sircaustic
07-17 12:09 AM
Thank you Ganguteli and Elaine for your responses.
It appears there was a problem with the website status update. Today my attorney received a letter that my MTR has been approved. I guess my I-485 is back on track now.
Thank you once again for your replies.
It appears there was a problem with the website status update. Today my attorney received a letter that my MTR has been approved. I guess my I-485 is back on track now.
Thank you once again for your replies.
wallpaper 987 Prague Hotel | Lobby
vallabhu
01-14 12:22 PM
The source is Immigration-law.com
This bill was introduced by Rep. Shela Jackson-Lee of Texas. Here is the full-text of the bill. It is a shocker, highly prejudiced against the employment-based immigration. Another shocker is a proposal to increaase Diversity Visa from 55,000 to 110,000 when the general opinion in the Congress was even to eliminate the DV program.
SEC. 701. UNFAIR IMMIGRATION-RELATED EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES.
Section 274B (8 U.S.C. 1324b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(5)--
(A) by amending the paragraph heading to read `Prohibition of Intimidation, Retaliation, or Unlawful Discrimination in Employment';
(B) by moving the text down and to the right 2 ems;
(C) by inserting before such text the following: `(A) IN GENERAL- '; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
`(B) FEDERAL LABOR OR EMPLOYMENT LAWS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer to directly or indirectly threaten any individual with removal or any other adverse consequences pertaining to that individual's immigration status or employment benefits for the purpose of intimidating, pressuring, or coercing any such individual not to exercise any right protected by State or Federal labor or employment law (including section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 157)), or for the purpose of retaliating against any such individual for having exercised or having stated an intention to exercise any such right.
`(C) DISCRIMINATION BASED ON IMMIGRATION STATUS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer, except to the extent specifically authorized or required by law, to discriminate in any term or condition of employment against any individual employed by such employer on the basis of such individual's immigration status.'; and
(2) in subsection (c)(2), by adding at the end the following: `The Special Counsel shall not disclose to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, and shall not cause to be published in a manner that discloses to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, any information obtained by the Special Counsel in any manner concerning the immigration status of any individual who has filed a charge under this section, or the identity of any individual or entity that is a party or witness to a proceedings brought pursuant to such charge. The Secretary of Homeland Security may not rely, in whole or in part, in any enforcement action or removal proceeding, upon any information obtained as a result of the filing or prosecution of an unfair immigration-related employment practice charge. For purposes of this paragraph, the term `Special Counsel' includes individuals formerly appointed to the position of Special Counsel and any current or former employee of the office of the Special Counsel. Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits information to be used in violation of this paragraph shall be fined not more than $10,000.'.
SEC. 702. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TASK FORCE.
The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall conduct a national study of American workplaces to determine the causes, extent, circumstances, and consequences, of exploitation of undocumented alien workers by their employers. As part of this study, the Secretary of Labor shall create a plan for targeted review of Federal labor law enforcement in industries with a substantial immigrant workforce, for the purpose of identifying, monitoring, and deterring frequent or egregious violators of wage and hour, antidiscrimination, National Labor Relations Act, and workplace safety and health requirements. Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall submit to the Congress a report describing the results of the study and the Secretary's recommendations based on the study.
SEC. 703. RECRUITMENT OF AMERICAN WORKERS.
Section 214 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (m) (as added by section 105 of Public Law 106-313), (n) (as added by section 107(e) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1513(c) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1102(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act), and (p) (as added by section 1503(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act) as subsections (n), (o), (p), (q), and (r), respectively; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(s)(1) No petition to accord employment status under the nonimmigrant classifications described in sections 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) and (H) shall be granted in the absence of an affidavit from the petitioner describing the efforts that were made to recruit an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence or a citizen of the United States before resorting to a petition to obtain a foreign employee. The recruitment efforts must have included substantial attempts to find employees in minority communities. Recruitment efforts in minority communities should include at least one of the following, if appropriate for the employment being advertised:
`(A) Advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker in local newspapers in the labor market that is likely to be patronized by a potential worker for at least 5 consecutive days.
`(B) Undertake efforts to advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker through advertisements in public transportation systems.
`(C) To the extent permitted by local laws and regulations, engage in recruitment activities in secondary schools, recreation centers, community centers, and other places throughout the communities within 50 miles of the job site that serve minorities.
`(2)(A) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a 10 percent surcharge on all fees collected for petitions to accord employment status and shall use these funds to establish an employment training program which will include unemployed workers in the United States who need to be trained or retrained. The purpose of this program shall be to increase the number of lawful permanent residents and citizens of the United States who are available for employment in the occupations that are the subjects of such petitions. At least 50 percent of the funds generated by this provision must be used to train American workers in rural and inner-city areas.
`(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall reserve and make available to the Secretary of Labor a portion of the funds collected under this paragraph. Such funds shall be used by the Secretary of Labor to establish an `Office to Preserve American Jobs' within the Department of Labor. The purpose of this office shall be to establish policies intended to ensure that employers in the United States will hire available workers in the United States before resorting to foreign labor, giving substantial emphasis to hiring minority workers in the United States.'.
This bill was introduced by Rep. Shela Jackson-Lee of Texas. Here is the full-text of the bill. It is a shocker, highly prejudiced against the employment-based immigration. Another shocker is a proposal to increaase Diversity Visa from 55,000 to 110,000 when the general opinion in the Congress was even to eliminate the DV program.
SEC. 701. UNFAIR IMMIGRATION-RELATED EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES.
Section 274B (8 U.S.C. 1324b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(5)--
(A) by amending the paragraph heading to read `Prohibition of Intimidation, Retaliation, or Unlawful Discrimination in Employment';
(B) by moving the text down and to the right 2 ems;
(C) by inserting before such text the following: `(A) IN GENERAL- '; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
`(B) FEDERAL LABOR OR EMPLOYMENT LAWS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer to directly or indirectly threaten any individual with removal or any other adverse consequences pertaining to that individual's immigration status or employment benefits for the purpose of intimidating, pressuring, or coercing any such individual not to exercise any right protected by State or Federal labor or employment law (including section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 157)), or for the purpose of retaliating against any such individual for having exercised or having stated an intention to exercise any such right.
`(C) DISCRIMINATION BASED ON IMMIGRATION STATUS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer, except to the extent specifically authorized or required by law, to discriminate in any term or condition of employment against any individual employed by such employer on the basis of such individual's immigration status.'; and
(2) in subsection (c)(2), by adding at the end the following: `The Special Counsel shall not disclose to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, and shall not cause to be published in a manner that discloses to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, any information obtained by the Special Counsel in any manner concerning the immigration status of any individual who has filed a charge under this section, or the identity of any individual or entity that is a party or witness to a proceedings brought pursuant to such charge. The Secretary of Homeland Security may not rely, in whole or in part, in any enforcement action or removal proceeding, upon any information obtained as a result of the filing or prosecution of an unfair immigration-related employment practice charge. For purposes of this paragraph, the term `Special Counsel' includes individuals formerly appointed to the position of Special Counsel and any current or former employee of the office of the Special Counsel. Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits information to be used in violation of this paragraph shall be fined not more than $10,000.'.
SEC. 702. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TASK FORCE.
The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall conduct a national study of American workplaces to determine the causes, extent, circumstances, and consequences, of exploitation of undocumented alien workers by their employers. As part of this study, the Secretary of Labor shall create a plan for targeted review of Federal labor law enforcement in industries with a substantial immigrant workforce, for the purpose of identifying, monitoring, and deterring frequent or egregious violators of wage and hour, antidiscrimination, National Labor Relations Act, and workplace safety and health requirements. Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall submit to the Congress a report describing the results of the study and the Secretary's recommendations based on the study.
SEC. 703. RECRUITMENT OF AMERICAN WORKERS.
Section 214 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (m) (as added by section 105 of Public Law 106-313), (n) (as added by section 107(e) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1513(c) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1102(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act), and (p) (as added by section 1503(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act) as subsections (n), (o), (p), (q), and (r), respectively; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(s)(1) No petition to accord employment status under the nonimmigrant classifications described in sections 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) and (H) shall be granted in the absence of an affidavit from the petitioner describing the efforts that were made to recruit an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence or a citizen of the United States before resorting to a petition to obtain a foreign employee. The recruitment efforts must have included substantial attempts to find employees in minority communities. Recruitment efforts in minority communities should include at least one of the following, if appropriate for the employment being advertised:
`(A) Advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker in local newspapers in the labor market that is likely to be patronized by a potential worker for at least 5 consecutive days.
`(B) Undertake efforts to advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker through advertisements in public transportation systems.
`(C) To the extent permitted by local laws and regulations, engage in recruitment activities in secondary schools, recreation centers, community centers, and other places throughout the communities within 50 miles of the job site that serve minorities.
`(2)(A) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a 10 percent surcharge on all fees collected for petitions to accord employment status and shall use these funds to establish an employment training program which will include unemployed workers in the United States who need to be trained or retrained. The purpose of this program shall be to increase the number of lawful permanent residents and citizens of the United States who are available for employment in the occupations that are the subjects of such petitions. At least 50 percent of the funds generated by this provision must be used to train American workers in rural and inner-city areas.
`(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall reserve and make available to the Secretary of Labor a portion of the funds collected under this paragraph. Such funds shall be used by the Secretary of Labor to establish an `Office to Preserve American Jobs' within the Department of Labor. The purpose of this office shall be to establish policies intended to ensure that employers in the United States will hire available workers in the United States before resorting to foreign labor, giving substantial emphasis to hiring minority workers in the United States.'.
fromnaija
07-22 09:24 AM
You nearly aged out but since your priority date became current before your 21st birthday, you should be eligible to get an immigrant visa. CSPA protects you here. Also they should deduct about four months (period your father's I140 was outstanding) from your current age. This makes you eligible for a visa. See what happens at your next appointment but ask your Dad to talk to an immigration attorney in the US.
2011 Modern hotel lobby interior
ds37
02-04 03:31 PM
Hi
I think THey can not use spillover untill last quarter, as all the math is done for the whole yearand than applied monthly on a pro-rata basis. I n theory if they spill over each quarter and a huge (unrealistic but theoritically possible) demand devlopes in the last quarter they will be doomed so wait for the last quarter and see the magic(if any).
Thanks
DS
I think THey can not use spillover untill last quarter, as all the math is done for the whole yearand than applied monthly on a pro-rata basis. I n theory if they spill over each quarter and a huge (unrealistic but theoritically possible) demand devlopes in the last quarter they will be doomed so wait for the last quarter and see the magic(if any).
Thanks
DS
more...
s416504
05-20 01:06 PM
I think NID is looking reply from the guy who has finished bachlor from Diploma in Engg. If some one/your friends has gone through this path. please send your reply. That will help for whole community also.
Sai gc
09-23 04:54 PM
case process resumed ,Soft LUD everyday after RFE response,Any thoughts whats going on
My case details:
PD 2004 october(substituted)(NSC)
I 140 approved on october 2007
Got EAD's and AP's for both me and my spouse.
I 485-Received mail from Uscis on August 23rd,requesting for Evidence(no change in online status though).
RFE was for EVL,for which response was sent on 16 th sep(through Murthy firm )
Hard LUD on 17th september,change in online status,"received RFE response case process resumed"
soft LUDs on my application on 18,19,20,22 and 23rd.
soft LUDs on spouse application on 22nd and 23 rd.
What does this mean,My case is being processed ,any chances of getting GC this month?Any thoughts?
Hopefully this means Good news.
OM Sai
My case details:
PD 2004 october(substituted)(NSC)
I 140 approved on october 2007
Got EAD's and AP's for both me and my spouse.
I 485-Received mail from Uscis on August 23rd,requesting for Evidence(no change in online status though).
RFE was for EVL,for which response was sent on 16 th sep(through Murthy firm )
Hard LUD on 17th september,change in online status,"received RFE response case process resumed"
soft LUDs on my application on 18,19,20,22 and 23rd.
soft LUDs on spouse application on 22nd and 23 rd.
What does this mean,My case is being processed ,any chances of getting GC this month?Any thoughts?
Hopefully this means Good news.
OM Sai
more...
eager_immi
07-12 10:34 AM
Barking dogs seldom bite. He is just another Lou Dobbs Please ignore him. There is no way he can change the right to cictizenship for children born in the USA. It is next to impossible since it is a part of the constitution. It is very difficult to change something that is linked to the constitution. So, ignore this "BARKING DOG."
2010 Bonaparte: Hotel Lobby
GCwaitforever
02-07 09:12 AM
From IRS point of view, parents are considered dependents if you are taking care of them at home. You could bring them on visitor VISA mentioning that they will be here for medical treatment. You may have to show proof of Insurance etc ... in the affidavit of support. Medical exprenses are costly here. That is the only problem.
more...
nixstor
08-23 11:10 PM
You are not the only one to get that message. Info pass appointments are tough to get now. Check during odd hours. I finally found one after hours. ASC's are NOT the same as Field offices. Also Some Field offices require you to show the corresponding state drivers license.
hair Hotel Lobby
uma001
11-16 04:51 PM
so, 9 days means urgent....
more...
sri1309
11-04 07:01 PM
Please delete this thread, Admin.
We believe this guy did it by mistake.. pls dont shout at him..
We believe this guy did it by mistake.. pls dont shout at him..
hot diamant-hotel-lobby.jpg
NYImmigrant
12-06 01:00 PM
Receipt numbers are worthless in my case. My application is pending in the local service center and i see the status message from Aug 2004. After that I was scheduled an interview, I did FP, I attended an interview, got stuck in the stupid name check, took 2-3 INFOPASS appointments.
So what's up with the case status online ?
So what's up with the case status online ?
more...
house Lobby of Golden Landmark Hotel
gc_nebraska
01-08 12:58 PM
Thanks ! Vin13 for the quick response . This was my big dilemma past 5 years and skipped lot of trips just because I was so nervous to travel . Once again I really appreciate your feed back .
tattoo The Golden Nugget Hotel Lobby
VickIowa
12-28 11:07 AM
You are actually expected to provide the latest I94, I believe that your employer may have filed an I9 based on your latest I94, just find the I94 # and the local customs and immigration at the airport should be able to issue you a new one. If you have a copy or the number of this one it would help.
Does the I-9 need to be refreshed each year?
I have a copy of my Jan 2009 I-94 which is not the most recent one - I believe that was the one that was sent to my employer's lawyers. In Jan 2010, I did get an original I-94 (the one I lost) but did not use it to apply for I-9 (atleast to the best of my knowledge).
Thanks for being so responsive and helping me out. The other thing is the time constraint that I have to take off on Dec 29th (tomorrow). What also worries me is that if I approach the Immigration/customs folks at the nearby airport, won't they basically ask me to fill an I-102 and wait for 3-6 months before I can travel? I don't want to do that since I need to travel now due to family issues.
Does the I-9 need to be refreshed each year?
I have a copy of my Jan 2009 I-94 which is not the most recent one - I believe that was the one that was sent to my employer's lawyers. In Jan 2010, I did get an original I-94 (the one I lost) but did not use it to apply for I-9 (atleast to the best of my knowledge).
Thanks for being so responsive and helping me out. The other thing is the time constraint that I have to take off on Dec 29th (tomorrow). What also worries me is that if I approach the Immigration/customs folks at the nearby airport, won't they basically ask me to fill an I-102 and wait for 3-6 months before I can travel? I don't want to do that since I need to travel now due to family issues.
more...
pictures modern hotel lobby interior
baburob2
08-28 09:51 PM
GC is for the future job and hence if your prospective employer will be able to proceed with your GC in your absence till its very end then you should be fine and still be able to come into US as a GC holder when GC is offered to you. However in this case you can't do Adjustment of status since you willn't be staying inside US and hence have to opt for Consular processing if you haven't opted for Consular processing.
dresses Fitzwilliam Hotel Lobby Design
StuckInTheMuck
04-28 04:16 PM
Summer travel season is around the corner, and unfortunately, because of the swine flu scare, each and every person entering India from USA (and some other countries) will have to go through a medical screening (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/American--European-visitors-to-be-screened-for-swine-flu/articleshow/4457075.cms) at the airports beginning yesterday. Some chaos is expected, particularly in busy terminals such as Delhi and Mumbai, given that "Airport authorities said they are still in the dark and are yet to gear up for these checks". So, it may be a good idea if those of you, who have just returned from India, share your experiences with this procedure; for example, the likelihood of facing stricter screening (or even a brief quarantine) if someone sneezes/coughs for any reason, or the "fitness certificate" forms that airlines are supposed to hand over to each passenger, etc.
more...
makeup The hotel#39;s lobby is wrapped
sankap
07-05 03:28 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB118359095890657571.html
Reversal Frustrates Green-Card Applicants
By MIRIAM JORDAN
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: July 5, 2007
The U.S. government's surprise offer, then abrupt reversal, of an opportunity for thousands of skilled foreign workers to obtain permanent residency in the U.S. highlights the problems of the overtaxed immigration system and the frenzy that results from a rare chance to apply for a green card.
The scramble has put tens of thousands of workers and their families in limbo after many of them and their employers spent thousands of dollars in hopes of securing permanent residency. It may result in a class-action lawsuit against the government by frustrated applicants.
The problem began June 12 when the government seemed to open the door for thousands of foreign workers and their families to end the long wait to apply for a green card. That is when the State Department published a Visa Bulletin, which is a monthly notice closely watched by immigration attorneys and their clients because it determines who is eligible to file a green-card application the next month. The June bulletin announced that practically all skilled foreign workers who had been previously deemed eligible for an employer-sponsored visa could now take the final step of applying for a green card.
By law, the U.S. can issue about 140,000 employment-based green cards each year. Last year, the government fell short by about 10,000, despite the long waiting list; leftover visas can't be rolled over to the next year. The June announcement aimed to prevent the visa slot from going to waste, according to a State Department spokeswoman.
[Green-Card Limbo]
The announcement was greeted with a mix of jubilation and panic by thousands of engineers, lab scientists and other high-skilled foreigners who had waited years for their place in line. Working ahead of a July 2 date for filing the application, intending immigrants rushed to gather documents, complete paperwork and obtain medical exams. Many of their dependents -- such as children enrolled in college overseas -- boarded planes for the U.S. to meet a requirement that all family members be present at the time of filing.
"The bulletin created a land rush among legal immigrants desperate to finalize their green-card applications," said Steve Miller, a Seattle-based immigration attorney and head of the state chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Then, on July 2, the State Department issued an "update" that reversed the previous bulletin. It stated, effective immediately, there would be no further authorizations for employment-based cases. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which processes the applications, said it would instead simply process existing applications to meet this year's quota. "We already had sufficient applications pending without new applicants," an agency spokesman said.
Mike Aytes, head of domestic operations for the USCIS, said all 147,141 employment-based green cards have now been issued for the year. "We are very sympathetic to the fact that people really had expectations � Folks spent a lot of time and effort, but it turned out they couldn't file, after all," he said.
In the July 2 announcement, USCIS said it was "rejecting applications" to secure green cards, and the agency spokesman said it would return the paperwork of all the applicants. New cases will be entertained again in the government's next fiscal year, starting Oct. 1. However, applicants must wait their turn again, which might not happen for years.
News of the revocation of the previously announced bulletin dashed the hopes of thousands of foreign workers, many of them currently on an H-1B professional visa normally valid for up to six years. These workers face the possibility of being forced to return home if their visa expires before they get the chance to apply for a green card.
"My employer and I spent tens of thousands of dollars preparing for the day when we could file for our Change in Status application, only to have the [government] pull the rug out from under us," said Lawrence LeBlanc, a Canadian executive at AES Corp. in Arlington, Virginia. "We were devastated to hear this unprecedented news. We're not sure how we're going to tell our children."
Because there are more employer-based applicants for immigrant visas than are available each year, people wait each month to see whether they have gotten to the front of the line. Often people wait years for the green light to apply, especially if they come from countries like India and China.
The June 12 announcement set off a stampede to government-approved doctors, because green-card applicants must pass medical exams. Apurva Pratap, a Seattle-based senior manager for a multinational corporation, said he and his wife traveled 40 miles for a medical exam after they couldn't secure an appointment in town. To fulfill a requirement for a vaccination, they waited eight hours in a line that snaked around a mobile unit in Tacoma. Mr. Pratap, a native of India, has been in the U.S. since 1999.
A spokeswoman for the American Immigration Lawyers Association said it has called for a congressional investigation. An affiliated organization is expected to take legal action via a class-action lawsuit. "This is an example of how badly our immigration system is broken," says Kathleen Walker, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Write to Miriam Jordan at miriam.jordan@wsj.com1
Reversal Frustrates Green-Card Applicants
By MIRIAM JORDAN
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: July 5, 2007
The U.S. government's surprise offer, then abrupt reversal, of an opportunity for thousands of skilled foreign workers to obtain permanent residency in the U.S. highlights the problems of the overtaxed immigration system and the frenzy that results from a rare chance to apply for a green card.
The scramble has put tens of thousands of workers and their families in limbo after many of them and their employers spent thousands of dollars in hopes of securing permanent residency. It may result in a class-action lawsuit against the government by frustrated applicants.
The problem began June 12 when the government seemed to open the door for thousands of foreign workers and their families to end the long wait to apply for a green card. That is when the State Department published a Visa Bulletin, which is a monthly notice closely watched by immigration attorneys and their clients because it determines who is eligible to file a green-card application the next month. The June bulletin announced that practically all skilled foreign workers who had been previously deemed eligible for an employer-sponsored visa could now take the final step of applying for a green card.
By law, the U.S. can issue about 140,000 employment-based green cards each year. Last year, the government fell short by about 10,000, despite the long waiting list; leftover visas can't be rolled over to the next year. The June announcement aimed to prevent the visa slot from going to waste, according to a State Department spokeswoman.
[Green-Card Limbo]
The announcement was greeted with a mix of jubilation and panic by thousands of engineers, lab scientists and other high-skilled foreigners who had waited years for their place in line. Working ahead of a July 2 date for filing the application, intending immigrants rushed to gather documents, complete paperwork and obtain medical exams. Many of their dependents -- such as children enrolled in college overseas -- boarded planes for the U.S. to meet a requirement that all family members be present at the time of filing.
"The bulletin created a land rush among legal immigrants desperate to finalize their green-card applications," said Steve Miller, a Seattle-based immigration attorney and head of the state chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Then, on July 2, the State Department issued an "update" that reversed the previous bulletin. It stated, effective immediately, there would be no further authorizations for employment-based cases. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which processes the applications, said it would instead simply process existing applications to meet this year's quota. "We already had sufficient applications pending without new applicants," an agency spokesman said.
Mike Aytes, head of domestic operations for the USCIS, said all 147,141 employment-based green cards have now been issued for the year. "We are very sympathetic to the fact that people really had expectations � Folks spent a lot of time and effort, but it turned out they couldn't file, after all," he said.
In the July 2 announcement, USCIS said it was "rejecting applications" to secure green cards, and the agency spokesman said it would return the paperwork of all the applicants. New cases will be entertained again in the government's next fiscal year, starting Oct. 1. However, applicants must wait their turn again, which might not happen for years.
News of the revocation of the previously announced bulletin dashed the hopes of thousands of foreign workers, many of them currently on an H-1B professional visa normally valid for up to six years. These workers face the possibility of being forced to return home if their visa expires before they get the chance to apply for a green card.
"My employer and I spent tens of thousands of dollars preparing for the day when we could file for our Change in Status application, only to have the [government] pull the rug out from under us," said Lawrence LeBlanc, a Canadian executive at AES Corp. in Arlington, Virginia. "We were devastated to hear this unprecedented news. We're not sure how we're going to tell our children."
Because there are more employer-based applicants for immigrant visas than are available each year, people wait each month to see whether they have gotten to the front of the line. Often people wait years for the green light to apply, especially if they come from countries like India and China.
The June 12 announcement set off a stampede to government-approved doctors, because green-card applicants must pass medical exams. Apurva Pratap, a Seattle-based senior manager for a multinational corporation, said he and his wife traveled 40 miles for a medical exam after they couldn't secure an appointment in town. To fulfill a requirement for a vaccination, they waited eight hours in a line that snaked around a mobile unit in Tacoma. Mr. Pratap, a native of India, has been in the U.S. since 1999.
A spokeswoman for the American Immigration Lawyers Association said it has called for a congressional investigation. An affiliated organization is expected to take legal action via a class-action lawsuit. "This is an example of how badly our immigration system is broken," says Kathleen Walker, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Write to Miriam Jordan at miriam.jordan@wsj.com1
girlfriend The Library Hotel – A hotel
psk79
05-27 01:13 PM
Also, Can anyone tell if we can mail both AP/EAD in the same package to the same address? It shows differnet PO Box numbers for teh EAD TSC and AP TSC.
Thanks.
Thanks.
hairstyles Hotel Lobby
jackisback
10-06 05:23 PM
Really? Did they give you that information?
I have taken infopass 2 times in last 2 years, and they just tell me - we cannot tell anything about that info from the "screen" they have access to.
They just give a vague answer that everything is in order but your visa numbers are not available for your dates, you need to wait for visa number
I have taken infopass 2 times in last 2 years, and they just tell me - we cannot tell anything about that info from the "screen" they have access to.
They just give a vague answer that everything is in order but your visa numbers are not available for your dates, you need to wait for visa number
Imigrait
03-05 06:47 PM
Agree with hpandey
gc_buddy
11-19 01:17 PM
Thanks everyone for the valuable inputs..
No comments:
Post a Comment