pbojja
03-30 11:30 PM
Congratulations !! When was your last FP done ? Did you get the second FP ?
Thanks ..October 2007 . No second FP
Thanks ..October 2007 . No second FP
wallpaper clip art sunny day.
kevnss
03-18 03:06 PM
Yesterday I went to SSN Administration office to apply SSN for my wife to get the tax rebate, you definitely need EAD if that person doesn't have work permit. So it automatically changes the status from H4 to EAD. I have also confirmed this the officer about the status, he confirmed that the status will automatically changed to EAD. So H4 no longer exists for spouse if the spouse carried H4 earlier. Hope this will answers your question. Regarding the tax rebate, you have to have SSN to qualify, so that's the main reason I went to SSN administration office for my wife.
GooblyWoobly
09-25 03:19 PM
Let me clarify point 3) again
I told it because the same way my spouse received SSN# < 10days but those people will say it take minimum 15days or so.But before you go to SSN office you need proof of EAD approval or best is EAD card,passport handly.
HTH,
No, No. Your answer was perfectly correct. But the OP had asked this:
"Is the there a time frame within which one has to get the SSN#?"
So, I thought he is probably asking if there is any time limit by which you have to get SSN or you don't get SSN at all.
It's better to apply ASAP. In my wife's case, after her H1 came along, we just took two weeks to apply after she started working. The result was, at the end of the month, we were in a legal limbo. The company (one of the big companies in the valley) couldn't pay her because she doesn't have her SSN. The company cannot keep the money as she is legally employed, and has worked. So, not paying her that month will break the H1B terms. Luckily for us, SSN arrived on 29th of that month!!
I told it because the same way my spouse received SSN# < 10days but those people will say it take minimum 15days or so.But before you go to SSN office you need proof of EAD approval or best is EAD card,passport handly.
HTH,
No, No. Your answer was perfectly correct. But the OP had asked this:
"Is the there a time frame within which one has to get the SSN#?"
So, I thought he is probably asking if there is any time limit by which you have to get SSN or you don't get SSN at all.
It's better to apply ASAP. In my wife's case, after her H1 came along, we just took two weeks to apply after she started working. The result was, at the end of the month, we were in a legal limbo. The company (one of the big companies in the valley) couldn't pay her because she doesn't have her SSN. The company cannot keep the money as she is legally employed, and has worked. So, not paying her that month will break the H1B terms. Luckily for us, SSN arrived on 29th of that month!!
2011 clip art sunny day. reddymjm
DesiTech
06-01 07:10 PM
:) Thanks for you info.
more...
solaris27
08-04 10:36 AM
Yes...i am july 2nd filer...still waiting.
PD Feb 2005
PD Feb 2005
sparky_jones
07-27 08:58 AM
This will be useful to many folks...great work!
more...
lazycis
10-06 01:22 PM
The law says (8 USC 1154):
"(j) Job flexibility for long delayed applicants for adjustment of status to permanent residence
A petition under subsection (a)(1)(D) of this section for an individual whose application for adjustment of status pursuant to section 1255 of this title has been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days or more shall remain valid with respect to a new job if the individual changes jobs or employers if the new job is in the same or a similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed."
"(j) Job flexibility for long delayed applicants for adjustment of status to permanent residence
A petition under subsection (a)(1)(D) of this section for an individual whose application for adjustment of status pursuant to section 1255 of this title has been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days or more shall remain valid with respect to a new job if the individual changes jobs or employers if the new job is in the same or a similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed."
2010 clip art sunny day. clip art
vin13
03-11 04:28 PM
The answer to that question would be "no". Would the IO be satisfied with the job description of the new job? Would he ask if I filed AC21? I don't want to sound paranoid, but it would be great if there was anyone on these forums that was in a similar situation and was asked that question...
You do sound paranoid.
When the law doesnot require tht a person file AC21 when changing jobs and yet you are not satisfied. That is PARANOID.
People are going to give their personal experience. If you are not satisfied then get legal advise from a lawyer.
All Immigraton Officers will not ask the same questions nor react the same way for similar answers.
You do sound paranoid.
When the law doesnot require tht a person file AC21 when changing jobs and yet you are not satisfied. That is PARANOID.
People are going to give their personal experience. If you are not satisfied then get legal advise from a lawyer.
All Immigraton Officers will not ask the same questions nor react the same way for similar answers.
more...
GotGC??
03-27 02:09 PM
You missed the sarcasm, never mind :)
Yes, depending on how the educational requirements in your LC is worded - I mean right down to the last word - it just might leave you with some room for manoeuvre.
Yes. I have paid quite amount of money to fill the PERM application.
So, what you are saying that I actually can continue the process?
Yes, depending on how the educational requirements in your LC is worded - I mean right down to the last word - it just might leave you with some room for manoeuvre.
Yes. I have paid quite amount of money to fill the PERM application.
So, what you are saying that I actually can continue the process?
hair hairstyles Clipart Sunny Day.
xela
06-17 08:53 AM
We all saw SLUDs shortly after the day we received notice, as I metioned I got receipt on April 27tha dn last SLUD was April 30th,....sinc ethen nothing
however most people got their EADs already so they might just enjoy sitting on mine who knows sigh...
good luck and dont expect any LUDs until they actually send you something :-)
however most people got their EADs already so they might just enjoy sitting on mine who knows sigh...
good luck and dont expect any LUDs until they actually send you something :-)
more...
r_mistry
01-18 02:41 PM
Thanks for responding !!!
hot Sunny day at the beach
StuckInTheMuck
05-03 08:17 AM
Updating profile should fill up your information in the tracker.
Will make a not of it.
Thanks a lot.
GO IV GO
Recently I had some trouble updating my profile. The "Additional Information" section has a series of RFE-related (on I-485, I-140, EAD and AP) boxes, where one must enter a valid date in the specified format. Because I did not receive any RFE yet, I tried to get past this page by entering 00/00/0000 ("N/A" did not work), which did not work either, and finally I settled with my PD on all these RFE boxes (which is, of course, incorrect). So, maybe the powers-that-be can fix the problem, and, also remove these wrong entries from my profile?
Thanks.
Will make a not of it.
Thanks a lot.
GO IV GO
Recently I had some trouble updating my profile. The "Additional Information" section has a series of RFE-related (on I-485, I-140, EAD and AP) boxes, where one must enter a valid date in the specified format. Because I did not receive any RFE yet, I tried to get past this page by entering 00/00/0000 ("N/A" did not work), which did not work either, and finally I settled with my PD on all these RFE boxes (which is, of course, incorrect). So, maybe the powers-that-be can fix the problem, and, also remove these wrong entries from my profile?
Thanks.
more...
house Royalty-Free Vector Clip Art
ntpatil
04-27 10:44 AM
Yes,
And that is the reason I wanted maximum check-in luggage with no carry on, so that she does not have any hassle while traveling.
And that is the reason I wanted maximum check-in luggage with no carry on, so that she does not have any hassle while traveling.
tattoo clip art sunny day.
panks
04-01 10:06 PM
Hello,
I need some urgent advise for potential steps after I-140 denial in my case. Please bear with me for some context.
In July'09 , I received a RFE on one of my two approved I-140.
This I-140 in question, was related to PERM labor and was approved in Jan'07 and had the PD of Oct' 06.
I had another I-140 pending approval at that time which was related to Pre-PERM/RIR labor and which had the PD of Oct' 04.
In July-Aug'07 window of 485 filing, I filed my 485 application referencing both I-140's ,
the reason we referenced non approved I-140 because it had an ealier PD.
The Oct'04 (earlier) PD I-140 was subsequently approved in Oct'07 just after few short months of 485 filing.
Both Labors/I-140s were in EB2. Now the RFE was due to 3 year degree , USCIS argued that they will not accept my NIIT diploma towards a 4 year degree althougth all other times they did. Anyway we responded to RFE , the lawyer made some arguments with an additional Educational evalaution, also agreeing to the possibility of shifting of I-140 from EB2 to EB3. Last week I received a very detailed response both in breadth and depth on that RFE, totalling ten pages and it concluded with the revocation of I-140 in question. They also denied the possibility of shifting to EB3 from EB2. We do have the option to appeal.
Today, I had a meeting with attorneys and my company's HR director on this and my attorney's recommendation was :
Because we have another I-140 in play , so we may be able to request USCIS to close the file on denied I-140 , at the same time also requesting to approve the 485 since the PD is currently current on that one. As far as I can understand this is a strategy of hope. Although hope is not a solution but the reason I see some merit towards this because both labors are completely different and their requirements are very different, so USCIS *should* not just deny the 485 based on just denied I-140. At worst they *should* give us a similar RFE and an opportunity to respond. Attorney also indicates that this 3 year degree issue is mostly with PERM applications and not with others.
The reason he says this is the better option because he is not confident that we will win the appeal. By reading the USCIS response on RFE , I am not sure of that either. If we file the appeal not caring what the result might be ..according to attorney and this I am not sure of is that when we file the appeal all processing will be **FROZEN** including 485 and would rob us of having a shot of approval via current PD's I-140.
The company has agreed to file a new Labor in EB3 as a backstop measure , however as you might understand I would be looking at least 10 years before I get GC with an EB3 2010 PD.
I came here in 2000 and it has already passed 10 years , however this is necessary so that I keep extending my H1.
I do have an extended H1 valild till 2012, however last year when I retuned to US from INDIA , I came on AP , so I think if in worst case my 485 gets denied in effect nullifying my EAD and AP. I would have to go out of country to revalidate my H1 and then come back.
My question to boarders here is :
a) What do you think about my options ? Is the Strategy of hope is the best one right now ?
b) Do really all processing gets frozen when we file an appeal on a denied I-140, specially in my case where I have two I-140s ?
c) Any other innovative ideas ?
-Thanks in advance.
Panks
I need some urgent advise for potential steps after I-140 denial in my case. Please bear with me for some context.
In July'09 , I received a RFE on one of my two approved I-140.
This I-140 in question, was related to PERM labor and was approved in Jan'07 and had the PD of Oct' 06.
I had another I-140 pending approval at that time which was related to Pre-PERM/RIR labor and which had the PD of Oct' 04.
In July-Aug'07 window of 485 filing, I filed my 485 application referencing both I-140's ,
the reason we referenced non approved I-140 because it had an ealier PD.
The Oct'04 (earlier) PD I-140 was subsequently approved in Oct'07 just after few short months of 485 filing.
Both Labors/I-140s were in EB2. Now the RFE was due to 3 year degree , USCIS argued that they will not accept my NIIT diploma towards a 4 year degree althougth all other times they did. Anyway we responded to RFE , the lawyer made some arguments with an additional Educational evalaution, also agreeing to the possibility of shifting of I-140 from EB2 to EB3. Last week I received a very detailed response both in breadth and depth on that RFE, totalling ten pages and it concluded with the revocation of I-140 in question. They also denied the possibility of shifting to EB3 from EB2. We do have the option to appeal.
Today, I had a meeting with attorneys and my company's HR director on this and my attorney's recommendation was :
Because we have another I-140 in play , so we may be able to request USCIS to close the file on denied I-140 , at the same time also requesting to approve the 485 since the PD is currently current on that one. As far as I can understand this is a strategy of hope. Although hope is not a solution but the reason I see some merit towards this because both labors are completely different and their requirements are very different, so USCIS *should* not just deny the 485 based on just denied I-140. At worst they *should* give us a similar RFE and an opportunity to respond. Attorney also indicates that this 3 year degree issue is mostly with PERM applications and not with others.
The reason he says this is the better option because he is not confident that we will win the appeal. By reading the USCIS response on RFE , I am not sure of that either. If we file the appeal not caring what the result might be ..according to attorney and this I am not sure of is that when we file the appeal all processing will be **FROZEN** including 485 and would rob us of having a shot of approval via current PD's I-140.
The company has agreed to file a new Labor in EB3 as a backstop measure , however as you might understand I would be looking at least 10 years before I get GC with an EB3 2010 PD.
I came here in 2000 and it has already passed 10 years , however this is necessary so that I keep extending my H1.
I do have an extended H1 valild till 2012, however last year when I retuned to US from INDIA , I came on AP , so I think if in worst case my 485 gets denied in effect nullifying my EAD and AP. I would have to go out of country to revalidate my H1 and then come back.
My question to boarders here is :
a) What do you think about my options ? Is the Strategy of hope is the best one right now ?
b) Do really all processing gets frozen when we file an appeal on a denied I-140, specially in my case where I have two I-140s ?
c) Any other innovative ideas ?
-Thanks in advance.
Panks
more...
pictures illustrations and clip art
Sirisian
05-12 12:08 AM
SDL is rarely used by itself. Just use it for windowing and let OpenGL render (it's much faster). Also you'll notice that SDL can't rotate an image (or it couldn't 2 years ago). There are free OpenGL GUI's like CEGUI if you need one. I'd learn how to get the basic stuff.
Make sure you know the STL completely. This means, std::vector, std::list, and std::map kind of stuff. I'd recommend learning the OOP paradigm since it helps a lot.
http://gpwiki.org/index.php/C_plus_plus:Modern_C_plus_plus:Vectors
Learn how to set up object class with an x and y pos and then create a manager class that allows you to insert them into a list or vector container. Then add maybe a velocity into the object class and see if you can iterate the group of points and move them with their velocities. (by the way I'm describing a particle engine.
Other things to make sure is to use std::string and not char so much.
Templates are good to learn later once you find what they are used for.
Make sure you know the STL completely. This means, std::vector, std::list, and std::map kind of stuff. I'd recommend learning the OOP paradigm since it helps a lot.
http://gpwiki.org/index.php/C_plus_plus:Modern_C_plus_plus:Vectors
Learn how to set up object class with an x and y pos and then create a manager class that allows you to insert them into a list or vector container. Then add maybe a velocity into the object class and see if you can iterate the group of points and move them with their velocities. (by the way I'm describing a particle engine.
Other things to make sure is to use std::string and not char so much.
Templates are good to learn later once you find what they are used for.
dresses clip art sunny. clip art sunny day. clip art; clip art sunny day. clip art
walking_dude
10-19 02:12 PM
When did this happen? Why wasn't such a major policy change communicated on the Home Page?!
Is "Bill Pay" option ever going be re-instated?!!
Is "Bill Pay" option ever going be re-instated?!!
more...
makeup Clipart Sunny Day. summer
bkam
05-18 03:41 PM
Good job, IV core group. Media attention is usually a sign that things are getting hot and resolution is a must.
As other people mentioned below - love to be a member of the IV team (3,000+ smart, dedicated people, wow!)
As other people mentioned below - love to be a member of the IV team (3,000+ smart, dedicated people, wow!)
girlfriend Sunny Day With Clouds clip art
logiclife
02-08 11:48 AM
You want to keep your 140 intact for 2 reasons:
1. To port the priority date for future use in a subsequent Greencard petition.
2. To get more H1 extensions based on this 140, until you have another labor and 140 going on with new employer.
First, about 1:
There is a lot of information on this thread about priority date transfers (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=912)from old approved 140 to a new 140. Read that thread and you will learn all you want to learn and all the information out there in the immigration world about PD transfer from one 140 to another 140.
In a nutshell:
Its a grey area of the law. If your 140 is never revoked, you would be fine and able to port your priority date. If it is revoked for fraud and willful misrepresentation, then you cannot port that PD under any circumstances. If 140 is revoked by employer then it falls into grey area. USCIS adjudicator's field manual says that you can still port your PD. The code of federal regulations says that you cannot. Currently USCIS is porting priority dates even if employer has revoked that 140, and they are following the AFM(adjudicator's field manual). However that can change in future. Legislation trumps regulation and regulation trumps the adjudicator's field manual. For now, things are great as AFM is being followed.
About 2:
If you have an H1 approved for 3 years after 140 approval, and you transfer jobs to a new employer and get another H1. You should be fine. If your previous employer cancels your I-140 after you leave and go to another employer, then USCIS will not go back and cancel your H1 because it was based on an approved 140 that is now revoked. This is what is happening as of now. At the time of H1 transfer to your new employer, your 140 should be in good status and you should have a photocopy of your approved 140. Once your H1 transfer is done (probably will have same end-date as the current 3-year H1 from your current employer), if the 140 is revoked AFTER that, then you should be fine. I am saying this based on advice from a very good lawyer.
Now, in far future, USCIS may decide to go and look for H1s that were approved based on approved 140 and then if that 140 is revoked, then they would go and cancel that H1 also. Its very very unlikely that they would do that even in future. They dont have that kind of resources to keep track of H1s based on 140 approvals and then go back and cancel them whenever some disappointed employer revokes 140.
About preventing 140 from being revoked:
I do not think that by changing lawyers, you can stop the previous 140 from being revoked. Your previous employer, for any reason, can get that 140 revoked with any lawyer they choose, regardless of who your current lawyer is. Lawyers are tied to clients, not petitions and cases. However, if someone knows more about this, please post here.
1. To port the priority date for future use in a subsequent Greencard petition.
2. To get more H1 extensions based on this 140, until you have another labor and 140 going on with new employer.
First, about 1:
There is a lot of information on this thread about priority date transfers (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=912)from old approved 140 to a new 140. Read that thread and you will learn all you want to learn and all the information out there in the immigration world about PD transfer from one 140 to another 140.
In a nutshell:
Its a grey area of the law. If your 140 is never revoked, you would be fine and able to port your priority date. If it is revoked for fraud and willful misrepresentation, then you cannot port that PD under any circumstances. If 140 is revoked by employer then it falls into grey area. USCIS adjudicator's field manual says that you can still port your PD. The code of federal regulations says that you cannot. Currently USCIS is porting priority dates even if employer has revoked that 140, and they are following the AFM(adjudicator's field manual). However that can change in future. Legislation trumps regulation and regulation trumps the adjudicator's field manual. For now, things are great as AFM is being followed.
About 2:
If you have an H1 approved for 3 years after 140 approval, and you transfer jobs to a new employer and get another H1. You should be fine. If your previous employer cancels your I-140 after you leave and go to another employer, then USCIS will not go back and cancel your H1 because it was based on an approved 140 that is now revoked. This is what is happening as of now. At the time of H1 transfer to your new employer, your 140 should be in good status and you should have a photocopy of your approved 140. Once your H1 transfer is done (probably will have same end-date as the current 3-year H1 from your current employer), if the 140 is revoked AFTER that, then you should be fine. I am saying this based on advice from a very good lawyer.
Now, in far future, USCIS may decide to go and look for H1s that were approved based on approved 140 and then if that 140 is revoked, then they would go and cancel that H1 also. Its very very unlikely that they would do that even in future. They dont have that kind of resources to keep track of H1s based on 140 approvals and then go back and cancel them whenever some disappointed employer revokes 140.
About preventing 140 from being revoked:
I do not think that by changing lawyers, you can stop the previous 140 from being revoked. Your previous employer, for any reason, can get that 140 revoked with any lawyer they choose, regardless of who your current lawyer is. Lawyers are tied to clients, not petitions and cases. However, if someone knows more about this, please post here.
hairstyles On a hot sunny summers day
shsharma_2000
10-23 02:14 PM
My friend's in-laws were not allowed to board on one-way ticket because they had visitor visa (B2).
They called from airport and he had to book the return ticket rightway to get them boarded.
Check with the airlines..
They called from airport and he had to book the return ticket rightway to get them boarded.
Check with the airlines..
Blog Feeds
07-09 12:30 PM
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)
tejonidhi
11-27 01:24 PM
Rajen,
Thanks for your advice. He does not want to come to US for job as he left US for good.the consulting firm told him that they have applied for his substitution and brought him back here. So I am a little concerned to know if there is any other way of Labor substitution.
Consulting company lawyer says they filed it prior to July 15.
Thank you
Thanks for your advice. He does not want to come to US for job as he left US for good.the consulting firm told him that they have applied for his substitution and brought him back here. So I am a little concerned to know if there is any other way of Labor substitution.
Consulting company lawyer says they filed it prior to July 15.
Thank you
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario