canmt
10-26 10:40 AM
If your labor is pending 180 days you can apply for a 1 year visa extension. If you get your I-140 approved under premium processing after your labor approval and before your visa expires you can apply for a 3 year visa extension. You can apply for any other new visa L, J, F etc., and continue to stay inside the country but not H visa otherwise you have to be outside the country for 1 year.
I hope this helps and good luck on your green card pursuit...
I hope this helps and good luck on your green card pursuit...
indyanguy
06-18 02:22 PM
I received the very heartbreaking news that my EB3 PERM application filed OCT 2007 (with audit) was denied. Audit was requesting a copy of the Newspaper AD which the lawyer sent last NOV 2007. Reson for denial was because the copy that the DOL recieved was not clear and some words as part of the Newspaper name was missing.... An appeal will be filed soon.
Any suggestions from the gurus?
I have bachelors with more than 5 years of experience, is it adviseable to file new PERM under EB2 category?
For people who filed motion for an appeal, could you please post your feedbacks/experiences?
Sorry to hear that. I don't know the answer to your original question but I hope you have a way of extending your H1?
Any suggestions from the gurus?
I have bachelors with more than 5 years of experience, is it adviseable to file new PERM under EB2 category?
For people who filed motion for an appeal, could you please post your feedbacks/experiences?
Sorry to hear that. I don't know the answer to your original question but I hope you have a way of extending your H1?
anuh1
03-24 02:21 PM
I am also in the same boat. i have applied for PWD on second week of Feb but still waiting. it looks like it is taking around 6 to 7 months just for applying labor and after that approval will be one more year assuming no RFE.
gc@waiting
07-25 06:17 AM
Can someone shed some light as to what exactly are the things checked and the steps in 140 processing? Is it one's education credentials or employer history and/or ability to employ/pay etc?
more...
drirshad
03-13 04:31 PM
03/13/2009: Senate Bill, S. 577 to Punish Immigration Sharks Defrauding and Victimizing Immigrants and Related Parties
Senate Dianne Feinstine from California, cosponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy, introduced this bill in the Senate yesterday. The full text of the bill is as follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Immigration Fraud Prevention Act of 2009''.
SEC. 2. SCHEMES TO DEFRAUD ALIENS.
(a) Amendments to Title 18.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:``�1041. Schemes to defraud aliens
``(a) In General.--Any person who willfully and knowingly executes a scheme or artifice, in connection with any matter that is authorized by or arises under Federal immigration laws or any matter the offender willfully and knowingly claims or represents is authorized by or arises under Federal immigration laws, to--
``(1) defraud any person; or
``(2) obtain or receive money or anything else of value from any person by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
Here is the background for this bill: The Immigration Fraud Prevention Act would prevent and punish fraud and misrepresentation in the context of immigration proceedings. The act would create a new Federal crime to penalize those who engage in schemes to defraud aliens in connection with Federal immigration laws. Specifically, the act would make it a Federal crime to wilfully and knowingly defraud or obtain or receive money or anything else of value from any person by false or fraudulent pretences, representations, or promises; and to wilfully, knowingly, and falsely represent that an individual is an attorney or accredited representative in any matter arising under Federal immigration law. Violations of these crimes would result in a fine, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to use task forces currently in existence to detect and investigate individuals who are in violation of the immigration fraud crimes as created by the bill. The act would also work to prevent immigration fraud by requiring that Immigration Judges issue warnings about unauthorized practice of immigration law to immigrants in removal proceedings, similar to the current law that requires notification of pro bono legal services to these immigrants; requiring the Attorney General to provide outreach to the immigrant community to help prevent fraud; providing that any materials used to carry out notification on immigration law fraud is done in the appropriate language for that community; and requiring the distribution of the disciplinary list of individuals not authorized to appear before the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, BIA, currently maintained by the Executive Office of Immigration Review, EOIR. Unfortunately, the need for Federal action to prevent and prosecute immigration fraud has escalated in recent years as citizens and non-citizens attempt to navigate the immigration legal system. Thus far, only States have sought to regulate the unauthorized practice of immigration law. Since immigration law is a federal matter, I believe the solution to such misrepresentation and fraud should be addressed by Congress. By enacting this bill, Congress would help prevent more victims like Vincent Smith, a Mexican national who has resided in California since 1975. His wife is an American citizen, and they live with their 6 U.S. citizen children in Palmdale, CA. Mr. Smith would likely have received a green card at least two different times during his stay in California. However, in attempting to get legal counsel, Mr. Smith hired someone whom he thought was an attorney, but was not. As a result, Mr. Smith was charged more than $10,000 for processing his immigration paperwork, which was never filed. Mr. Smith now has no legal status and faces removal proceedings. Another victim of immigration fraud is Raul, a Mexican national, who came to the United States in 2000. He also married a U.S. citizen, Loraina, making him eligible to apply for a green card. Raul and his wife went to Jose for legal help. Jose's business card said he had a ``law office'' and that he was an ``immigration specialist.'' But Jose was not a specialist and charged Raul $4,000 to file a frivolous asylum petition. While Raul thought he was going to receive a green card, he was instead placed into removal proceedings. From California to New York, there are hundreds of stories like these. Many immigrants are preyed on because of their fears--others on their hope of realizing the American dream. They are charged exorbitant fees for the filing of frivolous paperwork that clog our immigration courts and keep families and businesses waiting in limbo for years. Law enforcement officials say that many fraudulent ``immigration specialists'' close their businesses or move on to another part of the state or country before they can be held accountable. They can make $100,000 to $200,000 a year and the few who have been caught rarely serve more than a few months in jail. Often victims of such crimes are deported, sending them back to their home countries without accountability for the perpetrator of the fraud. Most recently, hundreds of immigrants were exploited by Victor M. Espinal, who was arrested for allegedly posing as an immigration attorney. Nearly 125 of Mr. Espinal's clients attended the New York City Bar Association's free clinic to address their legal and immigration options. According to prosecutors, Mr. Espinal falsely claimed on his business cards that he was licensed and admitted to the California bar as well as the bar in the Dominican Republic. Organizations such as the Los Angeles Country Bar Association, National Immigration Forum, American Immigration Lawyers Association, and American Bar Association have been documenting this exploitation for many years.
Senate Dianne Feinstine from California, cosponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy, introduced this bill in the Senate yesterday. The full text of the bill is as follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Immigration Fraud Prevention Act of 2009''.
SEC. 2. SCHEMES TO DEFRAUD ALIENS.
(a) Amendments to Title 18.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:``�1041. Schemes to defraud aliens
``(a) In General.--Any person who willfully and knowingly executes a scheme or artifice, in connection with any matter that is authorized by or arises under Federal immigration laws or any matter the offender willfully and knowingly claims or represents is authorized by or arises under Federal immigration laws, to--
``(1) defraud any person; or
``(2) obtain or receive money or anything else of value from any person by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
Here is the background for this bill: The Immigration Fraud Prevention Act would prevent and punish fraud and misrepresentation in the context of immigration proceedings. The act would create a new Federal crime to penalize those who engage in schemes to defraud aliens in connection with Federal immigration laws. Specifically, the act would make it a Federal crime to wilfully and knowingly defraud or obtain or receive money or anything else of value from any person by false or fraudulent pretences, representations, or promises; and to wilfully, knowingly, and falsely represent that an individual is an attorney or accredited representative in any matter arising under Federal immigration law. Violations of these crimes would result in a fine, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to use task forces currently in existence to detect and investigate individuals who are in violation of the immigration fraud crimes as created by the bill. The act would also work to prevent immigration fraud by requiring that Immigration Judges issue warnings about unauthorized practice of immigration law to immigrants in removal proceedings, similar to the current law that requires notification of pro bono legal services to these immigrants; requiring the Attorney General to provide outreach to the immigrant community to help prevent fraud; providing that any materials used to carry out notification on immigration law fraud is done in the appropriate language for that community; and requiring the distribution of the disciplinary list of individuals not authorized to appear before the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, BIA, currently maintained by the Executive Office of Immigration Review, EOIR. Unfortunately, the need for Federal action to prevent and prosecute immigration fraud has escalated in recent years as citizens and non-citizens attempt to navigate the immigration legal system. Thus far, only States have sought to regulate the unauthorized practice of immigration law. Since immigration law is a federal matter, I believe the solution to such misrepresentation and fraud should be addressed by Congress. By enacting this bill, Congress would help prevent more victims like Vincent Smith, a Mexican national who has resided in California since 1975. His wife is an American citizen, and they live with their 6 U.S. citizen children in Palmdale, CA. Mr. Smith would likely have received a green card at least two different times during his stay in California. However, in attempting to get legal counsel, Mr. Smith hired someone whom he thought was an attorney, but was not. As a result, Mr. Smith was charged more than $10,000 for processing his immigration paperwork, which was never filed. Mr. Smith now has no legal status and faces removal proceedings. Another victim of immigration fraud is Raul, a Mexican national, who came to the United States in 2000. He also married a U.S. citizen, Loraina, making him eligible to apply for a green card. Raul and his wife went to Jose for legal help. Jose's business card said he had a ``law office'' and that he was an ``immigration specialist.'' But Jose was not a specialist and charged Raul $4,000 to file a frivolous asylum petition. While Raul thought he was going to receive a green card, he was instead placed into removal proceedings. From California to New York, there are hundreds of stories like these. Many immigrants are preyed on because of their fears--others on their hope of realizing the American dream. They are charged exorbitant fees for the filing of frivolous paperwork that clog our immigration courts and keep families and businesses waiting in limbo for years. Law enforcement officials say that many fraudulent ``immigration specialists'' close their businesses or move on to another part of the state or country before they can be held accountable. They can make $100,000 to $200,000 a year and the few who have been caught rarely serve more than a few months in jail. Often victims of such crimes are deported, sending them back to their home countries without accountability for the perpetrator of the fraud. Most recently, hundreds of immigrants were exploited by Victor M. Espinal, who was arrested for allegedly posing as an immigration attorney. Nearly 125 of Mr. Espinal's clients attended the New York City Bar Association's free clinic to address their legal and immigration options. According to prosecutors, Mr. Espinal falsely claimed on his business cards that he was licensed and admitted to the California bar as well as the bar in the Dominican Republic. Organizations such as the Los Angeles Country Bar Association, National Immigration Forum, American Immigration Lawyers Association, and American Bar Association have been documenting this exploitation for many years.
bitu72
01-10 11:25 AM
threat of losing your job is very high..as every prediction says its going to be more bad..
i come here every hr to see any updates or news... but dont write as not sure what effect can we make..obama is more pressed with economic recovery and more immigrants are not what they want..but still i am optimistic with S9 bill intoduced
i come here every hr to see any updates or news... but dont write as not sure what effect can we make..obama is more pressed with economic recovery and more immigrants are not what they want..but still i am optimistic with S9 bill intoduced
more...
sanju
08-01 11:38 PM
Great effort, glad to see you back walking_dude. Glad that you are not near me, otherwise you would beat me for wanting to kissing you :p
3ZS
May 11th, 2006, 07:55 PM
Hi -
Thanks for the quick reply. I really appreciate it.
Ill give sigma a call in the am.
I tried nikon but they told me straight up they dont support 3rd party lens'
Sometimes Sigma lenses can have issues with different cameras because Nikon makes subtle changes to the way the camera talks to the lenses - changes that work fine with Nikon lenses but on occasion cause havok with third party lenses. If you contact Sigma, they should be able to tell you if an incompatibility between the lens and camera is indeed what is happening, and if so, they should be able to upgrade the processor in the lens (I'm not sure, but they may even do this at no cost).
If you compare the Nikon 18-50mm with the Sigma 18-50mm (your Sigma is the f/2.8 model, right?), then I'm guessing that the Sigma will be better. Compared with the more expensive Nikon 18-70mm zoom that is sold as a kit with the D70s, they're probably about the same (bear in mind that I don't really know, since I've only used the Nikon 18-70 personally). I don't abuse my lenses, so what the lens mount is made of matters relatively little. In many cases a metal lens mount may be a sign of better quality in other areas including image quality, so the dealer wasn't entirely full of it, but I would be wary if someone tried to sell me something other than what I wanted for that reason alone.
Thanks for the quick reply. I really appreciate it.
Ill give sigma a call in the am.
I tried nikon but they told me straight up they dont support 3rd party lens'
Sometimes Sigma lenses can have issues with different cameras because Nikon makes subtle changes to the way the camera talks to the lenses - changes that work fine with Nikon lenses but on occasion cause havok with third party lenses. If you contact Sigma, they should be able to tell you if an incompatibility between the lens and camera is indeed what is happening, and if so, they should be able to upgrade the processor in the lens (I'm not sure, but they may even do this at no cost).
If you compare the Nikon 18-50mm with the Sigma 18-50mm (your Sigma is the f/2.8 model, right?), then I'm guessing that the Sigma will be better. Compared with the more expensive Nikon 18-70mm zoom that is sold as a kit with the D70s, they're probably about the same (bear in mind that I don't really know, since I've only used the Nikon 18-70 personally). I don't abuse my lenses, so what the lens mount is made of matters relatively little. In many cases a metal lens mount may be a sign of better quality in other areas including image quality, so the dealer wasn't entirely full of it, but I would be wary if someone tried to sell me something other than what I wanted for that reason alone.
more...
anilsal
08-05 07:58 PM
tax returns. I do not think they expect you to list all the addresses that you stayed during the year.
You will need to provide the address to the tax return where your state taxes were deducted for the most part of the year IMHO. But for your GC app, I am unsure.
Have you consulted your lawyer? Send a PM to pappu maybe. He may get some answers from the IV lawyers.
You will need to provide the address to the tax return where your state taxes were deducted for the most part of the year IMHO. But for your GC app, I am unsure.
Have you consulted your lawyer? Send a PM to pappu maybe. He may get some answers from the IV lawyers.
pd_recapturing
07-10 06:47 AM
Is there any advantage of submitting I-485 application now except to become plantiff in law suit?
more...
lostinbeta
09-06 03:54 PM
Nice links dan, also nice update on the footer, with the beam approaching from the side. I likes again......
jsb
08-13 09:26 PM
EB2 India
PD 5/2004
I-140 approved 6/2006 TSC
I-485 delivered Jul 2, NSC
LUD on I-140 7/28/2007
No receipts or check cashing yet
Hi,
My application reached NSC on july 2nd 10.25 am & the LUD on my I-140 was changed on July 28th still no receipt notice or the cheque got cashed. No idea whatz going????
So I guess the LUD change is nothing relevant to I-485 filing.
Thanks & Regds
MV
PD 5/2004
I-140 approved 6/2006 TSC
I-485 delivered Jul 2, NSC
LUD on I-140 7/28/2007
No receipts or check cashing yet
Hi,
My application reached NSC on july 2nd 10.25 am & the LUD on my I-140 was changed on July 28th still no receipt notice or the cheque got cashed. No idea whatz going????
So I guess the LUD change is nothing relevant to I-485 filing.
Thanks & Regds
MV
more...
anand2007
07-16 10:11 PM
you can't file 2 concurrent i-485's with same names. But, on your AOS/485 application your spouse can be listed as beneficiary and Your spouse in her applications need to choose consular processing while filing I-140 or vice versa.this way you can use the best of both applications.
Has anyone and their spouse both filed for 485s while listing each other as beneficiary as well?
Is this possible?
Has anyone and their spouse both filed for 485s while listing each other as beneficiary as well?
Is this possible?
dilipb
02-13 09:28 AM
Yesterday USCIS announced officially that they need 1300 officers.
Their recruitment, training etc itself is going to take about 4-5 months.
So I am now guessing that it surely will take about 4 years for them to fix this big issue of retrogression and also hopefully someone increases the VISA numbers by then.
Closing this thread from my perspective since I have some good information.
Thanks to all for providing inputs.
Their recruitment, training etc itself is going to take about 4-5 months.
So I am now guessing that it surely will take about 4 years for them to fix this big issue of retrogression and also hopefully someone increases the VISA numbers by then.
Closing this thread from my perspective since I have some good information.
Thanks to all for providing inputs.
more...
gc_on_demand
09-09 11:46 AM
I would like to hear from people who have actually done this recently. My co. is planning to apply for a Software Developer position in EB2 and was wondering if anyone got it approved this year. My co. was able to do it for a colleague of mine under this title back in 2006 and I understand a lot has changed since then.
The downsides of this plan are:
1. Economy is bad
2. Software Developer does not qualify for EB2 (I believe there was an initiative taken to limit EB2s to Manager and above)
Also, Software Developer does not fall under Job Zone 5 in ONET.
Any help? Thanks for reading
What I heard from one of my friend that now a days DOL issues RFE left and right but if company is ready to file for new labor and if they have open position for it .. Don't wait. Even if you get RFE you will be in line ahead of many who is thinking to apply for Eb2..
The downsides of this plan are:
1. Economy is bad
2. Software Developer does not qualify for EB2 (I believe there was an initiative taken to limit EB2s to Manager and above)
Also, Software Developer does not fall under Job Zone 5 in ONET.
Any help? Thanks for reading
What I heard from one of my friend that now a days DOL issues RFE left and right but if company is ready to file for new labor and if they have open position for it .. Don't wait. Even if you get RFE you will be in line ahead of many who is thinking to apply for Eb2..
Ann Ruben
01-08 09:39 PM
Unfortunately, your new wife cannot file the I-485 until your PD becomes current. Because she cannot file her I-485, she will not be entitled to an EAD based on having a pending I-485. If your new wife's country of birth is not the same as yours, you both may benefit from quota cross-chargeability rules.
more...
ktroche
11-01 12:03 AM
Sounds familiar. Family friendsfailed to file for an I94 extension on time. I believe they are here on a tourists VISA. Their VISAs are valid for 5 more years. They have not been expired for more than 180 days (right now around 120). How "automatic" is their return I94 if they leave and come back? We are willing to sponsor their return and have financial means as necessary. Argentina is their birth country. Help!!
looivy
09-02 02:56 PM
What options do I press to reach the customer service rep?
Thanks.
Sorry for starting a thread because I could not locate the info.
How do I reach a customer service rep at USCIS toll free number to create an SR. What options do I select to reach the customer service rep?
Thanks.
Sorry for posting this thread. I could not locate the information on the forum.
What options do I select to talk to customer service rep?
Thanks.
Thanks.
Sorry for starting a thread because I could not locate the info.
How do I reach a customer service rep at USCIS toll free number to create an SR. What options do I select to reach the customer service rep?
Thanks.
Sorry for posting this thread. I could not locate the information on the forum.
What options do I select to talk to customer service rep?
Thanks.
txh1b
04-16 02:31 PM
Other option is Try to get from University. They will have the copy for the sure.
OP already did that and they seem to have purged it as per his first post.
OP already did that and they seem to have purged it as per his first post.
babuworld
12-07 02:23 PM
I got the same message for my I-485 application. I called the customer service representative and she transfered me to Immigration Officer. The Immigration Officer is so kind. He told me that there are two different systems in USCIS , one in mainframe system and another is DB2 System. My case is on Mainframes system so it will get transfered to DB2 System as they have few problems in updating.
I too got my receipt numbers 8 weeks back, but still i am getting the same message.
Thanks,
babu work.
I too got my receipt numbers 8 weeks back, but still i am getting the same message.
Thanks,
babu work.
WFGC2006
02-15 10:53 AM
has anyone heard about the following? don't quite know where it is originally coming from. it's from here (http://www.greencardapply.com/news/news09/news09_0210.htm)
2/10/2009
When the alien beneficiary voluntarily departs from the employment in an hostile environment to get a new job, and the USCIS obtains an evidence, either before 180 days or after 180 days of filing of I-140 and I-485, the foreign worker may face a risk of denial or revocation of the petition, because of the evidence of such alien's intent not to work for the employer for the petitioned job, and the AC-21 rule is not available for alien beneficiaries with evidence of actively searching for new employment. In this case, foreign workers who had departed from the employment, not because of the layoff, or because of the alien's decision to change employment.
Such adverse evidence can also haunt after the foreign workers obtaining the Green Card as the law allows the USCIS to initiate the Green Card revocation proceeding before the immigration courts under the law that the USCIS can revoke a Green Card, should they belatedly find and establish such adverse evidence after the approval of a Green Card, which should have formed a basis for the adjudicator to deny the I-485 applications had the adjudicator known the facts and evidence.
The issues here involve in most cases hostile employers or other third parties who possess such evidence, and offer to the USCIS to hurt such foreign workers. Usually such denial or revocation is preceded by the USCIS' initiation of a notice of intent to deny or revoke (NOID or NOIR) when such action is taken before the Green Card is approved, but when a revocation proceeding is initiated after the green card approval, they file revocation proceeding before an immigrant court as such alien is entitled to a hearing and decision by an immigrant judge.
2/10/2009
When the alien beneficiary voluntarily departs from the employment in an hostile environment to get a new job, and the USCIS obtains an evidence, either before 180 days or after 180 days of filing of I-140 and I-485, the foreign worker may face a risk of denial or revocation of the petition, because of the evidence of such alien's intent not to work for the employer for the petitioned job, and the AC-21 rule is not available for alien beneficiaries with evidence of actively searching for new employment. In this case, foreign workers who had departed from the employment, not because of the layoff, or because of the alien's decision to change employment.
Such adverse evidence can also haunt after the foreign workers obtaining the Green Card as the law allows the USCIS to initiate the Green Card revocation proceeding before the immigration courts under the law that the USCIS can revoke a Green Card, should they belatedly find and establish such adverse evidence after the approval of a Green Card, which should have formed a basis for the adjudicator to deny the I-485 applications had the adjudicator known the facts and evidence.
The issues here involve in most cases hostile employers or other third parties who possess such evidence, and offer to the USCIS to hurt such foreign workers. Usually such denial or revocation is preceded by the USCIS' initiation of a notice of intent to deny or revoke (NOID or NOIR) when such action is taken before the Green Card is approved, but when a revocation proceeding is initiated after the green card approval, they file revocation proceeding before an immigrant court as such alien is entitled to a hearing and decision by an immigrant judge.
No comments:
Post a Comment