gc_on_demand
05-19 10:06 AM
Hello Members,
I am starting this thread to get idea on how many new members on this forum who didnot file for I 485 during July 2007. Numbers can give us some idea on future campaign etc.. Please submit your answer and keep this poll on top of all threads for few months.
I am starting this thread to get idea on how many new members on this forum who didnot file for I 485 during July 2007. Numbers can give us some idea on future campaign etc.. Please submit your answer and keep this poll on top of all threads for few months.
wallpaper Natalie Portman Best
chanduv23
03-31 02:52 PM
Yes, we are seeing more denials and RFEs these days, but we are also seeing more signs of preadjudication at the same time which makes it hard to tell if the rate of denials/RFEs has gone up.
In Mar 2008 for example, we saw maybe 2 485 denials on the forums, which seemed like a small number, and in Mar 2009 if we see 10 485 denials, it will seem like a large number, but you have to remember that the number of applications being pre-adjudicated in March 2008 (according to NSC, TSC processing times) were probably far less than the ones being pre-adjudicated now (since the processing times have only now reached close to or past July 2007 and we have been seeing signs of pre-adjudication activity - soft LUDs, etc.).
So if 100 applications were being preadjudicated in Mar 2008, the % of denials was 2% and if 500 are being pre-adjudicated now, the % of denials is still 2%, it just seems higher because 10 guys posting about 485 denials in a month, seems more shocking than 2 guys a month.
Of course, these numbers are all based on the assumption that the # of applications filed in July 2007 far exceeded the # of applications that were "in process" until then, and that forum members are a good statistical sample, so in the end, it is still a guess.
Godspeed to all of us.
Yes - this seems like pre adjudication as we see so many RFEs and denials and soft LUDs even though the dates are not current.
In Mar 2008 for example, we saw maybe 2 485 denials on the forums, which seemed like a small number, and in Mar 2009 if we see 10 485 denials, it will seem like a large number, but you have to remember that the number of applications being pre-adjudicated in March 2008 (according to NSC, TSC processing times) were probably far less than the ones being pre-adjudicated now (since the processing times have only now reached close to or past July 2007 and we have been seeing signs of pre-adjudication activity - soft LUDs, etc.).
So if 100 applications were being preadjudicated in Mar 2008, the % of denials was 2% and if 500 are being pre-adjudicated now, the % of denials is still 2%, it just seems higher because 10 guys posting about 485 denials in a month, seems more shocking than 2 guys a month.
Of course, these numbers are all based on the assumption that the # of applications filed in July 2007 far exceeded the # of applications that were "in process" until then, and that forum members are a good statistical sample, so in the end, it is still a guess.
Godspeed to all of us.
Yes - this seems like pre adjudication as we see so many RFEs and denials and soft LUDs even though the dates are not current.
Fightwithfate
03-13 09:46 PM
Hi Attorneys/Seniors,
Application Type:H1 Transfer(Premium Processing)
Processing Centre:VSC
FedEx Delivery Date:03/04/2010
Sofar(End of day 03/13/2010) My Employer have not received the receipt no from vermont Service Center. My Employer himself took LCA and Applied H1 transfer.He sent Cashier cheque with the documents.My Employer is an American company where I have to start working once it is approved.
Please help me regarding this.
Today is 10 nth day since my Documents delivered to VSC Premium Processing Center.
How soon we receive the receipt no in premium processing case.
Do you think my employer can contact VSC regarding the receipt no or shall I wait for the whole 15 days.
Please help me
Application Type:H1 Transfer(Premium Processing)
Processing Centre:VSC
FedEx Delivery Date:03/04/2010
Sofar(End of day 03/13/2010) My Employer have not received the receipt no from vermont Service Center. My Employer himself took LCA and Applied H1 transfer.He sent Cashier cheque with the documents.My Employer is an American company where I have to start working once it is approved.
Please help me regarding this.
Today is 10 nth day since my Documents delivered to VSC Premium Processing Center.
How soon we receive the receipt no in premium processing case.
Do you think my employer can contact VSC regarding the receipt no or shall I wait for the whole 15 days.
Please help me
2011 Natalie Portman iPhone
eb3retro
12-17 01:36 PM
my current employer filed for my labor in march 2005, got approved in march 2007, filed I-140 in April 2005,and while I-140 was pending filed I-485 in july fiasco. In sep-2007 got intent to deny of I-140 based on A2P(ability to pay), employer filed M.T.R in October 2007. I have my fingered crossed looking at the financial statment from employer for the year 2005. chances are the MTR will be denied too. Now I have a new job offer from another employer who is willing to do new H1b for me and may be a labor petition too. the question is I want to see what comes out of the current MTR. Here is the question;
1/- if I tell the current employer to contine the process(which I dont think he will have problem with) and join the job on h1b will my I-485 status be changed or will it effects the current process?
2/- I am currently runnig on sixth year of h1b and my current visa expires in 2010 bades on the pending process with current employer. if I join the new employer on h1b what will be the H1b status will be?
thanks for the answers in advaced
for gods sake, pls put proper heading for new threads.
1/- if I tell the current employer to contine the process(which I dont think he will have problem with) and join the job on h1b will my I-485 status be changed or will it effects the current process?
2/- I am currently runnig on sixth year of h1b and my current visa expires in 2010 bades on the pending process with current employer. if I join the new employer on h1b what will be the H1b status will be?
thanks for the answers in advaced
for gods sake, pls put proper heading for new threads.
more...
GC08
06-19 07:28 PM
Sorry if this is too basic. But can anyone tell me if passport photos taken from Kinko's will work for filing 485, AP, EAD, etc.?
Someone told me that USCIS does not accept digital photos or the digital photos have to meet certain quality requirement (something like that). I went to Kinko's near by and found out their pictures were digital too. So wondering if anyone had any problems with that (like USCIS rejection of the photos).
Thanks in advance!
Someone told me that USCIS does not accept digital photos or the digital photos have to meet certain quality requirement (something like that). I went to Kinko's near by and found out their pictures were digital too. So wondering if anyone had any problems with that (like USCIS rejection of the photos).
Thanks in advance!
LostInGCProcess
06-12 06:02 PM
No need of new H1 if company 'B's' HR has agreed to continue with 'A''s employees.
1. Get a EVL letter from company 'B'. (This is assuming name of 'A' will change to 'B' or new name.
2. You need to get a "Letter of Acquirement" from HR of new company (I am assuming that the name of the company is changing as well). If name does not change then you should be fine. If you have to travel out of US, you need to carry latest copy of EVL(of new company) and "Letter of Acquirement" along with you. (I went thru these few years back, PwCC bought over by IBM, immediately after the takeover I travelled out of US and came back without any problems(on H1)) this was quite a while back though, you may want to check with your company attorney though.
Note:
"Letter of Acquirement’ would state that your 'A' company was bought over by 'B' company on Date and name has now changed to 'B'.
Good luck.
GCCovet
They have sent me a "Acquisition Notification" letter (pdf file). In which it says "NEW Company has acquired OLD company via 100% stock Purchase."
Also in the letter it says "NEW company succeeded to the interests and obligation of OLD Company . NEW Company has assumed the liabilities and obligations of the H1B employees of OLD company.
And its signed by both parties of NEW and OLD company.
Is this letter sufficient for me to hang on to?
Should I ask for EVL too?
I am worried because my last payroll was from the new company...My OLD employer told me otherwise that everything would be same....i mean no company name change etc...apparently he lied to me.
1. Get a EVL letter from company 'B'. (This is assuming name of 'A' will change to 'B' or new name.
2. You need to get a "Letter of Acquirement" from HR of new company (I am assuming that the name of the company is changing as well). If name does not change then you should be fine. If you have to travel out of US, you need to carry latest copy of EVL(of new company) and "Letter of Acquirement" along with you. (I went thru these few years back, PwCC bought over by IBM, immediately after the takeover I travelled out of US and came back without any problems(on H1)) this was quite a while back though, you may want to check with your company attorney though.
Note:
"Letter of Acquirement’ would state that your 'A' company was bought over by 'B' company on Date and name has now changed to 'B'.
Good luck.
GCCovet
They have sent me a "Acquisition Notification" letter (pdf file). In which it says "NEW Company has acquired OLD company via 100% stock Purchase."
Also in the letter it says "NEW company succeeded to the interests and obligation of OLD Company . NEW Company has assumed the liabilities and obligations of the H1B employees of OLD company.
