texcan
07-29 09:53 PM
It is best that you never be out of job. If you lose job, try to get one ASAP. It normally takes a month or two to get one if you work hard and try
Chandu and Gurus
I am curious to know how long can one stay out of job on an EAD. My case being 485 applied in july 2007 , 140 is already approved and its been about a year since 485 application.
So does the law says that one has to stay in employment or one can relax and take it easy for a little bit.
thanks in advance
-d
Chandu and Gurus
I am curious to know how long can one stay out of job on an EAD. My case being 485 applied in july 2007 , 140 is already approved and its been about a year since 485 application.
So does the law says that one has to stay in employment or one can relax and take it easy for a little bit.
thanks in advance
-d
Blog Feeds
07-08 11:30 AM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
cox
June 18th, 2005, 08:34 AM
I got brief but glorious light this morning. My skill was not up to the light, but I tried to make the most of it. Let me know what I did right or could have done better. Thanks!
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/931/medium/Sunrise_BNP_sm_C_061805.jpg (javascript:;)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/931/medium/Rainbow_BNP_rsm_C_061805.JPG (javascript:;)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/887/medium/Killdeer_BNP_sm_C_061805.jpg (javascript:;)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/887/medium/Avocet_BNP_sm_C_061805.jpg (javascript:;)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/887/medium/Stilt_Black-Necked_BNP_rsm_C_061805.jpg (javascript:;)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/931/medium/Sunrise_BNP_sm_C_061805.jpg (javascript:;)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/931/medium/Rainbow_BNP_rsm_C_061805.JPG (javascript:;)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/887/medium/Killdeer_BNP_sm_C_061805.jpg (javascript:;)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/887/medium/Avocet_BNP_sm_C_061805.jpg (javascript:;)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/887/medium/Stilt_Black-Necked_BNP_rsm_C_061805.jpg (javascript:;)
stupendousman11
09-24 01:43 PM
EB2 India from NC.
Filed EAD renewal at TSC (my 485, however, is pending at NSC) on Aug 6. RD Aug 7. No LUDs since the notice was issued.
EAD CPO email on 9/23 :)
Wife's EAD (applied together) still pending. No LUDs either.
Filed EAD renewal at TSC (my 485, however, is pending at NSC) on Aug 6. RD Aug 7. No LUDs since the notice was issued.
EAD CPO email on 9/23 :)
Wife's EAD (applied together) still pending. No LUDs either.
more...
nk2006
05-11 10:13 AM
As zCool pointed out, points based system is just a delay technique. No point in discussing its pro's and con's. If they treat it as long term solution with proposal for near term; then it may be OK otherwise we are screwed.
Point based system is much much more difficult to formulate. With present pace of lawmaking and implementation capability (of congress and USCIS respectively) it will take years before anything can happen and we will be rotten by that time.
Our hope is with CIR with a few of our measures or SKILL/STRIVE/TALENT etc.
Point based system is much much more difficult to formulate. With present pace of lawmaking and implementation capability (of congress and USCIS respectively) it will take years before anything can happen and we will be rotten by that time.
Our hope is with CIR with a few of our measures or SKILL/STRIVE/TALENT etc.
GCard_Dream
09-15 12:25 PM
Now that the "Secure Fence Act" has been approved in the house, will senate take on this bill and pass its own version? Has there been any indication at all from the senate leadership that they intend to pass something similar and if so, when? The reason I ask is that I strongly believe that if this bill were to taken on by the senate then our friendly senators like Specter might include some relief for us. This is the only chance I can see this year and next year is a whole different ball game.
more...
for_gc
05-09 12:49 PM
I will like to attend. I will be travelling from Orlando, FL. One person.
ebizash
02-10 05:58 PM
I think your attorney is right... Was your 140 approved in September.. meaning.. is Sept 19 close to your approval date? if that is the case I wouldn't worry. But if your approval was much earlier than Sept then it could be something to clarify from USCIS.
more...
roseball
02-07 12:57 AM
Hello there
I am student from Tri-valley university. On Jan 20th the college got shut down. I am working on CPT. I came to know about the shut down through my friends, with whom immigration officers met. Although no immigration officers contacted me by any means, my friends suggested me to look for another college and get enrolled as soon as within 30 days. While I tried to enroll in another college, I came to know that still the sevis is not yet released. Until the college releases our sevis, we are unable to enroll in any other college. We are elible to work only if we enroll into the college, get an I-20 and CPT. Now I am worried because until they release our sevis, the admissions in other colleges will meet deadline and what happens if they no more take admissions. Do you have any idea how long can it take for them to release our sevis ? Will it be safe for students like me hereafter to work fulltime on CPT ?
Thank you
Chaitanya
Looks like your only worry is to get admitted to another college so you can continue to work on CPT.....You show no concern what so ever regarding the credits you earned so far (if at all any), courses you are currently enrolled in and the fee you paid......It seems you are one of the students who knowingly enrolled at TVU so you can work from Day1......
I am student from Tri-valley university. On Jan 20th the college got shut down. I am working on CPT. I came to know about the shut down through my friends, with whom immigration officers met. Although no immigration officers contacted me by any means, my friends suggested me to look for another college and get enrolled as soon as within 30 days. While I tried to enroll in another college, I came to know that still the sevis is not yet released. Until the college releases our sevis, we are unable to enroll in any other college. We are elible to work only if we enroll into the college, get an I-20 and CPT. Now I am worried because until they release our sevis, the admissions in other colleges will meet deadline and what happens if they no more take admissions. Do you have any idea how long can it take for them to release our sevis ? Will it be safe for students like me hereafter to work fulltime on CPT ?
Thank you
Chaitanya
Looks like your only worry is to get admitted to another college so you can continue to work on CPT.....You show no concern what so ever regarding the credits you earned so far (if at all any), courses you are currently enrolled in and the fee you paid......It seems you are one of the students who knowingly enrolled at TVU so you can work from Day1......
morchu
04-21 02:45 PM
Try to be "truthful" in the "intent".
You are NOT loosing "anything" by filing a second LC at the new location. You keep your priority date, and PERM is fast and I-140 processing time is 4 months or so.
If they see a chance of "fraud" intention, USCIS may call you for interview and if they were able to interpret your intentions as fraud, it is going to be really costly.
Also you need full support from your employer, and might need to show that the offered "permanent position as mentioned in LC" exists at the time of 485 filing.
-Morchu
[QUOTE=fromnaija;335920]Yes, if you are sure of moving back to the job location specified in the Labor Certification you may not have to restart the process. If you know you will not move back, youand your employer will be commiting immigration fraud if a new LC is not applied.
what kind of evidence you need to provide to show the intention that you will move back to the original location!
You are NOT loosing "anything" by filing a second LC at the new location. You keep your priority date, and PERM is fast and I-140 processing time is 4 months or so.
If they see a chance of "fraud" intention, USCIS may call you for interview and if they were able to interpret your intentions as fraud, it is going to be really costly.
Also you need full support from your employer, and might need to show that the offered "permanent position as mentioned in LC" exists at the time of 485 filing.
-Morchu
[QUOTE=fromnaija;335920]Yes, if you are sure of moving back to the job location specified in the Labor Certification you may not have to restart the process. If you know you will not move back, youand your employer will be commiting immigration fraud if a new LC is not applied.
what kind of evidence you need to provide to show the intention that you will move back to the original location!
more...
.jpg "Tags: best friends sayings")
amitjoey
08-15 12:58 PM
I filed in last week of June but have still not issued receipts. There are many like me. At the same time, some July 2 filers have receipts.
The explantion for this is that USCIS does not stricly follow first in, first out. They continue to process applications and issue receipt notices haphazardly, that is why some early filers have not recieved RNs while some later filers have. This has created a lot of confusion and anxiety.
The only thing that can help us is a legislative fix. Please help IV help ourselves!
Absolutely right, how otherwise do you explain that they issued card production for people with PD's in 2004, (Dates not current in June) on July 2nd and in an hour and then said the visas are unavailable.
NO FIFO whatsoever.
They just saved themselves by retracting the VB of JULY, or else they would have faced lawsuits, and investigation which would have shown all irregularities and fraud.
The explantion for this is that USCIS does not stricly follow first in, first out. They continue to process applications and issue receipt notices haphazardly, that is why some early filers have not recieved RNs while some later filers have. This has created a lot of confusion and anxiety.
The only thing that can help us is a legislative fix. Please help IV help ourselves!
Absolutely right, how otherwise do you explain that they issued card production for people with PD's in 2004, (Dates not current in June) on July 2nd and in an hour and then said the visas are unavailable.
NO FIFO whatsoever.
They just saved themselves by retracting the VB of JULY, or else they would have faced lawsuits, and investigation which would have shown all irregularities and fraud.
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
Apollon
06-30 12:16 AM
The answer is that there are restrictions on using experience gained in the position with the same company. The reason being that you cannot say that the minimum requirement for the position is a BA + 5 when you were hired for the position with less than a BA + 5 experience.
If you use experience gained with the same company the PERM application will be audited. One way to respond to the audit is by showing that you are filing for a different position than the one you gained the experience in and that the position for which you are filing is not substantially comparable to the position where you gained the experience.
My suggestion to you is that you use an experienced immigration attorney that you trust. The laws and procedures involved in filing a PERM application are so complicated and subtle that there are many immigration law attorneys who do not handle PERM cases. I know there are lots of companies that fumble their way through the process without an attorney and are lucky enough not to get audited, but that is just trusting your future to the luck of the draw.
Thank you very much for prompt and precise response. The reason you listed makes perfect sense. However, my situation is a little different and I have a couple of questions, directly related to your answer:
1. As I've mentioned, I do have close to 10 years of accumulated overall experience in my field - only half of it came before I graduated. I was already employed in this field before I started college and during it, and I have experience letters from employers to back that up. The only thing is, since I didn't have a degree, my job title didn't include "engineer" in it, although I was working same field, doing similar jobs. So, it's not that when this sponsor hired me for this position I did not have 5 years of relevant experience in the field - I did, it's just that half of it came before I got the degree and unlike DOL EB2 requirement - my sponsor did not have the restriction for this experience to be post graduate.
My first question is: will this argument work with DOL, saying that when the sponsor hired me I had over 5 years of relevant experience (I can prove it), just not post graduate experience and that is why the sponsor claims this job indeed requires B.Sc. + 5 years experience, although for them it's OK if the experience didnt come after I got the degree?
2. Hypothetically speaking, lets say I found another consulting company, which is willing to apply for my green card through EB2 track, without transferring my H1 visa and before I actually start working for them - will I be able to count these 15 months of experience with current sponsor, when the new company (who I don't work for) will be applying for my green card through EB2?
If you use experience gained with the same company the PERM application will be audited. One way to respond to the audit is by showing that you are filing for a different position than the one you gained the experience in and that the position for which you are filing is not substantially comparable to the position where you gained the experience.
My suggestion to you is that you use an experienced immigration attorney that you trust. The laws and procedures involved in filing a PERM application are so complicated and subtle that there are many immigration law attorneys who do not handle PERM cases. I know there are lots of companies that fumble their way through the process without an attorney and are lucky enough not to get audited, but that is just trusting your future to the luck of the draw.
Thank you very much for prompt and precise response. The reason you listed makes perfect sense. However, my situation is a little different and I have a couple of questions, directly related to your answer:
1. As I've mentioned, I do have close to 10 years of accumulated overall experience in my field - only half of it came before I graduated. I was already employed in this field before I started college and during it, and I have experience letters from employers to back that up. The only thing is, since I didn't have a degree, my job title didn't include "engineer" in it, although I was working same field, doing similar jobs. So, it's not that when this sponsor hired me for this position I did not have 5 years of relevant experience in the field - I did, it's just that half of it came before I got the degree and unlike DOL EB2 requirement - my sponsor did not have the restriction for this experience to be post graduate.
My first question is: will this argument work with DOL, saying that when the sponsor hired me I had over 5 years of relevant experience (I can prove it), just not post graduate experience and that is why the sponsor claims this job indeed requires B.Sc. + 5 years experience, although for them it's OK if the experience didnt come after I got the degree?
2. Hypothetically speaking, lets say I found another consulting company, which is willing to apply for my green card through EB2 track, without transferring my H1 visa and before I actually start working for them - will I be able to count these 15 months of experience with current sponsor, when the new company (who I don't work for) will be applying for my green card through EB2?
kumar1305
01-26 07:33 PM
Instead of all this country caps, applying for GC and waiting, why don't they get a rule like European countries? In UK, netherlands and Denmark it is very simple. All you have to do is prove that you made more money (ofcouse taxes count) than the stipulated amount by the government. Pay the taxes for 4 or 5 years and take the GC(Permanent Resident). Simple no lawyer no crap. Country benefits we benefit. I lived in UK for more than 3 years and I would have become a citizen by now. But never wanted to be in UK, it was only a stop over. I always loved America, don't know why? Do you think it is because of Hollywood? I'm kidding. But still I love this country. Hope things will change some day. If not my daughter will sponsor me when she turns 21.
more...
rolrblade
07-26 09:37 AM
The Link is not working.
Actually I am going to apply EAD for future purpose. In near future i am not going to change my current employer. If i continue to work with same employer after getting EAD, Will i be on H1B or EAD status?
Sir;
What you have asked is for someone to explain the Bible to you since you only know who Jesus is :D
Anyways, I will be happy to educate you. Send me your phone no. (if you want) to rolrblade@hotmail.com and I will call you and answer your questions.
Actually I am going to apply EAD for future purpose. In near future i am not going to change my current employer. If i continue to work with same employer after getting EAD, Will i be on H1B or EAD status?
Sir;
What you have asked is for someone to explain the Bible to you since you only know who Jesus is :D
Anyways, I will be happy to educate you. Send me your phone no. (if you want) to rolrblade@hotmail.com and I will call you and answer your questions.
Nagireddi
07-16 04:53 PM
Admin :
This kind of question should be banned. You should have some self-respect and show the same towards your native country. If you know you can do it, whats the point of making it public. Go get it done. Are you asking IV to pay the sum on your behalf also ?
I agree with you strongly, with microfrost. I have heard people talking about their country men are stupid, driving on the wrong side and bla bla...... Comeon guys have some self respect and watch out, when you speak.
Somebody gave you red, I just turnred it to green.
This kind of question should be banned. You should have some self-respect and show the same towards your native country. If you know you can do it, whats the point of making it public. Go get it done. Are you asking IV to pay the sum on your behalf also ?
I agree with you strongly, with microfrost. I have heard people talking about their country men are stupid, driving on the wrong side and bla bla...... Comeon guys have some self respect and watch out, when you speak.
Somebody gave you red, I just turnred it to green.
more...
randallemery
06-28 10:36 PM
National media will be there. This will get publicity.
panini
03-15 01:24 PM
Hi Friends,
I have a confusing situation here. Hope someone can help me with this. This is a bit complicated so please bear with me.
I fall under ROW. My first LC was filed in Feb 2005 under RIR and it was in BEC for a long time. So my company filed another LC under PERM in March 2007 which was approved very quickly and I-140 was filed for that.
Then in April 2007 the first LC (PD Feb 2005) was approved and we filed an I-140 for that as well. This was converted to PP and was approved very quickly.
Then in June 07 when my Feb 2005 PD became current we filed for 485 based on that older LC. However in the receipt notice the Priority Date box was blank which I did not notice till yesterday.
My other I-140 with PD March 2007 was pending till Jan 2008 and was approved in mid January. On the same day it was approved I noticed a soft LUD on my pending I-485 which has nothing to do with that I-140.
Now my question is, is it possible that USCIS mistakenly linked my recently approved I-140 (PD Mar 2007) to the pending I-1485? Is that possible? The reason for this worry is the soft LUD that saw on my 485 as mentioned above and the fact that my 485 receipt notice does not have a PD printed on it.
Is there anyway that I can verify which PD is linked to my 485 by contacting USCIS? I have heard of INFOPASS, would that help? If so how can I get an appointment? If as I suspect , the 485 is now linked to the wrong PD, is it difficult to have it corrected? Please let me know.
Also is it common to have the PD box blank in the 485 receipt notice?
Thanks in Advance!!!!!
I have a confusing situation here. Hope someone can help me with this. This is a bit complicated so please bear with me.
I fall under ROW. My first LC was filed in Feb 2005 under RIR and it was in BEC for a long time. So my company filed another LC under PERM in March 2007 which was approved very quickly and I-140 was filed for that.
Then in April 2007 the first LC (PD Feb 2005) was approved and we filed an I-140 for that as well. This was converted to PP and was approved very quickly.
Then in June 07 when my Feb 2005 PD became current we filed for 485 based on that older LC. However in the receipt notice the Priority Date box was blank which I did not notice till yesterday.
My other I-140 with PD March 2007 was pending till Jan 2008 and was approved in mid January. On the same day it was approved I noticed a soft LUD on my pending I-485 which has nothing to do with that I-140.
Now my question is, is it possible that USCIS mistakenly linked my recently approved I-140 (PD Mar 2007) to the pending I-1485? Is that possible? The reason for this worry is the soft LUD that saw on my 485 as mentioned above and the fact that my 485 receipt notice does not have a PD printed on it.
Is there anyway that I can verify which PD is linked to my 485 by contacting USCIS? I have heard of INFOPASS, would that help? If so how can I get an appointment? If as I suspect , the 485 is now linked to the wrong PD, is it difficult to have it corrected? Please let me know.
Also is it common to have the PD box blank in the 485 receipt notice?
Thanks in Advance!!!!!
prabasiodia
03-18 07:47 AM
Anyone can start a C-Corp in USA, (s)he is not even needed to be present in USA. If you're present then you must be legally present; any valid visa or EAD etc. will do.
The issue becomes a wee bit trickier when it's time to remunerate yourself like drawing a salary. From IRS's point of view, an LLC is nothing more than a proprietorship (sole or partnered), a disregarded entity. Since the income must be filed with your own tax return, it's a "no go" for most H visa holders. For the same reason, most would not want to start an S-Corp. Sice GotFreedom? is on H1 and started an LLC, I would like to know how he's managing his tax returns? I really don't know how does filing tax returns get affected by your spouse's visa status, specifically when you're married and filing jointly.
Apart from the visa situation, you should be concerned about the liability. What if one of your customers wants to sue you? LLC provides "LIMITED" liability protection. if you're not concerned about liability at all, then I would suggest to start as a Sole Proprietorship. You've nothing to do (if you're starting the business in your name such as Mike Hofner's Deli) except to earn money :-) and report it as income in your tax returns. If you want to give a separate name to your entity, file a DBA (Doing Business As) with your state.
C-Corp is a safe bet for all types of visa holders of all nationalities. But there is a lot of bookkeeping you'll have to do. Hope this helps!!
The issue becomes a wee bit trickier when it's time to remunerate yourself like drawing a salary. From IRS's point of view, an LLC is nothing more than a proprietorship (sole or partnered), a disregarded entity. Since the income must be filed with your own tax return, it's a "no go" for most H visa holders. For the same reason, most would not want to start an S-Corp. Sice GotFreedom? is on H1 and started an LLC, I would like to know how he's managing his tax returns? I really don't know how does filing tax returns get affected by your spouse's visa status, specifically when you're married and filing jointly.
Apart from the visa situation, you should be concerned about the liability. What if one of your customers wants to sue you? LLC provides "LIMITED" liability protection. if you're not concerned about liability at all, then I would suggest to start as a Sole Proprietorship. You've nothing to do (if you're starting the business in your name such as Mike Hofner's Deli) except to earn money :-) and report it as income in your tax returns. If you want to give a separate name to your entity, file a DBA (Doing Business As) with your state.
C-Corp is a safe bet for all types of visa holders of all nationalities. But there is a lot of bookkeeping you'll have to do. Hope this helps!!
kondur_007
07-30 07:32 PM
I am stuck out side of US for my name check for last 9 months when I applied for my H-1. I have approved I 140. is there any way I can file my I 1485 and Advance parole or any thing to get back into US.
Some one has told me that I can use consular processing but have no idea about that.
Please help me and let me know what are possible options for me to return to US.
I am sorry for what happened to you my friend.
This is what I would suggest:
1. Contact your attorney in US and consider options.
2. File for CP if your PD is current. Basically, it means that USCIS will send your I 140 to DOS to assign to your consulate who will then process your GC (by interviewing just like they do with any other visa). Catch 22 in your situation is that they need name check even for CP. So doing CP may not be a whole lot helpful in getting to US earlier; however, it is something you can do and if your name check is cleared, you might get GC sooner and you will not have to file AOS. Your attorney would be further able to guide you about this.
3. If you have contacts in US, ask them to contact local congressman and that may be helpful to get the name check done sooner.
Good Luck.
(PS: Just like it says in above post, you can not apply 485 while outside US)
Some one has told me that I can use consular processing but have no idea about that.
Please help me and let me know what are possible options for me to return to US.
I am sorry for what happened to you my friend.
This is what I would suggest:
1. Contact your attorney in US and consider options.
2. File for CP if your PD is current. Basically, it means that USCIS will send your I 140 to DOS to assign to your consulate who will then process your GC (by interviewing just like they do with any other visa). Catch 22 in your situation is that they need name check even for CP. So doing CP may not be a whole lot helpful in getting to US earlier; however, it is something you can do and if your name check is cleared, you might get GC sooner and you will not have to file AOS. Your attorney would be further able to guide you about this.
3. If you have contacts in US, ask them to contact local congressman and that may be helpful to get the name check done sooner.
Good Luck.
(PS: Just like it says in above post, you can not apply 485 while outside US)
greatzolin
08-21 05:49 PM
My checks were cashed on Aug 20th for RD of Jul 16th :)
Did you file directly to NSC or TSC?
DAte, time etc.
Thanks in advance!
Did you file directly to NSC or TSC?
DAte, time etc.
Thanks in advance!
