iptel
02-14 01:21 PM
Chapter 2: Skills for the U.S. Workforce.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/ch2-erp06.pdf
covers great deal of importance of H1B and Green Card. May be we can consider it to be part of our presentation.
Part of the report says
Caps on employment-based green cards limit the number of high-skilled
foreigners who can become permanent residents. The cap is set at 140,000
visas per year, including visas for the workers� spouses and children. Each
country�s nationals can make up no more than 7 percent of total immigrant
visas. These caps have led to long delays for applicants, especially for workers
from over-represented countries. For instance, some workers who became
eligible in January 2006 for EB-2 employment-based green cards (for workers
with advanced degrees or persons of exceptional ability) had applied for
permanent residence five years earlier.
A variety of proposals have been advanced for permanent employmentbased
immigration to allow for more high-skilled workers and to reduce wait
times. Any changes to the cap on the number of employment-based green
cards would require legislative action. First, workers� spouses and children
could be exempted from the cap, as is currently done for the H-1B program.
Spouses and children make up about half of the recipients of employmentbased
green cards, so this change would roughly double the number of
workers able to get employment-based green cards. Second, the fixed 140,000
cap could be replaced with a flexible market-based cap that would increase or
decrease with demand for workers eligible for employment-based green cards.
Finally, under current policy, nationals of no single country can receive more
than 7 percent of green cards. This share could be raised to reduce the long
delays for employment-based green cards for applicants from countries with
large numbers of desirable, high-skilled workers. Careful enforcement of
limits on foreign nationals� access to sensitive technology would provide
continued protection for our national security.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/ch2-erp06.pdf
covers great deal of importance of H1B and Green Card. May be we can consider it to be part of our presentation.
Part of the report says
Caps on employment-based green cards limit the number of high-skilled
foreigners who can become permanent residents. The cap is set at 140,000
visas per year, including visas for the workers� spouses and children. Each
country�s nationals can make up no more than 7 percent of total immigrant
visas. These caps have led to long delays for applicants, especially for workers
from over-represented countries. For instance, some workers who became
eligible in January 2006 for EB-2 employment-based green cards (for workers
with advanced degrees or persons of exceptional ability) had applied for
permanent residence five years earlier.
A variety of proposals have been advanced for permanent employmentbased
immigration to allow for more high-skilled workers and to reduce wait
times. Any changes to the cap on the number of employment-based green
cards would require legislative action. First, workers� spouses and children
could be exempted from the cap, as is currently done for the H-1B program.
Spouses and children make up about half of the recipients of employmentbased
green cards, so this change would roughly double the number of
workers able to get employment-based green cards. Second, the fixed 140,000
cap could be replaced with a flexible market-based cap that would increase or
decrease with demand for workers eligible for employment-based green cards.
Finally, under current policy, nationals of no single country can receive more
than 7 percent of green cards. This share could be raised to reduce the long
delays for employment-based green cards for applicants from countries with
large numbers of desirable, high-skilled workers. Careful enforcement of
limits on foreign nationals� access to sensitive technology would provide
continued protection for our national security.
wallpaper Vanessa amp; Ashley On Good
bank_king2003
04-21 11:29 AM
I did try to get into it so that i can start an effort to file a lawsuit but it seems after spending couple of hundread dollars to talk to lawyers I came across that federal courts have no power to do anything against USCIS if it is ineffeciency due to beurocracy delays.
So Technically you can file a lawsuit even as an individual but then Federal Court wont be able to held USCIS accountable as USCIS will give excuse as beurocracy delays and lack of resources and that lands on Congress so Federal court will have to get Congress involved.
Very Sad ... but its true ... this is a clean example how unfair this country is and it still preaches other countries on this planet about liberty, justice blah blah ...
So Technically you can file a lawsuit even as an individual but then Federal Court wont be able to held USCIS accountable as USCIS will give excuse as beurocracy delays and lack of resources and that lands on Congress so Federal court will have to get Congress involved.
Very Sad ... but its true ... this is a clean example how unfair this country is and it still preaches other countries on this planet about liberty, justice blah blah ...
saileshdude
07-21 06:41 PM
In rare cases RFE has been issued. My doc also wrote that I need to follow-up with my PCP for INH treatment on my medical form. I visited my PCP and they sent me to a Infectious Disease specialist. The ID specialist said that there is no urgency for treatment although it is recommended to have the treatment. But said I can my take my own time to think if I need to go through the treatment.
Asked what if USCIS sends an RFE, the ID said that they usually do not ask for it for younger people but for someone over 50 , they may ask. In any case he said if I received any RFE he was willing to provide me a letter that INH treatment is not urgently needed.
Asked what if USCIS sends an RFE, the ID said that they usually do not ask for it for younger people but for someone over 50 , they may ask. In any case he said if I received any RFE he was willing to provide me a letter that INH treatment is not urgently needed.
2011 Ashley Tisdale and Vanessa
theperm
05-07 07:51 PM
The Employer won`t be touching the I-140 or any other related GC apps.About the time frame for getting same or similar job...I am seriously keeping my fingers crossed!!!!
Thanks for all the detailed inputs alterego !!!
Thanks for all the detailed inputs alterego !!!
more...
andhrawala
09-16 04:24 PM
Done
jonty_11
05-07 01:29 PM
Also, keep in mind that CIS has said they are coming out with a regulation on AC21 sometime soon. There is no telling how favorable that will be.
I am suspecting it will not be favorable at all
I am suspecting it will not be favorable at all
more...
mihird
02-24 02:19 PM
Visa stamping is not necessary to remain in the US so wondering why a CPA would consider this a necessary work expense.
My CPA had itemized my wife's travel expenses for H1-B stamping on the 2006 return. Here's the logic for justifying the travel to get the visa stamped.
The H4->H1-B change of status is truly a change of intent, and traveling back to your home country and re-entering with a proper visa within a reasonable time after the change of status is what most immigration attorneys will advise.
GC expenses, however should not be claimed. H1-B is needed for the job, GC is not...
There are instances of people have trouble re-entering if they had not got their H1-B visa stamped in a timely manner after the change of status...
My CPA had itemized my wife's travel expenses for H1-B stamping on the 2006 return. Here's the logic for justifying the travel to get the visa stamped.
The H4->H1-B change of status is truly a change of intent, and traveling back to your home country and re-entering with a proper visa within a reasonable time after the change of status is what most immigration attorneys will advise.
GC expenses, however should not be claimed. H1-B is needed for the job, GC is not...
There are instances of people have trouble re-entering if they had not got their H1-B visa stamped in a timely manner after the change of status...
2010 outshines Ashley Tisdale?
amsgc
05-07 10:12 PM
I wish the USCIS took this out as a requirement for AC21. Then life would be sweet!
from AC21 memo issued on December 27, 2005
Question 14. Must the alien have a new offer of employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the I-140 portability provisions?
Answer: Yes. The alien cannot still be looking for �same or similar� employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the adjustment portability provisions. The alien must be able to show there is a new valid offer of employment at the time the I-485 is adjudicated.
So find a new job before I-485 is approved.
from AC21 memo issued on December 27, 2005
Question 14. Must the alien have a new offer of employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the I-140 portability provisions?
Answer: Yes. The alien cannot still be looking for �same or similar� employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the adjustment portability provisions. The alien must be able to show there is a new valid offer of employment at the time the I-485 is adjudicated.
So find a new job before I-485 is approved.
more...
pappu
10-23 11:45 AM
I think 485 processing is not dependent on PD being current. It is only the adjudication or final approval for which the PD needs to be current.
All 485 processing takes place based on it's receipt date and after it is complete the application is put on hold for approval untill the PD becomes current for that application.
Yes. Pre-Adjudications can happen regardless (dates current or not). However having a pre-adjudicated file has no consequence on immigration benefits unless your dates are current. When the dates become current for the applicant, the file is pulled for allotment of visa number.
I will correct my post to be more specific.
All 485 processing takes place based on it's receipt date and after it is complete the application is put on hold for approval untill the PD becomes current for that application.
Yes. Pre-Adjudications can happen regardless (dates current or not). However having a pre-adjudicated file has no consequence on immigration benefits unless your dates are current. When the dates become current for the applicant, the file is pulled for allotment of visa number.
I will correct my post to be more specific.
hair ASHLEY TISDALE#39;S ROMPER
anilsal
08-05 08:34 PM
To capture unused visa numbers we need to make DC rally big, so lets go to DC on sept 13th and make it big success.......
Nice....;)
Also we need everyone to help out in spreading IV work at the local level (state level). Plus IV welcomes contributions. :)
Nice....;)
Also we need everyone to help out in spreading IV work at the local level (state level). Plus IV welcomes contributions. :)
more...
chennai
07-11 05:05 PM
I would suggest you push your application for premium processing for I-140 so that it would be approved in 30 days time now. Because you are in the 6th year of H1 you can do it. So in 30 days if you have 140 approved then you would know whether your priorty date is recaptured then go for I485 before 08-08-08 Sep bulletin date?
hot Ashley tisdale and vanessa
Friend
02-19 09:17 AM
USCIS people rejected the Application. Now the application is with my Attorney. So which option I need to select the for the taking the Info Pass appointment. My Attorney is telling if they accept the application and they put any RFE so that we can take the Info Pass appointment is it correct?
Can you suggest which option i need to select for info pass appointment for my case?
Thanks for your valuable response.
Thanks.
Can you suggest which option i need to select for info pass appointment for my case?
Thanks for your valuable response.
Thanks.
more...
house vanessa-hudgens-ashley-tisdale
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
tattoo Vanessa Hudgens and Ashley
BMS1
11-08 12:50 PM
It appears that this 655K includes family based I485 cases too who are in a different queue.
more...
pictures Beautiful Ashley Tisdale wore
maristella61
02-27 11:55 AM
LIN = nebraska service center, SRC = Texas service center
Thanks !
Thanks !
dresses Ashley Tisdale in Dylan George
WaitingYaar
10-01 12:32 PM
My PD is current, and also my processing date is outside the processing times currenlty published by NSC and I140 is approved. Not sure why AOS is still pending. Any thoughts? What I should do to expedite this. Thanks.
more...
makeup Ashley Tisdale and Vanessa
oliTwist
01-10 08:46 PM
I had gone through the layoff thing during 2001-2002 time. Maybe, I might be mistaken. But I feel that time it was even worse.
girlfriend In This Photo: Vanessa Hudgens
gc_on_demand
05-22 10:18 AM
Hello -
if they are to terminate concurrent filing. How long would it take for
the rule to take place. This includes 2 months comment period and all
Thanks
P :)
I think after comment period with in week they publish rule in federal register.
So at max by aug 15th they will make this rule.
if they are to terminate concurrent filing. How long would it take for
the rule to take place. This includes 2 months comment period and all
Thanks
P :)
I think after comment period with in week they publish rule in federal register.
So at max by aug 15th they will make this rule.
hairstyles Vanessa Hudgens and Ashley
theperm
02-08 11:02 PM
Why would you marry in such haste & go through the trauma of not know whats going to happen i he goes to jail for the next 18 months?? why not wait until his jail issue is over ?? I am no one to judge you & mean no harm but have u thought this through ????
anantc
09-20 03:28 PM
What is the Website-url for USCIS for tracking the 140? :confused:
swapnajay
10-09 01:08 PM
Sorry to scare you in my previous reply....I did not read your question properly....
Since you are from a Non-Retrogressed Country, you may be eligible to apply for AOS. As you mentioned, you may apply I-140, I-485, I-131, and I-765 all together without any hassle. Make sure your attorney files all your applications with the right fee, since the fee structure has changed recently.
Sorry about my previous post though...
Good Luck!!
Since you are from a Non-Retrogressed Country, you may be eligible to apply for AOS. As you mentioned, you may apply I-140, I-485, I-131, and I-765 all together without any hassle. Make sure your attorney files all your applications with the right fee, since the fee structure has changed recently.
Sorry about my previous post though...
Good Luck!!
No comments:
Post a Comment