noone2day78
02-19 08:13 AM
ohh is this really true? can u specify a source for this ?
Dandruff said "You can reapply for H1-B but you are NOT subject to H1-B cap / quota.
It should not be subject to the annual cap unless you have been out of the U.S. for at least one year since you were last in H-1B status."
Is this true for ppl who haven't done masters in usa?
Dandruff said "You can reapply for H1-B but you are NOT subject to H1-B cap / quota.
It should not be subject to the annual cap unless you have been out of the U.S. for at least one year since you were last in H-1B status."
Is this true for ppl who haven't done masters in usa?
wallpaper Short Haircuts For Fine Hair
logiclife
12-04 11:59 AM
I'm with you, why is everyone so afraid?
God knows there would be enough people for a class action lawsuit against DOL.
My congressman called DOL and they said my case had been withdrawn: but it had been withdrawn b/c of THEIR errors, TWICE!
Both times it was reinstated and proved to be their error, and they are still using it as an excuse for not processing it yet.
And I thought "developed" countries worked differently than "developing" countries.
If IV has enough people interested I would certainly be interested to participate in a CA suit against DOL. I am losing hope that diplomacy will bring any results for us to be helpful.
USCIS only works faster when there have been mandamus suits filed against them, unfortunately no one seems to have done anything with DOL. Maybe it's time
For the lawsuit.
This isnt the first time people have thought that lawsuit against DOL is a good idea.
That is not true. Nothing will be gained from the lawsuit. There have been lawsuits against DOL before for exactly the ineffciency and slowness. Those lawsuits have failed. They will fail again. Being inefficient is not against the law. See the IV document on DOL- backlogs here :
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=67&Itemid=50
Also, read about the lawsuit Liberty Fund v. Chao and judge's opinion on that lawsuit.
And BTW, earlier this year, there were few people on immigration portal collecting money for lawsuit against DOL. I dont know how far it went.
God knows there would be enough people for a class action lawsuit against DOL.
My congressman called DOL and they said my case had been withdrawn: but it had been withdrawn b/c of THEIR errors, TWICE!
Both times it was reinstated and proved to be their error, and they are still using it as an excuse for not processing it yet.
And I thought "developed" countries worked differently than "developing" countries.
If IV has enough people interested I would certainly be interested to participate in a CA suit against DOL. I am losing hope that diplomacy will bring any results for us to be helpful.
USCIS only works faster when there have been mandamus suits filed against them, unfortunately no one seems to have done anything with DOL. Maybe it's time
For the lawsuit.
This isnt the first time people have thought that lawsuit against DOL is a good idea.
That is not true. Nothing will be gained from the lawsuit. There have been lawsuits against DOL before for exactly the ineffciency and slowness. Those lawsuits have failed. They will fail again. Being inefficient is not against the law. See the IV document on DOL- backlogs here :
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=67&Itemid=50
Also, read about the lawsuit Liberty Fund v. Chao and judge's opinion on that lawsuit.
And BTW, earlier this year, there were few people on immigration portal collecting money for lawsuit against DOL. I dont know how far it went.
Eternal_Hope
02-27 02:49 PM
About 25,000 PERM labors were approved in 2007 for Indian nationals. Assuming a 2.5:1 ratio of 'GC filed:Labor approved', implies that each year 62,500 GC are demanded by Indians under EB. Since only 10,000 are available (across all EB classes), this implies each year a backlog of 50,000 cases is created for Indians.
Since PD are essentially retrogressed from Nov. 2005, we can assume that since then another 100,000 Indians have joined the GC backlog. It can also be assumed that between 2001 and Nov. 2005 there must be another (atleast) 50,000 waiting for GC.
Assuming these numbers are correct, a person filing for labor today is looking to wait for atleast 15 years before getting a GC (150,000/10,000).
As for those wth PD prior to Nov. 2005 - well..... probably anywhere between 1 to 5 years .....
Comments on the analysis.........?
Since PD are essentially retrogressed from Nov. 2005, we can assume that since then another 100,000 Indians have joined the GC backlog. It can also be assumed that between 2001 and Nov. 2005 there must be another (atleast) 50,000 waiting for GC.
Assuming these numbers are correct, a person filing for labor today is looking to wait for atleast 15 years before getting a GC (150,000/10,000).
As for those wth PD prior to Nov. 2005 - well..... probably anywhere between 1 to 5 years .....
Comments on the analysis.........?
2011 short haircuts for round faces
dixie
08-23 11:37 PM
Recognize that there are many among us who have Phds from top 5 schools and are currently employed as professors and researchers. Many of them are in EB-2 and going through this same BS as you and me. If you feel so frustrated and betrayed, imagine what these professors and researchers must be going through. Life is never fair .. that is nature's way.
Some people will inevitably get a GC on a platter .. whether that is by way of winning a diversity lottery, or family immigration or a fake marriage. No point wasting time in self-pity.
People who did BSc and BA...have gotten thier Gc approved recently...by getting pre-approved..LC's applying in e2-rir even though they do not qualify in EB2.people who did MS from top schools and stayed with good companies are in e2/ e3 categories are in BEC.....What an irony..
Is there any use in comming here as a student?? anymore..
Some people will inevitably get a GC on a platter .. whether that is by way of winning a diversity lottery, or family immigration or a fake marriage. No point wasting time in self-pity.
People who did BSc and BA...have gotten thier Gc approved recently...by getting pre-approved..LC's applying in e2-rir even though they do not qualify in EB2.people who did MS from top schools and stayed with good companies are in e2/ e3 categories are in BEC.....What an irony..
Is there any use in comming here as a student?? anymore..
more...
voldemar
03-20 11:15 AM
Not sure how withdrawing an approved I140 is good for the employee??
The general feeling is that I140 withdrawal is not necessary for the employer (but H1b is). But employers used to do this for labor substitution - now there is no such incentive. But still some lawyers suggest employers to do this - in my old company which is a large well known software company (with 10k+ employees worldwide) the HR group follows immigration attorneys almost blindly. All immigration issues are handled by a big law firm - many of regular immigration matters are done by paralegals who does not know much (I am not exaggerating when I say I know more than them) - but our HR has a policy that they would follow what those attorney/paralegal is saying. It seems the law firm is suggesting them to withdraw all applications including approved i140 - obviously the law firm would charge them for this so that is their interest.
And law firm is right, they protect their clients. Search this forum for I-140 revocation by USCIS. I-140 was approved and then revoked by USCIS itself. In that case AC21 does not help, 485 will be denied.
The general feeling is that I140 withdrawal is not necessary for the employer (but H1b is). But employers used to do this for labor substitution - now there is no such incentive. But still some lawyers suggest employers to do this - in my old company which is a large well known software company (with 10k+ employees worldwide) the HR group follows immigration attorneys almost blindly. All immigration issues are handled by a big law firm - many of regular immigration matters are done by paralegals who does not know much (I am not exaggerating when I say I know more than them) - but our HR has a policy that they would follow what those attorney/paralegal is saying. It seems the law firm is suggesting them to withdraw all applications including approved i140 - obviously the law firm would charge them for this so that is their interest.
And law firm is right, they protect their clients. Search this forum for I-140 revocation by USCIS. I-140 was approved and then revoked by USCIS itself. In that case AC21 does not help, 485 will be denied.
alex99
10-01 11:32 AM
Friends,
How to know if our name checking process is done without any issues?
Regards,
Alex
How to know if our name checking process is done without any issues?
Regards,
Alex
more...
admin
06-01 04:19 PM
Question for Foks asking for a separate bill : I understand from Admins answer above , this may not be possible now.
My question is , separting this from CIR will QUICKEN the proceedings with respect to our issues?
Question for Admin : Was this poll started by IV?
BTW I have voted in favor of a separate bill assuming it will quicken things. Thanks.
This poll was started by one our forum members and not by the organizing committee.
Repeating my answer, no Senator is even willing to talk to us regarding an alternate bill till the fate of CIR is sealed.
Look at the necessary steps to pass a bill. We need to convince a senator, have the bill analyzed and discussed in the Senate Judiciary Committe, discussed and amended in the Senate Floor, passed in the Senate, convince a bunch of House Reps, get it introduced in the House, discussed in the House Judiciary Committee, discussed in the House, passed in the house. Only after all these steps will it be at the current stage as CIR.
So which Senator do you think will be willing to do all of this and then find that CIR with most of the provisions has already been passed.
My question is , separting this from CIR will QUICKEN the proceedings with respect to our issues?
Question for Admin : Was this poll started by IV?
BTW I have voted in favor of a separate bill assuming it will quicken things. Thanks.
This poll was started by one our forum members and not by the organizing committee.
Repeating my answer, no Senator is even willing to talk to us regarding an alternate bill till the fate of CIR is sealed.
Look at the necessary steps to pass a bill. We need to convince a senator, have the bill analyzed and discussed in the Senate Judiciary Committe, discussed and amended in the Senate Floor, passed in the Senate, convince a bunch of House Reps, get it introduced in the House, discussed in the House Judiciary Committee, discussed in the House, passed in the house. Only after all these steps will it be at the current stage as CIR.
So which Senator do you think will be willing to do all of this and then find that CIR with most of the provisions has already been passed.
2010 Short Hairstyles For Round
amitjoey
05-19 04:45 PM
If I assume that every year EB3-India gets 5000 GC-Visa. From 2001 - 2008 Total = 40,000 EB3-India Visas
Is number of applications in 2001 and 2002 is > 40,000.
Its very hard to believe.
Its not 40,000 labor or 140's dude every GC is minimum 2 (applicant + spouse) in some cases if you add children then it can consume 3-4 visa's from the quota and that is what is making the line even more longer.
The reason it is stuck at 2001 is because a lot of people that did not belong to the EB3 queue got visas out of EB3 IN 2001. This was because of a law that was passed in 2000 that sunset in April 2001. Thousands of so called "special immigrants".. (Illegals- I guess) got them. See: http://www.usavisanow.com/245iext.html
These were individuals that came in - illegally, but their employers could not file for them. Interestingly and Ironic is that legals were not eligible to apply under that act - LIFE ACT, 2001
http://www.brama.com/news/press/010405_lifeact2000.html
Also, add the wastage that happens every year. USCIS wastes (does not use) a lot of visas every year and they lapse.
Also some years, when there was a visa recapture (I believe 2003-2004).. 50,000 of the so-counted EB3's were given away to nurses. There was a special category.
Is number of applications in 2001 and 2002 is > 40,000.
Its very hard to believe.
Its not 40,000 labor or 140's dude every GC is minimum 2 (applicant + spouse) in some cases if you add children then it can consume 3-4 visa's from the quota and that is what is making the line even more longer.
The reason it is stuck at 2001 is because a lot of people that did not belong to the EB3 queue got visas out of EB3 IN 2001. This was because of a law that was passed in 2000 that sunset in April 2001. Thousands of so called "special immigrants".. (Illegals- I guess) got them. See: http://www.usavisanow.com/245iext.html
These were individuals that came in - illegally, but their employers could not file for them. Interestingly and Ironic is that legals were not eligible to apply under that act - LIFE ACT, 2001
http://www.brama.com/news/press/010405_lifeact2000.html
Also, add the wastage that happens every year. USCIS wastes (does not use) a lot of visas every year and they lapse.
Also some years, when there was a visa recapture (I believe 2003-2004).. 50,000 of the so-counted EB3's were given away to nurses. There was a special category.
more...
kumar1
12-05 11:48 AM
Mita, I am asking you not to paste junk URLs over here!
You can spend your time on TOI...no issues.
I was waiting for someone to spit venom at timesofindia but did not happen till today.
By the way, do you believe in the news from other billion news website? I think most of us visit other websites to verify if the info is correct so that there is no propoganda involved. If you think timesofindia is one of them than don't visit that website but you cannot request others to do the same.
You can spend your time on TOI...no issues.
I was waiting for someone to spit venom at timesofindia but did not happen till today.
By the way, do you believe in the news from other billion news website? I think most of us visit other websites to verify if the info is correct so that there is no propoganda involved. If you think timesofindia is one of them than don't visit that website but you cannot request others to do the same.
hair Round Faces And Fine Hair
kumar2203
11-09 09:21 PM
Hello gurus,
I have one doubt abt requirements to port EB2.
my EB3 priority date is Aug 2005, now i am planning to apply EB2 with different employer. do i need 5 yrs experience as of my Eb3 priority date in order to port Eb3 priority date to Eb3 ? my lawyer is saying i need 5 yrs experience as of Aug 2005 is it true ?
thanks a lot for your help
I have one doubt abt requirements to port EB2.
my EB3 priority date is Aug 2005, now i am planning to apply EB2 with different employer. do i need 5 yrs experience as of my Eb3 priority date in order to port Eb3 priority date to Eb3 ? my lawyer is saying i need 5 yrs experience as of Aug 2005 is it true ?
thanks a lot for your help
more...
ARUNRAMANATHAN
06-11 01:54 PM
I am in my 8 yr. Have a H1-B approved Untill 2008 Dec
Have a EB3 Approved Labor and 140 from Company A.
Now as of today if I move to Company B ...
Question :
Can I get a 3 yr Extension based on Company A (140 Approved )
that is from june 2007 to june 2010
OR
Do I get my H1-B untill 2008 Dec ?
----
When I move to Company B is there anything that I have be aware off as
I am planning to pally Eb2 and move the PD from company A
My PD : EB3 Jun 2004
Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks
Have a EB3 Approved Labor and 140 from Company A.
Now as of today if I move to Company B ...
Question :
Can I get a 3 yr Extension based on Company A (140 Approved )
that is from june 2007 to june 2010
OR
Do I get my H1-B untill 2008 Dec ?
----
When I move to Company B is there anything that I have be aware off as
I am planning to pally Eb2 and move the PD from company A
My PD : EB3 Jun 2004
Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks
hot short haircuts for fine hair
Aah_GC
05-30 03:49 PM
Hi gurus, Please advise
I have an approved I-140 and july 485 filer, also have valid h1 till 2010.
I work for company X and have an offer from company Y.
What are my best options now
1. Transfer H1 to Y - if yes what impact would this have on my GC processing?
should the new H1-B Job code match with my Labor Certification?
2. Use EAD - the complication here is my desi employer filed my labor
as an IT Manager which i am not and i am not sure the new employer would
give me the matching offer letter.
Thanks,
Krishna:confused:
Krishna - H1B and EAD are your work permits, so do not confuse it with AC21. Eitherway, if you are leaving your employer after 180 days of 485 application receive date - you are using AC21. Good luck.
I have an approved I-140 and july 485 filer, also have valid h1 till 2010.
I work for company X and have an offer from company Y.
What are my best options now
1. Transfer H1 to Y - if yes what impact would this have on my GC processing?
should the new H1-B Job code match with my Labor Certification?
2. Use EAD - the complication here is my desi employer filed my labor
as an IT Manager which i am not and i am not sure the new employer would
give me the matching offer letter.
Thanks,
Krishna:confused:
Krishna - H1B and EAD are your work permits, so do not confuse it with AC21. Eitherway, if you are leaving your employer after 180 days of 485 application receive date - you are using AC21. Good luck.
more...
house short hair styles for fine
txh1b
08-18 05:31 PM
They would however have to disclose that period of out of stay when they file the GC as G325 A asks for all status history. In other words, you will get screwed.
Whoever has some approval by means of luck or fluke does not make it the law. They will take the bite when time comes. A COS is not the way to go. A visa stamp or travel and re-entry may be a better way and note that it does not erase any earlier out of stay period.
Whoever has some approval by means of luck or fluke does not make it the law. They will take the bite when time comes. A COS is not the way to go. A visa stamp or travel and re-entry may be a better way and note that it does not erase any earlier out of stay period.
tattoo short haircuts for fine hair
Googler
06-18 08:23 PM
Instead in CIR Section 531 (COMPLETION OF BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS) takes away the right for courts to rule on writs of mandamus filings:
"(k) Prohibition of Judicial Enforcement- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court may require any act described in subsection (i) or (j) to be completed by a certain time or award any relief for the failure to complete such acts."
please please stop reading the old bill
the new one is on the iv home page
or in thomas look at sa.1150 under the s.1358 bill
Thanks for pointing that out Paskal. I stand corrected.
S.A. 1150 Section 216 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:2:./temp/~r110MkRgxl:e138316:) says:
SEC. 216. STREAMLINED PROCESSING OF BACKGROUND CHECKS CONDUCTED FOR IMMIGRATION BENEFITS.
(a) INFORMATION SHARING; INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--Section 105 (8 U.S.C. 1105) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General shall establish an interagency task force to resolve cases in which an application or petition for an immigration benefit conferred under this Act has been delayed due to an outstanding background check investigation for more than 2 years after the date on which such application or petition was initially filed.
``(2) MEMBERSHIP.--The interagency task force established under paragraph (1) shall include representatives from Federal agencies with immigration, law enforcement, or national security responsibilities under this Act.''.
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation such sums as are necessary for each fiscal year, 2008 through 2012 for enhancements to existing systems for conducting background and security checks necessary to support immigration security and orderly processing of applications.
(c) REPORT ON BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the background and security checks conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on behalf of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(2) CONTENT.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) a description of the background and security check program;
(B) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays associated with different types of immigration applications;
(C) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays by applicant country of origin; and
(D) the steps that the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking to expedite background and security checks that have been pending for more than 180 days.
Doesn't promise any results and it is not clear if this extra appropriations will be used for the much ballyhooed transformation that Michael Cannon says might kick in in 2010, or for clearing the current backlog BUT is much better than trying to take away the right to file mandamus suits. Also leads us to believe that 180 days is the acceptable amount of time for a namecheck.
"(k) Prohibition of Judicial Enforcement- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court may require any act described in subsection (i) or (j) to be completed by a certain time or award any relief for the failure to complete such acts."
please please stop reading the old bill
the new one is on the iv home page
or in thomas look at sa.1150 under the s.1358 bill
Thanks for pointing that out Paskal. I stand corrected.
S.A. 1150 Section 216 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:2:./temp/~r110MkRgxl:e138316:) says:
SEC. 216. STREAMLINED PROCESSING OF BACKGROUND CHECKS CONDUCTED FOR IMMIGRATION BENEFITS.
(a) INFORMATION SHARING; INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--Section 105 (8 U.S.C. 1105) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General shall establish an interagency task force to resolve cases in which an application or petition for an immigration benefit conferred under this Act has been delayed due to an outstanding background check investigation for more than 2 years after the date on which such application or petition was initially filed.
``(2) MEMBERSHIP.--The interagency task force established under paragraph (1) shall include representatives from Federal agencies with immigration, law enforcement, or national security responsibilities under this Act.''.
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation such sums as are necessary for each fiscal year, 2008 through 2012 for enhancements to existing systems for conducting background and security checks necessary to support immigration security and orderly processing of applications.
(c) REPORT ON BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the background and security checks conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on behalf of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(2) CONTENT.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) a description of the background and security check program;
(B) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays associated with different types of immigration applications;
(C) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays by applicant country of origin; and
(D) the steps that the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking to expedite background and security checks that have been pending for more than 180 days.
Doesn't promise any results and it is not clear if this extra appropriations will be used for the much ballyhooed transformation that Michael Cannon says might kick in in 2010, or for clearing the current backlog BUT is much better than trying to take away the right to file mandamus suits. Also leads us to believe that 180 days is the acceptable amount of time for a namecheck.
more...
pictures pictures of short hair styles
ash27
04-03 02:02 PM
It is still not very clear if working with companies like TekSystems on EAD is fine using AC-21.
This question has been asked before. However, I have not seen any specific answers regarding this. Any information will be appreciated.
Thanks
This question has been asked before. However, I have not seen any specific answers regarding this. Any information will be appreciated.
Thanks
dresses fine+hair+and+round+faces
jnraajan
01-08 04:57 PM
Thanks Sanjay02.
Another follow-up question.. I'm planning to file for EAD, which passport number should I use in this form ?
If I use new one(which is valid), isn't it in contra with AOS application?
Has anyone faced this situation ?
I used my new passport number and never had any issues. In fact, I also had filed for an H1b extension with the new passport. so, Dont worry
Another follow-up question.. I'm planning to file for EAD, which passport number should I use in this form ?
If I use new one(which is valid), isn't it in contra with AOS application?
Has anyone faced this situation ?
I used my new passport number and never had any issues. In fact, I also had filed for an H1b extension with the new passport. so, Dont worry
more...
makeup Hairstyle Round Face Fine Hair
fcres
08-14 03:37 PM
I sent a single check of $745 just for my wifes app, my employer sent the $745 check for me , this included all including biometrics, why would they be crazy to receipt one app and reject another both within the same packet, for reason like 'improper filing fees', i am upset.
Are you sure you wrote the right amount in numbers and words and sign and date it corrrectly? I have read if the words are not right they might return it.
Are you sure you wrote the right amount in numbers and words and sign and date it corrrectly? I have read if the words are not right they might return it.
girlfriend Short Hairstyles Fine Hair
sunny1000
04-20 03:09 PM
I-94 also does not have the date written
In that case, here is the relevant Q&A in the www.cbp.gov website. Hope it helps:
Q: How do I correct an Arrival-Departure Record reflecting an incorrect admission classification, biographical information or period of admission?
A: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will review and issue the necessary documents to remedy errors recorded on the Arrival-Departure Record at the time of entry to the United States relating to improper non-immigrant classification, inaccurate biographical information or incorrect period of admission, if appropriate.
Any designated deferred inspection location or CBP office located within an international airport should be able to assist you, regardless of where the actual document was issued. In many instances, the location of your final destination where the discrepancy will be resolved may not be the port of your first arrival into the United States. Travelers are encouraged to contact sites not located within an international airport to establish an appointment, if necessary. Mail-in procedures are not available.
Currently, there is not an approved form to request the correction of inaccurate information recorded on the CBP Form I-94 or I-95 at the time of entry into the United States. You will need to bring the questionable CBP Form I-94 or I-95 and documentation to support the claim that the form was not properly annotated. For example, present a passport and visa to justify an incorrect visa classification or an approved petition to support an incorrect admission period. A fee will not be assessed.
The CBP offices within the international airports and deferred inspection locations are only authorized to correct errors that occurred at the time of arrival. Requests to replace the CBP Form I-94 or I-95 that has been lost, stolen or mutilated must be filed with USCIS.
Authorized stays that were limited at the port of first arrival by supervisory authorization as noted on the reverse side of the CBP Form I-94 will not be corrected. Under these circumstances, you will be required to file an Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status, Form I-539, with USCIS.
In that case, here is the relevant Q&A in the www.cbp.gov website. Hope it helps:
Q: How do I correct an Arrival-Departure Record reflecting an incorrect admission classification, biographical information or period of admission?
A: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will review and issue the necessary documents to remedy errors recorded on the Arrival-Departure Record at the time of entry to the United States relating to improper non-immigrant classification, inaccurate biographical information or incorrect period of admission, if appropriate.
Any designated deferred inspection location or CBP office located within an international airport should be able to assist you, regardless of where the actual document was issued. In many instances, the location of your final destination where the discrepancy will be resolved may not be the port of your first arrival into the United States. Travelers are encouraged to contact sites not located within an international airport to establish an appointment, if necessary. Mail-in procedures are not available.
Currently, there is not an approved form to request the correction of inaccurate information recorded on the CBP Form I-94 or I-95 at the time of entry into the United States. You will need to bring the questionable CBP Form I-94 or I-95 and documentation to support the claim that the form was not properly annotated. For example, present a passport and visa to justify an incorrect visa classification or an approved petition to support an incorrect admission period. A fee will not be assessed.
The CBP offices within the international airports and deferred inspection locations are only authorized to correct errors that occurred at the time of arrival. Requests to replace the CBP Form I-94 or I-95 that has been lost, stolen or mutilated must be filed with USCIS.
Authorized stays that were limited at the port of first arrival by supervisory authorization as noted on the reverse side of the CBP Form I-94 will not be corrected. Under these circumstances, you will be required to file an Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status, Form I-539, with USCIS.
hairstyles pictures short curly haircuts
leo2606
09-24 03:50 PM
Any thoughts
indianindian2006
02-17 10:59 AM
Well, no other sites have posted this. Murthy, AILA etc. so its difficult establishing credibility. Also, dont you find it strange that he says EB3 India wont move? It has been at 2001 since long time (excluding anomalies). If that wont move this year when will it move. Are there so many eb3s ? especially with ppl porting to eb2s?
The reason for only him reporting so far could be that it was a Southern California chapter meeting and he is the local attorney out there.
The reason for only him reporting so far could be that it was a Southern California chapter meeting and he is the local attorney out there.
chanukya
05-23 07:35 AM
As many of you have been following, there are some provisions that benefit folks with advanced degree in STEM from US universities by exempting them from the Visa quota. I think CIR in its current form has a provision and the Cornyn (4005) and the Brownback (4058) ammendments that are yet to be introduced also have some such provisions.
My question is, will people who qualify under this category still have to clear labor? If so, then those of us who are stuck in BEC can only wait and watch while those who have cleared using PERM will go ahead. We could transfer from BEC to PERM but this is not as easy as it sounds. We could also apply fresh in PERM (as retrogression will not apply, hence PD will not matter) but this is also not as easy as it sounds for folks who are in 7th year or greater in H1B.
Any thoughts or comments?
CORNYN amendment�Very cleverly worded..Regarding US Masters and above...
On Careful reading of SA4005...
On one hand exempts US any Masters from Quota but does not exempt from LC any US Masters unless such US Masters and above are "Member of Professions" ???? with advanced degrees.
So, US Masters(STEM or no STEM) and above still have to go thru LC Process....unless they are "Member of Professions", who will be handled as a special case.
Above "Memebr of Professions" open to many legal interpretations and INS dictionary may say something like it means only Doctors/Lawyers....?
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/at...6&d=1147880856
Bottom Line, US Masters thru any bill or its amendments cannot avoid LC process.
Only difference is in CORNYN amendment any US Masters (not necessarily STEM US Masters) are exempt from quota.
And your assessment is correct, PERM ..US Masters stand to benefit immedeatly.
My question is, will people who qualify under this category still have to clear labor? If so, then those of us who are stuck in BEC can only wait and watch while those who have cleared using PERM will go ahead. We could transfer from BEC to PERM but this is not as easy as it sounds. We could also apply fresh in PERM (as retrogression will not apply, hence PD will not matter) but this is also not as easy as it sounds for folks who are in 7th year or greater in H1B.
Any thoughts or comments?
CORNYN amendment�Very cleverly worded..Regarding US Masters and above...
On Careful reading of SA4005...
On one hand exempts US any Masters from Quota but does not exempt from LC any US Masters unless such US Masters and above are "Member of Professions" ???? with advanced degrees.
So, US Masters(STEM or no STEM) and above still have to go thru LC Process....unless they are "Member of Professions", who will be handled as a special case.
Above "Memebr of Professions" open to many legal interpretations and INS dictionary may say something like it means only Doctors/Lawyers....?
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/at...6&d=1147880856
Bottom Line, US Masters thru any bill or its amendments cannot avoid LC process.
Only difference is in CORNYN amendment any US Masters (not necessarily STEM US Masters) are exempt from quota.
And your assessment is correct, PERM ..US Masters stand to benefit immedeatly.
No comments:
Post a Comment