raju123
06-26 02:51 PM
Numberusa reported following possible 24 amendments and Cantwell/Kyl amendment is not there. I hope this news is not right.
Democratic Amendments
* Dodd-Menendez S.A. 1199: would increase the annual cap on green cards for parents and extend the parent visitor visa.
* Webb S.A. 1313: Community ties for [amnesty]
* Baucus-Tester S.A. 1236: would strike all reference[s] to REAL ID.
* Sanders-Grassley S.A. 1332 : prohibits companies that have announced mass lay-offs from receiving any new visas, unless these companies could prove that overall employment at their companies would not be reduced by these lay-offs.
* Byrd-Gregg-Cochran S.A. 1344: adds a $500 fee to obtain [amnesty] and sets aside the revenues collected in order to fund border and interior enforcement.
* Menendez-Obama-Feingold S.A. 1317: increases family points in merit system
* Brown S.A. 1340: requires that before employers can be approved to employ Y-1 workers, they must have listed the specific job opportunity with the state employment service agency.
* McCaskill S.A. 1468: increases ban on federal contracts, grants or cooperative agreements to employers who are repeat violators of hiring immigrants who are not authorized to work
* Levin-Brownback S.A.1486: gives access to Iraqis to apply for refugee status under existing U.S. law.
* Leahy S.A. 1386: protect scholars who have been persecuted in their home countries on account of their beliefs, scholarship, or identity.
* Schumer: provides for tamper-proof biometric social security cards
* Boxer S.A. 1198: reduces Y visa cap by number of Y workers who overstay
Republican Amendments
* Alexander S.A. 1161: requires DHS and the Department of State to notify a foreign embassy when one of their nationals has become a U.S. citizen
* Bond S.A. 1255: prohibits green cards for [illegal aliens granted amnesty]
* Coleman S.A. 1473: outlaws state and local policies that prevent public officials * including police and health and safety workers (except for emergency medical assistance)*from inquiring about the immigration status of those they serve if there is �probable cause� to believe the individual being questioned is undocumented.
* Domenici S.A. 1335/1258: increases Federal judgeships
* Ensign S.A. 1490: redetermines work history for current beneficiaries of social security depending on their citizenship status
* Graham S.A. 1465: enforcement. Still being drafted.
* Grassley-Baucus-Obama S.A. 1441: strikes and replaces Title III on employer enforcement
* Hutchinson S.A. 1440: changes the �touchback� requirement from the time of applying for adjustment of status, as it currently stands in the Senate proposed bill, to the time of applying for the Z visa. Increases the number of individuals required to touchback
* Thune S.A. 1174: prevents [illegal aliens] from [being granted amnesty] until all triggers have been met.
* Chambliss S.A. 1318: Totalization agreements
* Isakson S.A. 1282: Preemption/Home Depot
* Graham: Criminal penalties/mandatory minimums for overstays
There is a news in news article thread that Senators Cantwell & Kyl have proposed a amendment which will open up a parallel employer sponsored GC path. Anyone has information regarding this amendment?
Democratic Amendments
* Dodd-Menendez S.A. 1199: would increase the annual cap on green cards for parents and extend the parent visitor visa.
* Webb S.A. 1313: Community ties for [amnesty]
* Baucus-Tester S.A. 1236: would strike all reference[s] to REAL ID.
* Sanders-Grassley S.A. 1332 : prohibits companies that have announced mass lay-offs from receiving any new visas, unless these companies could prove that overall employment at their companies would not be reduced by these lay-offs.
* Byrd-Gregg-Cochran S.A. 1344: adds a $500 fee to obtain [amnesty] and sets aside the revenues collected in order to fund border and interior enforcement.
* Menendez-Obama-Feingold S.A. 1317: increases family points in merit system
* Brown S.A. 1340: requires that before employers can be approved to employ Y-1 workers, they must have listed the specific job opportunity with the state employment service agency.
* McCaskill S.A. 1468: increases ban on federal contracts, grants or cooperative agreements to employers who are repeat violators of hiring immigrants who are not authorized to work
* Levin-Brownback S.A.1486: gives access to Iraqis to apply for refugee status under existing U.S. law.
* Leahy S.A. 1386: protect scholars who have been persecuted in their home countries on account of their beliefs, scholarship, or identity.
* Schumer: provides for tamper-proof biometric social security cards
* Boxer S.A. 1198: reduces Y visa cap by number of Y workers who overstay
Republican Amendments
* Alexander S.A. 1161: requires DHS and the Department of State to notify a foreign embassy when one of their nationals has become a U.S. citizen
* Bond S.A. 1255: prohibits green cards for [illegal aliens granted amnesty]
* Coleman S.A. 1473: outlaws state and local policies that prevent public officials * including police and health and safety workers (except for emergency medical assistance)*from inquiring about the immigration status of those they serve if there is �probable cause� to believe the individual being questioned is undocumented.
* Domenici S.A. 1335/1258: increases Federal judgeships
* Ensign S.A. 1490: redetermines work history for current beneficiaries of social security depending on their citizenship status
* Graham S.A. 1465: enforcement. Still being drafted.
* Grassley-Baucus-Obama S.A. 1441: strikes and replaces Title III on employer enforcement
* Hutchinson S.A. 1440: changes the �touchback� requirement from the time of applying for adjustment of status, as it currently stands in the Senate proposed bill, to the time of applying for the Z visa. Increases the number of individuals required to touchback
* Thune S.A. 1174: prevents [illegal aliens] from [being granted amnesty] until all triggers have been met.
* Chambliss S.A. 1318: Totalization agreements
* Isakson S.A. 1282: Preemption/Home Depot
* Graham: Criminal penalties/mandatory minimums for overstays
There is a news in news article thread that Senators Cantwell & Kyl have proposed a amendment which will open up a parallel employer sponsored GC path. Anyone has information regarding this amendment?
wallpaper Used Nissan Maxima 2004 for
Sandeep
03-15 11:54 AM
hi Super_Moderator,
Why cant we try to add now..instead of waiting for later time..to add this ammendment thru some senator or somebody for filing 485 during retrogression...
just to know whey we need to wait for later to add this...
There is no question of waiting and watching here - please be assured that IV is doing everything possible to address this issue. This bill is not very straight forward due to the fact that it is entangled in too many complexities which we are not even a part of. So we have to tread very carefully here. IV is getting professional advice in this regard and it would make sense to follow that advice and not jump the gun.
Why cant we try to add now..instead of waiting for later time..to add this ammendment thru some senator or somebody for filing 485 during retrogression...
just to know whey we need to wait for later to add this...
There is no question of waiting and watching here - please be assured that IV is doing everything possible to address this issue. This bill is not very straight forward due to the fact that it is entangled in too many complexities which we are not even a part of. So we have to tread very carefully here. IV is getting professional advice in this regard and it would make sense to follow that advice and not jump the gun.
kpchal2
03-03 11:55 AM
chanduv
thanks for the encouraging reply. it seems like some people are getting denials without any NOIDs and are going out of status due to that. my previous company is not going to revoke my I-140 so that is not a problem. however i am concerned about any other stupid reasons that these people might put in a denial and make us go through the suffering process. do you know of any such situations or do you think that the USCIS is completely aware of this AC21 clauses and that they do not simply deny the cases. I know i am asking a completely insane question but just wanted to try any ways.
thanks a lot in advance.
thanks for the encouraging reply. it seems like some people are getting denials without any NOIDs and are going out of status due to that. my previous company is not going to revoke my I-140 so that is not a problem. however i am concerned about any other stupid reasons that these people might put in a denial and make us go through the suffering process. do you know of any such situations or do you think that the USCIS is completely aware of this AC21 clauses and that they do not simply deny the cases. I know i am asking a completely insane question but just wanted to try any ways.
thanks a lot in advance.
2011 Used Nissan Maxima 2004 for
Rockford
07-17 02:44 PM
--
I couldn't help post a reply. I was trying not to add to the buzy server traffic.
Isn't it amazing, thousands of people are waiting with bated breath for the USCIS update news and some idiot opens a new threads to start a baseless rumor. And claims that news comes from Greg. This so called news as it turns out is a comment by some troll "south" on Greg's website.
Our friend here who opened this thread fails to even see the connection between the id handle "south" and his post" going south." Honestly, things like this make you wonder, how can such people call themselves highly skilled.
You will be proved biggest idiot when what you believe today is turned out to be wrong tomorrow. Who are you , a thread czar ?
If you don't like it, just move on.
That was an excerpt from some one then, but now I believe things are going south. Just don't make judgments about others without knowing every thing.
I couldn't help post a reply. I was trying not to add to the buzy server traffic.
Isn't it amazing, thousands of people are waiting with bated breath for the USCIS update news and some idiot opens a new threads to start a baseless rumor. And claims that news comes from Greg. This so called news as it turns out is a comment by some troll "south" on Greg's website.
Our friend here who opened this thread fails to even see the connection between the id handle "south" and his post" going south." Honestly, things like this make you wonder, how can such people call themselves highly skilled.
You will be proved biggest idiot when what you believe today is turned out to be wrong tomorrow. Who are you , a thread czar ?
If you don't like it, just move on.
That was an excerpt from some one then, but now I believe things are going south. Just don't make judgments about others without knowing every thing.
more...
485Mbe4001
06-13 01:12 PM
you should be ok by october - november, cheers...
Hello everyone,
I am on the EB3 category and have a PD of March 19, 2002. Also, I am from a non-retrogressed country (Brazil). Would any of the wise members of this forum be willing to estimate how much longer I'd have to wait until I am concurrent? Thanks in advance.
Hello everyone,
I am on the EB3 category and have a PD of March 19, 2002. Also, I am from a non-retrogressed country (Brazil). Would any of the wise members of this forum be willing to estimate how much longer I'd have to wait until I am concurrent? Thanks in advance.
NikNikon
May 23rd, 2005, 08:36 AM
The first one is definitely my fav, the only critique I have is it looks like the polarizer needed rotated so the darkened portion of sky would been horizontal instead angled.
more...
ilikekilo
04-23 09:51 AM
I am glad, member's comments helped you. All said and done. What is the right thing to do now? Expose "this company" as you call them..
Why don't you post the name of company as you already posted the state and city they operate from, and name of the person with whom you have been going back and forth as you said in your post? That will help everybody including the authorities to take them to task if they are doing anything illegal..
I do understand your good intentions but I strongly feel that this should be taken offline off the forum for the sake of everyone and please do not prolong this, hope you get the point...thanks..
Why don't you post the name of company as you already posted the state and city they operate from, and name of the person with whom you have been going back and forth as you said in your post? That will help everybody including the authorities to take them to task if they are doing anything illegal..
I do understand your good intentions but I strongly feel that this should be taken offline off the forum for the sake of everyone and please do not prolong this, hope you get the point...thanks..
2010 Used Nissan Maxima 2004 for
go_gc_way
08-15 07:49 PM
If you are sick of the GC retrogression and Canada is not your cup of tea, UK is another option for you. You can calculate your points online to see if you are qualified for the UK Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP). It is always good to more than one option.
http://www.workpermit.com/uk/hsmp_calculator.htm
:cool:
Thanks for posting this information, I was looking for it.
http://www.workpermit.com/uk/hsmp_calculator.htm
:cool:
Thanks for posting this information, I was looking for it.
more...
LostInGCProcess
09-04 01:56 PM
Also, if i-140 is revoked , that should trigger NOID or RFE which the lawyer will handle (hopefully successfully).
GCCovet
Remember, the NOID/RFE goes to your Attorney if you have submitted G-28 form. If not, it comes to you.
GCCovet
Remember, the NOID/RFE goes to your Attorney if you have submitted G-28 form. If not, it comes to you.
hair Used Nissan Maxima 2004 for
nirenjoshi
07-13 11:51 AM
Was yours paper filed or e-filed?
Mine was e-filed same date - June 19th.
My EAD and AP application was received June 19, 2009 at TSC. To my pleasant shocking & surprise USCIS approved mine and wife's application in 20 days and we received the card today.
We are happy with the speed and efficiency USCIS and wish they could do everything the same way. we received two year EAD but concerned as receiving a two year EAD indicates that it may take a while to get my PD (Dec 2005).
Thanks
Senthil.
Mine was e-filed same date - June 19th.
My EAD and AP application was received June 19, 2009 at TSC. To my pleasant shocking & surprise USCIS approved mine and wife's application in 20 days and we received the card today.
We are happy with the speed and efficiency USCIS and wish they could do everything the same way. we received two year EAD but concerned as receiving a two year EAD indicates that it may take a while to get my PD (Dec 2005).
Thanks
Senthil.
more...
immi2006
10-09 07:11 PM
Otherwise it is a time waste...
I applied on 2nd July and got Receipts on 08/27/2007. Still waiting for the FP notice. There are lot of ppl in the same boat. Take it easy. I called USCIS last week and they opened Service Request for myself and mywife. Call USCIS and ask them to open SR.
I applied on 2nd July and got Receipts on 08/27/2007. Still waiting for the FP notice. There are lot of ppl in the same boat. Take it easy. I called USCIS last week and they opened Service Request for myself and mywife. Call USCIS and ask them to open SR.
hot 2004 Nissan Maxima
abd
03-05 10:18 AM
My I-140 got approved without RFE EB2 on 03/02/07.
RD 07/27/06
LUD 08/16/06
Approval Date 03/02/07.
Now joining endless wait for 485 filing.
RD 07/27/06
LUD 08/16/06
Approval Date 03/02/07.
Now joining endless wait for 485 filing.
more...
house Used Nissan Maxima 2004 for
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.
tattoo Used Nissan Maxima 2004 for
nixstor
07-01 01:26 PM
I am not sure if I am reading this right or not, go this page
http://www.imminfo.com/resources/cis-sop-aos/3-7.html
and read the first para. It says G-325A has to be processed only if the applicant has entered the US in non immigrant status less than one year prior to current calendar date of review.
So any one who has entered US before (07/02/06) will have their G-325A trashed? I was under the impression that USCIS does use the biographic information to check with local law enforcement for the the past 5 years as stated in the G-325A. Any ideas?
Guys,
Can some read the SOP in the above quote and figure out what they are trying to say?
http://www.imminfo.com/resources/cis-sop-aos/3-7.html
and read the first para. It says G-325A has to be processed only if the applicant has entered the US in non immigrant status less than one year prior to current calendar date of review.
So any one who has entered US before (07/02/06) will have their G-325A trashed? I was under the impression that USCIS does use the biographic information to check with local law enforcement for the the past 5 years as stated in the G-325A. Any ideas?
Guys,
Can some read the SOP in the above quote and figure out what they are trying to say?
more...
pictures Used Nissan Maxima 2004 for
psam
08-26 04:17 PM
Hello all,
It appears that my green card is lost in mail.
My spouse received her 10 days back. Our 485 was approved on same day, so I think mine must be lost.
I will wait for another couple of days for it to appear. Meanwhile I had few questions
1. What is the process to getting a duplicate?
2. If I just get GC stamped on my passport, will I be able to transit from Paris or London airport?
It appears that my green card is lost in mail.
My spouse received her 10 days back. Our 485 was approved on same day, so I think mine must be lost.
I will wait for another couple of days for it to appear. Meanwhile I had few questions
1. What is the process to getting a duplicate?
2. If I just get GC stamped on my passport, will I be able to transit from Paris or London airport?
dresses Used Nissan Maxima 2004 for
myuname
06-25 11:50 AM
Anybody else in the same boat?
I'd say proceed with filing 485 for now and later you can think about porting etc.
Rather try filing it yourself and save lawyer fees ($1500 per primary applicant and $2000 for primary + dependent? geez this is a special offer?)
I'd say proceed with filing 485 for now and later you can think about porting etc.
Rather try filing it yourself and save lawyer fees ($1500 per primary applicant and $2000 for primary + dependent? geez this is a special offer?)
more...
makeup Nissan Maxima 2004 Sl. 2004
ita
01-29 01:45 PM
Hi,
My pay on the employment letter given by my company is 10k more than wat is on my W2's.
My employer said it shld not be a problem as the W2's are for previous years and the employment letter is dated as of this year.
Is this fine or will there be in any problem with this.
Thank you.
My pay on the employment letter given by my company is 10k more than wat is on my W2's.
My employer said it shld not be a problem as the W2's are for previous years and the employment letter is dated as of this year.
Is this fine or will there be in any problem with this.
Thank you.
girlfriend 2004 Nissan Maxima with
h1bemployee
02-25 06:25 PM
You need to provide more details on bold words from your post. If you really need pointers from IV members.
when my employer replied to the RFE, they came with more questions and doubts...and USCIS asked submit their tax documents
what I understood ..my employer don't want to appeal against it ..because USCIS may come back with more doubts abt the consultancy itself...
when my employer replied to the RFE, they came with more questions and doubts...and USCIS asked submit their tax documents
what I understood ..my employer don't want to appeal against it ..because USCIS may come back with more doubts abt the consultancy itself...
hairstyles Used Nissan Maxima 2004 for
immique
04-13 01:38 AM
it is very risky. you cannot use AC 21 when you move from a full time practising physician to fellowship. how can you justify being paid about 1/3rd of the salary mentioned in your Labor application. the job has to be similar in description and pay. earning extra by moonlighting will not be sufficient to satisfy the criteria. personally I have known Physicians who did not even move from a University hospital to a community hospital as the job description will be different from a University hospital to a community hospital. if you have green card processing through your wife then you can file as her dependent and go for the fellowship. if you don't have that option, then I would suggest that you not go for the fellowship and stick with your current job.
fuzzy logic
07-01 12:25 PM
Only yesterday I had a converstion with my compnay lawyer on this topic.
Her view is that I would have to amend the H1 for any location and/or responsibility changes.
Thanks for the response. Is this a relatively easy process for the company or is it as cumbursome as applying for new H1B. Also I am hoping that this would not affect the GC process - Right?
Her view is that I would have to amend the H1 for any location and/or responsibility changes.
Thanks for the response. Is this a relatively easy process for the company or is it as cumbursome as applying for new H1B. Also I am hoping that this would not affect the GC process - Right?
mbartosik
11-19 12:14 PM
For Nebraska:
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
For Texas:
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
Summary for I485:
Nebraska has processed most applications that it has had for 7 months (filed on or before April 14 2007).
Texas has processed most applications that it has had for 6 months.
Since 6 months is the target, Texas can be considered to be caught up, and Nebraska will likely have caught up next month.
For I485 that makes the visa bulletin the main issue.
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
For Texas:
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
Summary for I485:
Nebraska has processed most applications that it has had for 7 months (filed on or before April 14 2007).
Texas has processed most applications that it has had for 6 months.
Since 6 months is the target, Texas can be considered to be caught up, and Nebraska will likely have caught up next month.
For I485 that makes the visa bulletin the main issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment