for a particular beneficiary, that the beneficiary is performing duties in a specialty occupation, and that the beneficiary is not being "benched" without pay between assignments." Submitting a detailed itinerary for the next 3 years will be very difficult for many employers who place employees out on contracts.
This memo has just been published today, and there will undoubtedly be many more rticles published that analyze the provisions.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-2453679137512034994?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/cis-issues-memo-on-employer-employee.html)
The US Citizenship and Immigration Service has issued a long memorandum (http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf) on what constitutes an "employer-employee" relationship for H-1B purposes. This should be especially interesting to H-1B workers and employers with consulting or contracting arrangements.
US immigration regulations (8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(ii)) require, among other things, that a H-1B petitioner "Has an employer-employee relationship with respect to employees under this part, as indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of any such employee"
CIS acknowledges that the lack of guidance defining what constitutes a valid employer-employee relationship has caused problems, especially when employees such as consultants or contractors are placed at 3rd-party sites. In these situations, the petitioner might not be able to show the required control over the employee's work. CIS considers that the "right to control" the employee's work is critical. The memo stresses that the right to control is different to actual control. To analyze the control, CIS looks at:
Does the petitioner supervise the beneficiary and is such supervision off-site or on-site?
If the supervision is off-site, how does the petitioner maintain such supervision, i. e. weekly calls, reporting back to main office routinely, or site visits by the petitioner?
Does the petitioner have the right to control the work of the beneficiary on a day-to-day basis if such control is required?
Does the petitioner provide the tools or instrumentalities needed for the beneficiary to perform the duties of employment?
Does the petitioner hire, pay, and have the ability to fire the beneficiary?
Does the petitioner evaluate the work-product of the beneficiary, i.e. progress/performance reviews?
Does the petitioner claim the beneficiary for tax purposes?
Does the petitioner provide the beneficiary with any type of employee benefits?
Does the beneficiary use proprietary information of the petitioner in order to perform the duties of employment?
Does the beneficiary produce an end-product that is directly linked to the petitioner's line of business?
Can the petitioner control the manner and means in which the work product of the beneficiary is accomplished?
The CIS Memo describes various different employment relationships, and states whether they meet the regulatory requirements. Those which CIS considers do not comply with regulations include:
Self employment;
Independent contractors;
"Job shops".
The memo describes, in detail, the evidence that can be submitted to prove an employer-employee relationship, especially where the employee will be working off-site.
The memo also notes that petitions must show compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) which states:
Service or training in more than one location. A petition that requires services to be performed or training to be received in more than one location must include an itinerary with the dates and locations of the services or training and must be filed with USCIS as provided in the form instructions. The address that the petitioner specifies as its location on the Form I-129 shall be where the petitioner is located for purposes of this paragraph.
The memo notes that to satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B), the petitioner must "submit a complete itinerary of services or engagements that specifies the dates of each service or engagement, the names and addresses of the actual employers, and the names and addresses of the establishment, venues, or locations where the services will be performed for the period of time requested. Compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) assists USCIS in determining that the petitioner has concrete plans in place for a particular beneficiary, that the beneficiary is performing duties in a specialty occupation, and that the beneficiary is not being "benched" without pay between assignments." Submitting a detailed itinerary for the next 3 years will be very difficult for many employers who place employees out on contracts.
This memo has just been published today, and there will undoubtedly be many more rticles published that analyze the provisions.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-2453679137512034994?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/cis-issues-memo-on-employer-employee.html)
more...
kaisersose
07-26 11:14 AM
I havenot received the I-485 receipt yet , is it mandatory?
I would think so. Better to wait for a couple of weeks and apply for your EAD along with the 485 receipt.
I would think so. Better to wait for a couple of weeks and apply for your EAD along with the 485 receipt.
go_guy123
01-03 06:20 PM
......
The closest Congress came to action was the Dream Act, which would establish a path to citizenship for the most sympathetic class of undocumented immigrants: those brought to the U.S. as children, have stayed out of trouble, completed high school and committed to college or service in the U.S. military.
The Dream Act won passage in the House, and 53 votes in the Senate - but not enough to break a Republican-led filibuster.
