mattresscoil
11-18 08:23 PM
Hello group:
Got this response from Ander Crenshaw - Member of Congress
What does this mean? is he going to support or not? should I follow-up and ask anything else?
=================
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about immigration policy. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts with me on this matter.
The basic law governing immigration and naturalization is contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952. The INA establishes a flexible level of permanent admissions. The Act provides for a permanent worldwide level of 675,000 immigrants each year. The worldwide level is flexible in that it may be exceeded in certain circumstances. The permanent immigrant level consists of the following components: (a) family-sponsored immigrants, including immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and family-sponsored preference immigrants; (b) employment-based preference immigrants; and (c) diversity immigrants, those immigrants with low admission levels who must have a high school education or its equivalent or a minimum of two years work experience in a profession requiring two years of training or experience. Additionally, the INA establishes per-country levels that are applicable to family-sponsored and employment-based preference immigrants only. The per-country level is not a "quota" set aside for individual countries. According to the State Department, the per-country level is not an entitlement but, rather, a barrier against monopolization of the immigration by one country in any given year.
Legal immigration has had a positive impact on the United States and our economy. Most immigrants come to this country with a support system already in place (e.g., family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants). The majority of the other legal immigrants are permitted to remain in this country for humanitarian reasons. Studies have also shown that within several short years, most immigrants are net producers, rather than net consumers, in our economy. While there is certainly a legitimate debate regarding the appropriate level of immigration, most would agree that an immigration policy which promotes family unity and requires a certain degree of self-support is generally acceptable.
However, there is a significant difference between legal and illegal immigration. Since my election to Congress in 2000, I have worked with my colleagues to ensure that our border is more secure and that we do not encourage people to come into our country illegally. Illegal aliens place a tremendous financial and social burden on our society, and we must work to stop this unfair practice.
The best way to get illegal immigration under control is to secure our borders. Our porous borders have allowed more than ten million people to cross into our country with no oversight, no accountability, and no record. We simply have no idea who they are, where they came from, and most importantly - why they entered our country illegally. I believe we must increase the size of the Border Patrol to 18,000 agents, we must actively construct a double barrier wall and utilize technological innovations, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, to conduct surveillance operations along the remaining border.
Once we have secured our borders, we must turn our attention to the more than 12 million illegal immigrants already residing here. There are varying proposals currently being debated here in Washington as to what is the most economically feasible approach to addressing this situation. I do not support amnesty for those individuals who have broken our laws and will work to deport those individuals who have become a financial and social burden on our society. I believe that we must establish an Employer Verification System that is easy to use and provides timely feedback to employers. Any employer that continues to knowingly employ illegal aliens should be assessed heavy fines and penalties.
I look forward to debating this issue during the year to come and assure you that I will continue to support revisions to our current immigration policy that provide meaningful reform and offer maximum protection for our borders. Additionally, I will oppose any attempts to provide amnesty to the more than 12 million illegal immigrants currently living in this country.
Again, I want to thank you for taking the time to contact me. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any further assistance on this matter or if you would like additional information on this topic or other issues facing Congress, please visit my Web site at United States Congressman Ander Crenshaw - Florida's 4th District (http://crenshaw.house.gov).
Sincerely,
Ander Crenshaw
Member of Congress
==================
Got this response from Ander Crenshaw - Member of Congress
What does this mean? is he going to support or not? should I follow-up and ask anything else?
=================
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about immigration policy. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts with me on this matter.
The basic law governing immigration and naturalization is contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952. The INA establishes a flexible level of permanent admissions. The Act provides for a permanent worldwide level of 675,000 immigrants each year. The worldwide level is flexible in that it may be exceeded in certain circumstances. The permanent immigrant level consists of the following components: (a) family-sponsored immigrants, including immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and family-sponsored preference immigrants; (b) employment-based preference immigrants; and (c) diversity immigrants, those immigrants with low admission levels who must have a high school education or its equivalent or a minimum of two years work experience in a profession requiring two years of training or experience. Additionally, the INA establishes per-country levels that are applicable to family-sponsored and employment-based preference immigrants only. The per-country level is not a "quota" set aside for individual countries. According to the State Department, the per-country level is not an entitlement but, rather, a barrier against monopolization of the immigration by one country in any given year.
Legal immigration has had a positive impact on the United States and our economy. Most immigrants come to this country with a support system already in place (e.g., family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants). The majority of the other legal immigrants are permitted to remain in this country for humanitarian reasons. Studies have also shown that within several short years, most immigrants are net producers, rather than net consumers, in our economy. While there is certainly a legitimate debate regarding the appropriate level of immigration, most would agree that an immigration policy which promotes family unity and requires a certain degree of self-support is generally acceptable.
However, there is a significant difference between legal and illegal immigration. Since my election to Congress in 2000, I have worked with my colleagues to ensure that our border is more secure and that we do not encourage people to come into our country illegally. Illegal aliens place a tremendous financial and social burden on our society, and we must work to stop this unfair practice.
The best way to get illegal immigration under control is to secure our borders. Our porous borders have allowed more than ten million people to cross into our country with no oversight, no accountability, and no record. We simply have no idea who they are, where they came from, and most importantly - why they entered our country illegally. I believe we must increase the size of the Border Patrol to 18,000 agents, we must actively construct a double barrier wall and utilize technological innovations, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, to conduct surveillance operations along the remaining border.
Once we have secured our borders, we must turn our attention to the more than 12 million illegal immigrants already residing here. There are varying proposals currently being debated here in Washington as to what is the most economically feasible approach to addressing this situation. I do not support amnesty for those individuals who have broken our laws and will work to deport those individuals who have become a financial and social burden on our society. I believe that we must establish an Employer Verification System that is easy to use and provides timely feedback to employers. Any employer that continues to knowingly employ illegal aliens should be assessed heavy fines and penalties.
I look forward to debating this issue during the year to come and assure you that I will continue to support revisions to our current immigration policy that provide meaningful reform and offer maximum protection for our borders. Additionally, I will oppose any attempts to provide amnesty to the more than 12 million illegal immigrants currently living in this country.
Again, I want to thank you for taking the time to contact me. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any further assistance on this matter or if you would like additional information on this topic or other issues facing Congress, please visit my Web site at United States Congressman Ander Crenshaw - Florida's 4th District (http://crenshaw.house.gov).
Sincerely,
Ander Crenshaw
Member of Congress
==================
wallpaper 09 Fe 570 AMA Supermoto
krishnam70
07-03 12:14 PM
The only change for now is the delivery date - July 10th instead of 09th (FTD doesn't deliver on Mondays)
good some people are taking notice and doing it.. lets keep it rolling and hope atleast few more add on.. cmon guys its just 35$ after all these years and so much money spent what is 30+ bucks.. I promise I will contribute to IV also regularly... make the noise.. and make sure this thing is mentioned in the blogs too so if people miss it here they will read it there and respond...
good idea prashant
good some people are taking notice and doing it.. lets keep it rolling and hope atleast few more add on.. cmon guys its just 35$ after all these years and so much money spent what is 30+ bucks.. I promise I will contribute to IV also regularly... make the noise.. and make sure this thing is mentioned in the blogs too so if people miss it here they will read it there and respond...
good idea prashant
rtarar
05-19 05:46 PM
I am a 2 July 2007 filer. Many SR's and calls later no FP.But I applied for EAD and AP renewal last week.I got the FP notice in mail today.
So I think that the renewal may trigger a FP notice.
-R
So I think that the renewal may trigger a FP notice.
-R
2011 husaberg supermoto.
Prashant
07-03 02:45 PM
Done
Your Order Confirmation: EGONZA0EG2UY
Message: All the best for Future EB Visa Estimates
Truly,
A victim of revised visa bulletin
Your Order Confirmation: EGONZA0EG2UY
Message: All the best for Future EB Visa Estimates
Truly,
A victim of revised visa bulletin
more...
h1techSlave
02-02 04:14 PM
Since we are in a fighting mood, I will throw some fuel to the fire :) :)
When you think about it, reservation and quota system is actually a better deal for the upper caste.
First check out this picture, which details the population percentages and proposed reservations: File:PopulationEstimations.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PopulationEstimations.jpg)
As per the above picture, 52% of people in India belongs to Backward classes according to Mandal estimates. Since the proposed reservation for them is 27%, the reservation system works in favor of Forward classes as long as Backward classes are not uplifted from their current pathetic situation. Another way of looking at the graph is that 25.5% of people in India belongs to forward classes; and their share in the Indian pie in terms of higher education of job opportunities --> (100 - 27 - 22.5 = 50.5%). Personally I like this system, than 25.5% of us getting only 25.5% of our share.
To conclude:
If reservations stays; 25% upper caste can enjoy 50% of resources.
If reservation system goes away due to uplifting of backward classes; 25% of upper caste will have to satisfy themselves with only 25% of resources.
When you think about it, reservation and quota system is actually a better deal for the upper caste.
First check out this picture, which details the population percentages and proposed reservations: File:PopulationEstimations.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PopulationEstimations.jpg)
As per the above picture, 52% of people in India belongs to Backward classes according to Mandal estimates. Since the proposed reservation for them is 27%, the reservation system works in favor of Forward classes as long as Backward classes are not uplifted from their current pathetic situation. Another way of looking at the graph is that 25.5% of people in India belongs to forward classes; and their share in the Indian pie in terms of higher education of job opportunities --> (100 - 27 - 22.5 = 50.5%). Personally I like this system, than 25.5% of us getting only 25.5% of our share.
To conclude:
If reservations stays; 25% upper caste can enjoy 50% of resources.
If reservation system goes away due to uplifting of backward classes; 25% of upper caste will have to satisfy themselves with only 25% of resources.
clear485
08-18 01:19 PM
You are talking about 2004, 05. What about 2001, 2002 and 2003? There are so many people with 2002 priority dates still waiting just like me. Mine is 02/2002
What a unfair/unethical/inhuman system. I curse everyone who is causing this delay. They will all land up in hell.
I agree....mine is too 2002 PD/EB2
Simple reason USCIS will tell you/senator/judge/anyone who really seek the resolution of our loooooong delayed cases is.....case is in security/background/additional review checks.....so everyone will shut their mouth and forward this message to the concerned person.....
No use....USCIS is a big elephant and acting in sleep....
What a unfair/unethical/inhuman system. I curse everyone who is causing this delay. They will all land up in hell.
I agree....mine is too 2002 PD/EB2
Simple reason USCIS will tell you/senator/judge/anyone who really seek the resolution of our loooooong delayed cases is.....case is in security/background/additional review checks.....so everyone will shut their mouth and forward this message to the concerned person.....
No use....USCIS is a big elephant and acting in sleep....
more...
kingnaga
09-17 05:57 PM
July 3rd, NSC. Waiting....
2010 Husaberg Supermoto.
gc_dream07
07-19 09:37 PM
I agree with move. I will participate. Please add EB1 also in the list. EB1 also should get the GC based on priority as the title of the thread says. Also remove the country quota. That will make it purely first come first serve basis. Everybody is treated equally irrespective of country or background.
more...
CADude
03-25 05:50 PM
You are an optimistic guy. keep it up. I used to be same once upon a time. Not Any More... :D
EB3 India, PD: July 2001
Per IO, case not assigned to AO. Will take approx 90 days to assign to AO.
You will get it this Calendar Year. Trust me.
EB3 India, PD: July 2001
Per IO, case not assigned to AO. Will take approx 90 days to assign to AO.
You will get it this Calendar Year. Trust me.
hair Brute Force Husaberg Supermoto
jsb
11-02 11:56 AM
I was confident on this before, you have just made me super confident.
I have been saying all along that one can get a same/similar job after 180 days irrespective of the whether I-140 was approved or not. I don't know why some people / lawyers spread so much mis-information on this topic.
cjain:
Necessity of 2nd I-140 (if original I-140 denied after 180 days) by new employer is a bit vague and debatable. That's why there are different opinions. For argument sake, if 1st I-140 is approved after, say 360 days, and the beneficiary is already working for the 2nd employer (after waiting for 182 days), what is the sanctity of 1st employer being willing and capable of hiring at this time when there is no intention of beneficiary to work for him.
Bottom line is (I am contracdicting my own argument of previous post), longer the USCIS takes in approving 1st I-140, less is the need of 2nd I-140 by the new employer.
There are always grey areas in law, otherwise we don't need lawyers:).
I have been saying all along that one can get a same/similar job after 180 days irrespective of the whether I-140 was approved or not. I don't know why some people / lawyers spread so much mis-information on this topic.
cjain:
Necessity of 2nd I-140 (if original I-140 denied after 180 days) by new employer is a bit vague and debatable. That's why there are different opinions. For argument sake, if 1st I-140 is approved after, say 360 days, and the beneficiary is already working for the 2nd employer (after waiting for 182 days), what is the sanctity of 1st employer being willing and capable of hiring at this time when there is no intention of beneficiary to work for him.
Bottom line is (I am contracdicting my own argument of previous post), longer the USCIS takes in approving 1st I-140, less is the need of 2nd I-140 by the new employer.
There are always grey areas in law, otherwise we don't need lawyers:).
more...
BECsufferer
01-30 07:49 PM
Hi
I came to us on H4 in 2007 and the got my H1B in 2008. I am not getting a job on H1 yet so i want to know that till when the H1B be valid as I am not genarating any salery and my consultant is not running my pay roll ?
And if the H1 goes dorment then what can be done next?
Hmmm ... not generating salary, means you are not working currently. But your employer hasn't revoked your H1 ( or work authorization, i don't recall exact term), which mostly they do or are supposed to do. Which is good, if you have freindly terms ask for to be sent on un-paid leave. Plus if you have paid leave pending, maintain that so incase your employer has to issue pay check, he can tap into this.
I came to us on H4 in 2007 and the got my H1B in 2008. I am not getting a job on H1 yet so i want to know that till when the H1B be valid as I am not genarating any salery and my consultant is not running my pay roll ?
And if the H1 goes dorment then what can be done next?
Hmmm ... not generating salary, means you are not working currently. But your employer hasn't revoked your H1 ( or work authorization, i don't recall exact term), which mostly they do or are supposed to do. Which is good, if you have freindly terms ask for to be sent on un-paid leave. Plus if you have paid leave pending, maintain that so incase your employer has to issue pay check, he can tap into this.
hot Husaberg Supermoto.
GCNaseeb
08-30 05:55 PM
Some one should create or re-create the thread at Members only forum so it will be seen from the main page.
Please create link to main page Forum So that everyone can access easily.
Please create link to main page Forum So that everyone can access easily.
more...
house wallpaper husaberg supermoto.
anda007
07-04 03:21 AM
I have sent my flowers to Emilio Sanchez. Here is my reciept of the same
Regards
Anand Sharma
Order # FNL1783677
Deliver on: Tuesday
Jul. 10, 2007
Delivery by: FedEx�, DHL� or UPS�
Deliver to: Emilio Sanchez
Business
US Citizen and Immigration Service
20 Massachusetts Avenue,
NW
Washington, DC 20529
US
2023071565
Occasion: Get Well
Gift Message and Signature: Dear Mr. Sanchez Thanks for giving us hope for few hours on July 1st and taking it away. We enjoyed the ride and the pain. Hope USCIS recovers from its insanity soon. Hope you Get well soon Regards A Legal Immigrant
Sweetheart Mixed Rose Bouquet
- F488 $ 24.99
Service Charges $ 13.99
Taxes $ 0.00
Subtotal $ 38.98
Regards
Anand Sharma
Order # FNL1783677
Deliver on: Tuesday
Jul. 10, 2007
Delivery by: FedEx�, DHL� or UPS�
Deliver to: Emilio Sanchez
Business
US Citizen and Immigration Service
20 Massachusetts Avenue,
NW
Washington, DC 20529
US
2023071565
Occasion: Get Well
Gift Message and Signature: Dear Mr. Sanchez Thanks for giving us hope for few hours on July 1st and taking it away. We enjoyed the ride and the pain. Hope USCIS recovers from its insanity soon. Hope you Get well soon Regards A Legal Immigrant
Sweetheart Mixed Rose Bouquet
- F488 $ 24.99
Service Charges $ 13.99
Taxes $ 0.00
Subtotal $ 38.98
tattoo husaberg supermoto.
dilusa1
08-27 01:44 PM
Recived I-485.I-131,I-765 at Nebrasaka on July 5th, at 10:50 AM.
signed by "CRUH"
No receipt Yet..
Thanks
signed by "CRUH"
No receipt Yet..
Thanks
more...
pictures HUSABERG SuperMoto Force Cup
GCNaseeb
11-21 07:26 PM
Hi Mehul,
I am so sad and speechless after reading this. The next moment, I remembered that, my Metlife Insurance agent's husband had the same story. But miracle happened; he survived. So don't loose your hope. Sometimes hope is the best medicine.
My prayers are there for you. You will live long years, don't worry.
To answer your question, though I am not aware of any laws for this type of situation, we can always try. I would try to get an appointment with either Zoe Lofgren or Nancy Pelosi. May be there are ways. If you need help, let us know we can accompany you.
I am so sad and speechless after reading this. The next moment, I remembered that, my Metlife Insurance agent's husband had the same story. But miracle happened; he survived. So don't loose your hope. Sometimes hope is the best medicine.
My prayers are there for you. You will live long years, don't worry.
To answer your question, though I am not aware of any laws for this type of situation, we can always try. I would try to get an appointment with either Zoe Lofgren or Nancy Pelosi. May be there are ways. If you need help, let us know we can accompany you.
dresses Trev#39;s DR-Z in Supermoto trim
jonty_11
05-23 01:22 PM
Send emails..
Cornyns' website just goes into a loop on that validation question...how do i get past that?
Cornyns' website just goes into a loop on that validation question...how do i get past that?
more...
makeup Husaberg FS 650 E 2007
admin
05-06 03:55 PM
Another warning. We will not tolerate flaming wars or denigrating posts.
Can't we work together civilly for this? The illegal aliens speak in one voice and are more easily heard. While immigrants who are supposed to be "highly educated" like us have to fight within ourselves over every issue.
If you find some bad post, report it to us by clicking on the exclamation mark symbol. Don't retort.
Can't we work together civilly for this? The illegal aliens speak in one voice and are more easily heard. While immigrants who are supposed to be "highly educated" like us have to fight within ourselves over every issue.
If you find some bad post, report it to us by clicking on the exclamation mark symbol. Don't retort.
girlfriend tattoo Supermoto User husaberg
raghav235
08-15 01:26 PM
EB3_SEP04,
My Receipt and Notice date is July 03, 2008, however there was a soft LUD on my case on July 08, 2008. And again another LUD on August 14, 2008 which is the approval.
Thanks
Raghav235
Raghav, congrats and thanks for the update.
Is July 08, 2008 also the Notice Date on your receipt notice? I'm wondering if generally there is one more LUD after the notice date and before the approval, when they pull the file off the shelf and start working on the case.
for me no LUD after notice date.
My Receipt and Notice date is July 03, 2008, however there was a soft LUD on my case on July 08, 2008. And again another LUD on August 14, 2008 which is the approval.
Thanks
Raghav235
Raghav, congrats and thanks for the update.
Is July 08, 2008 also the Notice Date on your receipt notice? I'm wondering if generally there is one more LUD after the notice date and before the approval, when they pull the file off the shelf and start working on the case.
for me no LUD after notice date.
hairstyles husaberg supermoto.
desi3933
07-10 12:24 AM
@desi3933:
1. From tax standpoint, W2 means the company (could be fully/partly owned by you) is paying tax-at-source. On 1099, *you* do the taxes and hence the hourly rate on 1099 is typically more than that on W2. Yes, you can be an owner of a corporation and file taxes as as a C-Corp or an S-Corp on W2, but not as a "Self-employed."
2. Yes, I-140 is for "permanent" (definition needed) and FT job, since the sponsoring company has always an "intent" to hire the petitioner in the future. *But* AC21 provision helps you to change employers after 180 days of filing I-485, if your I-140 is approved. The new job has to be "same or similar" to the occupation your I-140 petition was filed for. The "permanent" intent of the original employer disappears under AC21 because you changed employers (or your original employer withdrew I-140, even though he had genuine "intent" at the time of I-140 filing to hire you in the future). I agree that "any memo (including Yates memo) supplements the existing federal regulations," but the Yates memo gives you the AC21 provision, which was a law signed by Pres. Bush.
3. It is wrong to *infer* that "AC-21 job must be of same type as I-140/labor job, hence must be permanent and full time." As I say in 2. above, the employer who filed your I-140 should have intent, *at I-140 filing time*, to hire you in the future. And that intent is not needed after 180 days of filing I-485 *and* approved I-140, regardless of whether your original employer continues or withdraws your I-140 petition.
4. You're wrong in your example of "A job with 6 year contract is a temporary job." I've often seen the "6-month contracts" getting extended to 1, 2, 3 years or indefinitely. Similarly, a "permanent" job may last a few months (e.g., because of a recession).
5. It is true that "all H-1B jobs are temporary in nature and called guest workers," but H-1B (compared with, say TN-1) is a dual intent visa. Once you file I-140, your intent (whether on H1 or EAD) becomes not that of a temporary visitor but as the one seeking a permanent stay in this country.
6. Again, it's wrong to assume that "most of full time exempt jobs in this country are permanent in nature." And even if they were permanent, in what sense?
I think we're running into into two issues here. The first one is related to semantics--i.e., what constitutes a "permanent" job? The second one is the *inference/assumption* that, because because I-140 requires you to be on a permanent, FT job (=sponsoring employer has "intent" to hire you in the future), your employment under AC21 provision should be "permanent".
1. You can be self employed on c-corp as well. Please go to bank of your choice and you will get the answer. I do have business accounts and speaking from my own experience.
2. Here is one RFE issued by USCIS. This should answer that AC-21 job must be permanent and match your labor/I-140
If you will no longer be employed by the original Form I-140 petitioner, you may still be eligible to adjust your status under the visa portability provisions of section 106� of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21), Public Law 106-313. This legislation permits certain adjustment applications to change employers without filing a new immigrant visa petition, provided they are:
The beneficiary of an immigrant petition approved under section 204(a)(1)(F) of the Act (previously 204(a)(1)(D)), AND The application for adjustment has been pending for more than 180 days, AND the new permanent position is in the same or similar occupational classification as the original employment.
If you now claim such eligibility, submit a letter from your new employer, describing your present job duties and position in the organization, your proffered position (if different from your current one), the date you began employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter must be in the original and signed by an executive or officer of the organization who is authorized to make or confirm an offer of permanent employment. The letter should also indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment-based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
3. See point 2.
4. Contract extension does not mean job is permanent. And, yes, 6 year contract job is temporary in nature. Permanent job can not have end date. Period.
5. Dual intent visa means that it can be issued even if I-140 or I-130 has been filed on your behalf. Nothing more than that. GC job is independent of H-1B job.
6. Again, Permanent job is a job that is expected to last unknown term and is not defined for a period. H-1B job is not permanent since they have end date specified by LCA and H-1B visa petition.
7. Here is a case for I-140 that was denied, since offered I-140 job was not permanent full-time job. Read for yourself
Link to case (http://www.uscis.gov/err/B6%20-%20Skilled%20Workers,%20Professionals,%20and%20Oth er%20Workers/Decisions_Issued_in_2009/Jan022009_06B6203.pdf)
____________________
Not a legal advice.
1. From tax standpoint, W2 means the company (could be fully/partly owned by you) is paying tax-at-source. On 1099, *you* do the taxes and hence the hourly rate on 1099 is typically more than that on W2. Yes, you can be an owner of a corporation and file taxes as as a C-Corp or an S-Corp on W2, but not as a "Self-employed."
2. Yes, I-140 is for "permanent" (definition needed) and FT job, since the sponsoring company has always an "intent" to hire the petitioner in the future. *But* AC21 provision helps you to change employers after 180 days of filing I-485, if your I-140 is approved. The new job has to be "same or similar" to the occupation your I-140 petition was filed for. The "permanent" intent of the original employer disappears under AC21 because you changed employers (or your original employer withdrew I-140, even though he had genuine "intent" at the time of I-140 filing to hire you in the future). I agree that "any memo (including Yates memo) supplements the existing federal regulations," but the Yates memo gives you the AC21 provision, which was a law signed by Pres. Bush.
3. It is wrong to *infer* that "AC-21 job must be of same type as I-140/labor job, hence must be permanent and full time." As I say in 2. above, the employer who filed your I-140 should have intent, *at I-140 filing time*, to hire you in the future. And that intent is not needed after 180 days of filing I-485 *and* approved I-140, regardless of whether your original employer continues or withdraws your I-140 petition.
4. You're wrong in your example of "A job with 6 year contract is a temporary job." I've often seen the "6-month contracts" getting extended to 1, 2, 3 years or indefinitely. Similarly, a "permanent" job may last a few months (e.g., because of a recession).
5. It is true that "all H-1B jobs are temporary in nature and called guest workers," but H-1B (compared with, say TN-1) is a dual intent visa. Once you file I-140, your intent (whether on H1 or EAD) becomes not that of a temporary visitor but as the one seeking a permanent stay in this country.
6. Again, it's wrong to assume that "most of full time exempt jobs in this country are permanent in nature." And even if they were permanent, in what sense?
I think we're running into into two issues here. The first one is related to semantics--i.e., what constitutes a "permanent" job? The second one is the *inference/assumption* that, because because I-140 requires you to be on a permanent, FT job (=sponsoring employer has "intent" to hire you in the future), your employment under AC21 provision should be "permanent".
1. You can be self employed on c-corp as well. Please go to bank of your choice and you will get the answer. I do have business accounts and speaking from my own experience.
2. Here is one RFE issued by USCIS. This should answer that AC-21 job must be permanent and match your labor/I-140
If you will no longer be employed by the original Form I-140 petitioner, you may still be eligible to adjust your status under the visa portability provisions of section 106� of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21), Public Law 106-313. This legislation permits certain adjustment applications to change employers without filing a new immigrant visa petition, provided they are:
The beneficiary of an immigrant petition approved under section 204(a)(1)(F) of the Act (previously 204(a)(1)(D)), AND The application for adjustment has been pending for more than 180 days, AND the new permanent position is in the same or similar occupational classification as the original employment.
If you now claim such eligibility, submit a letter from your new employer, describing your present job duties and position in the organization, your proffered position (if different from your current one), the date you began employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter must be in the original and signed by an executive or officer of the organization who is authorized to make or confirm an offer of permanent employment. The letter should also indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment-based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
3. See point 2.
4. Contract extension does not mean job is permanent. And, yes, 6 year contract job is temporary in nature. Permanent job can not have end date. Period.
5. Dual intent visa means that it can be issued even if I-140 or I-130 has been filed on your behalf. Nothing more than that. GC job is independent of H-1B job.
6. Again, Permanent job is a job that is expected to last unknown term and is not defined for a period. H-1B job is not permanent since they have end date specified by LCA and H-1B visa petition.
7. Here is a case for I-140 that was denied, since offered I-140 job was not permanent full-time job. Read for yourself
Link to case (http://www.uscis.gov/err/B6%20-%20Skilled%20Workers,%20Professionals,%20and%20Oth er%20Workers/Decisions_Issued_in_2009/Jan022009_06B6203.pdf)
____________________
Not a legal advice.
chi_shark
07-10 11:17 AM
I don't recall
...... You are free to ignore my posts. ;)
.
hmmm... it looks like, we both think alike! :-) how cool is that?
you've taken one sliver of info out of that case and making it seem like thats a primary issue... i dont doubt that what you are purporting is true... but your link pointed to something that was a complete waste of time... i agree that you need to have a permanent full time job and that permanent means indefinite in most cases related to immigration.
...... You are free to ignore my posts. ;)
.
hmmm... it looks like, we both think alike! :-) how cool is that?
you've taken one sliver of info out of that case and making it seem like thats a primary issue... i dont doubt that what you are purporting is true... but your link pointed to something that was a complete waste of time... i agree that you need to have a permanent full time job and that permanent means indefinite in most cases related to immigration.
desidas
01-24 07:06 PM
In this thread there are lot of folks who changed employers using AC21 after 180 days I-485 is pending.
Did they ever travel to thier home country using AP after switching employers from the orginal GC sponsoring employer?
Where they being harassed at Port of Entry by Immigration Officers why siwtched employers and travel on AP?
Please share any experiences
Did they ever travel to thier home country using AP after switching employers from the orginal GC sponsoring employer?
Where they being harassed at Port of Entry by Immigration Officers why siwtched employers and travel on AP?
Please share any experiences
No comments:
Post a Comment