ultimo
07-24 08:56 AM
Is there anyone like my case - concurrently submitting 140 and 485 who submitted WITHOUT current employment letter ?
my friends lawyer also told the same no need for employment letter . if you have applied for i140
my friends lawyer also told the same no need for employment letter . if you have applied for i140
wallpaper Long Blonde Scene Hair for
Jaime
09-10 01:36 PM
Your spouse gets an H1-B him/herself for a higher-paying job than yours, but the job is in another city - Your spouse cannot get the job, because you are not allowed to move. The only option is to split the family up or reject the job offer and supplemental income.
Hermione
09-27 01:54 PM
I agree with you partially. It may not be achievement but at least readers will not be misinformed and become aware about our real agenda.
The name 'ImmigrationVoice' was not mentioned in the article. So, people would not be confused, since they do not know what to be confused about.
The name 'ImmigrationVoice' was not mentioned in the article. So, people would not be confused, since they do not know what to be confused about.
2011 pictures londe emo guys hair.
BharatPremi
03-17 02:19 PM
Based on your assumptions, it would take around 2 years to reach Dec 2003 for EB3-India.
# of visas required = 5000 or 6000 * 1.75 = 8750 or 10, 500
# of visas available = 5000
# years of wait until Dec 2003 = 1.75 to 2.1 years.
Right. But here USCIS plays its villain role. What happens is USCIS moves clock ahead depending upon last month's "demand." We always think stramline logic.. USCIS does not work that way. It will kick PD to x date for an example Dec 2002. Now at the same time it will keep RD at say for example july 2001..Now it will keep some files eating dust in Name check so end effect is "Some" will get their gC. So next month, seeing this "demand" USCIS will kick PD further.. same game.. I believe at some level it decides seeing it reaching to "3500" limit put a break. So in reality what happen is even though USCIS kicks PD ahead not "all applicants with valid PD" get their GC. If they are unlucky enough to stuck in name check or RD is not being current, they will again wait for years for next kicking cycle start from April 2001.
# of visas required = 5000 or 6000 * 1.75 = 8750 or 10, 500
# of visas available = 5000
# years of wait until Dec 2003 = 1.75 to 2.1 years.
Right. But here USCIS plays its villain role. What happens is USCIS moves clock ahead depending upon last month's "demand." We always think stramline logic.. USCIS does not work that way. It will kick PD to x date for an example Dec 2002. Now at the same time it will keep RD at say for example july 2001..Now it will keep some files eating dust in Name check so end effect is "Some" will get their gC. So next month, seeing this "demand" USCIS will kick PD further.. same game.. I believe at some level it decides seeing it reaching to "3500" limit put a break. So in reality what happen is even though USCIS kicks PD ahead not "all applicants with valid PD" get their GC. If they are unlucky enough to stuck in name check or RD is not being current, they will again wait for years for next kicking cycle start from April 2001.
more...
gcma08
06-14 04:07 PM
We received our plastic cards today.
frostrated
06-11 04:02 PM
Why are Harkin and Sanders supporting this bill. They are both children of immigrants. They need to understand the struggle their parents went through.
more...
lc1978
02-16 03:41 PM
You just made a payment of $ 100.00
Your receipt number for this payment is: 4704-4941-3704-4919.
All the best
Your receipt number for this payment is: 4704-4941-3704-4919.
All the best
2010 What do you reckon these guys
gnrajagopal
07-28 01:23 PM
Would you be offended if your picture is put on toilet seat??
Are you ever offended by the sculptures that are engraved on the temple walls. women are potrayed in a very sensual way on these sculptures. i sometimes wonder that would have happened if those artists had the medium of vedio in those days? temples walls would have been.... well lets leave that to imagination
Are you ever offended by the sculptures that are engraved on the temple walls. women are potrayed in a very sensual way on these sculptures. i sometimes wonder that would have happened if those artists had the medium of vedio in those days? temples walls would have been.... well lets leave that to imagination
more...
EB3_SEP04
05-26 05:58 PM
It has nothing to do with guts but common sense. When a police officer asks for your driving license and registration, would you be silent or even ask for an attorney quoting your rights ? The law clearly states (read my previous post on this thread), within 100 miles of International border, border patrol officer can ask for your immigration status, if you say you are not a citizen (see Desi3933's post as to what can happen if you say you are a citizen when you are not). If you refuse to produce proof, you can be arrested, plain and simple.
You missed the point totally ! it's not about just excercising my right or giving hard time to the authority, it's about resisting/protesting the STUPID law in every legal manner possible. when they ask for DL they don't do that without suspicion, or they don't do that only to the non-citizens, i hope you see the difference. AGAIN, in any civilized society people should not be stopped/searched/questioned without any suspicious activity. I hope i am clear enough this time.
You missed the point totally ! it's not about just excercising my right or giving hard time to the authority, it's about resisting/protesting the STUPID law in every legal manner possible. when they ask for DL they don't do that without suspicion, or they don't do that only to the non-citizens, i hope you see the difference. AGAIN, in any civilized society people should not be stopped/searched/questioned without any suspicious activity. I hope i am clear enough this time.
hair girlfriend Blonde Hair Boy
tomatocup
09-19 04:25 PM
Million thanks to IV's superior organization. I am glad that my friends and I attended this event. It's just a little sad to see the local news channels reported the small protests by illegal immigrants in the Prince William County in MD but not our well-organized rally. Many people passing by us still think we are undocumented. I fully support the ideas from other members that we should highlight "LEGAL" everywhere.
more...
gsc999
09-20 02:37 AM
Congratulations to all of us for having marched yesterday, I was extremely impressed with the level of organization. Salut to everyone who made it possible.
However, I have a whole bunch of points, sorry if they come out strong....
1) I absolutely agree with the 'Legal' Immigration issue, we did look as if we were immigrants and not defined as legal, I think high-skilled is secondary to the legality... This is one of the reasons I have not purchased merchandise, as it looks like it addresses immigration as such. I think banner by Chinese group exphasizing the legal aspect looked very impressive..
2) It was obvious from speeches on Monday night and yesterday (friendship between US and India comments, etc) that this is seen as an Indian issue. Unless you are trying to show it as such, something has to be done about it. Non-indians were marching with you as well, and next time effort should be made to put together Indian, Chinese and whoever else when putting pictures, RollCall for example, or talking to the press, or talking to representatives. I have expressed my desire and submitted all information to the person in charge of organizing meetings on Capitol Hill, but was not provided with this oppportunity..
Basically, it was clear that, as of now, even many representatives see the issue as Indians versus Mexicans... Not a good idea....
3) I thought that some of the signs were extremely offensive to the Americans "We brought you yahoo/hotmail/google" and as such... if I were an American contemplating about my views on the immigration, and if I were as patriotic as many Americans are, I would be upset with the messages putting down local brains...
4) It was a very impressive effort by Chinese group, thumbs up. Although very strange that so ew of them showed up. My CHinese colleague who alreday has GC and helped distribute info to his friends, told me that all 5 Chinese papers in the area had big announcements about the Rally
5) I agree with disappointment about local people, it seemed like there were many more members from CA, NY and other places than VA/MD/DC, we should all be wokring on raising awareness.
All for now
Agains, congrats to all of us
----
Good observation.
Here is my response. to point # 1 & #3.
Look, legal immigration is not just restricted to employment based immigration, it includes family based immigration. So if you say you support legal immigration that doesn't differentiate your message, infact, compared to 950K family based annual visas only 140K go to employment based legal immigrants. IV's agenda is employment based immigration. We are very clear about where we stand.
Now point # 3. No Americans are not upset about confronting the reality about Hotmail, Google and other companies that create jobs for Americans. How can they, we are a country of immigrants. These placards were carefully selected and a lot of due diligence went into their selection and all of them had a positive message.
Having said that, if you notice none of the IV members who attended the rally ever congratulated the Indian or English core members. Your post is the first post which thanks individual communities.
I agree with rest of your message and that is why we need more support from members like you to bring diversity to IV. This is not an Indian organization and we never claim it to be. We need your paricipation to prove that point.
However, I have a whole bunch of points, sorry if they come out strong....
1) I absolutely agree with the 'Legal' Immigration issue, we did look as if we were immigrants and not defined as legal, I think high-skilled is secondary to the legality... This is one of the reasons I have not purchased merchandise, as it looks like it addresses immigration as such. I think banner by Chinese group exphasizing the legal aspect looked very impressive..
2) It was obvious from speeches on Monday night and yesterday (friendship between US and India comments, etc) that this is seen as an Indian issue. Unless you are trying to show it as such, something has to be done about it. Non-indians were marching with you as well, and next time effort should be made to put together Indian, Chinese and whoever else when putting pictures, RollCall for example, or talking to the press, or talking to representatives. I have expressed my desire and submitted all information to the person in charge of organizing meetings on Capitol Hill, but was not provided with this oppportunity..
Basically, it was clear that, as of now, even many representatives see the issue as Indians versus Mexicans... Not a good idea....
3) I thought that some of the signs were extremely offensive to the Americans "We brought you yahoo/hotmail/google" and as such... if I were an American contemplating about my views on the immigration, and if I were as patriotic as many Americans are, I would be upset with the messages putting down local brains...
4) It was a very impressive effort by Chinese group, thumbs up. Although very strange that so ew of them showed up. My CHinese colleague who alreday has GC and helped distribute info to his friends, told me that all 5 Chinese papers in the area had big announcements about the Rally
5) I agree with disappointment about local people, it seemed like there were many more members from CA, NY and other places than VA/MD/DC, we should all be wokring on raising awareness.
All for now
Agains, congrats to all of us
----
Good observation.
Here is my response. to point # 1 & #3.
Look, legal immigration is not just restricted to employment based immigration, it includes family based immigration. So if you say you support legal immigration that doesn't differentiate your message, infact, compared to 950K family based annual visas only 140K go to employment based legal immigrants. IV's agenda is employment based immigration. We are very clear about where we stand.
Now point # 3. No Americans are not upset about confronting the reality about Hotmail, Google and other companies that create jobs for Americans. How can they, we are a country of immigrants. These placards were carefully selected and a lot of due diligence went into their selection and all of them had a positive message.
Having said that, if you notice none of the IV members who attended the rally ever congratulated the Indian or English core members. Your post is the first post which thanks individual communities.
I agree with rest of your message and that is why we need more support from members like you to bring diversity to IV. This is not an Indian organization and we never claim it to be. We need your paricipation to prove that point.
hot Dye the Curly hair
meridiani.planum
03-07 05:32 PM
Until last year, it was important to announce a job change via AC21 to USCIS. This was because many sponsoring employers would revoke the 140 (even after 180 days) so that they could reuse the Labor for someone else.
When that happened and there was no AC21 letter from the applicant, some IOs would deny the 485 even without a NOID. This would mean MTR and a lot of unnecessary work.
This problem no longer exists as Labot substitution has been removed. The employer has no incentive to revoke the 140 and so the chances of goofup from USCIS has been lowered.
Employer still has two incentives to revoke I-140:
* outstanding I-140s get counted in ability-to-pay issues of future I-140s. Better to clear out older ones.
* leaving an approved but unused I-140 is essentially leaving files open with USCIS as well as at your attorneys office. Expect the attorneys to revoke them (my own attorney of a big company asks the employer to close the files with USCIS by revoking the I-140). In addition to opened files, the attorneys get some fees atleast for doing this, so thats another motivation for them.
When that happened and there was no AC21 letter from the applicant, some IOs would deny the 485 even without a NOID. This would mean MTR and a lot of unnecessary work.
This problem no longer exists as Labot substitution has been removed. The employer has no incentive to revoke the 140 and so the chances of goofup from USCIS has been lowered.
Employer still has two incentives to revoke I-140:
* outstanding I-140s get counted in ability-to-pay issues of future I-140s. Better to clear out older ones.
* leaving an approved but unused I-140 is essentially leaving files open with USCIS as well as at your attorneys office. Expect the attorneys to revoke them (my own attorney of a big company asks the employer to close the files with USCIS by revoking the I-140). In addition to opened files, the attorneys get some fees atleast for doing this, so thats another motivation for them.
more...
house medium londe short hair with
msyedy
06-12 09:04 AM
our chances of getting some relief are better if infact CIR dies. if cir dies there might be a chance for SKIL bill.Even if SKIL is not taken up no bill is better than this CIR authored by ron hira aka kennedy, durbin and kyl.
Pitha (Shree)
I see what you are thinking, but EB3india is correct. In CIR or never.
I agree with him that we need to get a new stratergy to handle this.
I do not know why IV core has not spoken after this bill died. When CIR came to the Senate floor with all these restrictions, Logiclife mentioned something
like we should become illegals.
He must have been kidding but one could see the fact that the illegals were the ones who were getting the benefits.
I want to hear a similar statement from them, let us see........
Pitha (Shree)
I see what you are thinking, but EB3india is correct. In CIR or never.
I agree with him that we need to get a new stratergy to handle this.
I do not know why IV core has not spoken after this bill died. When CIR came to the Senate floor with all these restrictions, Logiclife mentioned something
like we should become illegals.
He must have been kidding but one could see the fact that the illegals were the ones who were getting the benefits.
I want to hear a similar statement from them, let us see........
tattoo Blonde And Black Hair For Guys
dilber
06-06 03:53 PM
We got the "welcome" and "card production ordered" email for my wife and I today too. It was a long frustrating wait at times but I am glad its over for us now. Our best wishes to those that are still waiting.
No RFE at any stage, straight forward case, never called them for status or infopass. Took them about 4.5 years.
Here are our dates for those interested in tracking.
PD: Jan 29, 2004, EB2
Ohio labor approved - Oct 2004
45 day letter - Jan 2005
Labor approved from Dalla BEC - June 2006
I I140 regular, non concurrent approved - Sept 2006
I 485 sent to Nebraska - July 13 2007
EAD approved - Oct 2007
I485 approval email - June,06, 2008
Congratulations Bothi_Tree and good luck... Do visit us some times and help out with calling campaigns etc... Your voice just got way more important to the Law makers then ours
No RFE at any stage, straight forward case, never called them for status or infopass. Took them about 4.5 years.
Here are our dates for those interested in tracking.
PD: Jan 29, 2004, EB2
Ohio labor approved - Oct 2004
45 day letter - Jan 2005
Labor approved from Dalla BEC - June 2006
I I140 regular, non concurrent approved - Sept 2006
I 485 sent to Nebraska - July 13 2007
EAD approved - Oct 2007
I485 approval email - June,06, 2008
Congratulations Bothi_Tree and good luck... Do visit us some times and help out with calling campaigns etc... Your voice just got way more important to the Law makers then ours
more...
pictures dirty londe hair,
jonty_11
10-20 02:56 PM
Obama may be great...but we dont know...At least McCain has helped sponsor or vote in favor of EB bills in the past...So History on EB supports him more than Obama....
dresses Spiky Blonde Hair Men.
feedfront
10-12 04:11 PM
I got the RFE. Its says that the civil surgeon did not attach the copy of the radiologist report to form I-693. It needs the report on an official letterhead.
It also says that I don't need to take another medical exam for this.
I've contacted the Doctor's office and asked them for the same. Did you get the same RFE?
Thanks,
That's better. Collect the radiologist's report and send them at the earliest. Make sure your attorney sends it to addressed mentioned in the letter. Someone's attorney in this forum used FedEx's service (sent to non-PO Box address) and took longer time to reach right department.
As I said earlier, my doctor was not in USCIS's current list. So, I had to redo everything. My status has changed to 'Respone to RFE review'
It also says that I don't need to take another medical exam for this.
I've contacted the Doctor's office and asked them for the same. Did you get the same RFE?
Thanks,
That's better. Collect the radiologist's report and send them at the earliest. Make sure your attorney sends it to addressed mentioned in the letter. Someone's attorney in this forum used FedEx's service (sent to non-PO Box address) and took longer time to reach right department.
As I said earlier, my doctor was not in USCIS's current list. So, I had to redo everything. My status has changed to 'Respone to RFE review'
more...
makeup cute anime guys with brown
tabletpc
12-20 04:24 PM
Prioritydate,
I din;t mean to be so funny as you have realzied from my response.
My comment was just on the other post.
Having said that let me also say that....everyone one is tensed in some way or the other just realted with immigration. That does not mean we should stop laughing. of course i don't mean to say this at others cost here..!!!!
As of your situation....based on what i know....you might be issued RFE..jsut be prepared for a right reason..if you have any.
I din;t mean to be so funny as you have realzied from my response.
My comment was just on the other post.
Having said that let me also say that....everyone one is tensed in some way or the other just realted with immigration. That does not mean we should stop laughing. of course i don't mean to say this at others cost here..!!!!
As of your situation....based on what i know....you might be issued RFE..jsut be prepared for a right reason..if you have any.
girlfriend girlfriend Men#s hairstyles
Indirant
02-01 08:15 PM
Varsha,
I will be dialing in.
Thanks
Sekar
I will be dialing in.
Thanks
Sekar
hairstyles Blonde Scene Hair For Guys
nixstor
03-18 05:17 PM
I can use some help if I am missing some things here.
Snip from 202 a 5 (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid|SLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination|act202a&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1435)
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
Paragraph in the above corresond to each category. So paragraph 1 is EB1. Paragraph 2 is EB2 and so on. So the translation is what the VB exactly said.
What does 203 (b) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 say?
Define EB1-EB5 categories. Find it here (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/DocView/slbid/1/2/15?hilite=).
I posted the same Q on Ron Gotcher's forum this afternoon and my post did not go through to be moderated (I got the message that the post was submitted and will be posted after moderator approves it) or the mod chose not to post it.
Snip from 202 a 5 (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid|SLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination|act202a&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1435)
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
Paragraph in the above corresond to each category. So paragraph 1 is EB1. Paragraph 2 is EB2 and so on. So the translation is what the VB exactly said.
What does 203 (b) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 say?
Define EB1-EB5 categories. Find it here (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/DocView/slbid/1/2/15?hilite=).
I posted the same Q on Ron Gotcher's forum this afternoon and my post did not go through to be moderated (I got the message that the post was submitted and will be posted after moderator approves it) or the mod chose not to post it.
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
06-10 12:50 PM
WAKE UP CALL FOR THOSE STILL SITTING ON THE SIDELINES
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
What should we do. I am in tell me what I need to do?
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
What should we do. I am in tell me what I need to do?
rock
06-22 10:54 PM
When you get 485 approval you will not need EAD or AP :D
It's OK to file for EAD and AP yourself, I did it 4 times but you need I-485 receipt notice and I-140 receipt and then approval notice to do that. So if you are wiling to wait till your lawyer get notices (it could be months for those who are filing in July) and your employer and lawyer will provide you a copy of all notices - it's fine to file yourself.
Hi voldemar,
I am also in the similar but not exact situation. Recently I changed the employer. My new employer is going to file I-140 and I-485 using the Labor substitution.I also want to file EAD and AP but the company attorney is saying it is safer to file the EAD and AP once the I-140 is approved. Can any one please answer this is true or not? Should I wait for I-140 to be approved or should I try convince the attorney to file EAD and AP also along with I-140 and I-485. I have one more question which is if We do not file the EAD and AP along with the I-485 and once the priority dates are retrogessed. Can we file EAD and AP even though the priority dates are not current and our I-485 is pending?
I would appreciate the answers and any official links if available.
Thanks
It's OK to file for EAD and AP yourself, I did it 4 times but you need I-485 receipt notice and I-140 receipt and then approval notice to do that. So if you are wiling to wait till your lawyer get notices (it could be months for those who are filing in July) and your employer and lawyer will provide you a copy of all notices - it's fine to file yourself.
Hi voldemar,
I am also in the similar but not exact situation. Recently I changed the employer. My new employer is going to file I-140 and I-485 using the Labor substitution.I also want to file EAD and AP but the company attorney is saying it is safer to file the EAD and AP once the I-140 is approved. Can any one please answer this is true or not? Should I wait for I-140 to be approved or should I try convince the attorney to file EAD and AP also along with I-140 and I-485. I have one more question which is if We do not file the EAD and AP along with the I-485 and once the priority dates are retrogessed. Can we file EAD and AP even though the priority dates are not current and our I-485 is pending?
I would appreciate the answers and any official links if available.
Thanks