Dream Act supporters should try again in the new Congress, but this time they should take a page from the tax compromise forged in the lame-duck session. That deal combined something Democrats wanted - an extension of unemployment benefits - with something Republicans wanted - an extension of tax cuts for high earning individuals.
Some leading conservatives have proposed loosening immigration rules for another worthy group: highly-educated foreigners capable of creating the new ideas, inventions and enterprises so important to America's economy. The brightest minds from around the world come to leading American universities, only to take their knowledge and talents back home because they can't legally stay here.
Conservative think tanks and commentators - and some elected officials - have suggested every foreign student who receives a post-graduate degree be automatically granted a green card. Some will still go home, but those who choose to stay can supply the brains and ambition that immigrants have been bringing to America's economy for hundreds of years.
Our first choice would be for Congress to enact the kind of comprehensive immigration reform proposed in recent years by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, former President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama. If that's not in the cards, we suggest pairing the Dream Act with a bill offering legal residency to the most highly educated foreign students.
What ties these proposals together is the assumption, shared by leaders of most political stripes, that legal immigration is good and necessary. America's population is aging and America's economic competitors are gaining ground in innovative technologies. We need immigrants, especially those who already consider themselves Americans - like the ones welcomed by the Dream Act - and those whose education and skills can contribute to economic growth.
The best compromises are those which incorporate the ideas and priorities of both sides. Such a compromise on immigration policy is long overdue.
Editorial: Immigration in 2011 - Framingham, MA - The MetroWest Daily News (http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/editorials/x338106193/Editorial-Immigration-in-2011)
See the politics in this article..written out of an MA media/mouthpiece...liberal leaning state and nature.
First they wanted comprehensive and wanted to hold the EB /skilled people hostage to their cause. They tried and failed again and again and again....and realized that mas amnesty is politically impossible and now with GOP in power in house it is even more impossible.
They tried Dream act stand alone...and failed even when Democratic party was in its high tide. and failed there as well. But short of few vote in senate. But house is a deep challenge. But they know conservative think tanks are in favor of skil bill and so they are now talking of attaching the dream act to the skill bill which has better chance of passing.
They have climbed down from their grand stand. But now they are trying to hold the SKIL Bill hostage to the Dream act....that is how Dream act s trying to make a comeback by attaching themselves to SKIL bill.
My feeling is that Dream act is still too politically toxic and even if "sugar coated" with SKIL
bill. It is way too bitter and politically radioactive for SKIL-Dream combined act to pass.
Democratic party still holds the Senate and Reid et al will be the ones trying to attach the Dream act to any SKIL bill....and that is where the problem lies.
Perhaps we will need to hope that "donkeys" get wiped out in Senate in 2012 for skilled immigrants to see the promised land.
The closest Congress came to action was the Dream Act, which would establish a path to citizenship for the most sympathetic class of undocumented immigrants: those brought to the U.S. as children, have stayed out of trouble, completed high school and committed to college or service in the U.S. military.
The Dream Act won passage in the House, and 53 votes in the Senate - but not enough to break a Republican-led filibuster.
Dream Act supporters should try again in the new Congress, but this time they should take a page from the tax compromise forged in the lame-duck session. That deal combined something Democrats wanted - an extension of unemployment benefits - with something Republicans wanted - an extension of tax cuts for high earning individuals.
Some leading conservatives have proposed loosening immigration rules for another worthy group: highly-educated foreigners capable of creating the new ideas, inventions and enterprises so important to America's economy. The brightest minds from around the world come to leading American universities, only to take their knowledge and talents back home because they can't legally stay here.
Conservative think tanks and commentators - and some elected officials - have suggested every foreign student who receives a post-graduate degree be automatically granted a green card. Some will still go home, but those who choose to stay can supply the brains and ambition that immigrants have been bringing to America's economy for hundreds of years.
Our first choice would be for Congress to enact the kind of comprehensive immigration reform proposed in recent years by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, former President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama. If that's not in the cards, we suggest pairing the Dream Act with a bill offering legal residency to the most highly educated foreign students.
What ties these proposals together is the assumption, shared by leaders of most political stripes, that legal immigration is good and necessary. America's population is aging and America's economic competitors are gaining ground in innovative technologies. We need immigrants, especially those who already consider themselves Americans - like the ones welcomed by the Dream Act - and those whose education and skills can contribute to economic growth.
The best compromises are those which incorporate the ideas and priorities of both sides. Such a compromise on immigration policy is long overdue.
Editorial: Immigration in 2011 - Framingham, MA - The MetroWest Daily News (http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/editorials/x338106193/Editorial-Immigration-in-2011)
See the politics in this article..written out of an MA media/mouthpiece...liberal leaning state and nature.
First they wanted comprehensive and wanted to hold the EB /skilled people hostage to their cause. They tried and failed again and again and again....and realized that mas amnesty is politically impossible and now with GOP in power in house it is even more impossible.
They tried Dream act stand alone...and failed even when Democratic party was in its high tide. and failed there as well. But short of few vote in senate. But house is a deep challenge. But they know conservative think tanks are in favor of skil bill and so they are now talking of attaching the dream act to the skill bill which has better chance of passing.
They have climbed down from their grand stand. But now they are trying to hold the SKIL Bill hostage to the Dream act....that is how Dream act s trying to make a comeback by attaching themselves to SKIL bill.
My feeling is that Dream act is still too politically toxic and even if "sugar coated" with SKIL
bill. It is way too bitter and politically radioactive for SKIL-Dream combined act to pass.
Democratic party still holds the Senate and Reid et al will be the ones trying to attach the Dream act to any SKIL bill....and that is where the problem lies.
Perhaps we will need to hope that "donkeys" get wiped out in Senate in 2012 for skilled immigrants to see the promised land.
more...
desi3933
06-18 02:56 PM
Hi Gurus,
Please comment on my situation.
My current job, 140 is approved, and employer ready to file 485. But there is also a risk of layoff in coming 2 months. Employer won't revoke I-140, if he had to let me go.
I have another employer interested and has filed H1 transfer. I am in the 7th year of H1.
If I let current employer file I-485, and also get EAD/AP. Then if laid off after 2 months, and new employer ready to wait for 2 months from now, understanding the situation.
1. Can I join the new employer on H1, after 2 months.
Yes, New employer needs to file for H1-B transfer.
Will can cancel my I-485 processing automatically, even though the employer did not revoke the I-140?
No.
2. Should I join the new employer on EAD, which will be approved for 1 year by then?
It may be good idea to join on H1.
Will there be risk of violation of AC21, and 485 or EAD renewal being rejected at later stage? And what would be a fall-back strategy in such case?
GC is for the future job. AC-21 allows to change future employer after I-485 has been filed for 180 calendar days and I-140 is approved.
3. Just join the new employer, as it will be stable job. and not worry about the 485 date. It will be current again next year.
Invoke AC-21.
4. Is there any information, how the AC-21 works? Is it automatic, or do I need to file for some documents when I switch jobs. That would prevent me from taking any job before 6 months. But I may be laid off in 2 months.
Search on these forums. It has been discussed in detail.
Thanks in advance!
See above in blue. This is NOT a legal advice.
Please comment on my situation.
My current job, 140 is approved, and employer ready to file 485. But there is also a risk of layoff in coming 2 months. Employer won't revoke I-140, if he had to let me go.
I have another employer interested and has filed H1 transfer. I am in the 7th year of H1.
If I let current employer file I-485, and also get EAD/AP. Then if laid off after 2 months, and new employer ready to wait for 2 months from now, understanding the situation.
1. Can I join the new employer on H1, after 2 months.
Yes, New employer needs to file for H1-B transfer.
Will can cancel my I-485 processing automatically, even though the employer did not revoke the I-140?
No.
2. Should I join the new employer on EAD, which will be approved for 1 year by then?
It may be good idea to join on H1.
Will there be risk of violation of AC21, and 485 or EAD renewal being rejected at later stage? And what would be a fall-back strategy in such case?
GC is for the future job. AC-21 allows to change future employer after I-485 has been filed for 180 calendar days and I-140 is approved.
3. Just join the new employer, as it will be stable job. and not worry about the 485 date. It will be current again next year.
Invoke AC-21.
4. Is there any information, how the AC-21 works? Is it automatic, or do I need to file for some documents when I switch jobs. That would prevent me from taking any job before 6 months. But I may be laid off in 2 months.
Search on these forums. It has been discussed in detail.
Thanks in advance!
See above in blue. This is NOT a legal advice.
Dhundhun
04-05 02:44 AM
How 120 days calculated inclusive or exclusive?
As an example suppose it is written like: You cannot file for a renewal XYZ more than 10 days before your original XYZ expires.
If XYZ expires on Apr 25, 2008, then earliest filing date is Apr 15, 2008 or Apr 16, 2008.
Thanks
As an example suppose it is written like: You cannot file for a renewal XYZ more than 10 days before your original XYZ expires.
If XYZ expires on Apr 25, 2008, then earliest filing date is Apr 15, 2008 or Apr 16, 2008.
Thanks
more...
bibs
07-26 01:06 AM
HI
What are the documents required for EAD application assuming that I-485 application is already filed?
At the time of applying for I-485, I didnot intend to apply for EAD.But after seeing a lot of application applied during July 2007, I realised that it may take years to get the Green card.So it is better to have a EAD in case if something happens to my job in the meantime.
Thanks
What are the documents required for EAD application assuming that I-485 application is already filed?
At the time of applying for I-485, I didnot intend to apply for EAD.But after seeing a lot of application applied during July 2007, I realised that it may take years to get the Green card.So it is better to have a EAD in case if something happens to my job in the meantime.
Thanks
nlssubbu
07-24 06:54 PM
This is FAQ from USCIS website:
Q1: Will USCIS reject a concurrently filed EB I-140/I-485 case if it is lacking a required Labor Certification?
A1. USCIS will not accept an I-140 based on a required labor certification application if the approved labor certification application is not submitted in connection with the filing. USCIS will not accept a concurrently filed Form I-485 if the required Form I-140 is rejected for lack of an approved labor certification application.
-----------------------------------------------
Anyone knows what that means? I have filed 140/485 concurrently on July 2nd 2007. However, I never received original LC document and my lawyer said it is okay to file 140 without original LC document, USCIS will collect it from DOL. Do you think this will affect me?
Thanks
In the past for my case, we do filed I-140 without the original labor certificate. They sent us an RFE for original labor, which then sent back along with approved original. I do not know whether USCIS are going to take a different stand now.
Thanks
Q1: Will USCIS reject a concurrently filed EB I-140/I-485 case if it is lacking a required Labor Certification?
A1. USCIS will not accept an I-140 based on a required labor certification application if the approved labor certification application is not submitted in connection with the filing. USCIS will not accept a concurrently filed Form I-485 if the required Form I-140 is rejected for lack of an approved labor certification application.
-----------------------------------------------
Anyone knows what that means? I have filed 140/485 concurrently on July 2nd 2007. However, I never received original LC document and my lawyer said it is okay to file 140 without original LC document, USCIS will collect it from DOL. Do you think this will affect me?
Thanks
In the past for my case, we do filed I-140 without the original labor certificate. They sent us an RFE for original labor, which then sent back along with approved original. I do not know whether USCIS are going to take a different stand now.
Thanks
more...
kopguy
06-09 12:05 PM
Marketplace, a popular radio business program talks about the necessity to ease green cards for educated immigrants.
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/06/08/pm_entrepreneurship/
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/06/08/pm_entrepreneurship/
kevinkris
12-05 05:20 PM
You are too fast ;-)
This looks good..
Green card will be giving for the people can help USA by serving army as doctors, nurses, transilators etc. Requirement is 2 year legal stay in USA.
See the link.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081205/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_recruiting
This looks good..
Green card will be giving for the people can help USA by serving army as doctors, nurses, transilators etc. Requirement is 2 year legal stay in USA.
See the link.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081205/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_recruiting
more...
panky72
06-25 05:07 PM
sure, pls verify with lawyer to be safe
common consensus seems to be -->
if u have a valid/unexpired h1 petition, then even after using AP, u can continue to use the H1 for 'work authorization' ( u dont need to use EAD at the same employer).
But after using AP, officially ur status is 'parolee' and not H1-B. (official status of entry as put on i94 doc)
After using AP, u can further extend ur H1 if u want to -> in this case your status officially changes to H1b from parolee.
After using AP, if u desperately need to get back on H1 (for whatever reason) -> u can either extend ur H1 or amend ur H1, both these will put u back on H1.
Some people also say if u have used AP , but still have a valid h1 petition and desperately want to get back to H1, then u cud go to a consulate abroad, get ur h1 visa stamped and reenter and once again ur officially back on H1 ( seems valid, but i dont know anyone who tried this)
hope this helps...
I agree with bekugc. I had a consultation with my attorney few days ago and he told me essentially the same thing.
common consensus seems to be -->
if u have a valid/unexpired h1 petition, then even after using AP, u can continue to use the H1 for 'work authorization' ( u dont need to use EAD at the same employer).
But after using AP, officially ur status is 'parolee' and not H1-B. (official status of entry as put on i94 doc)
After using AP, u can further extend ur H1 if u want to -> in this case your status officially changes to H1b from parolee.
After using AP, if u desperately need to get back on H1 (for whatever reason) -> u can either extend ur H1 or amend ur H1, both these will put u back on H1.
Some people also say if u have used AP , but still have a valid h1 petition and desperately want to get back to H1, then u cud go to a consulate abroad, get ur h1 visa stamped and reenter and once again ur officially back on H1 ( seems valid, but i dont know anyone who tried this)
hope this helps...
I agree with bekugc. I had a consultation with my attorney few days ago and he told me essentially the same thing.
sanju_dba
12-21 10:30 AM
Never saw how fire looks like....these sparks now and then sputter out of a fireplace of mounting frustation. Most sparks loose momentum because cold blowers are too many here.
Tierd of hopes! and frozen by these cold blowers! :o
Tierd of hopes! and frozen by these cold blowers! :o
more...
goel_ar
12-20 01:45 PM
I am all up for it & won't mind doing it all...
gc_dream07
01-31 09:39 PM
Immigration reform is not even in the list of items. This reflects the priority of CIR in president's todo list.
more...
GCard_Dream
07-28 05:07 PM
In other words there isn't really any harm in using the travel doc so long as you don't use the EAD and maintain h1/h4. This is good to know. However, I am still thinking about technical details like whether to surrender the I94 or not on the way out and whether I should show both H1/H4 and travel doc to the IO at POE.
When i asked my lawyer, they said that this is not true. You can come back with travel documents and still continue on h1/h4. You lose your h1/h4 status only if you use your ead card.
Ar
When i asked my lawyer, they said that this is not true. You can come back with travel documents and still continue on h1/h4. You lose your h1/h4 status only if you use your ead card.
Ar
gimme_GC2006
06-27 07:32 PM
I dont know how true it is..I found the article at this site
Photo Feature: Lord Ganesh On Beer Bottle (http://greatandhra.com/ganews/viewnews.php?id=14442&cat=&scat=25)
Response On 'Lord Ganesh's Pic On Beer Bottles' Issue (http://www.greatandhra.com/ganews/viewnews.php?id=14468&cat=10&scat=25)
I think this is sick if its real
As a loyal reader of greatandhra.com shared a blasphemous incident with us through mail and we have written and uploaded that news yesterday. And that is about Lord Ganesh�s picture on beer bottles made by one of the US breweries.
Ref: Photo Feature: Lord Ganesh On Beer Bottle (http://greatandhra.com/ganews/viewnews.php?id=14442&cat=&scat=25)
Countless mails have inundated the mail box of greatandhra.com admin with sharing of anguish by hundreds of readers for this blasphemous act of that breweries company. They stated that they have contacted that Lost Coast Brewery with a complaint and also forwarded the response mails from that company. All the forwarded mails have got the same �copy-paste� response from Lost Coast GM/Sales. Here is that:
�Your words, thoughts and beliefs are part of a culture that I personally respect and believe that the owner group of the brewery share with me. Please note that I will act to evaluate this issue and meet directly with the owner group towards mitigating your concerns. You have contacted the correct person for your concerns and they have not fallen upon deaf ears. Best Regards, Harmony and Peace.
Briar Bush
GM/Sales Director
Lost Coast Brewery�
It is good that many are fighting with that company to see the bottles removed from stalls immediately. The follow up on this incident requires continuous force and Hindu community should see that such blasphemy will not repeat again. And also ensure that those beer bottles are not in market with Lord Ganesh or any other divine picture of Hindu religion. Some suggested to make this news reach Sivasena, RSS and VHP as well. And we wish our readers do that as the voice of thousands will be louder than that of one.
Photo Feature: Lord Ganesh On Beer Bottle (http://greatandhra.com/ganews/viewnews.php?id=14442&cat=&scat=25)
Response On 'Lord Ganesh's Pic On Beer Bottles' Issue (http://www.greatandhra.com/ganews/viewnews.php?id=14468&cat=10&scat=25)
I think this is sick if its real
As a loyal reader of greatandhra.com shared a blasphemous incident with us through mail and we have written and uploaded that news yesterday. And that is about Lord Ganesh�s picture on beer bottles made by one of the US breweries.
Ref: Photo Feature: Lord Ganesh On Beer Bottle (http://greatandhra.com/ganews/viewnews.php?id=14442&cat=&scat=25)
Countless mails have inundated the mail box of greatandhra.com admin with sharing of anguish by hundreds of readers for this blasphemous act of that breweries company. They stated that they have contacted that Lost Coast Brewery with a complaint and also forwarded the response mails from that company. All the forwarded mails have got the same �copy-paste� response from Lost Coast GM/Sales. Here is that:
�Your words, thoughts and beliefs are part of a culture that I personally respect and believe that the owner group of the brewery share with me. Please note that I will act to evaluate this issue and meet directly with the owner group towards mitigating your concerns. You have contacted the correct person for your concerns and they have not fallen upon deaf ears. Best Regards, Harmony and Peace.
Briar Bush
GM/Sales Director
Lost Coast Brewery�
It is good that many are fighting with that company to see the bottles removed from stalls immediately. The follow up on this incident requires continuous force and Hindu community should see that such blasphemy will not repeat again. And also ensure that those beer bottles are not in market with Lord Ganesh or any other divine picture of Hindu religion. Some suggested to make this news reach Sivasena, RSS and VHP as well. And we wish our readers do that as the voice of thousands will be louder than that of one.
gcdreamer05
11-05 12:56 PM
From 1998 - till date, How many times EB3 priority dates were made current
Hey found this archive of visa bulletins, if you go through one by one, then that should answer your question.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1770.html
(From April 2002 to Nov 2008)
And then for still older ones,
(1995 to 2001)
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/visa_bulletin/
Are you trying to look for a pattern to find out when it will be current again ?
Hey found this archive of visa bulletins, if you go through one by one, then that should answer your question.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1770.html
(From April 2002 to Nov 2008)
And then for still older ones,
(1995 to 2001)
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/visa_bulletin/
Are you trying to look for a pattern to find out when it will be current again ?
santb1975
11-21 02:30 PM
With an EAD in hand and with the Market there could be a bigger and better opportunity. Keep up the high spirits
But I have a lot to be thankful for. Thanks to IV, he has his EAD and can have one less thing to worry about in his new job search.
But I have a lot to be thankful for. Thanks to IV, he has his EAD and can have one less thing to worry about in his new job search.
rick_rajvanshi
03-20 03:55 PM
USCIS Announces New Requirements for Hiring H-1B Foreign Workers
Changes Apply to Companies that Receive TARP Funding
WASHINGTON � U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced additional requirements for employers, who receive funds through the Troubled Asset Relief Program or under section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act (covered funding), before they may hire a foreign national to work in the H-1B specialty occupation category.
The new �Employ American Workers Act,� (EAWA), signed into law by President Obama as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Feb. 17, 2009, was enacted to ensure that companies receiving covered funding do not displace U.S. workers. Under this legislation any company that has received covered funding and seeks to hire new H-1B workers is considered an �H-1B dependent employer.� All H-1B dependent employers must make additional attestations to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) when filing the Labor Condition Application.
EAWA applies to any Labor Condition Application (LCA) and/or H-1B petition filed on or after Feb. 17, 2009, involving any employment by a new employer, including concurrent employment and regardless of whether the beneficiary is already in H-1B status. The EAWA also applies to new hires based on a petition approved before Feb. 17, 2009, if the H-1B employee had not actually commenced employment before that date.
EAWA does not apply to H-1B petitions seeking to change the status of a beneficiary already working for the employer in another work-authorized category. It also does not apply to H-1B petitions seeking an extension of stay for a current employee with the same employer.
USCIS is revising Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, to include a question asking whether the petitioner has received covered funding. USCIS will post this revised form on the USCIS Web site in time for the next cap subject H-1B filing period that begins on April l, 2009. While USCIS encourages petitioners, whenever possible, to use the most up-to-date form, USCIS will not require use of the revised form in time for the start of the filing period for fiscal year 2010.
However, USCIS urges H-1B petitions who have already prepared packages for mailing using the previous Form I-129 (January 2009 version) to complete only the page in the revised version of the Form I-129 (March 2009) which has the new question on EAWA attestation requirements and to file this single page with the prepared package. The single page referenced is the first page on the H-1B Data Collection and Filing Fee Exemption Supplement.
USCIS reminds petitioners that a valid LCA must be on file with DOL at the time the H-1B petition is filed with USCIS. This means that if the petitioner indicates on its petition that it is subject to the EAWA, but the Labor Condition Application does not contain the proper attestations relating to H-1B dependent employers, USCIS will deny the H-1B petition.
For more information, please see the accompanying Questions and Answers document about the Employ American Workers Act and its effect on H-1B petitions.
Changes Apply to Companies that Receive TARP Funding
WASHINGTON � U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced additional requirements for employers, who receive funds through the Troubled Asset Relief Program or under section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act (covered funding), before they may hire a foreign national to work in the H-1B specialty occupation category.
The new �Employ American Workers Act,� (EAWA), signed into law by President Obama as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Feb. 17, 2009, was enacted to ensure that companies receiving covered funding do not displace U.S. workers. Under this legislation any company that has received covered funding and seeks to hire new H-1B workers is considered an �H-1B dependent employer.� All H-1B dependent employers must make additional attestations to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) when filing the Labor Condition Application.
EAWA applies to any Labor Condition Application (LCA) and/or H-1B petition filed on or after Feb. 17, 2009, involving any employment by a new employer, including concurrent employment and regardless of whether the beneficiary is already in H-1B status. The EAWA also applies to new hires based on a petition approved before Feb. 17, 2009, if the H-1B employee had not actually commenced employment before that date.
EAWA does not apply to H-1B petitions seeking to change the status of a beneficiary already working for the employer in another work-authorized category. It also does not apply to H-1B petitions seeking an extension of stay for a current employee with the same employer.
USCIS is revising Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, to include a question asking whether the petitioner has received covered funding. USCIS will post this revised form on the USCIS Web site in time for the next cap subject H-1B filing period that begins on April l, 2009. While USCIS encourages petitioners, whenever possible, to use the most up-to-date form, USCIS will not require use of the revised form in time for the start of the filing period for fiscal year 2010.
However, USCIS urges H-1B petitions who have already prepared packages for mailing using the previous Form I-129 (January 2009 version) to complete only the page in the revised version of the Form I-129 (March 2009) which has the new question on EAWA attestation requirements and to file this single page with the prepared package. The single page referenced is the first page on the H-1B Data Collection and Filing Fee Exemption Supplement.
USCIS reminds petitioners that a valid LCA must be on file with DOL at the time the H-1B petition is filed with USCIS. This means that if the petitioner indicates on its petition that it is subject to the EAWA, but the Labor Condition Application does not contain the proper attestations relating to H-1B dependent employers, USCIS will deny the H-1B petition.
For more information, please see the accompanying Questions and Answers document about the Employ American Workers Act and its effect on H-1B petitions.
No comments:
Post a Comment