BEC_fog
04-23 10:55 AM
Yes, that means your I-140 is "filed" under EB2...But note that USCIS can always comeback & say it "can" or "can not" be approved under Eb2 based on the job description in Labor.
In rare scenarios, USCIS comes back with a "NO" to Eb2, especially if the JOB description in Labor does not suit an Eb2 requirement. But in 99% of the cases, its fine (because, attorneys normally don't file it under Eb2 if its not one).
All the best!!
I read this on immigration-law.com which says that USCIS lost a lawsuit about its ability to look into the employer's requirement for job.
04/17/2007: Jurisdictions for USCIS and DOL in the Labor Certification Employment-Based Immigration
* In the labor certification based immigration proceedings, there are two federal agencies involved: One is the Department of Labor and the other is Department of Homeland Security USCIS. The immigration statutes give the jurisdiction of the U.S. labor market test government function over to the U.S. Department of Labor and one of the key elements of the labor market test is the description and requirement of jobs and prevailing wage in the intended area of employment. Accordingly, when it comes to the issue of the employer's requirement for job, it has remained the jurisdiction of the USDOL. However, sometimes, the USCIS, in adjudicating I-140 immigrant petitions, tends to overstep into the issues which clearly fall under the jurisdiction of its sister agency, DOL.
* Well, this jurisdictional issue was brought to the U.S. Court of Appeals in the 7th Circuit in Hossier Cares, Inc. v. Chertoff , Case #06-3652 (7th Cir, April 11, 2007) [Click "Opinion" to Download], which ruled that when it comes to the employer's job requirement issues, it is clearly the jurisdiction of the DOL and the USCIS should have no business to mess up with the issue. Isn't it something?!? The court says to the USCIS that you mind your own business with the issue of whether alien beneficiary is qualified for the job and stay out of the business of the employer's needs. Hoorah!
In rare scenarios, USCIS comes back with a "NO" to Eb2, especially if the JOB description in Labor does not suit an Eb2 requirement. But in 99% of the cases, its fine (because, attorneys normally don't file it under Eb2 if its not one).
All the best!!
I read this on immigration-law.com which says that USCIS lost a lawsuit about its ability to look into the employer's requirement for job.
04/17/2007: Jurisdictions for USCIS and DOL in the Labor Certification Employment-Based Immigration
* In the labor certification based immigration proceedings, there are two federal agencies involved: One is the Department of Labor and the other is Department of Homeland Security USCIS. The immigration statutes give the jurisdiction of the U.S. labor market test government function over to the U.S. Department of Labor and one of the key elements of the labor market test is the description and requirement of jobs and prevailing wage in the intended area of employment. Accordingly, when it comes to the issue of the employer's requirement for job, it has remained the jurisdiction of the USDOL. However, sometimes, the USCIS, in adjudicating I-140 immigrant petitions, tends to overstep into the issues which clearly fall under the jurisdiction of its sister agency, DOL.
* Well, this jurisdictional issue was brought to the U.S. Court of Appeals in the 7th Circuit in Hossier Cares, Inc. v. Chertoff , Case #06-3652 (7th Cir, April 11, 2007) [Click "Opinion" to Download], which ruled that when it comes to the employer's job requirement issues, it is clearly the jurisdiction of the DOL and the USCIS should have no business to mess up with the issue. Isn't it something?!? The court says to the USCIS that you mind your own business with the issue of whether alien beneficiary is qualified for the job and stay out of the business of the employer's needs. Hoorah!
nikunj007
03-11 01:48 AM
applying for multiple petitions with multiple employers is, as of now, legal. Even if they can track those applications, they can not just reject on the basis of multiple petitions. But, it may be difficult to convince it during the interview..
jcrajput
06-09 11:03 AM
Our I-485 is pending and we have EAD/AP to enter the US back. We are planning to travel to INDIA end of this year and we can use our AP to return. We also have our H1B/H4 visa approval until 10/2010. The question is:
1. Should we stamp our passport with H1B/H4 visas? If yes, does anyone has information about how to take an appointment from US for Mumbai embassy?
2. Is it recommanded to have passport stamped with H1B/H4 even if we have Advance Parole?
Please help. Thanks a lot.
1. Should we stamp our passport with H1B/H4 visas? If yes, does anyone has information about how to take an appointment from US for Mumbai embassy?
2. Is it recommanded to have passport stamped with H1B/H4 even if we have Advance Parole?
Please help. Thanks a lot.
tabletpc
08-24 03:08 PM
Is it true that if we apply for candadian PR we can't apply for visitors visa to cananda.
I want to apply for PR to canada and also would like to go for stamping to cananda sometime after 4-5 months.
Thanks in advance...
I want to apply for PR to canada and also would like to go for stamping to cananda sometime after 4-5 months.
Thanks in advance...
more...
arc
06-17 02:33 PM
AC 21 allows you to change jobs 21 times. :)
come on, once you complete 180 days you are a free bird on EAD. Enjoy it. The only limitation is that you need to work on same or similar job and similar salary. everything else is sugar.
When you say same or similar profile, what does that mean? The same or similar according to what was mentioned on PERM?
come on, once you complete 180 days you are a free bird on EAD. Enjoy it. The only limitation is that you need to work on same or similar job and similar salary. everything else is sugar.
When you say same or similar profile, what does that mean? The same or similar according to what was mentioned on PERM?
logiclife
02-16 10:31 AM
California used to finish the labor cert in 7-8 months even in 2004, 2005, just before BECs started.
I got my state labor approved and then it went to the San Francisco office in Dec 2004 and got it approved in June 2005. I am glad it didnt go to backlog center coz they were just starting up at the time.
Backlog centers have worsened the problem by slowing things down even further and now you even lost transparency. They are like "Trust us, we are the elite backlog centers...how could WE do anything wrong".
I got my state labor approved and then it went to the San Francisco office in Dec 2004 and got it approved in June 2005. I am glad it didnt go to backlog center coz they were just starting up at the time.
Backlog centers have worsened the problem by slowing things down even further and now you even lost transparency. They are like "Trust us, we are the elite backlog centers...how could WE do anything wrong".
more...
watzgc
03-05 06:31 PM
Please help me out with my question.
My H1B Visa and I-94 thant came along with the paperwork is valid from 03/2006 thru 03/2009. this would be my 1st 3 years.
I reentered the country in 12/06 and my passport then was expiring by 05/07. So the immigration officer stamped the I-94 that i recieved in the flight, filled out the back of the card with my EAC # and Employer name and then wrote on the stamp
"H-1B
May-22-2007
(validity of ppt)"
i just saw this today 03/05/08....somebody please tell me they know what to do in this case....
1)should i leave the country and surrender it and pretend like nothing happened? would it be very risky?
2) should i inform my employer....i know they will freakout and ask me to stop working till this is sorted out
3) do i need to file for an extention?
4)do i need some sort of petition?
much appreciated
thanks,
smads
1. you have renew ur passport
2.file for extension quickly
one of my friend was in same situation and he did the same thing.
My H1B Visa and I-94 thant came along with the paperwork is valid from 03/2006 thru 03/2009. this would be my 1st 3 years.
I reentered the country in 12/06 and my passport then was expiring by 05/07. So the immigration officer stamped the I-94 that i recieved in the flight, filled out the back of the card with my EAC # and Employer name and then wrote on the stamp
"H-1B
May-22-2007
(validity of ppt)"
i just saw this today 03/05/08....somebody please tell me they know what to do in this case....
1)should i leave the country and surrender it and pretend like nothing happened? would it be very risky?
2) should i inform my employer....i know they will freakout and ask me to stop working till this is sorted out
3) do i need to file for an extention?
4)do i need some sort of petition?
much appreciated
thanks,
smads
1. you have renew ur passport
2.file for extension quickly
one of my friend was in same situation and he did the same thing.
GCard_Dream
06-29 03:58 PM
It is a shady practice. The main reason an employer wouldn't give you a copy of a I-140 is that if you were to leave company A and company B sponsors you for GC, you can keep your old priority date. But that is only possible if you can furnish a copy of approved I-140 to INS. It is such a stupid practice on part of INS to request the petitioner to provide a copy of something (like I-140) that they themselves approved and should already have a record of. But I don't think anyone expects any better from INS anyway.
I agree that it is a employer driven petition but the employer purposely holds the information back so that they have more control over the employees decision making ( specially if the employee is thinking about leaving the company).
This is not a shady practice. The employer had petitioned for a labor certification earlier to sponsor GC for an employee who might have left the company. Now they filled the position with you, so its perfectly alright to use the same petition for you.
As far as the documents are concerned, they are employer centric and they have no reason to give them to you. You will have nothing to do with those even if you get them. If the only purpose you want to solve is to know whether or not your labor and I40 were infact approved as your employer says, you should request your employer to show you a copy.
The copies are wothless to you if you leave the company anyways, before you get an EAD.
Don't heed the advise of people who ask you to find a better employer. Such people are only trying to get their own GCs faster, since there will be one less person with an earlier priority date.
I agree that it is a employer driven petition but the employer purposely holds the information back so that they have more control over the employees decision making ( specially if the employee is thinking about leaving the company).
This is not a shady practice. The employer had petitioned for a labor certification earlier to sponsor GC for an employee who might have left the company. Now they filled the position with you, so its perfectly alright to use the same petition for you.
As far as the documents are concerned, they are employer centric and they have no reason to give them to you. You will have nothing to do with those even if you get them. If the only purpose you want to solve is to know whether or not your labor and I40 were infact approved as your employer says, you should request your employer to show you a copy.
The copies are wothless to you if you leave the company anyways, before you get an EAD.
Don't heed the advise of people who ask you to find a better employer. Such people are only trying to get their own GCs faster, since there will be one less person with an earlier priority date.
more...
.JPG "alego star wars The first")
tnite
08-03 10:28 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ReceiptingTimes080307.pdf
Per this press note, Nebraska has issued receipts for I-485 upto July 11 and Texas 26th June....
maybe they meant 07/1/2007
Per this press note, Nebraska has issued receipts for I-485 upto July 11 and Texas 26th June....
maybe they meant 07/1/2007
sabbygirl99
03-28 02:28 PM
Has anyone ever seen this scenario before??!
Part time worker but a full time student - all on a part time H1 visa? I have talked to one lawyer and a couple of admissions officers. They all say that it should be OK (but they are not crazy about it) but I want to talk to someone that actually did it.
Is anyone out there like that??? Thanks!!
Sincerely,
Need To Move on With My Life
Part time worker but a full time student - all on a part time H1 visa? I have talked to one lawyer and a couple of admissions officers. They all say that it should be OK (but they are not crazy about it) but I want to talk to someone that actually did it.
Is anyone out there like that??? Thanks!!
Sincerely,
Need To Move on With My Life
more...
acecupid
08-21 03:47 PM
I don't know, you tell me!
Maybe you can find out and let everyone know. :)
Maybe you can find out and let everyone know. :)
jliechty
July 25th, 2005, 08:29 PM
This is my first attempt...
Flat conversion with ACR (exp: +0.30, shadows: 0, brightness: 50, congrast: 25, sat. 0) into the sRGB color space (no need to work in a wider space as nothing was clipping with sRGB)
Light curve to increase contrast slightly
USM (amount 17%, radius 50 pixels, threshold 0) for local contrast
Image resize down for web with Bicubic Sharper
Smart Sharpen (amount 59%, radius 0.3, remove lens blur, more accurate)
convert from RGB/16 to RGB/8 and save as JPEG quality 9
That was done in a few minutes... No guarantee that I could do better if I spent more time on it, and caveat viewer that my monitor isn't calibrated at the moment because I'm waiting on XP x64 drivers from Gretag Macbeth, so if I were to guess, I would speculate that on a properly calibrated monitor the shadows wouldn't be quite as deep as I see them here, but that's a WAG.
I may try again tomorrow (er, later today - it's past my bedtime) with a bit more on the "creative" side - dodging, burning, and other selective adjustments.
Flat conversion with ACR (exp: +0.30, shadows: 0, brightness: 50, congrast: 25, sat. 0) into the sRGB color space (no need to work in a wider space as nothing was clipping with sRGB)
Light curve to increase contrast slightly
USM (amount 17%, radius 50 pixels, threshold 0) for local contrast
Image resize down for web with Bicubic Sharper
Smart Sharpen (amount 59%, radius 0.3, remove lens blur, more accurate)
convert from RGB/16 to RGB/8 and save as JPEG quality 9
That was done in a few minutes... No guarantee that I could do better if I spent more time on it, and caveat viewer that my monitor isn't calibrated at the moment because I'm waiting on XP x64 drivers from Gretag Macbeth, so if I were to guess, I would speculate that on a properly calibrated monitor the shadows wouldn't be quite as deep as I see them here, but that's a WAG.
I may try again tomorrow (er, later today - it's past my bedtime) with a bit more on the "creative" side - dodging, burning, and other selective adjustments.
more...
eb2dec2005
09-25 02:54 PM
http://www.reason.com/images/07cf533ddb1d06350cf1ddb5942ef5ad.jpg
Enjoy
Good Illustration. It completely explains the plight of legal immigrants.
Enjoy
Good Illustration. It completely explains the plight of legal immigrants.
mashu
05-28 04:58 PM
Hi everybody,
please help - the lawyer filed the original EAD/AP applications.
Now I want to renew it myself - Should I fill an additional form (G - something for changing representation)
if I am filing paper EAD/AP forms???
Thanks....
please help - the lawyer filed the original EAD/AP applications.
Now I want to renew it myself - Should I fill an additional form (G - something for changing representation)
if I am filing paper EAD/AP forms???
Thanks....
more...
meridiani.planum
04-01 01:30 AM
At least, get a letter from your employer stating they won't revoke your I-140. If they agree to do so, then file a G-28 appointing a new attorney of your choice; however, if you are happy with your current one and find them affordable, let them know and ensure they will handle your case independent of your employer.
Cheers.
the G-28 is only going to help for I-485 point of view.
The problem the OP is facing is that there is a potential for an RFE on the I-140. That is the employers petition and presumably the employers lawyer, and they are not going to change that. Until the I-140 is done and approved, a change of employer in any case where there is a potential for I-140 RFE is extremely risky. Not worth taking a chance in my opinion.
Cheers.
the G-28 is only going to help for I-485 point of view.
The problem the OP is facing is that there is a potential for an RFE on the I-140. That is the employers petition and presumably the employers lawyer, and they are not going to change that. Until the I-140 is done and approved, a change of employer in any case where there is a potential for I-140 RFE is extremely risky. Not worth taking a chance in my opinion.
atlfp
04-11 03:52 PM
I think I should apologize for being not careful about the tone. It was just an thought poping out of my head anyway. Also I want to clarify that I do understand and realize how much work IV has done. It's a tremendous amount of sacrifice that not everybody can or willing to afford. I believe most other visitors/members think the same way.
CCC,
Wonderful to hear from a contributing member and thanks for the warm words.
IV has no interest in curbing free speech. All we ask is that new members go through forum posts and resource docs to see what IV has said on a given subject, and also realize that we have done our homework. How about asking us if we have considered an issue rather than telling us what to do (without much research) -- which is the tone that some new member posts take.
As for not responding to theories -- well they just take on a life of their own if we don't respond. :) IV has no intention of letting its forums become a chaotic space with misinformation and assorted half-baked theories. :)
best,
Berkeleybee
CCC,
Wonderful to hear from a contributing member and thanks for the warm words.
IV has no interest in curbing free speech. All we ask is that new members go through forum posts and resource docs to see what IV has said on a given subject, and also realize that we have done our homework. How about asking us if we have considered an issue rather than telling us what to do (without much research) -- which is the tone that some new member posts take.
As for not responding to theories -- well they just take on a life of their own if we don't respond. :) IV has no intention of letting its forums become a chaotic space with misinformation and assorted half-baked theories. :)
best,
Berkeleybee
more...
thamizhan
07-18 10:51 AM
I think you missed the USCIS update. You can file till Aug 17th. So its the same amount of time one month from now.
I read some where that filing is allowed to Aug-17, but the new fees will effected on 01-Aug although July filers.
Correct me If I'm wrong.
I read some where that filing is allowed to Aug-17, but the new fees will effected on 01-Aug although July filers.
Correct me If I'm wrong.
chanduv23
09-22 10:00 AM
Small companies will do this. If it is a big company with HR and payroll departments not being micro managed by the employer - then you won't face these problems.
h1techSlave
01-08 03:05 PM
from an old article: http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/H1BSummary.pdf?popup=false
Here is an outline of my proposal:
� To be eligible to an H-1B, the employer would be required to have not have laid off Americans
in similar jobs within the last 6 months, and not employ H-1Bs in more than 15% of its technical
workforce.
� An employer who wishes to hire an H-1B would be required to advertise the job on a central Dept. of
Labor (DOL) Web page for 30 days. If the employer did not hire an American during this period, the
employer would have automatic permission to hire the H-1B.
� The wage paid to an H-1B would be required to be at least the national median for all workers in the
field, including those with all levels of experience.
� After hiring the H-1B, the employer would update the entry in the database, stating the qualifications
of the H-1B who was hired.33
� The visa would be valid for 3 years. During this time, the worker could move from employer to
employer at will, providing that each new employer goes through the 30-day ad procedure on the
DOL database.
� If the worker were to stay employed in the tech field for all but 60 days during the 3-year period, the
worker would be deemed as having proved his/her value to the economy, and would automatically be
granted permanent-resident (i.e. green card) status.
� If on the other hand, the worker were to become unemployed for more than 60 days, he/she would be
required to leave the country within 15 days.
Here is an outline of my proposal:
� To be eligible to an H-1B, the employer would be required to have not have laid off Americans
in similar jobs within the last 6 months, and not employ H-1Bs in more than 15% of its technical
workforce.
� An employer who wishes to hire an H-1B would be required to advertise the job on a central Dept. of
Labor (DOL) Web page for 30 days. If the employer did not hire an American during this period, the
employer would have automatic permission to hire the H-1B.
� The wage paid to an H-1B would be required to be at least the national median for all workers in the
field, including those with all levels of experience.
� After hiring the H-1B, the employer would update the entry in the database, stating the qualifications
of the H-1B who was hired.33
� The visa would be valid for 3 years. During this time, the worker could move from employer to
employer at will, providing that each new employer goes through the 30-day ad procedure on the
DOL database.
� If the worker were to stay employed in the tech field for all but 60 days during the 3-year period, the
worker would be deemed as having proved his/her value to the economy, and would automatically be
granted permanent-resident (i.e. green card) status.
� If on the other hand, the worker were to become unemployed for more than 60 days, he/she would be
required to leave the country within 15 days.
buvane
09-10 03:04 PM
I also got the same answer saying my case is under Extended Review. I'm confused what do they review for 2 years? Any Clue??
What should I do now??
PD -May 7,2004
RD-July 2,2004
ND- Aug 28,2007
What should I do now??
PD -May 7,2004
RD-July 2,2004
ND- Aug 28,2007
willigetgc?
01-26 01:56 PM
CIR (aka mass amnesty) was not doable in the past, and is not now and wont be in future. They could not do it even when democratic party was in power in congress (high tide of democratic party). It is impossible now with GOP in control.
It si pure lip seervice by Sen Reid
If this bill was introduced, we need to meet with lawmaker offices and put pressure on them. Our responsibility is to do our part and leave the outcome to prayers, But not even trying should not be an option. What are we going to loose?
It si pure lip seervice by Sen Reid
If this bill was introduced, we need to meet with lawmaker offices and put pressure on them. Our responsibility is to do our part and leave the outcome to prayers, But not even trying should not be an option. What are we going to loose?
No comments:
Post a Comment