Blog Feeds
07-09 12:30 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
Senator Sessions cannot leave his hands off of E-Verify. Now in "stealth" mode, Senator Sessions has slyly introduced an E-Verify amendment (SB 1371) during today's full Senate vote on the DHS appropriations bill.
The Sessions amendment calls for a permanent reauthorization of the Basic Pilot/E-Verify program, and mandates its use for all federal contractors and subcontractors - including the verification of all existing employees. This amounts to a massive expansion of a program that is still not ready for prime-time.
We must call our Senators and tell them to oppose this sneak attack by Senator Sessions for the following reasons:
It would impose exorbitant costs on businesses at a time when our economy is most vulnerable:
An economic analysis commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
concluded that the net societal costs of the program would be $10 billion a year
� a cost that would be felt disproportionately by small businesses. It would make Basic Pilot/E-Verify permanent without addressing its well documented database inaccuracies:
A 2007 independent evaluation of the program commissioned by DHS found that
the Basic Pilot/E-Verify database �is still not sufficiently up to date� to meet
the requirements for �accurate verification.�
SSA has estimated that if Basic Pilot/E-Verify were to become mandatory and
the databases were not improved, SSA database errors alone could result in 3.6
million workers a year being misidentified as not authorized for employment.
This would result in 6 out of every 100 workers having to visit an SSA office to
correct their records or lose their job.
It would force workers and businesses to pay a high price for Basic Pilot/E-Verify's inaccuracies:
Queries submitted to Basic Pilot/E-Verify by Intel Corporation in 2008 resulted
in nearly 13 percent of all workers being initially flagged as unauthorized for
employment. All of these workers were cleared by Basic Pilot/E-Verify as
work-authorized, but only after �significant investment of time and money�
and �lost productivity.�We urge all AILA members to call their Congressman today and oppose the Sessions amendment (SB 1371). Don't let Senator Session's stealth tactics create a nationwide crisis for employers!
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-5839069238864574507?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/there-he-goes-again-sessions-and-e.html)
Senator Sessions cannot leave his hands off of E-Verify. Now in "stealth" mode, Senator Sessions has slyly introduced an E-Verify amendment (SB 1371) during today's full Senate vote on the DHS appropriations bill.
The Sessions amendment calls for a permanent reauthorization of the Basic Pilot/E-Verify program, and mandates its use for all federal contractors and subcontractors - including the verification of all existing employees. This amounts to a massive expansion of a program that is still not ready for prime-time.
We must call our Senators and tell them to oppose this sneak attack by Senator Sessions for the following reasons:
It would impose exorbitant costs on businesses at a time when our economy is most vulnerable:
An economic analysis commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
concluded that the net societal costs of the program would be $10 billion a year
� a cost that would be felt disproportionately by small businesses. It would make Basic Pilot/E-Verify permanent without addressing its well documented database inaccuracies:
A 2007 independent evaluation of the program commissioned by DHS found that
the Basic Pilot/E-Verify database �is still not sufficiently up to date� to meet
the requirements for �accurate verification.�
SSA has estimated that if Basic Pilot/E-Verify were to become mandatory and
the databases were not improved, SSA database errors alone could result in 3.6
million workers a year being misidentified as not authorized for employment.
This would result in 6 out of every 100 workers having to visit an SSA office to
correct their records or lose their job.
It would force workers and businesses to pay a high price for Basic Pilot/E-Verify's inaccuracies:
Queries submitted to Basic Pilot/E-Verify by Intel Corporation in 2008 resulted
in nearly 13 percent of all workers being initially flagged as unauthorized for
employment. All of these workers were cleared by Basic Pilot/E-Verify as
work-authorized, but only after �significant investment of time and money�
and �lost productivity.�We urge all AILA members to call their Congressman today and oppose the Sessions amendment (SB 1371). Don't let Senator Session's stealth tactics create a nationwide crisis for employers!
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-5839069238864574507?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/there-he-goes-again-sessions-and-e.html)
wallpaper 2011 I Love You More Thank
anandrajesh
01-10 04:09 PM
I mean the PD dates moving...;)
Let the PD dates move and give us some relief;)
I call you an ETERNAL OPTIMIST.
Let the PD dates move and give us some relief;)
I call you an ETERNAL OPTIMIST.
vedicman
11-08 09:28 AM
Anyone read the book? Plan on getting it for a good read on a long flight.
2011 Every Day I Love You
SlowRoasted
05-22 10:14 PM
i dont like where the money text is. should be in one of the corners.
more...
HRPRO
03-08 03:55 PM
It is always better to maintain the H along with the EAD/AP. If you apply for PP, you will get the approval within 15 days and include the 539 petition for yourself along with the H-1 petition.
Seb Hughes
04-17 09:21 AM
Yeah what is wrong with Macs
more...
Pineapple
10-13 03:47 PM
Thanks for responding, newuser, newbie2020, and We_will_get_GC!
Please PM me your contact information..
Please PM me your contact information..
2010 I love YOU most!
ItIsNotFunny
11-06 09:37 AM
what i mean is i am currently working full time with Company A. But I am thinking of making additional income by working for another company on part time basis. Can I file another concurrent H1? And if this concurrent H1 will be based on annual H1 quota?
I heard once that there is a special category for parttime H1. Better check with attorney.
I heard once that there is a special category for parttime H1. Better check with attorney.
more...
Mirage_GC
06-23 05:18 PM
I fully respect that retrogression and per country limits are bad for us and the US economy as the first and the foremost of H1B issues.
But, sometimes, some of us aren't able to reach that stage of the Green Card Queue.
Therefore, the H1B displaced workers due to employer malice and corresponding USDL long investigations leaves many without a recourse and bitterly exposed with families to feed and fend:
1. Some three GAO reports, two undercover, one published in NY Times on March 25, 2009 indicates that the WHD fails the complainants giving rise to apprehensions that once an employer creates problems, the H1B's USA plans are doomed, immaterial of how s/he was an integral part of the US economy.
2. To top this, the complainant is cornered as no process exists (regulatory/statutory) to give these stuck H1Bs' an immigration status, and they cannot find new jobs either due to economy or due to employer malice and lost the job in the first place due to retaliation.
3. Finally, when the H1B's complaint comes in the sixth visa year there is just no possibility to seek another H1B when no Green Card process is pending at the Labor Certification or its upper stages leaving a void in the H1Bs most sincere efforts to move on.
Therefore, further, I am requesting you and others at IV to please incorporate some semblance of a support structure once an H1B is reported to have failed due to employer created problems.
I suggest H1B SWAP Act (Skilled Workers Abuse Prevention) that will give at least an EAD and actually a pathway to LPR by having a box on form i485, once an H1B is successfully reported to the USDL to have failed.
I trust this information will be perused and I will be available to given additional input.
Incidentally, I am not alone as you must be aware. Hundreds and even thousands of Indian and other nationalities have had problems, that some are lucky to be able to move on and others get stuck, some even return home totally despaired. None of these individuals and there families are less valuable here.
I am articulating this for the benefit of one and many.
But, sometimes, some of us aren't able to reach that stage of the Green Card Queue.
Therefore, the H1B displaced workers due to employer malice and corresponding USDL long investigations leaves many without a recourse and bitterly exposed with families to feed and fend:
1. Some three GAO reports, two undercover, one published in NY Times on March 25, 2009 indicates that the WHD fails the complainants giving rise to apprehensions that once an employer creates problems, the H1B's USA plans are doomed, immaterial of how s/he was an integral part of the US economy.
2. To top this, the complainant is cornered as no process exists (regulatory/statutory) to give these stuck H1Bs' an immigration status, and they cannot find new jobs either due to economy or due to employer malice and lost the job in the first place due to retaliation.
3. Finally, when the H1B's complaint comes in the sixth visa year there is just no possibility to seek another H1B when no Green Card process is pending at the Labor Certification or its upper stages leaving a void in the H1Bs most sincere efforts to move on.
Therefore, further, I am requesting you and others at IV to please incorporate some semblance of a support structure once an H1B is reported to have failed due to employer created problems.
I suggest H1B SWAP Act (Skilled Workers Abuse Prevention) that will give at least an EAD and actually a pathway to LPR by having a box on form i485, once an H1B is successfully reported to the USDL to have failed.
I trust this information will be perused and I will be available to given additional input.
Incidentally, I am not alone as you must be aware. Hundreds and even thousands of Indian and other nationalities have had problems, that some are lucky to be able to move on and others get stuck, some even return home totally despaired. None of these individuals and there families are less valuable here.
I am articulating this for the benefit of one and many.
hair i love you much (most
glus
01-02 10:54 AM
hi:
Always look at last action taken by the USCIS. If USCIS approved your H-1B for employer D, and attached I-94, that means that as long as you are working for employer D at this time and at the time you extend and re-stamp your H-1b visa, there should be no problem. Make sure you take W-2s and Tax returns from previous years you were in H-1B status when you go for a new Visa Stamp.
Glus
Always look at last action taken by the USCIS. If USCIS approved your H-1B for employer D, and attached I-94, that means that as long as you are working for employer D at this time and at the time you extend and re-stamp your H-1b visa, there should be no problem. Make sure you take W-2s and Tax returns from previous years you were in H-1B status when you go for a new Visa Stamp.
Glus
more...
plassey
07-20 11:01 PM
Recent memo from USCIS and 485 for does suggest that intial evidence is must. But this does not mean automatic rejection. I will suggest to wait till you get the receipt.
If you are worried about getting EAD then I don't think that should be an issue as USCIS is not going to discover till they start working on your case.
But this has to be corrected and hopefully, if dates become current for you in future, you just send an amendment.
Dear Friends,
Could somebody help us with an urgent question?
In our 485 application, the lawyer put my divorce certificate from my previous marriage in my file but not in my wife's file. According to the 485 instruction, my divorce certificate should be included in my wife's file as initial evidence because she is the derivative applicant.
Will USCIS deny my wife's 485?
If you are worried about getting EAD then I don't think that should be an issue as USCIS is not going to discover till they start working on your case.
But this has to be corrected and hopefully, if dates become current for you in future, you just send an amendment.
Dear Friends,
Could somebody help us with an urgent question?
In our 485 application, the lawyer put my divorce certificate from my previous marriage in my file but not in my wife's file. According to the 485 instruction, my divorce certificate should be included in my wife's file as initial evidence because she is the derivative applicant.
Will USCIS deny my wife's 485?
hot A phase where I concentrate on
draino
04-15 03:22 PM
I am honored. :pleased:
Wayno
Wayno
more...
house i miss you I love you and most
dentist1
08-14 02:26 PM
what is the LUD date for all 3 of you, is it the same.
tattoo i love you much(most beautiful
Voetsjoeba
04-09 05:20 AM
I can't see 'em ?
more...
pictures Tangled- I love you most. by
arti.jain
11-07 06:45 PM
I have very simple questions, but having searched the web for 9 hours haven't found a definte answer. Any help is really really appreciated...
My L1A and I-94 expires on 12/31/2009. Same is true for my wife and child. my company has not yet filed for extension yet.
My GC application 140+485 concurrently under EB1 was filed recently, mailed on 10/30/2009.
Question
1. I do not need to travel outside USA at this point, can my company file for normal processing extension and wait for result even when my i-94 would have already expired. Trying to save the additional $1000(*3 potentially,) for premium processing.
2. Does my company really need to file L1 extension now, or can wait till march/April for 140 approval/denial/RFE and file based on situation then? Note i am not eligible for i-140 premium processing so have to wait for 3-4 months.
3. Our Driving Licenses(CA) expires on December 31st,2009. Is there a way to get that extended because even if i file L1A extension, i may not be able to get the approval notice by the end of year. So DMV would not extend it. Can i get some letter from somewhere or just ask for I-94 extension without petition extension, which might happen quickly.
4. My wife has an EAD and it expired on 5th Nov 2009, since she is not working at this point (and out of laziness), we did not file for extension. Is she out of status or back to L2 status? Do we need to apply for COS.
Please help me resolve simple question.
My L1A and I-94 expires on 12/31/2009. Same is true for my wife and child. my company has not yet filed for extension yet.
My GC application 140+485 concurrently under EB1 was filed recently, mailed on 10/30/2009.
Question
1. I do not need to travel outside USA at this point, can my company file for normal processing extension and wait for result even when my i-94 would have already expired. Trying to save the additional $1000(*3 potentially,) for premium processing.
2. Does my company really need to file L1 extension now, or can wait till march/April for 140 approval/denial/RFE and file based on situation then? Note i am not eligible for i-140 premium processing so have to wait for 3-4 months.
3. Our Driving Licenses(CA) expires on December 31st,2009. Is there a way to get that extended because even if i file L1A extension, i may not be able to get the approval notice by the end of year. So DMV would not extend it. Can i get some letter from somewhere or just ask for I-94 extension without petition extension, which might happen quickly.
4. My wife has an EAD and it expired on 5th Nov 2009, since she is not working at this point (and out of laziness), we did not file for extension. Is she out of status or back to L2 status? Do we need to apply for COS.
Please help me resolve simple question.
dresses The words “I love you” is the
what_now
02-27 04:39 PM
I am on F1 visa. I enrolled in one of the university. I don't attend university in person. I do attend classes online from another state. My question is that I am resident of which state ?? Will I be automatically resident of state where exactly my university is ? I know it is mandatory to attend classes in person on F1. Can you please advise ? How is residency considered ?
Thank you very much.
?
Thank you very much.
?
more...
makeup I will leave you with my
we_r_d_world
09-18 02:45 PM
I know people work for county on EAD, but can one be employed by the US government on EAD?
I work for State government on EAD. My agency's HR didnot/does not have any knowledge, had to involve local Immigration lawyers and State immigration lawyers to educate them. I have to be forthcoming and provide/sign new I-9's whenever my EAD is renewed.
HTH
we_r_d_world
I work for State government on EAD. My agency's HR didnot/does not have any knowledge, had to involve local Immigration lawyers and State immigration lawyers to educate them. I have to be forthcoming and provide/sign new I-9's whenever my EAD is renewed.
HTH
we_r_d_world
girlfriend T-Rex: I love you.
scorpionk
05-17 08:24 AM
Your first part of the question, so if I find an employer in Canada, then can I work for that company in the US without loosing the PR dates ? Are there are any complications to this ?
What about the spouse and children, can they stay in the US too or do they have to stay in Canada ?
Is the PR years counted only for the principal applicant or for all applicants?
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks
What about the spouse and children, can they stay in the US too or do they have to stay in Canada ?
Is the PR years counted only for the principal applicant or for all applicants?
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks
hairstyles You can tell us your perfect
Macaca
03-02 04:34 PM
The bill will start from the Immigration (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=49120&postcount=8) sub-committee of Senate's Judiciary committee.
wellwishergc
02-27 12:51 PM
I think these bills are too complicated and have possibilities of failing on the house floor, even if they pass through the senate..
My question to the group is: Does it make sense for us to lobby for changes to existing laws as 'amendments/enhancements' (do not know the exact term), which need not go through this full-blown congressional approval process.. Another issue that we are facing with the bills such as immig. comprehensive bill is that we get tagged together with illegal immig., so it becomes all the more probable to get rejected. I am just being realistic and urging the IV team to add one more action item to the agenda and see if we can put some efforts towards this additional agenda.
I think, in addition to supporting the bills, we should look at this additional possibility. Something like allowing I-485 even though the number is not available, just requires an amendment to the existing law. It does not require additional quota, so there is no major impact to immigration law as a whole. So, we may not need to wait for a bill to clear, in order for such reliefs to be approved.
My take is: we should strive for 3-pronged approach - 1) near short term approach is to ask for immediate relief such as I-485 filing without the visa number availability; there may be other such reliefs possible - 2) short term approach is to support the current bills being considerd, as we are doing already - 3) long term approach is to think of what is the backup plan in case 1 and 2 fails
Just thinking out loud here.
My question to the group is: Does it make sense for us to lobby for changes to existing laws as 'amendments/enhancements' (do not know the exact term), which need not go through this full-blown congressional approval process.. Another issue that we are facing with the bills such as immig. comprehensive bill is that we get tagged together with illegal immig., so it becomes all the more probable to get rejected. I am just being realistic and urging the IV team to add one more action item to the agenda and see if we can put some efforts towards this additional agenda.
I think, in addition to supporting the bills, we should look at this additional possibility. Something like allowing I-485 even though the number is not available, just requires an amendment to the existing law. It does not require additional quota, so there is no major impact to immigration law as a whole. So, we may not need to wait for a bill to clear, in order for such reliefs to be approved.
My take is: we should strive for 3-pronged approach - 1) near short term approach is to ask for immediate relief such as I-485 filing without the visa number availability; there may be other such reliefs possible - 2) short term approach is to support the current bills being considerd, as we are doing already - 3) long term approach is to think of what is the backup plan in case 1 and 2 fails
Just thinking out loud here.
gc2
01-11 02:02 PM
you dont have to withdraw 485 for dependents as it will automatically expire. In some rare cases USCIS may allow applicants who have stayed out of US beyond AP expiry date to reinstate AOS application but that is at the discretion of the officer. it could be humanitarian grounds.
if you can get 2 yr multiple entry AP, that could probably reduce your renewal frequency.
if you can get 2 yr multiple entry AP, that could probably reduce your renewal frequency.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento