akhilmahajan
04-23 09:30 AM
I have not got my i140 approval yet........
but the Receipt i got for my i140 says:-
Notice Type: Approval Notice
Section: Mern of Profession w/Adv Deg,or
of Excentn'l Abllitv
Sec .203.(b) (2)
So, does that mean it is being processed for EB2.
thanks.
but the Receipt i got for my i140 says:-
Notice Type: Approval Notice
Section: Mern of Profession w/Adv Deg,or
of Excentn'l Abllitv
Sec .203.(b) (2)
So, does that mean it is being processed for EB2.
thanks.
wallpaper Friday” femcee–Nicki Minaj
GCA
09-15 01:05 PM
hahah, interesting, funny but logical... I guess they just did not think through all this and why would they :mad:
Had they able to think that far, may be many of the issues we face today wouldn't have cropped.
Had they able to think that far, may be many of the issues we face today wouldn't have cropped.
transpass
04-23 09:34 AM
Pardon my ignorance...But I thought you need to sign the labor form before you submit. If you have signed it, how does it fly trying to sue the lawyer? Aren't you responsible for double checking before it is filed?
Or due to new PERM stuff, you don't get to see the labor form and don't get to sign any paperwork?
Or due to new PERM stuff, you don't get to see the labor form and don't get to sign any paperwork?
2011 Le Scoop: Eminem, Nicki Minaj
GooblyWoobly
08-08 04:23 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/FAQ3.pdf
Q33: When filing an EB I-485 using the old fee, what version of the I-485 form do we use?
A33: The current I-485 form version dated “7/30/07 Y” should be used. The form can be found at www.uscis.gov
Q34: To ensure that the correct fee is submitted, may an applicant submit both a check for the old fee and a second check for the new fee?
A34: USCIS requires that all applications and petitions be submitted with the required filing fee or a waiver, if applicable. USCIS urges the public to exercise caution in submitting additional checks in incorrect amounts: extraneous checks may slow down the intake process and may result in an erroneous rejection of an application (as in the case where the check in the correct amount is missed) or in the inadvertent cashing of such checks, since filing fees are normally non-refundable. For additional information, the public is referred to the fee requirements announced in the Federal Register on August 1, 2007 (Temporary Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule for Certain Adjustment of Status, FR at 41888). This regulation amends the new Fee Rule, and requires that aliens who file an employment-based Form I–485 and any related Forms I–765 and I–131, pursuant to Visa Bulletin No. 107, through August 17, 2007, must include the filing fees in effect prior to July 30, 2007. The new fee schedule becomes effective on July 30, 2007, for all other immigration and naturalization applications and petitions and on August 18, 2007, for Forms I–485 and all subsequent or ‘‘renewal’’ applications for advance parole and employment authorization based on pending Forms I–485 filed pursuant to Visa Bulletin No. 107.
Q35: Will previous USCIS policy still apply in those instances where the original approved labor certification cannot be included in support of an I-140 petition, such as when the original has been lost or previously filed with USCIS, or when a duplicate approval must be requested?
A35: Yes. While an original labor certification must be submitted in support of certain I-140 petitions, USCIS will continue to accept duplicates of previously filed Labor certificates and, as in the instances stated above, in cases where an original labor certificate has been properly filed with USCIS.
1 USCIS may issue future “FAQs” on this topic for the benefit of the public, should additional questions arise. Such FAQs will be dated and numbered for ease of reference. Department of Homeland Security
Q36: Will USCIS accept Schedule A concurrently filed I-140 petitions and adjustment of status applications that are filed on or after August 1, 2007?
A36: As previously stated, USCIS will accept properly filed Forms I-140 filed on behalf of aliens with a priority date on or after August 1, 2007; however, pursuant to August Visa Bulletin No. 108, USCIS will reject any concurrently filed adjustment of status applications filed by aliens with a priority date on or after August 1, 2007.
Q37: Will the new I-765 filing instructions apply to Forms I-765 filed based on employment-based adjustment of status applications filed pursuant to the July Visa Bulletin No. 107, if filed between July 30, 2007 – August 17, 2007?
A37: No. The fee of $180 for Forms I-765 and the fee of $170 for Form I-131 will remain in effect for those aliens eligible to file an employment-based adjustment of status application pursuant to July Visa Bulletin No. 107 until August 17, 2007.
Q38: Where should an employment-based adjustment of status application be filed if the underlying I-140 petition remains pending with USCIS?
A38: Forms I-485 may be filed at either the Nebraska Service Center or the Texas Service Center in accordance with the Direct Filing Update issued June 21, 2007, regardless of where the pending I-140 was filed. Applicants should submit a copy of the I-140 receipt notice or, if the applicant does not have a receipt notice, include a brightly colored sheet of paper on top of the filing with the following notice and information:
TO THE MAILROOM: The enclosed I-485 Adjustment Application(s) should be matched with a pending I-140 Immigrant Petition for which no Receipt Notice has been received. The Immigrant Petition [type, e.g., I-140] was delivered to [Service Center] on [provide date of filing and tracking number]; Petitioner's name; Beneficiary's name; Beneficiary's date of birth; Beneficiary's country of birth.
Q33: When filing an EB I-485 using the old fee, what version of the I-485 form do we use?
A33: The current I-485 form version dated “7/30/07 Y” should be used. The form can be found at www.uscis.gov
Q34: To ensure that the correct fee is submitted, may an applicant submit both a check for the old fee and a second check for the new fee?
A34: USCIS requires that all applications and petitions be submitted with the required filing fee or a waiver, if applicable. USCIS urges the public to exercise caution in submitting additional checks in incorrect amounts: extraneous checks may slow down the intake process and may result in an erroneous rejection of an application (as in the case where the check in the correct amount is missed) or in the inadvertent cashing of such checks, since filing fees are normally non-refundable. For additional information, the public is referred to the fee requirements announced in the Federal Register on August 1, 2007 (Temporary Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule for Certain Adjustment of Status, FR at 41888). This regulation amends the new Fee Rule, and requires that aliens who file an employment-based Form I–485 and any related Forms I–765 and I–131, pursuant to Visa Bulletin No. 107, through August 17, 2007, must include the filing fees in effect prior to July 30, 2007. The new fee schedule becomes effective on July 30, 2007, for all other immigration and naturalization applications and petitions and on August 18, 2007, for Forms I–485 and all subsequent or ‘‘renewal’’ applications for advance parole and employment authorization based on pending Forms I–485 filed pursuant to Visa Bulletin No. 107.
Q35: Will previous USCIS policy still apply in those instances where the original approved labor certification cannot be included in support of an I-140 petition, such as when the original has been lost or previously filed with USCIS, or when a duplicate approval must be requested?
A35: Yes. While an original labor certification must be submitted in support of certain I-140 petitions, USCIS will continue to accept duplicates of previously filed Labor certificates and, as in the instances stated above, in cases where an original labor certificate has been properly filed with USCIS.
1 USCIS may issue future “FAQs” on this topic for the benefit of the public, should additional questions arise. Such FAQs will be dated and numbered for ease of reference. Department of Homeland Security
Q36: Will USCIS accept Schedule A concurrently filed I-140 petitions and adjustment of status applications that are filed on or after August 1, 2007?
A36: As previously stated, USCIS will accept properly filed Forms I-140 filed on behalf of aliens with a priority date on or after August 1, 2007; however, pursuant to August Visa Bulletin No. 108, USCIS will reject any concurrently filed adjustment of status applications filed by aliens with a priority date on or after August 1, 2007.
Q37: Will the new I-765 filing instructions apply to Forms I-765 filed based on employment-based adjustment of status applications filed pursuant to the July Visa Bulletin No. 107, if filed between July 30, 2007 – August 17, 2007?
A37: No. The fee of $180 for Forms I-765 and the fee of $170 for Form I-131 will remain in effect for those aliens eligible to file an employment-based adjustment of status application pursuant to July Visa Bulletin No. 107 until August 17, 2007.
Q38: Where should an employment-based adjustment of status application be filed if the underlying I-140 petition remains pending with USCIS?
A38: Forms I-485 may be filed at either the Nebraska Service Center or the Texas Service Center in accordance with the Direct Filing Update issued June 21, 2007, regardless of where the pending I-140 was filed. Applicants should submit a copy of the I-140 receipt notice or, if the applicant does not have a receipt notice, include a brightly colored sheet of paper on top of the filing with the following notice and information:
TO THE MAILROOM: The enclosed I-485 Adjustment Application(s) should be matched with a pending I-140 Immigrant Petition for which no Receipt Notice has been received. The Immigrant Petition [type, e.g., I-140] was delivered to [Service Center] on [provide date of filing and tracking number]; Petitioner's name; Beneficiary's name; Beneficiary's date of birth; Beneficiary's country of birth.
more...
traveldoc
09-11 09:01 AM
Thanks all for your guidance. I got in touch with the local congressman's office yesterday and asked to speak with someone that handles immigration case work. The person was sooooo understanding and said that online status on USCIS Home Page (http://www.uscis.gov) is not always reliable. To my susrprise she had access to the systems that the IOs use; she checked using my receipt # and said that my case was approved but documnet was not made yet (meaning it wasn't printed yet) So the letter that I got in response to my EXPEDITE request saying 'Approved and document mailed to applicant' was an error on their part. She said she can put in the Expedite request if I can get a letter from the Dr. expalining my Garnadmother's condition. She sounded like it should be possible to expedite the document printing since case was approved already. I am awaiting the arrival of the letter.
gjoe
04-30 09:52 PM
What is the agenda now?
more...
xela
04-23 05:59 PM
June 31?
lol Thanks,....yeah the impossible day....no it was the 30th, my bad
lol Thanks,....yeah the impossible day....no it was the 30th, my bad
2010 2011 Nicki Minaj nicki minaj
-2010-(Front)-DjLeak.jpg "nicki minaj 2011 album.")
amoljak
02-09 12:33 PM
Let's not forget that the reason Immigration Voices exists and the reason we are standing in the long line of immigration is exactly what David Brooks has outlined in the first few paragraphs.
If India and China were to blow by the US... why would we be here in the first place?
So instead of making an argument that you will be damned if you don't let us in (which is not entirely true), we should argue that US is a great country and a land of opportunities and we can help to make it even better...
If India and China were to blow by the US... why would we be here in the first place?
So instead of making an argument that you will be damned if you don't let us in (which is not entirely true), we should argue that US is a great country and a land of opportunities and we can help to make it even better...
more...
koppula09
01-04 12:51 PM
Hi,
I have a serious problem and I am not sure what would be the solution. My wife came on H4 in 2001 and we applied for H1B and we got an approval which was valid until Oct 2006. But, in Mar 2006, due to some personal reasons we applied for COS from H1B to H4 and we got H4 approval which was valid until Aug 27, 2006. Before the expiry of H4 status in August 2006, we decided to apply for H1B and since her H1B was valid until Oct 2006, our attorney applied for H1B under I-539 and they didn't apply for H4 extension simultaneously. Meanwhile, while the H1B was in process, we applied for premium processing later which added few problems. We got an RFE on this case and our attorney answered it by sending appropriate docs but again we got a second RFE which is not answered yet.
Right now she is out of status and also, what will happen if her H1 is rejected and is it possible to apply for H4 right now, since it was expired in Aug 2006. If her H1 is rejected, can we apply for H4 even though her H4 was expired few months back or she has leave the country. Please help us out.
Thanks & Regards,
-- Venkat
I have a serious problem and I am not sure what would be the solution. My wife came on H4 in 2001 and we applied for H1B and we got an approval which was valid until Oct 2006. But, in Mar 2006, due to some personal reasons we applied for COS from H1B to H4 and we got H4 approval which was valid until Aug 27, 2006. Before the expiry of H4 status in August 2006, we decided to apply for H1B and since her H1B was valid until Oct 2006, our attorney applied for H1B under I-539 and they didn't apply for H4 extension simultaneously. Meanwhile, while the H1B was in process, we applied for premium processing later which added few problems. We got an RFE on this case and our attorney answered it by sending appropriate docs but again we got a second RFE which is not answered yet.
Right now she is out of status and also, what will happen if her H1 is rejected and is it possible to apply for H4 right now, since it was expired in Aug 2006. If her H1 is rejected, can we apply for H4 even though her H4 was expired few months back or she has leave the country. Please help us out.
Thanks & Regards,
-- Venkat
hair Nicki Minaj - Barbies Back
Templarian
01-01 07:06 PM
^That's a good idea glosrfc, AS3 only should be added to the guidelines.
jk/ing... actually not, but it would sound mean if I wasn't
jk/ing... actually not, but it would sound mean if I wasn't
more...
gultie2k
07-07 04:14 PM
Usual, IT sector with a Desi consulting company!
hot Artist: Nicki Minaj Album:
MAEB2TR
09-04 10:34 AM
This is what I found in another thread:
"06/02/2007: NSC Procedure of Transfer of Pending I-1485 From Current Approved Underlying I-140 Petition to New I-140 Petition
� This posting involves aliens who are waiting for the I-485 applications where the underlying I-140 petition was approved but due to retrogression, I-485 cannot be approved. Most of these cases are EB-3 cases. When the same alien obtains an EB-2 labor certification approval through the same employer or a different employer and the visa number is available for the EB-2 for him or her, he should be eligible for filing another I-485 application based on the visa number available EB-2 I-140 petition. This can be achieved either by concurrent I-140/I-485 filing or if the new EB-2 I-140 has already been approved, by filing of stand-alone I-485 application.
� However, in the foregoing situation, the Pearson Memo of 2000 allows the alien to transfer the pending I-485 application from the existing underlying approved I-140 petition to a new EB-2 I-140 petition such that the alien does not have to file another I-485 application to use the second I-140 petition. For this to happen, two conditions must be met: (1) The existing underlying I-140 petition (most likely EB-3) must have been approved before the I-485 transfer is requested. (2) Secondly, the visa number must be "current" for the new I-140 petition (most likely EB-2) before the I-485 transfer is requested. Inasmuch as the visa number is current, the pending I-485 application that suffer from the visa number retrogression can be transferred to the nex I-140 petition.
� According to the Nebraska Service Center, people should take the following procedure to request such transfer of pending I-485 application from one I-140 petition to another I-140 petition:
o Request for Transfer of Pending I-485 Application to a Newly Filed I-140 Petition That Has Visa Number Current: In this situation, he/she is filing a new I-140 petition (probably EB-2 with visa number "current") with the agency to transfer the pending I-485 application and attach it to the new I-140 petition. The NSC states that if he/she files such new I-140 petition, he/she should use "large, bold print in the cover letter or with a separate, brightly colored cover page and notation 'Inter-file I-140 with Pending I-485' and include the Receipt/File Number of Pending I-485 Application, both on the Envelope and Cover Letter.
o Request for Transfer of Pending I-485 Application to Already Approved New I-140 (most likely EB-2 category): NSC asks to print the attached over sheet on brightly colored paper, and submitting it with a cover letter providing the following Information:
Name of 485 applicant
Name of I-140 petitioner (employer)
I-485 Receipt Number
"A" Number of the 485 applicant
Prior I-140 petition (1) Receipt Number, (2) Filing Date, and (3) Approval Date
New I-140 to be inter-filed
Statement requesting new I-140 be inter-filed with the pending I-485 application.
"06/02/2007: NSC Procedure of Transfer of Pending I-1485 From Current Approved Underlying I-140 Petition to New I-140 Petition
� This posting involves aliens who are waiting for the I-485 applications where the underlying I-140 petition was approved but due to retrogression, I-485 cannot be approved. Most of these cases are EB-3 cases. When the same alien obtains an EB-2 labor certification approval through the same employer or a different employer and the visa number is available for the EB-2 for him or her, he should be eligible for filing another I-485 application based on the visa number available EB-2 I-140 petition. This can be achieved either by concurrent I-140/I-485 filing or if the new EB-2 I-140 has already been approved, by filing of stand-alone I-485 application.
� However, in the foregoing situation, the Pearson Memo of 2000 allows the alien to transfer the pending I-485 application from the existing underlying approved I-140 petition to a new EB-2 I-140 petition such that the alien does not have to file another I-485 application to use the second I-140 petition. For this to happen, two conditions must be met: (1) The existing underlying I-140 petition (most likely EB-3) must have been approved before the I-485 transfer is requested. (2) Secondly, the visa number must be "current" for the new I-140 petition (most likely EB-2) before the I-485 transfer is requested. Inasmuch as the visa number is current, the pending I-485 application that suffer from the visa number retrogression can be transferred to the nex I-140 petition.
� According to the Nebraska Service Center, people should take the following procedure to request such transfer of pending I-485 application from one I-140 petition to another I-140 petition:
o Request for Transfer of Pending I-485 Application to a Newly Filed I-140 Petition That Has Visa Number Current: In this situation, he/she is filing a new I-140 petition (probably EB-2 with visa number "current") with the agency to transfer the pending I-485 application and attach it to the new I-140 petition. The NSC states that if he/she files such new I-140 petition, he/she should use "large, bold print in the cover letter or with a separate, brightly colored cover page and notation 'Inter-file I-140 with Pending I-485' and include the Receipt/File Number of Pending I-485 Application, both on the Envelope and Cover Letter.
o Request for Transfer of Pending I-485 Application to Already Approved New I-140 (most likely EB-2 category): NSC asks to print the attached over sheet on brightly colored paper, and submitting it with a cover letter providing the following Information:
Name of 485 applicant
Name of I-140 petitioner (employer)
I-485 Receipt Number
"A" Number of the 485 applicant
Prior I-140 petition (1) Receipt Number, (2) Filing Date, and (3) Approval Date
New I-140 to be inter-filed
Statement requesting new I-140 be inter-filed with the pending I-485 application.
more...
house nicki minaj super bass album.
WeShallOvercome
12-13 01:59 AM
It depends on the terms of the contract.
I think Washington is an "At Will" employment state, so no matter what a contract says, its pretty much !#*$. I'd do some research if I were you -google, get some state specific employment law advice, check your employee handbook etc.
At Will means that either side (employer or employee) can end a contract at any point, AFAIK
Employee handbook should spell it out. I guess they "could" force you to use your PTO - don't know of the legality in that.
Just my opinion, not legal advice:o
Quick search online got this:-
At Will
In Washington, employees are presumed to be "at will." At-will employees may be terminated for any reason, so long as it is not illegal. Generally, employees that work under an employment contract can only be terminated for reasons specified in the contract. In Washington, in order to overcome the at-will presumption, an employee must show that the employer made clear and unequivocal statements of job security to the employee.
The most common exception to employment-at will is for public policy. This holds that an employee is wrongfully discharged if the termination is counter to an explicit policy of the government. One example is the discharge of an employee for filing a workers' compensation claim.
Employee Handbooks
While an employer is not required by law to have an employee handbook, in most cases, it is recommended. An employee handbook provides a centralized, complete and certain record of the employer's policies and procedures. It also provides more convenient access by employees and managers. At a minimum, an employee handbook should include:
* A statement regarding the at-will employment relationship
* An equal employment opportunity statement
* A policy regarding sexual and other types of harassment in the workplace
* Internet access, e-mail, and voice mail policies
* The Family Medical Leave Act
In Washington, in limited circumstances, the at-will presumption can be overcome and a just-cause employment relationship can be created by an employee's legitimate expectations that are grounded in an employer's policy statements. The employee has to show that the employer, through the employee manual or otherwise, made representations or promises that termination would be only for just cause.
The laws regarding an employer's duties and responsibilities arising under an employee handbook are complex, and a licensed attorney should be contacted to review individual circumstances.
Thanks franklin,
My concern here is that IF I want to leave my employer without having to pay the 'damages' , Can I do that in case they are not able to find me a project in my state of residence (I have a house here in WA). I don't think they can force me to stay unpaid just so I don't break their agreement.
Also from the USCIS point of view, how safe or risky is it to be in this situation where the employer is not able to find any work for you just 1.5 months after GC approval? I can easily find work here, but if I can use this to get out of the agreement, I don't mind being unpaid for a few days...
I've heard some cases where the employee forced the employer to release him from all contractual obligations because employer wasn't able to pay him when he was willing to work..
btw, it's nice to be able to attach some face to a handle... I remember you from the DC rally day.
I think Washington is an "At Will" employment state, so no matter what a contract says, its pretty much !#*$. I'd do some research if I were you -google, get some state specific employment law advice, check your employee handbook etc.
At Will means that either side (employer or employee) can end a contract at any point, AFAIK
Employee handbook should spell it out. I guess they "could" force you to use your PTO - don't know of the legality in that.
Just my opinion, not legal advice:o
Quick search online got this:-
At Will
In Washington, employees are presumed to be "at will." At-will employees may be terminated for any reason, so long as it is not illegal. Generally, employees that work under an employment contract can only be terminated for reasons specified in the contract. In Washington, in order to overcome the at-will presumption, an employee must show that the employer made clear and unequivocal statements of job security to the employee.
The most common exception to employment-at will is for public policy. This holds that an employee is wrongfully discharged if the termination is counter to an explicit policy of the government. One example is the discharge of an employee for filing a workers' compensation claim.
Employee Handbooks
While an employer is not required by law to have an employee handbook, in most cases, it is recommended. An employee handbook provides a centralized, complete and certain record of the employer's policies and procedures. It also provides more convenient access by employees and managers. At a minimum, an employee handbook should include:
* A statement regarding the at-will employment relationship
* An equal employment opportunity statement
* A policy regarding sexual and other types of harassment in the workplace
* Internet access, e-mail, and voice mail policies
* The Family Medical Leave Act
In Washington, in limited circumstances, the at-will presumption can be overcome and a just-cause employment relationship can be created by an employee's legitimate expectations that are grounded in an employer's policy statements. The employee has to show that the employer, through the employee manual or otherwise, made representations or promises that termination would be only for just cause.
The laws regarding an employer's duties and responsibilities arising under an employee handbook are complex, and a licensed attorney should be contacted to review individual circumstances.
Thanks franklin,
My concern here is that IF I want to leave my employer without having to pay the 'damages' , Can I do that in case they are not able to find me a project in my state of residence (I have a house here in WA). I don't think they can force me to stay unpaid just so I don't break their agreement.
Also from the USCIS point of view, how safe or risky is it to be in this situation where the employer is not able to find any work for you just 1.5 months after GC approval? I can easily find work here, but if I can use this to get out of the agreement, I don't mind being unpaid for a few days...
I've heard some cases where the employee forced the employer to release him from all contractual obligations because employer wasn't able to pay him when he was willing to work..
btw, it's nice to be able to attach some face to a handle... I remember you from the DC rally day.
tattoo makeup Nicki Minaj Gold Album.
H1B-GC
02-16 10:26 AM
Well, i feel its more of a Policy decision.If they really want to do something fast they will do it anyhow.The best example is how this woman from canada i guess,who got US citizenship in 2 days,yes its right '2 days' so she can represent US in the ongoing Winter Olympics at Turin.
Even CA state used to abjudicate Labor cases in 1 Months Time back until 2000.Later on 0 approval cases from then on.Surprising??
Even CA state used to abjudicate Labor cases in 1 Months Time back until 2000.Later on 0 approval cases from then on.Surprising??
more...
pictures Nicki Minaj Pink Friday Album
iak1973
11-05 04:39 PM
Lets improve the chances to Mr. Narayana krishnan...
Please vote for him, thanks in advance.
iak
Please vote for him, thanks in advance.
iak
dresses Nicki Minaj Pink Friday Album
mdcowboy
09-15 02:41 PM
:)
I know its too early..but 5 years or so when you become a Citizen, I may still be on H1-B, please exercise your right to vote and choose your constituents wisely to those who support Legal immigration!
I know its too early..but 5 years or so when you become a Citizen, I may still be on H1-B, please exercise your right to vote and choose your constituents wisely to those who support Legal immigration!
more...
makeup May 06, 2011 · Nicki Minaj#39
vicky007
05-10 12:16 PM
Sorry, the link is not working anymore.
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
girlfriend @nickiminaj: Dear Black Radio
chanduv23
09-04 10:21 AM
How difficult is it to find info about the old cases. It is a simple search query on the database. (One single query)
We never know. They keep changing systems. Believe me - their systems are not perfect.
Once I was vacationing in Lake George and happened to get stuck at the border post - we were asked for proof of valid status and all we had was drivers lisence. Then they scanned their computer and told us
My wife - they found that she is in status - currently on h1b (first h1b)
My case - they say my status was legal from May 2000 to July 2001 - My first h1b and after that I took h1b transfer and they cannot locate it in their system and unless I show my documents, they have no way to find out. Then struggled for like 30 min doing all kinds of searches on their computer and did some querying based on current employer etc.....and finally got the info and started chit chatting with us like friends.
This is the advice they gave us - Please keep ALL documents with you - keep originals, copies etc.. very useful when govt agencies cannot locate your information.
Thats why they rely on outside agencies.
What if someone is not using AILAs attorney? Are they screwed?
We never know. They keep changing systems. Believe me - their systems are not perfect.
Once I was vacationing in Lake George and happened to get stuck at the border post - we were asked for proof of valid status and all we had was drivers lisence. Then they scanned their computer and told us
My wife - they found that she is in status - currently on h1b (first h1b)
My case - they say my status was legal from May 2000 to July 2001 - My first h1b and after that I took h1b transfer and they cannot locate it in their system and unless I show my documents, they have no way to find out. Then struggled for like 30 min doing all kinds of searches on their computer and did some querying based on current employer etc.....and finally got the info and started chit chatting with us like friends.
This is the advice they gave us - Please keep ALL documents with you - keep originals, copies etc.. very useful when govt agencies cannot locate your information.
Thats why they rely on outside agencies.
What if someone is not using AILAs attorney? Are they screwed?
hairstyles Nicki Minaj Sets Record: #39;Pink
summerof98
09-04 12:42 PM
See my signature, hope it helps. I got an LUD on my 485 on August 30th but I had no idea why, I guess it might have been the NameCheck and then this email this morning .... unf.. believable!
joeshmoe,
Congratulations on your GC approval. Enjoy the freedom.
Your approval gives us hope in a way that USCIS is approving I-485 cases even though the PD is not current. Am I right?
joeshmoe,
Congratulations on your GC approval. Enjoy the freedom.
Your approval gives us hope in a way that USCIS is approving I-485 cases even though the PD is not current. Am I right?
mhathi
04-30 03:39 PM
Category: EB3 (Regular)
Applied: November 20th, 2006
approved: April 12th, 2007.
Applied: November 20th, 2006
approved: April 12th, 2007.
pushkarw
12-21 01:13 PM
Have you contributed to the MILLION dollar drive? Please visit the funding thread!
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий