Gravitation
12-17 07:39 PM
My Labor was rotting in BEC, and so I moved to another role, and will now have a PD of 2007 as a new labor will be filed, Rest of the world, EB-3......
Got any predictions?????
Mine are 1 year (if legislation goes through), to 12 years (if it does not.)
I won't be that pessimistic about RoW. I'd say 1-3 years even if nothing passes.
Got any predictions?????
Mine are 1 year (if legislation goes through), to 12 years (if it does not.)
I won't be that pessimistic about RoW. I'd say 1-3 years even if nothing passes.
wallpaper 2010 Peugeot 3008 - interior
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
mayurcreation
04-18 08:05 AM
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
This is to certify that Mr. XXX was full time employed with CompanyName from date to date as a Sr. Programmer Analyst.
During his tenure with us, he skillfully handled major responsibilities and found him to be hardworking and very productive.
Mr. XXX job duties and responsibilities include but are not limited to:
� Job duties and responsibilities from resume�
� Job duties and responsibilities from resume�
� Job duties and responsibilities from resume�
� Job duties and responsibilities from resume�
� Job duties and responsibilities from resume�
Please feel free to contact me for further information.
Sincerely,
{Name}
{Title}
This is to certify that Mr. XXX was full time employed with CompanyName from date to date as a Sr. Programmer Analyst.
During his tenure with us, he skillfully handled major responsibilities and found him to be hardworking and very productive.
Mr. XXX job duties and responsibilities include but are not limited to:
� Job duties and responsibilities from resume�
� Job duties and responsibilities from resume�
� Job duties and responsibilities from resume�
� Job duties and responsibilities from resume�
� Job duties and responsibilities from resume�
Please feel free to contact me for further information.
Sincerely,
{Name}
{Title}
2011 2010 PEUGEOT 3008 car in
pd052009
09-13 02:51 PM
You save time when you port from one EB category to another EB category and your country of chargeability has a backlog. Switching b/w employers with same EB category will not save any time.
Hi pd052009,
Thank you for your help. I am just confused about one issue. I thought by porting my PD from and old EB2+ perm case to a new EB2+perm will save me time in waiting for the PD. Now you mentioned that if I port my PD from an old EB2 to a new EB2 (same category), I will not save any time. Please clarify.
Thanks.
Hi pd052009,
Thank you for your help. I am just confused about one issue. I thought by porting my PD from and old EB2+ perm case to a new EB2+perm will save me time in waiting for the PD. Now you mentioned that if I port my PD from an old EB2 to a new EB2 (same category), I will not save any time. Please clarify.
Thanks.
more...
rajenk
02-08 12:49 AM
Advance Parole. You are not alone. :)
Thanks, I got it. I even looked up on USCIS e-file page. E-file is the way to go...:)
Thanks, I got it. I even looked up on USCIS e-file page. E-file is the way to go...:)
fatjoe
10-31 12:46 PM
Didn't they stopped issuing interim EADs half an year ago?
It was stopped. I went to the local office and found that.
It was stopped. I went to the local office and found that.
more...
pappu
08-15 08:41 AM
what Indian congressional representatives or Indian caucas..etc are doing for Indian immigrants??
do they have any word to say in this deep visa retrogression for indian origin?
they will make any statement only if they are pounded by letters from us. if you want you can post their contacts on the forum and everyone can write letters to them.
do they have any word to say in this deep visa retrogression for indian origin?
they will make any statement only if they are pounded by letters from us. if you want you can post their contacts on the forum and everyone can write letters to them.
2010 2010 peugeot 3008 rear top
bala50
07-26 09:58 PM
I think there is no truth to this. Can anyone point to a link to verify?
Found this link at Thomas site
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:1:./temp/~r110ZxCj9J:e407783:
Found this link at Thomas site
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:1:./temp/~r110ZxCj9J:e407783:
more...
bkam
01-31 10:55 PM
Dear "colleagues in faith" :-) There is a rule in life - if you want something and beg for it, you most probably will not get it. You have to fight and find a (legal) way to get it. This is the way the American Anglo-Saxon population mixed with smart Jews and other hard working nations achieved economical and political power over the last centuries. Not by begging for rights and being scared of people with different opinion.
These people who are against the uncontrolled immigration have their point. This process has to be controlled or the USA would become just another "developing" country. However, we are talking about something else. We are talking about rules set by the US government. When most of us came in this country years ago, we knew the rules and we expected those rules to be followed. If a government agency keeps my LC certification for years without processing it and even without indicating when it would be processed, then the government is not following those rules. And it is my right to know why is that. If I honestly pay my taxes and follow the laws of this country, I expect the government of the very same country to fulfill its obligations to me and (in particular) to process my application in a reasonable time and by following the current laws. If I do not qualify - OK, I will "pack back". But I want to know that, not to be kept in the dark.
This is what should be the main goal of the "volunteers" of this forum or organization (whatever) - fairness and following the rules by the government. If the immigration agency is a bunch of people incapable to sort out their problems, then they have to be replaced and problems solved quickly and efficiently. Excuses like "no money, understaffing" do not work because we throw $$$ in lawyers laps - part of this money can be easily used by the government for "overstaffing".
I see that some people got annoyed of my opinion but again, they should not forget that the issue we discuss concerns 350,000 highly qualified professionals who support the economy of this country. The opponents from numbersusa etc do not represent all Americans and most people are not against this king of immigration, if properly regulated. They just have to be properly informed.
In addition, do not be afraid to voice your opinion if you think you are right and if you do not hide something. Then people will respect you.
These people who are against the uncontrolled immigration have their point. This process has to be controlled or the USA would become just another "developing" country. However, we are talking about something else. We are talking about rules set by the US government. When most of us came in this country years ago, we knew the rules and we expected those rules to be followed. If a government agency keeps my LC certification for years without processing it and even without indicating when it would be processed, then the government is not following those rules. And it is my right to know why is that. If I honestly pay my taxes and follow the laws of this country, I expect the government of the very same country to fulfill its obligations to me and (in particular) to process my application in a reasonable time and by following the current laws. If I do not qualify - OK, I will "pack back". But I want to know that, not to be kept in the dark.
This is what should be the main goal of the "volunteers" of this forum or organization (whatever) - fairness and following the rules by the government. If the immigration agency is a bunch of people incapable to sort out their problems, then they have to be replaced and problems solved quickly and efficiently. Excuses like "no money, understaffing" do not work because we throw $$$ in lawyers laps - part of this money can be easily used by the government for "overstaffing".
I see that some people got annoyed of my opinion but again, they should not forget that the issue we discuss concerns 350,000 highly qualified professionals who support the economy of this country. The opponents from numbersusa etc do not represent all Americans and most people are not against this king of immigration, if properly regulated. They just have to be properly informed.
In addition, do not be afraid to voice your opinion if you think you are right and if you do not hide something. Then people will respect you.
hair Peugeot 3008, halen pazarda
sundarpn
07-19 10:54 PM
jack_suv, nice post and a good start.
I am sort of category 4. BUT want to change jobs after 6 months of filing 485 and want to continue on H1 despite having EAD so that I can get my future spouse on H4. (then add/file her 485 when dates become current)
If I change to a new employer after 6 months (NOT on EAD but on H1b transfer):
1. Will my 485 remain in good standing? Will still need support form the ex-employer? I hope not and 485 receipt notice will suffice.
2. Can I get 3 yr extension of H1b from the new employer (as I have I-140 copy).
3. Can I file my spouses 485 whenever the dates become current (despite working for a new employer on H1b.)
I am sort of category 4. BUT want to change jobs after 6 months of filing 485 and want to continue on H1 despite having EAD so that I can get my future spouse on H4. (then add/file her 485 when dates become current)
If I change to a new employer after 6 months (NOT on EAD but on H1b transfer):
1. Will my 485 remain in good standing? Will still need support form the ex-employer? I hope not and 485 receipt notice will suffice.
2. Can I get 3 yr extension of H1b from the new employer (as I have I-140 copy).
3. Can I file my spouses 485 whenever the dates become current (despite working for a new employer on H1b.)
more...
user1205
09-05 12:05 PM
From http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html
List of Witnesses To Testify at House Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee Hearing Tomorrow
The list:
Congressman Jeff Flake, R-AZ, co-sponsor of STRIVE Act of 2007
Congressman Joe Beca, D-CA
Congressman Ray Lahood, R-CA
Congessman Brian Bilbray, R-CA
Tony Wasilewsi, Small Business Owner, Schiller Park, IL
Eduardo Gonzalez, U.S. Navy Petty Officer Second Class, Jacsonville, FL
Rev. Luis Cortes, Jr., President Esperanza USA
Joshua Hoyt, Executive Director Illinois Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights
Cassandra Q. Butts, Sr. Vice President for Domestic Policy Center for American Progress
David Lizarraga, Chirman of U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Julie Kirchner, Director of Government Relations Federation of American Immigration Reform
Corey Stewart, Chairman At-Large, William County Board of Supervisors, FL
The list indicates that the skilled worker immigrant worker community is not well represented in this hearing. We will post the text of the testimony as soon as it becomes available.
List of Witnesses To Testify at House Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee Hearing Tomorrow
The list:
Congressman Jeff Flake, R-AZ, co-sponsor of STRIVE Act of 2007
Congressman Joe Beca, D-CA
Congressman Ray Lahood, R-CA
Congessman Brian Bilbray, R-CA
Tony Wasilewsi, Small Business Owner, Schiller Park, IL
Eduardo Gonzalez, U.S. Navy Petty Officer Second Class, Jacsonville, FL
Rev. Luis Cortes, Jr., President Esperanza USA
Joshua Hoyt, Executive Director Illinois Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights
Cassandra Q. Butts, Sr. Vice President for Domestic Policy Center for American Progress
David Lizarraga, Chirman of U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Julie Kirchner, Director of Government Relations Federation of American Immigration Reform
Corey Stewart, Chairman At-Large, William County Board of Supervisors, FL
The list indicates that the skilled worker immigrant worker community is not well represented in this hearing. We will post the text of the testimony as soon as it becomes available.
hot 2010 Peugeot 3008 - I love it!
jthomas
10-17 08:40 PM
I filled on July 11th no receipt, no check cashed. My lawyer told me, that my lawyer has 50 more candidates waiting to get receipts in month of July.
I think there are many waiting for receipt. Take it easy.
I think there are many waiting for receipt. Take it easy.
more...
house 2010 peugeot 3008 lwb spy
akhilmahajan
05-14 11:34 AM
RD:- March 8th, 2007
As of 05/14/2007:- Pending.
Labor Jan, 2007.
As of 05/14/2007:- Pending.
Labor Jan, 2007.
tattoo схему на Peugeot 3008.
ggc
08-18 01:38 PM
Thank you for your reply. It was not arrest record. My attorney says "if immigration office explicitly asks about this incident then only give that information otherwise not".
But in I485 document (page3) it has around 14 questions, during the interview do they ask all these questions verbally or do they just ask us sign this document or do they ask something else?
I heard they take oath from us, is that oath same as those questions in I485?
But in I485 document (page3) it has around 14 questions, during the interview do they ask all these questions verbally or do they just ask us sign this document or do they ask something else?
I heard they take oath from us, is that oath same as those questions in I485?
more...
pictures 2010 Peugeot 3008
kuhelica2000
10-18 08:58 PM
Did you have to change your address while you switched jo?. And if you had changed address, did you inform USCIS. I am trying to find out if address chnge is what triggers RFE for job switch. Also were you on H1B or using EAD with previous employer.
I changed jobs early this year with a 20% pay cut and with different titles and with different client type (private vs public). Got GC last month. No RFEs. I did not inform USCIS.
Before switching jobs, I checked with my attorney and made sure that I am covered, made sure that my previous employer will not revoke my approved I-140 and made sure that my current employer will cooperate with the process. Last month my GC got approved.
Good luck.
I changed jobs early this year with a 20% pay cut and with different titles and with different client type (private vs public). Got GC last month. No RFEs. I did not inform USCIS.
Before switching jobs, I checked with my attorney and made sure that I am covered, made sure that my previous employer will not revoke my approved I-140 and made sure that my current employer will cooperate with the process. Last month my GC got approved.
Good luck.
dresses 2010 Peugeot 3008 – Front
ritwik_ind
11-11 11:30 AM
Where are the winners posted? It's already 11th !
more...
makeup 2010 in 2010 Peugeot 3008
skark
02-24 02:35 PM
I thought someone here said that if your spouse got a new SSN via EAD and files tax jointly with this new SSN then one cannot efile and needs to paper file it. It appears that TaxCut is allowing one to eFile in this circumstance. Anyone else done it?
girlfriend St0/2010-Peugeot-3008-Hybrid4-Control-Switch
alterego
02-11 06:07 PM
A good article supporting a sensible plan.
One minor correction however.
"Suppose half of these persons wish to purchase a home. If they were permitted to make a 20 percent down payment on a private home (and the average cost of a home in the U.S. today is approximately $200,000), this would result in a net financial gain of $1.6 billion immediately for American banks, not to mention improving the dismal real estate market in many areas of the country."
The figure quoted as 1.6 billion actually comes out to 16 Billion dollars if you do the math explained.
One minor correction however.
"Suppose half of these persons wish to purchase a home. If they were permitted to make a 20 percent down payment on a private home (and the average cost of a home in the U.S. today is approximately $200,000), this would result in a net financial gain of $1.6 billion immediately for American banks, not to mention improving the dismal real estate market in many areas of the country."
The figure quoted as 1.6 billion actually comes out to 16 Billion dollars if you do the math explained.
hairstyles 2010 Peugeot 3008
thepaew
11-09 03:37 PM
Bump
dupedinjuly
07-15 02:07 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/us/politics/15immig.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin
A Little-Known Group Claims a Victory on Immigration
July 15, 2007
A Little-Known Group Claims a Victory on Immigration
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON, July 14 � When a comprehensive immigration bill collapsed last month on the Senate floor, it was a victory for a small group that had been lobbying Congress for a decade to reduce the number of immigrants � legal and illegal � in the United States.
The group, Numbers USA, tracked every twist and turn of the bill. Its members flooded the Senate with more than a million faxes, sent through the organization�s Web site. It supplied arguments and information to senators opposing the bill.
�It was a David-and-Goliath struggle,� said Roy H. Beck, the president of Numbers USA, who had been preparing for this moment since 1996, when he wrote a book titled �The Case Against Immigration.�
Supporters of the bill included President Bush, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the high-tech industry, the Roman Catholic Church, many Hispanic organizations, farmers, restaurants, hotels and the construction industry.
�The bill had support from the opinion elite in this country,� Mr. Beck said. �But we built a grass-roots army, consumed with passion for a cause, and used the power of the Internet to go around the elites and defeat a disastrous amnesty bill.�
The measure, which died on June 28, would have offered legal status and a path to citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants and created a new temporary worker program while increasing border security.
�Numbers USA initiated and turbocharged the populist revolt against the immigration reform package,� said Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigrant advocacy group. �Roy Beck takes people who are upset about illegal immigration for different reasons, including hostility to Latino immigrants, and disciplines them so their message is based on policy rather than race-based arguments or xenophobia.�
Representative Brian P. Bilbray, Republican of California and chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus, said, �We�re involved in weekly discussions with Numbers USA and other immigration-control groups as part of a team effort.�
Numbers USA had fewer than 50,000 members at the end of 2004, but now counts more than 447,000, with an increase of 83 percent since January alone.
Turning to the next phase of the debate, those members will push for enforcement of existing laws and new measures to curb the employment of illegal immigrants.
�Our No. 1 legislative goal is to begin a system of mandatory workplace verification, to confirm that every employee is a United States citizen or an alien authorized to work in this country,� said Rosemary E. Jenks, director of government relations at Numbers USA.
The organization wants to reduce immigration � as Mr. Beck says in the subtitle of his book � for �moral, economic, social and environmental reasons.�
He contends that immigrants and their children are driving population growth, which he says is gobbling up open space, causing urban sprawl and creating more traffic congestion.
Moreover, Mr. Beck asserts that immigrants and temporary workers, by increasing the supply of labor, have depressed wages in industries from meatpacking to information technology. Numbers USA has worked most closely with conservative Republicans, but in recent weeks has built alliances with Democrats who share the concern.
Numbers USA keeps a scorecard showing every vote by every member of Congress on immigration-related issues since 1989. The group assigns a letter grade to each member.
Lawmakers who received an A-plus were all Republicans and included Representatives J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois and Tom Tancredo of Colorado, a presidential candidate. The lowest grades � F-minuses � went to Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Representative Joe Baca of California, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Numbers USA objects to proposals that increase the number of legal or illegal immigrants. It steers clear of debates over the allocation of visas.
�It does not matter to us whether a visa goes to a high-tech worker, a farm worker or the sibling of a U.S. citizen,� Mr. Beck said.
Numbers USA is one of many organizations fostered by John H. Tanton, an ophthalmologist from Michigan who has also championed efforts to protect the environment, limit population growth and promote English as an official language.
Critics like the Southern Poverty Law Center and Representative Chris Cannon, Republican of Utah, have described Dr. Tanton as a father of the anti-immigration movement. Mark A. Potok, a senior researcher at the law center, called Numbers USA the �kinder, gentler side of that movement.�
Mr. Beck said Numbers USA had been independent of Dr. Tanton since 2002. On the group�s Web site, Mr. Beck cautions against �immigrant bashing� and says, �Even illegal aliens deserve humane treatment as they are detected, detained and deported.�
In the fight over the Senate bill, Numbers USA had daily conference calls with conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Eagle Forum.
For tax purposes, Numbers USA has two arms, an educational foundation and an advocacy group that lobbies Congress. Together, Mr. Beck said, they have a budget of $3 million this year, but will probably raise and spend $4.5 million.
Mr. Beck said that in the past the group received about two-thirds of its money from foundations like the Colcom Foundation of Pittsburgh and the Weeden Foundation in New York. Many of these foundations have an interest in conservation.
Numbers USA has raised the rest of its money from individual contributors over the Internet. The group collects detailed information on its members � their ethnic background, politics, religious affiliations, occupations and concerns � so it can choose the most effective advocates on any particular issue.
In a survey question on religion, the group said the information would be useful because many lawmakers were likely to respond better to people with �a very similar religious worldview.�
�This is our citizen army,� Mr. Beck said, pointing to a map that showed members of his group in every Congressional district.
Home
World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Automobiles Back to Top
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
A Little-Known Group Claims a Victory on Immigration
July 15, 2007
A Little-Known Group Claims a Victory on Immigration
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON, July 14 � When a comprehensive immigration bill collapsed last month on the Senate floor, it was a victory for a small group that had been lobbying Congress for a decade to reduce the number of immigrants � legal and illegal � in the United States.
The group, Numbers USA, tracked every twist and turn of the bill. Its members flooded the Senate with more than a million faxes, sent through the organization�s Web site. It supplied arguments and information to senators opposing the bill.
�It was a David-and-Goliath struggle,� said Roy H. Beck, the president of Numbers USA, who had been preparing for this moment since 1996, when he wrote a book titled �The Case Against Immigration.�
Supporters of the bill included President Bush, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the high-tech industry, the Roman Catholic Church, many Hispanic organizations, farmers, restaurants, hotels and the construction industry.
�The bill had support from the opinion elite in this country,� Mr. Beck said. �But we built a grass-roots army, consumed with passion for a cause, and used the power of the Internet to go around the elites and defeat a disastrous amnesty bill.�
The measure, which died on June 28, would have offered legal status and a path to citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants and created a new temporary worker program while increasing border security.
�Numbers USA initiated and turbocharged the populist revolt against the immigration reform package,� said Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigrant advocacy group. �Roy Beck takes people who are upset about illegal immigration for different reasons, including hostility to Latino immigrants, and disciplines them so their message is based on policy rather than race-based arguments or xenophobia.�
Representative Brian P. Bilbray, Republican of California and chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus, said, �We�re involved in weekly discussions with Numbers USA and other immigration-control groups as part of a team effort.�
Numbers USA had fewer than 50,000 members at the end of 2004, but now counts more than 447,000, with an increase of 83 percent since January alone.
Turning to the next phase of the debate, those members will push for enforcement of existing laws and new measures to curb the employment of illegal immigrants.
�Our No. 1 legislative goal is to begin a system of mandatory workplace verification, to confirm that every employee is a United States citizen or an alien authorized to work in this country,� said Rosemary E. Jenks, director of government relations at Numbers USA.
The organization wants to reduce immigration � as Mr. Beck says in the subtitle of his book � for �moral, economic, social and environmental reasons.�
He contends that immigrants and their children are driving population growth, which he says is gobbling up open space, causing urban sprawl and creating more traffic congestion.
Moreover, Mr. Beck asserts that immigrants and temporary workers, by increasing the supply of labor, have depressed wages in industries from meatpacking to information technology. Numbers USA has worked most closely with conservative Republicans, but in recent weeks has built alliances with Democrats who share the concern.
Numbers USA keeps a scorecard showing every vote by every member of Congress on immigration-related issues since 1989. The group assigns a letter grade to each member.
Lawmakers who received an A-plus were all Republicans and included Representatives J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois and Tom Tancredo of Colorado, a presidential candidate. The lowest grades � F-minuses � went to Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Representative Joe Baca of California, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Numbers USA objects to proposals that increase the number of legal or illegal immigrants. It steers clear of debates over the allocation of visas.
�It does not matter to us whether a visa goes to a high-tech worker, a farm worker or the sibling of a U.S. citizen,� Mr. Beck said.
Numbers USA is one of many organizations fostered by John H. Tanton, an ophthalmologist from Michigan who has also championed efforts to protect the environment, limit population growth and promote English as an official language.
Critics like the Southern Poverty Law Center and Representative Chris Cannon, Republican of Utah, have described Dr. Tanton as a father of the anti-immigration movement. Mark A. Potok, a senior researcher at the law center, called Numbers USA the �kinder, gentler side of that movement.�
Mr. Beck said Numbers USA had been independent of Dr. Tanton since 2002. On the group�s Web site, Mr. Beck cautions against �immigrant bashing� and says, �Even illegal aliens deserve humane treatment as they are detected, detained and deported.�
In the fight over the Senate bill, Numbers USA had daily conference calls with conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Eagle Forum.
For tax purposes, Numbers USA has two arms, an educational foundation and an advocacy group that lobbies Congress. Together, Mr. Beck said, they have a budget of $3 million this year, but will probably raise and spend $4.5 million.
Mr. Beck said that in the past the group received about two-thirds of its money from foundations like the Colcom Foundation of Pittsburgh and the Weeden Foundation in New York. Many of these foundations have an interest in conservation.
Numbers USA has raised the rest of its money from individual contributors over the Internet. The group collects detailed information on its members � their ethnic background, politics, religious affiliations, occupations and concerns � so it can choose the most effective advocates on any particular issue.
In a survey question on religion, the group said the information would be useful because many lawmakers were likely to respond better to people with �a very similar religious worldview.�
�This is our citizen army,� Mr. Beck said, pointing to a map that showed members of his group in every Congressional district.
Home
World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Automobiles Back to Top
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
looivy
03-19 03:33 PM
Can a legal expert provide advice as to whether I can use EAD/AP to get in?
Bump
Bump