And its signed by both parties of NEW and OLD company.
Is this letter sufficient for me to hang on to?
Should I ask for EVL too?
I am worried because my last payroll was from the new company...My OLD employer told me otherwise that everything would be same....i mean no company name change etc...apparently he lied to me.
more...
jackrock79
01-13 03:02 PM
Hi,
I have two I-140 applications and both are from my current emplyer. One was a regular I-140 and the other was a substitute I-140. Both got approved on the same day. Regular had a PD of 04/2007 and substitute had 11/2004.
The regular got approved with PD of 04/2007 and substitute also got approved with 04/2007. So now what are my options of using the 11/2004 PD.
I was expecting USCIS to approve both applications with 11/2004 instead.
Thanks!!
I have two I-140 applications and both are from my current emplyer. One was a regular I-140 and the other was a substitute I-140. Both got approved on the same day. Regular had a PD of 04/2007 and substitute had 11/2004.
The regular got approved with PD of 04/2007 and substitute also got approved with 04/2007. So now what are my options of using the 11/2004 PD.
I was expecting USCIS to approve both applications with 11/2004 instead.
Thanks!!
2010 Natalie Portman Wallpapers
sanjay02
05-17 01:58 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070517/ap_on_go_co/immigration_congress
WASHINGTON - Key senators in both parties and the White House announced agreement Thursday on an immigration overhaul that would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and fortify the border.
ADVERTISEMENT
The plan would create a temporary worker program to bring new arrivals to the U.S. A separate program would cover agricultural workers. New high-tech enforcement measures also would be instituted to verify that workers are here legally.
The compromise came after weeks of painstaking closed-door negotiations that brought the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans together with President Bush's Cabinet officers to produce a highly complex measure that carries heavy political consequences.
Bush hailed completion of the deal as a "historic moment," and said he looked forward to signing it into law, according to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who said he called the president to inform him of it.
"Politics is the art of the possible, and the agreement that we just reached is the best possible chance we will have in years to secure our borders and bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America," Kennedy said.
Anticipating criticism from conservatives, Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., said, "It is not amnesty. This will restore the rule of law."
The accord sets the stage for what promises to be a bruising battle next week in the Senate on one of Bush's top non-war priorities. The president has said he wants to sign an immigration bill by summer's end.
The key breakthrough came when negotiators struck a bargain on a so-called "point system" that would for the first time prioritize immigrants' education and skill level over family connections in deciding how to award green cards.
The draft bill "gives a path out of the shadows and toward legal status for those who are currently here" illegally, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.
The immigration issue also divides both parties in the House, which isn't expected to act unless the Senate passes a bill first.
The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and � after paying fees and a $5,000 fine � ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.
They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed.
A new temporary guest worker program would also have to wait until those so-called "triggers" had been activated.
Those workers would have to return home after work stints of two years, with little opportunity to gain permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens. They could renew their guest worker visas twice, but would be required to leave for a year in between each time.
Democrats had pressed instead for guest workers to be permitted to stay and work indefinitely in the U.S.
In perhaps the most hotly debated change, the proposed plan would shift from an immigration system primarily weighted toward family ties toward one with preferences for people with advanced degrees and sophisticated skills. Republicans have long sought such revisions, which they say are needed to end "chain migration" that harms the economy, while some Democrats and liberal groups say it's an unfair system that rips families apart.
Family connections alone would no longer be enough to qualify for a green card � except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens.
New limits would apply to U.S. citizens seeking to bring foreign-born parents into the country.
WASHINGTON - Key senators in both parties and the White House announced agreement Thursday on an immigration overhaul that would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and fortify the border.
ADVERTISEMENT
The plan would create a temporary worker program to bring new arrivals to the U.S. A separate program would cover agricultural workers. New high-tech enforcement measures also would be instituted to verify that workers are here legally.
The compromise came after weeks of painstaking closed-door negotiations that brought the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans together with President Bush's Cabinet officers to produce a highly complex measure that carries heavy political consequences.
Bush hailed completion of the deal as a "historic moment," and said he looked forward to signing it into law, according to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who said he called the president to inform him of it.
"Politics is the art of the possible, and the agreement that we just reached is the best possible chance we will have in years to secure our borders and bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America," Kennedy said.
Anticipating criticism from conservatives, Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., said, "It is not amnesty. This will restore the rule of law."
The accord sets the stage for what promises to be a bruising battle next week in the Senate on one of Bush's top non-war priorities. The president has said he wants to sign an immigration bill by summer's end.
The key breakthrough came when negotiators struck a bargain on a so-called "point system" that would for the first time prioritize immigrants' education and skill level over family connections in deciding how to award green cards.
The draft bill "gives a path out of the shadows and toward legal status for those who are currently here" illegally, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.
The immigration issue also divides both parties in the House, which isn't expected to act unless the Senate passes a bill first.
The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and � after paying fees and a $5,000 fine � ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.
They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed.
A new temporary guest worker program would also have to wait until those so-called "triggers" had been activated.
Those workers would have to return home after work stints of two years, with little opportunity to gain permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens. They could renew their guest worker visas twice, but would be required to leave for a year in between each time.
Democrats had pressed instead for guest workers to be permitted to stay and work indefinitely in the U.S.
In perhaps the most hotly debated change, the proposed plan would shift from an immigration system primarily weighted toward family ties toward one with preferences for people with advanced degrees and sophisticated skills. Republicans have long sought such revisions, which they say are needed to end "chain migration" that harms the economy, while some Democrats and liberal groups say it's an unfair system that rips families apart.
Family connections alone would no longer be enough to qualify for a green card � except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens.
New limits would apply to U.S. citizens seeking to bring foreign-born parents into the country.
more...
redelite
08-20 04:40 PM
I can fix an outline up no problem.. good call though, and thanks guys! :D
hair Natalie Portman Wallpapers
prem_goel
08-28 07:43 AM
Thanks . what is I-824 again? and where do we file it too?
hey guys can someone respond please? just to elaborate on my case. My wife's been here in US for the last 4 months. I had applied h-1b for her as consular processing. The approval came with stamping notification for chennai consulate (as at the time her H-1b was applied this year in March, her state of residence was in chennai consulate region).
However in April this year she moved to Mumbai and then to USA. I've heard that you can go to stamping at the consulate region you've been staying for the past 6 months. Since she was at Mumbai for half of the time and then in USA, does it give us liberty to choose Mumbai consulate for stamping instead? Would there be any issues? We are thinking that at the time of interview, if they ask she can let them know she has moved to Mumbai and has her address there now. Would that be okay?
Thanks IV!
hey guys can someone respond please? just to elaborate on my case. My wife's been here in US for the last 4 months. I had applied h-1b for her as consular processing. The approval came with stamping notification for chennai consulate (as at the time her H-1b was applied this year in March, her state of residence was in chennai consulate region).
However in April this year she moved to Mumbai and then to USA. I've heard that you can go to stamping at the consulate region you've been staying for the past 6 months. Since she was at Mumbai for half of the time and then in USA, does it give us liberty to choose Mumbai consulate for stamping instead? Would there be any issues? We are thinking that at the time of interview, if they ask she can let them know she has moved to Mumbai and has her address there now. Would that be okay?
Thanks IV!
more...
prem_goel
06-12 05:00 PM
i got an rfe too. I think its sent to both the attorney and the applicant. They said they mailed the RFE yesterday, so hopefully by early next week I should have it. I am guessing its employment verification due to me filing change-of-address. i know for sure that my ex-employer did not revoke 140.
hot Natalie Portman Wallpapers
Venkat_175
04-08 11:40 AM
It looks my ex-employer us not going to take any action as they are getting some business from the client. Thank you very much for helping me.
Regards,
Venkat.
Regards,
Venkat.
more...
house Natalie Portman Photos
vikki76
04-10 10:28 PM
My company lawyer had advised me that it is perfectly legal to do moonlighting using EAD card while holding down permanent job on H1-B.
tattoo Natalie Portman sexy
rahulpaper
10-15 07:48 PM
Does anyone know why the FP for NSC>>CSC>>NSC are taking so long.....my friends who filed at same time are NSC>>TSC and they already got FP.
more...
pictures Natalie - Natalie Portman
TeddyKoochu
05-18 02:13 PM
There are two pointless threads on this site, one is titled "The yanks are coming" and another as "US political system is broken". They both contain long rants of a single user. I seriously doubt if anybody ever reads them, as is evident from the absence of any other user's reply to these threads. Why don't we just remove them, or block them from showing up on the main page. At least it will free up space for more useful threads.
Those are excellent threads buddy. If you look at the content the poster seems to spend significant time to gather the facts and the presentation is extremely detailed. Somebody mentioned the lighten up thread its also great, all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. I agree that some information may not be strictly immigration related its ok. This is my personal opinion.
Those are excellent threads buddy. If you look at the content the poster seems to spend significant time to gather the facts and the presentation is extremely detailed. Somebody mentioned the lighten up thread its also great, all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. I agree that some information may not be strictly immigration related its ok. This is my personal opinion.
dresses Natalie Portman VS Mila Kunis
harish
06-04 11:34 AM
please help
I updated my address via online at USCIS, sent the AR-11 via certified mail, only to find out that my current address was not on file for my I-485 that was pending at that time.
I called TSC using POJ technique, and the IO who answered was very helpful and she took down my new address. I provided both mine and my spouse's receipt numbers and she updated the address for both of us. I had three soft LUD's only after I spoke to the IO.
For those who have to change their address, please take some time and call TSC and verify your address on file! Hope this helps.
I updated my address via online at USCIS, sent the AR-11 via certified mail, only to find out that my current address was not on file for my I-485 that was pending at that time.
I called TSC using POJ technique, and the IO who answered was very helpful and she took down my new address. I provided both mine and my spouse's receipt numbers and she updated the address for both of us. I had three soft LUD's only after I spoke to the IO.
For those who have to change their address, please take some time and call TSC and verify your address on file! Hope this helps.
more...
makeup Natalie Portman Photos Natalie
smisachu
04-24 08:05 PM
Hi Guys,
Need some help. I have labor via PERM(EB2) and I-140 from my present employer. Labor was filed in December 2005. I had applied for Labor by RIR in Sep 2002 from my previous company which closed down in 2004. The old company's attorney has contacted me that the labor is approved. That labor was under EB3.
Both companies are engaged in similar operation, job profile now is more than previous company and both companies are in the same demographic area. Can I port my PD and retain EB2. If I can do that I can file I-485 now.
Any advice will be greately appriciated.:confused: :confused: :confused:
Need some help. I have labor via PERM(EB2) and I-140 from my present employer. Labor was filed in December 2005. I had applied for Labor by RIR in Sep 2002 from my previous company which closed down in 2004. The old company's attorney has contacted me that the labor is approved. That labor was under EB3.
Both companies are engaged in similar operation, job profile now is more than previous company and both companies are in the same demographic area. Can I port my PD and retain EB2. If I can do that I can file I-485 now.
Any advice will be greately appriciated.:confused: :confused: :confused:
girlfriend Natalie Portman Wallpapers
sweet_jungle
08-08 06:49 PM
In the same boat...
--
PD: 03/08/2006
RD: 07/02/2007
ND: 08/10/2007
Transferred from CSC to NSC: 09/05/2007
I think this is a hug issue that needs to be taken up with Ombudsman.
I am PD, Dec, 2004 and July 2 filer.
Mine is also NSC_CSC_NSC route.
Today, first level was unable to fileSR.
Second level said you are 400 days within processing time. Obviously, they are using 2006 date of CSC.
--
PD: 03/08/2006
RD: 07/02/2007
ND: 08/10/2007
Transferred from CSC to NSC: 09/05/2007
I think this is a hug issue that needs to be taken up with Ombudsman.
I am PD, Dec, 2004 and July 2 filer.
Mine is also NSC_CSC_NSC route.
Today, first level was unable to fileSR.
Second level said you are 400 days within processing time. Obviously, they are using 2006 date of CSC.
hairstyles Natalie Portman
Blog Feeds
04-26 11:30 AM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
All eyes are on Governor Jan Brewer today.
On her desk is SB 1070, an anti-immigrant bill which would effectively make all Latinos the target of arrest or interrogation, whether or not they are U.S. citizens, lawful immigrants, or undocumented foreign nationals. Indeed, such a hate-motivated bill may well compel all Latinos to pack up and leave the state. Brewer's choice is clear to anyone who cherishes freedom and democracy�veto SB 1070, and toss it into the dust bin of history where it belongs, together with Jim Crow, the Nazi Nuremberg laws, and South African Apartheid.
But, believe it or not, the Governor is actually considering signing this venomous bill into law. Last night, in yet another surreal Arizona moment Governor Brewer addressed the 41st annual Chicanos Por La Causa anniversary dinner amid calls in the audience for her to veto SB 1070 and surrounded by protesters that chanted and marched outside the Sheraton Phoenix Downtown Hotel where the dinner was held. At the dinner, organization board chairwoman Erica Gonzalez-Melendez urged Brewer to veto "the most hateful piece of legislation directed at Latinos" aptly pointing out that SB 1070 will do nothing to fix our broken immigration system and only "panders to the racist fear mongers of our state." But, Governor Brewer refused to say what she would do, invoking political-speak instead, "I am not prepared to announce a decision on Senate Bill 1070," she said. "What I decide will be based on what's right for Arizona." http://bit.ly/96KJlT. (Note to reader: there have been several surreal moments in Arizona this week. On Monday Senator John McCain, who once described himself as a "maverick" and champion of comprehensive immigration reform, told Fox News host Bill O'Reilly that "the drivers of cars with illegals in it ... are intentionally causing accidents on the freeway." Then on Tuesday an Arizona state House committee approved a measure which would force President Obama to show his birth certificate if he runs for re-election. http://huff.to/9bfpzg)
What is right for Arizona is for Governor Brewer to jealously protect the rights of all its citizens and follow the U.S. Constitution, not turn Arizona into the Fourth Reich. Let's be frank, by passing SB 1070 lawmakers have sold out Arizona taxpayers in a cynical effort to garner votes and look tough. The bill does nothing to build a functional immigration system, secure the border nor rid the state of dangerous criminals. Nor does it protect the wages and working conditions of US workers. Instead, it targets day laborers and ordinary citizens whose appearance might raise "reasonable suspicion" of unlawful immigration status in the mind of a police officer. If Governor Brewer signs SB 1070, people in Arizona with foreign sounding accents or who don't "look American" had better not run into the wrong cop (or even the right cop) because the law mandates they prove they are here legally.
SB 1070 is not the product thoughtful policy making; it is hate speech masquerading as legislation. This sounds extreme until you read SB 1070 which is a hodgepodge of mean spirited provisions that will effectively transform Arizona into a police state for anyone whose skin is a shade other than white. The bill's effect may very well be to make Arizona "Latino Free" and force those who stay behind�U.S. citizens included�to feel like hunted criminals. Frankly, there is no other way to describe SB 1070 which would make not having immigration documents a state crime, allow law enforcement officers to arrest anyone who could not immediately prove they were in the U.S. legally, and subject a brown-skinned person who leaves home without a wallet to arrest. Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles was hardly exaggerating when he compared SB 1070 to "German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation." http://bit.ly/9ZIQ9K.
SB 1070's outright decimation of civil liberties and American values aside, Governor Brewer's signature on the bill will likely reek economic devastation on Arizona, costing its taxpayers billions in lost revenue. The Immigration Policy Center (IPC) reported this week that "if significant numbers of immigrants and Latinos are actually persuaded to leave the state because of this new law, they will take their tax dollars, businesses, and purchasing power with them. The University of Arizona's Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy estimates that the total economic output attributable to Arizona's immigrant workers was $44 billion in 2004, which sustained roughly 400,000 full-time jobs. Furthermore, over 35,000 businesses in Arizona are Latino-owned and had sales and receipts of $4.3 billion and employed 39,363 people in 2002, the last year for which data is available. The Perryman Group estimates that if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 140,324 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time. Putting economic contributions of this magnitude at risk during a time of recession would not serve Arizona well." And this loss of revenue to the hard working taxpayers of Arizona does not take into account the cost of defending the inevitable lawsuits that will be brought against the state for civil rights and other violations. According to the IPC, "Arizona would probably face a costly slew of lawsuits on behalf of legal immigrants and native-born Latinos who feel they have been unjustly targeted" leading to millions of dollars in expenditures. http://bit.ly/dbguDK.
As I wrote previously on this blog, SB 1070 is not the problem. It is an awful symptom of the failure of the Administration and Congress to enact immigration reform. In the void, local and state authorities have run roughshod over the civil liberties we cherish as a nation. What we see today is a perfect storm of crises�ICE's neglect and abuse of immigrant detainees which has culminated in 107 deaths in immigration detention since 2003, the serious civil rights abuses in the notorious 287(g) program which is administered by ICE and "deputizes" state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law, and an immigration bureaucracy that thumbs its nose at the needs of American business and families. As a nation we must demand that Congress and the Administration put politics aside and get to the hard work of building a safe, orderly, fair, and functional immigration policy designed to protect civil liberties and serve the needs of all Americans.
As for today, Governor Brewer has a choice. She can succumb to hatred and fear by signing SB 1070 or allowing it to become law without her signature (it is hard to say which would be more cowardly). Or she can show uncommon political courage and veto the bill, thereby drawing a line in the Arizona desert over which racism, intolerance, and injustice dare not cross.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-3162775922361590244?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/04/arizona-governor-jan-brewers-choice.html)
All eyes are on Governor Jan Brewer today.
On her desk is SB 1070, an anti-immigrant bill which would effectively make all Latinos the target of arrest or interrogation, whether or not they are U.S. citizens, lawful immigrants, or undocumented foreign nationals. Indeed, such a hate-motivated bill may well compel all Latinos to pack up and leave the state. Brewer's choice is clear to anyone who cherishes freedom and democracy�veto SB 1070, and toss it into the dust bin of history where it belongs, together with Jim Crow, the Nazi Nuremberg laws, and South African Apartheid.
But, believe it or not, the Governor is actually considering signing this venomous bill into law. Last night, in yet another surreal Arizona moment Governor Brewer addressed the 41st annual Chicanos Por La Causa anniversary dinner amid calls in the audience for her to veto SB 1070 and surrounded by protesters that chanted and marched outside the Sheraton Phoenix Downtown Hotel where the dinner was held. At the dinner, organization board chairwoman Erica Gonzalez-Melendez urged Brewer to veto "the most hateful piece of legislation directed at Latinos" aptly pointing out that SB 1070 will do nothing to fix our broken immigration system and only "panders to the racist fear mongers of our state." But, Governor Brewer refused to say what she would do, invoking political-speak instead, "I am not prepared to announce a decision on Senate Bill 1070," she said. "What I decide will be based on what's right for Arizona." http://bit.ly/96KJlT. (Note to reader: there have been several surreal moments in Arizona this week. On Monday Senator John McCain, who once described himself as a "maverick" and champion of comprehensive immigration reform, told Fox News host Bill O'Reilly that "the drivers of cars with illegals in it ... are intentionally causing accidents on the freeway." Then on Tuesday an Arizona state House committee approved a measure which would force President Obama to show his birth certificate if he runs for re-election. http://huff.to/9bfpzg)
What is right for Arizona is for Governor Brewer to jealously protect the rights of all its citizens and follow the U.S. Constitution, not turn Arizona into the Fourth Reich. Let's be frank, by passing SB 1070 lawmakers have sold out Arizona taxpayers in a cynical effort to garner votes and look tough. The bill does nothing to build a functional immigration system, secure the border nor rid the state of dangerous criminals. Nor does it protect the wages and working conditions of US workers. Instead, it targets day laborers and ordinary citizens whose appearance might raise "reasonable suspicion" of unlawful immigration status in the mind of a police officer. If Governor Brewer signs SB 1070, people in Arizona with foreign sounding accents or who don't "look American" had better not run into the wrong cop (or even the right cop) because the law mandates they prove they are here legally.
SB 1070 is not the product thoughtful policy making; it is hate speech masquerading as legislation. This sounds extreme until you read SB 1070 which is a hodgepodge of mean spirited provisions that will effectively transform Arizona into a police state for anyone whose skin is a shade other than white. The bill's effect may very well be to make Arizona "Latino Free" and force those who stay behind�U.S. citizens included�to feel like hunted criminals. Frankly, there is no other way to describe SB 1070 which would make not having immigration documents a state crime, allow law enforcement officers to arrest anyone who could not immediately prove they were in the U.S. legally, and subject a brown-skinned person who leaves home without a wallet to arrest. Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles was hardly exaggerating when he compared SB 1070 to "German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation." http://bit.ly/9ZIQ9K.
SB 1070's outright decimation of civil liberties and American values aside, Governor Brewer's signature on the bill will likely reek economic devastation on Arizona, costing its taxpayers billions in lost revenue. The Immigration Policy Center (IPC) reported this week that "if significant numbers of immigrants and Latinos are actually persuaded to leave the state because of this new law, they will take their tax dollars, businesses, and purchasing power with them. The University of Arizona's Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy estimates that the total economic output attributable to Arizona's immigrant workers was $44 billion in 2004, which sustained roughly 400,000 full-time jobs. Furthermore, over 35,000 businesses in Arizona are Latino-owned and had sales and receipts of $4.3 billion and employed 39,363 people in 2002, the last year for which data is available. The Perryman Group estimates that if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 140,324 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time. Putting economic contributions of this magnitude at risk during a time of recession would not serve Arizona well." And this loss of revenue to the hard working taxpayers of Arizona does not take into account the cost of defending the inevitable lawsuits that will be brought against the state for civil rights and other violations. According to the IPC, "Arizona would probably face a costly slew of lawsuits on behalf of legal immigrants and native-born Latinos who feel they have been unjustly targeted" leading to millions of dollars in expenditures. http://bit.ly/dbguDK.
As I wrote previously on this blog, SB 1070 is not the problem. It is an awful symptom of the failure of the Administration and Congress to enact immigration reform. In the void, local and state authorities have run roughshod over the civil liberties we cherish as a nation. What we see today is a perfect storm of crises�ICE's neglect and abuse of immigrant detainees which has culminated in 107 deaths in immigration detention since 2003, the serious civil rights abuses in the notorious 287(g) program which is administered by ICE and "deputizes" state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law, and an immigration bureaucracy that thumbs its nose at the needs of American business and families. As a nation we must demand that Congress and the Administration put politics aside and get to the hard work of building a safe, orderly, fair, and functional immigration policy designed to protect civil liberties and serve the needs of all Americans.
As for today, Governor Brewer has a choice. She can succumb to hatred and fear by signing SB 1070 or allowing it to become law without her signature (it is hard to say which would be more cowardly). Or she can show uncommon political courage and veto the bill, thereby drawing a line in the Arizona desert over which racism, intolerance, and injustice dare not cross.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-3162775922361590244?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/04/arizona-governor-jan-brewers-choice.html)
dilbert_cal
04-25 12:04 AM
WillGetGC2005 - here is my understanding of your case :-
You have PD of 2002. You filed 140 and it is already approved. Your 485 is also filed and its more than 2 years on it.
If the above is correct, you do not need to do PD transfer or start any new labor process either.
What you need to do is use AC21. When you change employers, make sure that the new employer/lawyer sends a note that you are using AC-21 to transfer your job and your new job is same as your old job. Your GC process will continue normally after that using the 485 you have filed.
The rule is if you have an approved I140 and your 485 is pending for more than six months, you can transfer employers using AC21. Your previous employer CANNOT revoke your I-140.
This is my understanding. If you have a new employer and have a job offer , just have a talk with the lawyer and things will clear up.
You have PD of 2002. You filed 140 and it is already approved. Your 485 is also filed and its more than 2 years on it.
If the above is correct, you do not need to do PD transfer or start any new labor process either.
What you need to do is use AC21. When you change employers, make sure that the new employer/lawyer sends a note that you are using AC-21 to transfer your job and your new job is same as your old job. Your GC process will continue normally after that using the 485 you have filed.
The rule is if you have an approved I140 and your 485 is pending for more than six months, you can transfer employers using AC21. Your previous employer CANNOT revoke your I-140.
This is my understanding. If you have a new employer and have a job offer , just have a talk with the lawyer and things will clear up.
singhsa3
11-04 08:11 PM
Check your private msg
Singhsa, I know. At this point, I am looking for alternatives. Please let me know if you have seen such experiences and what USCIS has done in such cases.
Singhsa, I know. At this point, I am looking for alternatives. Please let me know if you have seen such experiences and what USCIS has done in such cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment