vishwak
08-05 10:08 AM
The following message from murhy forum over 3 years ago is still true. Correct? I cannot mail the renewed parole to my wife if she stays beyond the expiry of current parole.
--
It is not permissable for an individual to leave the United States during the validity of one Advance Parole document and return upon the validity of a second Advance Parole document.
In such circumstances and after such travel, the USCIS may deem that the adjustment of status application has been abandoned.
---
Hello......I'm in same situation couple of months back and I got below feedback from Attorney..which might help you.
Thank you for your inquiry.
You cannot return to the US with an Advance Parole (AP) that was approved
while you were gone. You must have the AP in hand when you leave the US if
you want to use that AP to return. Therefore, you cannot travel with just
the AP receipt number.
As per this message your wife should come back US on Old Unexpired AP.
--
It is not permissable for an individual to leave the United States during the validity of one Advance Parole document and return upon the validity of a second Advance Parole document.
In such circumstances and after such travel, the USCIS may deem that the adjustment of status application has been abandoned.
---
Hello......I'm in same situation couple of months back and I got below feedback from Attorney..which might help you.
Thank you for your inquiry.
You cannot return to the US with an Advance Parole (AP) that was approved
while you were gone. You must have the AP in hand when you leave the US if
you want to use that AP to return. Therefore, you cannot travel with just
the AP receipt number.
As per this message your wife should come back US on Old Unexpired AP.
wallpaper Nike Fun wallpaper
AfghanPremi
12-08 12:24 AM
Yes!
You will be fine, i am on H1 and doing my MS part time!!
You will be fine, i am on H1 and doing my MS part time!!
rockets12345
10-30 12:36 AM
Please correct me if I am wrong i.e. I can continue working as I have already applied for my H1 extension and whatever the H1 extension response is based on that if it is approved I can stay on H1 else if extension denied for some reason then at that point I can move to EAD and file a new I-9 Form with my employer and continue my work.
Thanks
Thanks
2011 nike Wallpaper
meridiani.planum
11-21 01:47 AM
Meridiani.planum.... Thanks for your reply....
Is the GC under EB-2 that quick? I wonder why my attorney didn't try to FIT me on EB-2... I'll definitely research my 'fitting' options as an EB-2.... now, do you know if are there hidden issues on getting a GC as an EB-2 rather than an EB-3? Or, Is a GC the same regardless the employment-based category?
There the 3 stages to the GC: PERM, I-140, i-485. PERM takes 3-4 months on an average. I-140 takes 6-12, and I-485 taeks about 6-8. So in general getting the GC can take anywhere from 1 to 2 years. HOWEVER other than USCIS delays in processing, there are two BIG catches:
- I-485 security/name check : this is an FBI background check where some percentage of people get stuck for years. Most people clear this within a month, but some unfortunate few get screwed.
- RETROGRESSION: To get the I-485 approval your priority date (the day you have filed your PERM) needs to be "current". Each month the Department of State publishes a "Visa Bulletin" indicating what dates are current. The latest bulletin is here:
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html
Because of per-country quota's of visas, some countries are more backlogged than others. Actually only some countries have specific backlogs (India, china, mexico, philipinnes). Others are clubbed together into whats called Rest-Of-The-World (ROW) or "All Charge-ability Areas Except Those Listed".
As you can see in the bulletin for EB3-ROW they are currently assigning visa numbers to applications filed before September 2002. Meaning your 485 cannot be applied or approved until the date in the VB moves past your PERM filing date. EB2-ROW as you can see has a nice little "C" next to it. That means its "Current" meaning there is no backlog, meaning you can immediately file your 485, and if all goes well and 6 months later its still "C", you'll have your GC.
bottomline: for you moving from EB3 to EB2 changes your greencard processing time from say 7 years to 2 years.
Is the GC under EB-2 that quick? I wonder why my attorney didn't try to FIT me on EB-2... I'll definitely research my 'fitting' options as an EB-2.... now, do you know if are there hidden issues on getting a GC as an EB-2 rather than an EB-3? Or, Is a GC the same regardless the employment-based category?
There the 3 stages to the GC: PERM, I-140, i-485. PERM takes 3-4 months on an average. I-140 takes 6-12, and I-485 taeks about 6-8. So in general getting the GC can take anywhere from 1 to 2 years. HOWEVER other than USCIS delays in processing, there are two BIG catches:
- I-485 security/name check : this is an FBI background check where some percentage of people get stuck for years. Most people clear this within a month, but some unfortunate few get screwed.
- RETROGRESSION: To get the I-485 approval your priority date (the day you have filed your PERM) needs to be "current". Each month the Department of State publishes a "Visa Bulletin" indicating what dates are current. The latest bulletin is here:
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html
Because of per-country quota's of visas, some countries are more backlogged than others. Actually only some countries have specific backlogs (India, china, mexico, philipinnes). Others are clubbed together into whats called Rest-Of-The-World (ROW) or "All Charge-ability Areas Except Those Listed".
As you can see in the bulletin for EB3-ROW they are currently assigning visa numbers to applications filed before September 2002. Meaning your 485 cannot be applied or approved until the date in the VB moves past your PERM filing date. EB2-ROW as you can see has a nice little "C" next to it. That means its "Current" meaning there is no backlog, meaning you can immediately file your 485, and if all goes well and 6 months later its still "C", you'll have your GC.
bottomline: for you moving from EB3 to EB2 changes your greencard processing time from say 7 years to 2 years.
more...
Blog Feeds
01-27 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
LONGGCQUE
01-04 07:26 PM
I also left a top 10 Indian company while on a US deputation and they are holding my PF, gratuity etc. They have been asking me to pay approx 12-15K USD to settle things.
I have no clue how to recover my PF money which would be atleast 6-7K USD based on my 63 months of employment with them.
Gurus, can someone shed some light on this. Has anyone resigned from so called top 10 indian companies which make you sign those bonds, and then ask you to come back to India and serve 3-6 months. How to recover PF etc from those indian companies if you do not sign off on good terms. For me, they say settle the a/c first and we will process your PF.
shed some light please
I have no clue how to recover my PF money which would be atleast 6-7K USD based on my 63 months of employment with them.
Gurus, can someone shed some light on this. Has anyone resigned from so called top 10 indian companies which make you sign those bonds, and then ask you to come back to India and serve 3-6 months. How to recover PF etc from those indian companies if you do not sign off on good terms. For me, they say settle the a/c first and we will process your PF.
shed some light please
more...
trueguy
12-11 01:43 AM
In a testimony to the House Judiciary Committee back in Apr/May 08, the USCIS clearly stated that it had changed its policy regarding which applications would be adjudicated first.
As I remember, USCIS stated that it was now following a policy where cases that had a possibility of getting a visa number in the near future were adjudicated first. It said that this change in policy was made in order to reduce waste of immigrant visas.
The problem with this approach is that:
- It is not FIFO
- EB2-I/C and EB3 not only continue to remain retrogressed, but retrogression worsens.
Here is how:
Since EB2-I/EB3-I categories are already retrogressed, the I-485 applications in this category will be shelved until it appears that a visa number may become available in the foreseeable future.
So, USCIS puts most of these cases in cold storage while it adjudicates and approves the EB2ROW applications as it receives them on a continuous basis.
When time comes to roll over excess EB2 ROW numbers, two things happen:
- Already substantial use of EB2ROW numbers make few numbers available for roll over
- Limited adjudication of Eb2-I/C and EB3 cases make a very small pool of pre-adjudicated applications. USCIS requests DOS to move dates so that it has access to a larger pool for cherry picking.
The result is that VB dates move forward by leaps and bounds and cases are approved haphazardly with PDs all over the map. When the excess numbers are used up, the dates for EB2-I/C and EB3 retrogress back to previous cutoff dates because there are still a lot of old cases that have not even been brought out of cold storage. The EB2ROW dates are again current because USCIS has adjudicated and approved EB2ROW cases throughout the year- so no backlog there.
If USCIS followed FIFO, then the following would happen:
- USCIS would be adjudicating old EB2I/C and EB3 cases right now, and not the recently received EB2ROW cases.
- This would reduce the number of pre-adjudicated EB2ROW cases and hence lower the demand in the EB2ROW category.
- When time would come to roll over numbers not used by EB2ROW:
- A large pool number of excess visas would be available
- A large pool of pre-adjudicated EB2-I/C and EB3 cases with old PDs would be available that could be readily assigned visa numbers.
As a result, old cases would be assigned visa numbers and backlog would be reduced.
Unfortunately, USCIS has confused its process of adjudicating cases (which is FIFO) with its effort to enforce the country quota. The country limits come into picture only when cases ready for adjudication are to be assigned visa numbers. The process of adjudication should still be FIFO, and not determined by the country quota.
Very good points. I can't agree with you any more.
The question is how do we raise it as an issue so USCIS follow FIFO.
As I remember, USCIS stated that it was now following a policy where cases that had a possibility of getting a visa number in the near future were adjudicated first. It said that this change in policy was made in order to reduce waste of immigrant visas.
The problem with this approach is that:
- It is not FIFO
- EB2-I/C and EB3 not only continue to remain retrogressed, but retrogression worsens.
Here is how:
Since EB2-I/EB3-I categories are already retrogressed, the I-485 applications in this category will be shelved until it appears that a visa number may become available in the foreseeable future.
So, USCIS puts most of these cases in cold storage while it adjudicates and approves the EB2ROW applications as it receives them on a continuous basis.
When time comes to roll over excess EB2 ROW numbers, two things happen:
- Already substantial use of EB2ROW numbers make few numbers available for roll over
- Limited adjudication of Eb2-I/C and EB3 cases make a very small pool of pre-adjudicated applications. USCIS requests DOS to move dates so that it has access to a larger pool for cherry picking.
The result is that VB dates move forward by leaps and bounds and cases are approved haphazardly with PDs all over the map. When the excess numbers are used up, the dates for EB2-I/C and EB3 retrogress back to previous cutoff dates because there are still a lot of old cases that have not even been brought out of cold storage. The EB2ROW dates are again current because USCIS has adjudicated and approved EB2ROW cases throughout the year- so no backlog there.
If USCIS followed FIFO, then the following would happen:
- USCIS would be adjudicating old EB2I/C and EB3 cases right now, and not the recently received EB2ROW cases.
- This would reduce the number of pre-adjudicated EB2ROW cases and hence lower the demand in the EB2ROW category.
- When time would come to roll over numbers not used by EB2ROW:
- A large pool number of excess visas would be available
- A large pool of pre-adjudicated EB2-I/C and EB3 cases with old PDs would be available that could be readily assigned visa numbers.
As a result, old cases would be assigned visa numbers and backlog would be reduced.
Unfortunately, USCIS has confused its process of adjudicating cases (which is FIFO) with its effort to enforce the country quota. The country limits come into picture only when cases ready for adjudication are to be assigned visa numbers. The process of adjudication should still be FIFO, and not determined by the country quota.
Very good points. I can't agree with you any more.
The question is how do we raise it as an issue so USCIS follow FIFO.
2010 nike logo wallpaper. nike logo
jasmin45
02-26 10:55 AM
Congratulations on your GC. Yes, tell your sister to send you the GC by mail. Once you get it, you can get back into the U.S. using your GC. I know few people who have done this. Good luck.
The above said is correct only if you have an approved AP with you.
The above said is correct only if you have an approved AP with you.
more...
seba
01-30 08:13 PM
Thanks for your post - it was just what I was looking for. I have a couple of more questions.
Were you able to receive a multiple entry H1B visa?
When did you get this stamping done for H1B revalidation (did you make this trip to Halifax recently?)?
I am asking this, as the wait time to receive the visa may have changed, and I am trying to find out if I would be able to receive mine the following day after the interview at Halifax. You received your visa the following day, but the amcits website currently states: Effective Immediately... All consular posts must electronically confirm all Non-Immigrant Visa petitions petitions prior to visa issuance. This will affect applicants for H, L, O and P visas. This process may take an additional 2 to 3 workdays, creating a minimum 4 workday turnaround for such applicants. This confirmation is beyond our control and cannot be waived. Any petition based, otherwise qualified NIV applicant should be prepared to wait 4 workdays in Canada to receive his or her visaed passport.
Thanks
Were you able to receive a multiple entry H1B visa?
When did you get this stamping done for H1B revalidation (did you make this trip to Halifax recently?)?
I am asking this, as the wait time to receive the visa may have changed, and I am trying to find out if I would be able to receive mine the following day after the interview at Halifax. You received your visa the following day, but the amcits website currently states: Effective Immediately... All consular posts must electronically confirm all Non-Immigrant Visa petitions petitions prior to visa issuance. This will affect applicants for H, L, O and P visas. This process may take an additional 2 to 3 workdays, creating a minimum 4 workday turnaround for such applicants. This confirmation is beyond our control and cannot be waived. Any petition based, otherwise qualified NIV applicant should be prepared to wait 4 workdays in Canada to receive his or her visaed passport.
Thanks
hair Wallpapers - Nike Football
chanduv23
11-14 09:23 PM
State chapters help organize and train members for lawmaker meets and it is very essential that we as a community stand up and speak for ourselves.
It is very essential that we meet our lawmakers.
Join the State Chapters now and meet your lawmakers
It is very essential that we meet our lawmakers.
Join the State Chapters now and meet your lawmakers
more...
clifford
02-03 05:43 PM
Probably 1929 depression and current times are not similar. So BTW were those 400K maxicans holding any type of Visa ? Currently as far I know all the 65K H1b Patitions were approved, I do not know for what reason ? If situation was that bad may be only 10,000 k could have been approved and limit could be dropped to 15k for say a period of next 5 years. I am pretty sure that is not going to happen. The Anti H1 wave was probably started by Nobel Laureate Obama when he pointed to Bangalore and then Lou Dobbs and then Senator Grassley and so on. Now if you look at job boards it is clearly mentioned by many job postings "Please no H1Bs".
Lets not forget that H1B had been misused by many desi firms as well.
Lets not forget that H1B had been misused by many desi firms as well.
hot Creative Nike Designs – Just
sreenivas11
10-03 05:10 PM
Now they are implementing in VA State too
more...
house wallpaper nike logo. nike logo
pappu
09-05 06:08 PM
There is already a big thread (IV spotlight sticky) on this topic. You should get all info from there. Could you try searching else someone else on the forum can help post the link. That should answer all your questions.
tattoo Nike Wallpaper (37447) -
immig4me
04-22 01:44 PM
try it and let us know how that works out for you :D:DSo basically you are saying you cannot sue the people responsible for greencard problem.
I think the only option left is to either sue God or sue yourself for your bad luck.
I think the only option left is to either sue God or sue yourself for your bad luck.
more...
pictures Nike Wallpaper by
laborpains
03-18 08:21 AM
Isn't EAD for unrestricted employment as long as your primary job is similar to what was in the labor application?
What if the one's priority date becomes current and USCIS asks for proof of employment? Wouldn't the application be denied?
Hello,
My 2-cents:
1. Your EAD is for unrestricted employment till the AOS is resolved (so, it is not tied to your labor petition)
2. Your AP is a travel document to allow you to travel while AOS is pending (again, not tied to employment)
As such, for all legal purposes, you should be able to pursue education full time. However, any IO at entry post has authority to ask you questions beyond what is legally required, which many a times, includes 'are you still employed with the petitioner'.
This is the tricky part... if the IO has good knowledge of the laws, he would let you in 'cause your petition is for the future job, but a wrong IO can twist and turn the laws to suit his/her point of view and land you in unnecessary trouble.
However, in 99% of the cases, the trouble may mean a few more anxious hours at the port of entry and nothing more. Hope you are able to pursue your education, all the best! :)
What if the one's priority date becomes current and USCIS asks for proof of employment? Wouldn't the application be denied?
Hello,
My 2-cents:
1. Your EAD is for unrestricted employment till the AOS is resolved (so, it is not tied to your labor petition)
2. Your AP is a travel document to allow you to travel while AOS is pending (again, not tied to employment)
As such, for all legal purposes, you should be able to pursue education full time. However, any IO at entry post has authority to ask you questions beyond what is legally required, which many a times, includes 'are you still employed with the petitioner'.
This is the tricky part... if the IO has good knowledge of the laws, he would let you in 'cause your petition is for the future job, but a wrong IO can twist and turn the laws to suit his/her point of view and land you in unnecessary trouble.
However, in 99% of the cases, the trouble may mean a few more anxious hours at the port of entry and nothing more. Hope you are able to pursue your education, all the best! :)
dresses nike sb ackground
anindya1234
07-17 10:15 PM
Bump
more...
makeup Nike Zoom Kobe IV Wallpaper
dollar500
04-09 07:30 PM
I am currently on H1 and have EAD through my wife (>180 d) (EB3 5/04). I am in a catch 22 situation. I am gettting a fellowship in one of the best program in the nation.
The problem is they dont want to sponser H1. Now if I utilize the EAD then there is always a risk associated. ALso my wife have to use AC21 to move to this place as well.
Have anybody been in this situation before? Is there anything to negotiate to push them to sponser H1b for me. Can you get H1b from a moonlighting position?
I'd appreciate the help. I really want to join this place and feel that they also really want me as a fellow. They just dont have enough courage to speak up in front of hospital corporate offices.
The problem is they dont want to sponser H1. Now if I utilize the EAD then there is always a risk associated. ALso my wife have to use AC21 to move to this place as well.
Have anybody been in this situation before? Is there anything to negotiate to push them to sponser H1b for me. Can you get H1b from a moonlighting position?
I'd appreciate the help. I really want to join this place and feel that they also really want me as a fellow. They just dont have enough courage to speak up in front of hospital corporate offices.
girlfriend NIKE Advertising of Cristiano,
priderock
05-15 12:48 PM
Is there already a poll like this for EB3?
Yes I have seen one for EB3 ...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4440
Yes I have seen one for EB3 ...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4440
hairstyles Nike Football Adds and
cptbaseball
05-14 11:59 AM
Since your H-1B change of status is approved, you are in H-1B Status now. In order to continue working on H-1B status after overseas trip, you must enter USA using H-1B visa stamp. This may require you to apply and get new H-1B visa stamp.
Please consider getting professional advice from your attorney before making any travel plans and what visa to use for re-entering.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
.
H-1B is approved from Oct/1/2009. Currently I should be on L-1B. As per this article, I think I can travel without jeopardizing my future status. They call it the 'Hernandez letter'. Is this true?
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_cosapp.html
Thanks..
Please consider getting professional advice from your attorney before making any travel plans and what visa to use for re-entering.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
.
H-1B is approved from Oct/1/2009. Currently I should be on L-1B. As per this article, I think I can travel without jeopardizing my future status. They call it the 'Hernandez letter'. Is this true?
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_cosapp.html
Thanks..
BhanuPriya
01-13 07:27 PM
Hi All,
Thanks for your patience. I was busy yesterday and I would like to provide you all proper information what I sent to FOIA. Here is the information I got from my folders.
1) You need to fill the form G-639 to get the I-140 documents.
2) Provide as much Information as possible about your case. Some of you doesn't have the Receipt Number, they may also fill the form G-639 and provide any other information you have. (Ex: Provide with thorough description of your case in a separate paper.)
3) After filling the form, Notarise it (Your bank will do it)
4) Attach all the documents with this form and send it to:
USCIS National Record Center
FOIA Division
PO Box: 648010
Lee Summit, MO 64064 - 5570
5) There is no fee to submit this form. You will receive a receipt# within a week how they will process your request.
6) There is no way your Employer/Lawyer know about it. Its in between you and FOIA Division.
I feel myself proud to provide all these details to you since I know how difficult to stay with a blody sucking parasite Employer. I spent lot of sleepless nights and I decided to fight with bad/rogue Employers.
Please keep in touch if you have any other details.
Bhanu
Thanks for your patience. I was busy yesterday and I would like to provide you all proper information what I sent to FOIA. Here is the information I got from my folders.
1) You need to fill the form G-639 to get the I-140 documents.
2) Provide as much Information as possible about your case. Some of you doesn't have the Receipt Number, they may also fill the form G-639 and provide any other information you have. (Ex: Provide with thorough description of your case in a separate paper.)
3) After filling the form, Notarise it (Your bank will do it)
4) Attach all the documents with this form and send it to:
USCIS National Record Center
FOIA Division
PO Box: 648010
Lee Summit, MO 64064 - 5570
5) There is no fee to submit this form. You will receive a receipt# within a week how they will process your request.
6) There is no way your Employer/Lawyer know about it. Its in between you and FOIA Division.
I feel myself proud to provide all these details to you since I know how difficult to stay with a blody sucking parasite Employer. I spent lot of sleepless nights and I decided to fight with bad/rogue Employers.
Please keep in touch if you have any other details.
Bhanu
potatoeater
05-10 02:00 PM
Dude, you revived a 6 month old thread just to ask this innocuous question? And the title of this thread is pretty alarming.
Expect 5 thousand red dots now. Everybody will come down on you like a ton of bricks.
To admins..
we should have some facility to automatically close the threads that have been inactive for a while.
Guys,
I have a long layover at New Delhi airport. I am reaching their at 8PM and my next flight in the morning at 7:30AM. Is there any accommodation facility within airport? Or Do i need to go to city? This is the first time, i am going through delhi airport. Any helpful comments are welcome. Thanks and appreciate your help.
-Kumaresh
Expect 5 thousand red dots now. Everybody will come down on you like a ton of bricks.
To admins..
we should have some facility to automatically close the threads that have been inactive for a while.
Guys,
I have a long layover at New Delhi airport. I am reaching their at 8PM and my next flight in the morning at 7:30AM. Is there any accommodation facility within airport? Or Do i need to go to city? This is the first time, i am going through delhi airport. Any helpful comments are welcome. Thanks and appreciate your help.
-Kumaresh
No comments:
Post a Comment