gcpain
06-25 11:10 AM
I was working with employer -A till 2006 and got I140 approved (June 2003 priority date) in EB3. In November 2006 I joined employer B as it is good for my carrier. I talk to employer A (body shopper) and he is ready to support for my green card as I worked for him for six long years and still he did not cancel my old H1B. My main aim here is to apply I485 as soon as I can.
1. I have two options here my old employer (A) is body-shopper. So he will agree for both future or current employment. I have very good permanent job and bright future prospects with new employer (B). In this case what you guys advice me? Apply I485 as future employment or quit present job and join old employer (A) and apply I485 as current employment?
2. If I do not join old employer (with whom I have I140 approved) now, in this case what are my options for I485 applying? (Only future employment I485/ I can file current employment I485 and not drawing any salary from old employer )
3. Will I485 as future employment has any problems?
4. Can I use AC21 after 180 days on my I485 future employment application?
5. My new employer (B) already applied PERM LC for my GC in EB2 three months back and did not here anything from Atlanta DOL till now. What you guys advice me? Is it worthful to wait for this new EB2 LC or apply I485 as future employment with approved I140-EB3 with priority date June 2003.
I am in really dilemma and unable to decide. Appreciate your advice in this matter. Thanks in advance to all your replies and wish you best of luck.
1. I have two options here my old employer (A) is body-shopper. So he will agree for both future or current employment. I have very good permanent job and bright future prospects with new employer (B). In this case what you guys advice me? Apply I485 as future employment or quit present job and join old employer (A) and apply I485 as current employment?
2. If I do not join old employer (with whom I have I140 approved) now, in this case what are my options for I485 applying? (Only future employment I485/ I can file current employment I485 and not drawing any salary from old employer )
3. Will I485 as future employment has any problems?
4. Can I use AC21 after 180 days on my I485 future employment application?
5. My new employer (B) already applied PERM LC for my GC in EB2 three months back and did not here anything from Atlanta DOL till now. What you guys advice me? Is it worthful to wait for this new EB2 LC or apply I485 as future employment with approved I140-EB3 with priority date June 2003.
I am in really dilemma and unable to decide. Appreciate your advice in this matter. Thanks in advance to all your replies and wish you best of luck.
wallpaper $17.95 anchor girl (Tattoo)
permfiling
01-17 01:18 PM
bump^^^^
starscream
09-16 04:24 PM
There is a separate original thread for calls in support of HR5882
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21393
people who are calling please post replies on that thread....so that we can get a good count..instead of having 2 separate threads
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21393
people who are calling please post replies on that thread....so that we can get a good count..instead of having 2 separate threads
2011 NAVY ANCHOR LOGO DECAL STICKER
srh1
10-28 02:31 PM
Folks,
Iam starting this new thread so that people will know what are the pros and cons leaving a company once GC is approved.
1.What are all the things to be noted while leaving the company after getting GC.
2.To be specific how long a consultant should be with company after GC is approved.
3.Also once GC is approved and if the consultant is off the payroll for say 2 to 3 months will there be any problem while filing for citizen ship.
Iam starting this new thread so that people will know what are the pros and cons leaving a company once GC is approved.
1.What are all the things to be noted while leaving the company after getting GC.
2.To be specific how long a consultant should be with company after GC is approved.
3.Also once GC is approved and if the consultant is off the payroll for say 2 to 3 months will there be any problem while filing for citizen ship.
more...
ch_murthy
06-08 01:52 PM
My Labor was filed in Aug, 2004 under EB3 (Traditional); pending at Phil BEC. Again filed in Dec, 2005 under EB2 (PERM); I-140 Approved. Can I change my EB3 PD to EB2? If so, please let me know my options. I am in 7th year now. I will talk to my lawyer, without me knowing all the things; this attorney is not ready to talk to me. Thanks for your help.
brb2
08-09 11:14 PM
It is too early to tell if it definitely refers to us, but it is more likely that this IS referring to EB and naturalization background checks. Reasoning is like this - Background checks are required by Department of State (DOS) for issuing Visas. Department of homeland security (DHS) under which USCIS comes is responsible for those within the US. Now background checks are not conducted for issuing H1B visa etc. They are only for EB/N-400. So it is more likely they are referring us. Secondly, just two months back USCIS announced that it is going through Ombudsman's report and would be preparing a response. Last month FBI's miller came out and suggested they are happy with main file checks (which take less than 2 days to come back automatically) and USCIS is insisting of doing reference file checks and they would be keen to work with USCIS to find ways of reducing backlog processing times. Some options included they way background checks are done, and also borrowing workers from USCIS for FBI's NNC unit. Finally, when the fee increase was announced USCIS mentioned some of the money would go to reduce processing times and FBI asked for increasing the name check fee from $2 to $9 which means now that the fees increase has been implemented more resources to reduce time may be implemented.
With scores of cases against USCIS and thousands of letters to congressmen and president and articles in NYT and WS Times, finally they may have realized that it is time they attended to the background check delays issue.
With scores of cases against USCIS and thousands of letters to congressmen and president and articles in NYT and WS Times, finally they may have realized that it is time they attended to the background check delays issue.
more...
Maverick1
11-13 04:43 PM
Hi Guys,
I verified my 485 Application status online and this is what I found can you guys tel what could this mean.
My I140 is not approved yet.
Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Document mailed to applicant.
What is your PD and country ? A lot depends on these two factors. Is this the status against your I485 ? or 131 ?
I verified my 485 Application status online and this is what I found can you guys tel what could this mean.
My I140 is not approved yet.
Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Document mailed to applicant.
What is your PD and country ? A lot depends on these two factors. Is this the status against your I485 ? or 131 ?
2010 Old anchor tattoo.
immigrationbond007
06-11 06:21 PM
I seriously doubt if they will introduce favorable GC amendments in the next round.The focus is on the illegals and we will get negatively affected in the process. Our best course of action would be to oppose this bill and hope for it to fail. My 2 cents.
PS I do hope I am proven wrong though :-)
I strongly feel that CIR should be brought back and our amends included by our lobbying. Next time CIR is brought back, I am sure favorable amends for H1b GC applicants will be included/debated. I am only concerned about why there are no updates from the IV core group so far. Lets hope the lobbying firm that IV has hired is keeping track of the "behind the doors" discussions to make CIR more pleasing to those who voted against the closure of vote.
PS I do hope I am proven wrong though :-)
I strongly feel that CIR should be brought back and our amends included by our lobbying. Next time CIR is brought back, I am sure favorable amends for H1b GC applicants will be included/debated. I am only concerned about why there are no updates from the IV core group so far. Lets hope the lobbying firm that IV has hired is keeping track of the "behind the doors" discussions to make CIR more pleasing to those who voted against the closure of vote.
more...
ksircar
07-01 01:52 PM
My daughter is in college and I was wondering if there is any chance of getting a FAFSA loan for her with I-485 application applied in July 2007.
Thanks
Please read the discussion threads under Student aid at the EAD stage .
Thanks
Please read the discussion threads under Student aid at the EAD stage .
hair Beautiful Arm Anchor Tattoo
Blog Feeds
01-27 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
ski_dude12
10-15 02:17 PM
It is possible that since you are on H1 they might have assumed that your employer filed for your GC.
hot Anchor tattoo designs men
shsk
07-17 01:02 AM
Thank you very much, I will be sending the document tomorrow:)
more...
house anchor tattoos
gc03
12-08 08:58 AM
Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) 3rd-term Republican from New Hampshire.
Contact Information
Web Site: gregg.senate.gov
Washington Office:
393 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2904
Phone: (202) 224-3324
Fax: (202) 224-4952
Main District Office:
125 N. Main St.
Concord, NH 03301
Phone: (603) 225-7115
*************************
Senator John E. Sununu (R-NH) 1st-term Republican from New Hampshire.
Contact Information
Web Site: sununu.senate.gov
E-mail: mailbox@sununu.senate.gov
Washington Office:
111 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2903
Phone: (202) 224-2841
Fax: (202) 228-4131
Main District Office:
1589 Elm St., Ste. 3
Manchester, NH 03101
Phone: (603) 647-7500
Fax: (603) 647-9352
*************************
Representative Charles Bass (R-NH 2nd) 6th-term Republican from New Hampshire.
Contact Information
Web Site: www.house.gov/bass
E-mail: cbass@mail.house.gov
Washington Office:
2421 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-2902
Phone: (202) 225-5206
Fax: (202) 225-2946
Main District Office:
142 N. Main St.
Concord, NH 03301
Phone: (603) 226-0249
Fax: (603) 226-0476
=========================
Just called all 3 senators and asked to Support the High-Skilled Immigrant Interim Relief Act of 2006
Very EASY.
Contact Information
Web Site: gregg.senate.gov
Washington Office:
393 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2904
Phone: (202) 224-3324
Fax: (202) 224-4952
Main District Office:
125 N. Main St.
Concord, NH 03301
Phone: (603) 225-7115
*************************
Senator John E. Sununu (R-NH) 1st-term Republican from New Hampshire.
Contact Information
Web Site: sununu.senate.gov
E-mail: mailbox@sununu.senate.gov
Washington Office:
111 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2903
Phone: (202) 224-2841
Fax: (202) 228-4131
Main District Office:
1589 Elm St., Ste. 3
Manchester, NH 03101
Phone: (603) 647-7500
Fax: (603) 647-9352
*************************
Representative Charles Bass (R-NH 2nd) 6th-term Republican from New Hampshire.
Contact Information
Web Site: www.house.gov/bass
E-mail: cbass@mail.house.gov
Washington Office:
2421 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-2902
Phone: (202) 225-5206
Fax: (202) 225-2946
Main District Office:
142 N. Main St.
Concord, NH 03301
Phone: (603) 226-0249
Fax: (603) 226-0476
=========================
Just called all 3 senators and asked to Support the High-Skilled Immigrant Interim Relief Act of 2006
Very EASY.
tattoo chinoiserie anchor tattoo
sobers
05-31 03:46 PM
Clearly IV-QGA has a long ways to go before it an be featured in the 'big league'. Despite its short existence, its commendable what IV-QGA has been able to accomplish.
=========
National Immigration Forum: Angela Kelley, Christina DeConcini, Lynn Tramonte
The Forum, the leading pro-immigrant advocacy group, has just expanded its lobbying arm by adding DeConcini, who was formerly with the Catholic Legal Immigration Network. The Forum “brings together strange bedfellows,” Kelley, its deputy director, said. She said groups that normally have little in common, such as the Chamber of Commerce, organized labor and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, join to work toward a “rational, constructive immigration policy.” Tramonte is the Forum’s senior policy communications associate.
Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR): Paul Egan, Brian Bilbray
Egan is the group’s director for government relations. FAIR is seeking a moratorium on most immigration to give the country time to develop a comprehensive reform strategy. Former Rep. Bilbray (R-Calif.) is on FAIR’s board of advisers and runs the group’s congressional task force. One lobbyist said Bilbray’s “incredible access” to the House of Representatives has helped FAIR in its work on immigration reform.
* Bilbray is competing in a special election on June 6 to replace Duke Cunningham. If this guys wins, it will surely galvanize the Anti-Immigration forces in Congress and on the Hill.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/50thdistrict/20060327-9999-1n6bilbray.html
McCains cancels appearance at fundraiser:
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,197579,00.html
NumbersUSA.com: Rosemary Jenks, James Edwards
Jenks is the in-house lobbyist for the group. She said that while NumbersUSA originally was involved in the impact of immigration on the labor market, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, “made it clear we also need to look at security.” Edwards, who is with Olive, Edwards & Brinkman, also said that immigration is currently seen “through the lens of security.” A legislative director for former Rep. Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.), Edwards worked on immigration issues when lawmakers passed immigration reform in the 104th Congress. At the time, Bryant was a member of the House Judiciary Committee’s Immigration, Border Security and Claims Subcommittee. Edwards also co-wrote The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform, published in 1998.
Agricultural Coalition for Immigration Reform (ACIR): Monte Lake, Craig Regelbrugge, Sharon Hughes
This ad hoc coalition includes more than 100 organizations with a “substantial labor need,” said co-chairman Regelbrugge, who is also the senior director of government relations for the American Nursery & Landscape Association. The group wants to ensure that agriculture employers have access to a seasonal work force to make certain the country has a “safe and secure food supply.” While individual members of the coalition pitch in, ACIR is also relying on some outside help. Lake is a partner with McGuiness Norris & Williams. The former deputy attorney general of California said that before the 2001 terrorist attacks, the group was close to achieving its goal of helping to reform immigration in a way that allowed access to seasonal workers while instituting a system of “earned immigration.” Hughes is the executive vice president of the National Council of Agricultural Employers and a key component in coordinating ACIR’s grassroots campaign.
United to Secure America: William Crosby, Wright Andrews
In the first half of this year, the group spent more than $600,000 in lobbying fees, including $180,000 each to Butera & Andrews, Podesta Mattoon and Timothy R Rupli & Associates. The group advocates boosting national security through allowing what it calls a “manageable number” of immigrants and non-immigrant visitors. One source praised the access of Crosby, a former GOP chief counsel on the House Rules Committee and 27-year Hill veteran who now works for the Livingston Group, as especially valuable.
American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA): Judith Golub, Marshall Fitz
Golub is the senior director of advocacy and public affairs for the 9,000-member group and Fitz is the associate director. AILA aims to educate Congress and the public about the benefits of an immigration policy that allows refugees and workers to enter the country.
=========
National Immigration Forum: Angela Kelley, Christina DeConcini, Lynn Tramonte
The Forum, the leading pro-immigrant advocacy group, has just expanded its lobbying arm by adding DeConcini, who was formerly with the Catholic Legal Immigration Network. The Forum “brings together strange bedfellows,” Kelley, its deputy director, said. She said groups that normally have little in common, such as the Chamber of Commerce, organized labor and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, join to work toward a “rational, constructive immigration policy.” Tramonte is the Forum’s senior policy communications associate.
Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR): Paul Egan, Brian Bilbray
Egan is the group’s director for government relations. FAIR is seeking a moratorium on most immigration to give the country time to develop a comprehensive reform strategy. Former Rep. Bilbray (R-Calif.) is on FAIR’s board of advisers and runs the group’s congressional task force. One lobbyist said Bilbray’s “incredible access” to the House of Representatives has helped FAIR in its work on immigration reform.
* Bilbray is competing in a special election on June 6 to replace Duke Cunningham. If this guys wins, it will surely galvanize the Anti-Immigration forces in Congress and on the Hill.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/50thdistrict/20060327-9999-1n6bilbray.html
McCains cancels appearance at fundraiser:
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,197579,00.html
NumbersUSA.com: Rosemary Jenks, James Edwards
Jenks is the in-house lobbyist for the group. She said that while NumbersUSA originally was involved in the impact of immigration on the labor market, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, “made it clear we also need to look at security.” Edwards, who is with Olive, Edwards & Brinkman, also said that immigration is currently seen “through the lens of security.” A legislative director for former Rep. Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.), Edwards worked on immigration issues when lawmakers passed immigration reform in the 104th Congress. At the time, Bryant was a member of the House Judiciary Committee’s Immigration, Border Security and Claims Subcommittee. Edwards also co-wrote The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform, published in 1998.
Agricultural Coalition for Immigration Reform (ACIR): Monte Lake, Craig Regelbrugge, Sharon Hughes
This ad hoc coalition includes more than 100 organizations with a “substantial labor need,” said co-chairman Regelbrugge, who is also the senior director of government relations for the American Nursery & Landscape Association. The group wants to ensure that agriculture employers have access to a seasonal work force to make certain the country has a “safe and secure food supply.” While individual members of the coalition pitch in, ACIR is also relying on some outside help. Lake is a partner with McGuiness Norris & Williams. The former deputy attorney general of California said that before the 2001 terrorist attacks, the group was close to achieving its goal of helping to reform immigration in a way that allowed access to seasonal workers while instituting a system of “earned immigration.” Hughes is the executive vice president of the National Council of Agricultural Employers and a key component in coordinating ACIR’s grassroots campaign.
United to Secure America: William Crosby, Wright Andrews
In the first half of this year, the group spent more than $600,000 in lobbying fees, including $180,000 each to Butera & Andrews, Podesta Mattoon and Timothy R Rupli & Associates. The group advocates boosting national security through allowing what it calls a “manageable number” of immigrants and non-immigrant visitors. One source praised the access of Crosby, a former GOP chief counsel on the House Rules Committee and 27-year Hill veteran who now works for the Livingston Group, as especially valuable.
American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA): Judith Golub, Marshall Fitz
Golub is the senior director of advocacy and public affairs for the 9,000-member group and Fitz is the associate director. AILA aims to educate Congress and the public about the benefits of an immigration policy that allows refugees and workers to enter the country.
more...
pictures Tattoo style anchor
seeking_GC
07-12 02:25 AM
Any idea on when the lawsuit actually gets to court?
dresses He was in the navy and is also
snhn
06-13 02:53 PM
Ok, My PD is Oct 2001 .EB3 pending labo9r in dallas backlog center. 45 day letter received in Jan of this year. No more conresspondence so far. However my company filed PERM EB3 it got approved and now the I140 is approved as well. My PD is up for the old labor. Is there anyways, I can use PERM approved I140 and apply for 1485.
Thansk!
Thansk!
more...
makeup Simple Anchor
maine_gc
02-02 09:08 AM
Thank you all.
I will be looking this site every day as i did before.
Thanks
I will be looking this site every day as i did before.
Thanks
girlfriend to get an anchor tattoo.
new_horizon
05-07 08:36 AM
I don't think you should make it a big deal. I know it hurts you and your family to see PD question you, but they were doing their job based on someone's complaint. Moreover you don't want to complicate matters, and put you in the spotlight for nothing.
I am sure the gods will be more forgiving on these ignorant officers, and so should you.
I am sure the gods will be more forgiving on these ignorant officers, and so should you.
hairstyles NAVY ANCHOR LOGO DECAL STICKER
GCPagla
03-17 08:58 AM
Hi All,
Thanks for all your support and soothing words.
I have talked with my immegration attorney who filed my 140 and 485 on current employer's behalf. And surprisingly she is ready to file the AC21 for me. Obviously she is charging me for that, but I guess I am fine with that.
The excerpt form our communication is as following.
a) I need to get a AC21 letter signed by the new employer. This will describe my position and duties, which should be similar to the LC.
b) offer ltter need not describe word-word match of designation and duty.
c) if there is a huge rise 50% - no issue.
d) company size does not matter.
So I had decided to take the plunge, especially when I have my attorney guarding the case.
Write the market condition is not to well for H1B
a) My friend was laid off in Dec and he was serching for job. Suddenlt he realized that his earlier employer had revoked the H1B. So he was out of status for some days. He managed filing AC21 with his friend's company and managed.
b) I heard people ging for H1B extension was asked by USCIS to get a letter from the end client, saying the project will last for more than 3 years. I guess none will give that assurance in this market.
So I guess I will move on EAD. Let me check what happend and I will keep posting my experience here.
Thanks
Thanks for all your support and soothing words.
I have talked with my immegration attorney who filed my 140 and 485 on current employer's behalf. And surprisingly she is ready to file the AC21 for me. Obviously she is charging me for that, but I guess I am fine with that.
The excerpt form our communication is as following.
a) I need to get a AC21 letter signed by the new employer. This will describe my position and duties, which should be similar to the LC.
b) offer ltter need not describe word-word match of designation and duty.
c) if there is a huge rise 50% - no issue.
d) company size does not matter.
So I had decided to take the plunge, especially when I have my attorney guarding the case.
Write the market condition is not to well for H1B
a) My friend was laid off in Dec and he was serching for job. Suddenlt he realized that his earlier employer had revoked the H1B. So he was out of status for some days. He managed filing AC21 with his friend's company and managed.
b) I heard people ging for H1B extension was asked by USCIS to get a letter from the end client, saying the project will last for more than 3 years. I guess none will give that assurance in this market.
So I guess I will move on EAD. Let me check what happend and I will keep posting my experience here.
Thanks
vnsriv
08-14 04:17 PM
Just now my lawyer called to tell that she got all my receipts , filed on july 2nd but my wifes application was rejected for "insufficient filing fees", I had put in a single check for $745 , how can this be, it was both in the same fedex packet, she says it is some "mailroom error", so she sent back the application with a letter and my receipt copy to accept. My app also had a $745 check and that was receipted,
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
I am assuming the check was given by you. Check the returned check if it has correct dates, amount and duly signed. Also, check if you had sufficient amount in your bank a/c at that time. There's no need to give separate checks for each. The total is correct. Your lawyer did correct step. Did you get any update from USCIS on the new package(call them). All the best. Your wife's case will be 100% accepted.
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
I am assuming the check was given by you. Check the returned check if it has correct dates, amount and duly signed. Also, check if you had sufficient amount in your bank a/c at that time. There's no need to give separate checks for each. The total is correct. Your lawyer did correct step. Did you get any update from USCIS on the new package(call them). All the best. Your wife's case will be 100% accepted.
bpc2001
02-25 03:20 PM
Please, the date does not mean what it should mean. Otherwise nobody can explain the fact that this date can go backwards. For TSC, it went back from May 24 to April 10.
The processing date listed is the received date of the oldest case that they have not adjudicated or pre-adjudicated yet (maybe due to some problem). It does not mean that cases filed after April 2007 are or will not be adjudicated.
The processing date listed is the received date of the oldest case that they have not adjudicated or pre-adjudicated yet (maybe due to some problem). It does not mean that cases filed after April 2007 are or will not be adjudicated.
No comments:
Post a Comment