brb2
08-10 11:28 AM
I have copied the information from the link below. It clearly states DOS checks background overseas and DHS ensures the person entering is the same person who was issued the Visa. So, my point is that DHS is only responsible for conducting background checks for EB/N400 applicants only. Anyway we will know later today. Hopefully something good news after the chaos in the stock market:)
"In many cases, US-VISIT begins overseas, at the U.S. consular offices issuing visas, where visitors� biometrics (digital fingerscans and photographs) are collected and checked against a database of known criminals and suspected terrorists. When the visitor arrives at the port of entry, we use the same biometrics � digital fingerscans � to verify the person at our port is the same person who received the visa."
Isnt this already in place in the form of US Visit (http://www.dhs.gov/xtrvlsec/programs/editorial_0525.shtm)
"In many cases, US-VISIT begins overseas, at the U.S. consular offices issuing visas, where visitors� biometrics (digital fingerscans and photographs) are collected and checked against a database of known criminals and suspected terrorists. When the visitor arrives at the port of entry, we use the same biometrics � digital fingerscans � to verify the person at our port is the same person who received the visa."
Isnt this already in place in the form of US Visit (http://www.dhs.gov/xtrvlsec/programs/editorial_0525.shtm)
wallpaper The new 2008 Nissan
ganguteli
06-12 06:40 PM
Hi, Now what are my options going forward and how does this affect my chances of a successful SPERM filing ??
Stop drinking too much beer and lazing around. Go and upgrade your skills and sperm count. Only then you can do a a successful SPERM filing :D
Stop drinking too much beer and lazing around. Go and upgrade your skills and sperm count. Only then you can do a a successful SPERM filing :D
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
2011 2008 nissan pathfinder reviews
knowDOL
05-19 10:26 AM
One more thing, never disclose anything with company's attorney, they will be loyal to your employer and not you. Look for soem other attorney.
more...
IfYouSeekAmy
01-20 11:06 AM
EB3 kicks ass!!! So does EB2. :D
jonty_11
01-16 04:43 PM
Yes , I am planning to take the test too......
more...
greyhair
04-21 12:10 PM
greyhair - that was something i tried on my own and i have never represented IV.
you are right we may sue congress but to win that is much much tough as even the judge is been appointed by the president which i guess is a member of congress :) but one can certainly try.
this requires a big movement for which IV is a very nice platform. that is the reason i keep shouting on this forum that nothing will happen untill you somehow make uscis held accountable or in this case even congress accountable.
Filing a Lawsuit against USCIS and CONGRESS together may lead us somewhere.
I don't think constitution allows suing Congress because it has immunity. Based on the their approval ratings you would see thousands of lawsuits everyday if it was allows to sue congress.
RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Congressional Job Approval (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html)
In that case we would have to take a number in line to sue congress because it will be big line. In other words there will be backlog to sue Congress and that backlog would be bigger than the green card backlog. :)
you are right we may sue congress but to win that is much much tough as even the judge is been appointed by the president which i guess is a member of congress :) but one can certainly try.
this requires a big movement for which IV is a very nice platform. that is the reason i keep shouting on this forum that nothing will happen untill you somehow make uscis held accountable or in this case even congress accountable.
Filing a Lawsuit against USCIS and CONGRESS together may lead us somewhere.
I don't think constitution allows suing Congress because it has immunity. Based on the their approval ratings you would see thousands of lawsuits everyday if it was allows to sue congress.
RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Congressional Job Approval (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html)
In that case we would have to take a number in line to sue congress because it will be big line. In other words there will be backlog to sue Congress and that backlog would be bigger than the green card backlog. :)
2010 2008 Nissan Pathfinder V8
mrdelhiite
08-07 09:01 AM
I'm afraid I can't help you with your application but Congrats! on getting married, i.e... :-)
Thank you Sir :-)
Also anyone, any replies for my questions please?
Thanks
-M
Thank you Sir :-)
Also anyone, any replies for my questions please?
Thanks
-M
more...
10dulkar
12-25 10:00 PM
I just receive the best Christmas gift I could ever ask for?? My name check and background check is clear after 2 years.....Now I'm receive my GC so I can start traveling......All my interview was approve so now they are (order card)....Enjoy ur Holiday.......
were delaying his GC. He/She/It/Them/They need to take English Test............. and many of them..................
were delaying his GC. He/She/It/Them/They need to take English Test............. and many of them..................
hair 2008 Nissan Pathfinder SE.
Rishi
01-05 11:18 AM
logiclife,
Is this related to IsnAmerica.org? I see many people in both the places. If these two are different then it is really bad that we are not uniting our efforts.
my 2 cents
Rishi
Is this related to IsnAmerica.org? I see many people in both the places. If these two are different then it is really bad that we are not uniting our efforts.
my 2 cents
Rishi
more...
Nil
11-09 09:19 PM
^^^^
hot 2008 Nissan Pathfinder
.jpg "Nissan Pathfinder – 2008")
chanduv23
06-29 09:34 PM
I guess the cases that are pre-adjucated are called for interview.
Well "interview" without PD becoming current is a part of "preadjudication" process. Thats why you see those denials, RFEs and interview notices.
Typically once preadjudication is done - it means the next thing is "wait for visa number". Once visa number is available a final review is done by a officer.
In other words "preadjudicated" means "approvable"
Well "interview" without PD becoming current is a part of "preadjudication" process. Thats why you see those denials, RFEs and interview notices.
Typically once preadjudication is done - it means the next thing is "wait for visa number". Once visa number is available a final review is done by a officer.
In other words "preadjudicated" means "approvable"
more...
house 2008 Nissan Pathfinder SE
shivarajan
01-26 03:12 PM
is OP a rant? :rolleyes:
tattoo 2006 Nissan Pathfinder
gccube
03-19 07:11 PM
gccube are you EB3 -I as well?
"
FBI Namecheck -- Cleared (02/01/2008)
FP -- Cleared "
How did you find out the status of your namecheck and FP?
I called up their customer service no and was able to reach an IO at TSC and asked about the FBI name check status. I did speak to an IO 3 to 4 times over a period of 6 months and initially it was pending but later on it got cleared. I did not ask for the exact date it was cleared but it was on feb1st 2008 that I found that it was cleared. But they did tell me the exact date on which the FBI name check was initiated. It was initiated on Aug 1st 2007 where are my 485 RD is June21st 2007.
"
FBI Namecheck -- Cleared (02/01/2008)
FP -- Cleared "
How did you find out the status of your namecheck and FP?
I called up their customer service no and was able to reach an IO at TSC and asked about the FBI name check status. I did speak to an IO 3 to 4 times over a period of 6 months and initially it was pending but later on it got cleared. I did not ask for the exact date it was cleared but it was on feb1st 2008 that I found that it was cleared. But they did tell me the exact date on which the FBI name check was initiated. It was initiated on Aug 1st 2007 where are my 485 RD is June21st 2007.
more...
pictures 2008 Pathfinder
logiclife
03-26 08:20 PM
Working off the books is illegal ofcourse.
Because firstly, you are breaking the immigration law by working on H4. Also you are breaking the tax laws by working off the books, since you dont pay taxes and the employer doesnt pay the payroll tax. And no one pays the medicare and social security tax that is supposed to be paid.
Working without pay:
A lot of H4s have asked that why cant we work as a volunteer where there is no pay. This might be a grey area and you may want to check with a lawyer before you work on H4 without pay. It could be legal but its really not that black and white.
Because firstly, you are breaking the immigration law by working on H4. Also you are breaking the tax laws by working off the books, since you dont pay taxes and the employer doesnt pay the payroll tax. And no one pays the medicare and social security tax that is supposed to be paid.
Working without pay:
A lot of H4s have asked that why cant we work as a volunteer where there is no pay. This might be a grey area and you may want to check with a lawyer before you work on H4 without pay. It could be legal but its really not that black and white.
dresses Nissan Pathfinder – 2008
.jpg "2012 nissan pathfinder")
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.
more...
makeup Nissan Pathfinder 2008 - Front
JDM
08-27 12:18 AM
bump^^^^^^^^^^^
girlfriend Used NISSAN PATHFINDER Specs
mbartosik
11-09 05:42 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7087846.stm
Actually there were two issues.
1) UK gov changed qualifying period for "indefinite leave to stay" from 4 years to 5 years. Without a grand father clause. UK gov won this.
2) NHS (state heath system) discriminated against those with UK work visa without "indefinite leave to say". That is called a Highly Skilled Migrant Programme.
For comparison with US system
indefinite leave to say == green card. Much easier to get in UK, wait time fixed at 5 years (up from 4).
Highly Skilled Migrant Programme == H1B H4 and L1 L2 but I think like having an EAD also.
I wonder given this ruling if those affected can now sue the NHS (National Health Service) over this for compensatory damages.
Actually there were two issues.
1) UK gov changed qualifying period for "indefinite leave to stay" from 4 years to 5 years. Without a grand father clause. UK gov won this.
2) NHS (state heath system) discriminated against those with UK work visa without "indefinite leave to say". That is called a Highly Skilled Migrant Programme.
For comparison with US system
indefinite leave to say == green card. Much easier to get in UK, wait time fixed at 5 years (up from 4).
Highly Skilled Migrant Programme == H1B H4 and L1 L2 but I think like having an EAD also.
I wonder given this ruling if those affected can now sue the NHS (National Health Service) over this for compensatory damages.
hairstyles Nissan Pathfinder 2008 Front
jonty_11
11-09 02:52 PM
Another important thing to note is that although GC is for a future employment oppportunity...you clearly state in Labor Application whether the employee is working with u currently....if u answer yes to that (which is the most common scenario) ...u have to provide the address of the location he works at...which shud be consistent with the Recruiting efforts undertaken (in that same area) by the employer......
So simple by saying that GC is for future employment, u cannot move around unless you clarify that in labor cert.
So simple by saying that GC is for future employment, u cannot move around unless you clarify that in labor cert.
hoolahoous
03-18 10:51 AM
i am switching job using ac21. my current employer trusts immigration attorneys. and as expected attorneys suggested (since they get paid) that company should withdraws both H1 and I-140 after I leave. I know I am safe, however USCIS will definitly send me an RFE at time of processing my application and I will have to answer that. So I am trying to put my side to them saying that if it is optional, they should not.
So my question is, does the Law say that an employer has to withdraw all (or some) immigration petitions after employee leaves ? I was trying to search but I couldn't find anywhere where it said that it is mandated.
Also as far I could tell from forum posts, there is no set form which needs to be filled by employeers to withdraw the application. That would seem to suggest that it is not mandated.
On flip side, if it is mandated, then why most of the employers do not withdraw the application ?
So my question is, does the Law say that an employer has to withdraw all (or some) immigration petitions after employee leaves ? I was trying to search but I couldn't find anywhere where it said that it is mandated.
Also as far I could tell from forum posts, there is no set form which needs to be filled by employeers to withdraw the application. That would seem to suggest that it is not mandated.
On flip side, if it is mandated, then why most of the employers do not withdraw the application ?
BimmerFAn
06-13 01:45 PM
No there is no premium processing process for waiver applications. There seems to be no apparent order in the order they are adjudicated. Once the Department of State recommends you for a waiver you may apply for H1B change of status with the recommendation alone. If ur H1B application is filed for premium processing then the USCIS might adjudicate the waiver within 15 days as part of the h1b processing.
No comments:
Post a Comment