asterix
02-23 09:50 AM
50,000 visas were recaptured for Schedule A occupations - nurses and physical therapists. That is why both India and Philippines got more numbers in FY 2006.
The # for 2006 excludes schedule A recapture for nurses etc. Here is the breakdown
EB1 - 3K
EB2 - 3.7k
EB3 - 3.1K
EB4 - 0.6K
EB5 - 0.02K
Total EB - 10.7K
Schedule A - 6.7K
Am I missing something?
The # for 2006 excludes schedule A recapture for nurses etc. Here is the breakdown
EB1 - 3K
EB2 - 3.7k
EB3 - 3.1K
EB4 - 0.6K
EB5 - 0.02K
Total EB - 10.7K
Schedule A - 6.7K
Am I missing something?
manand24
10-15 02:10 PM
Hi,
Probably ur 485 is going be approved soon!We had only one soft LUD after fp in our 485s on 7th sep 2007,and no luds on i-140 and i-131 till date??
goodluck,
vaishu
I do not think so, my PD is 2006, I am not even dreaming about GC.
Probably ur 485 is going be approved soon!We had only one soft LUD after fp in our 485s on 7th sep 2007,and no luds on i-140 and i-131 till date??
goodluck,
vaishu
I do not think so, my PD is 2006, I am not even dreaming about GC.
whoever
07-19 10:38 AM
please, someone reply.
gc_kaavaali
07-16 05:21 PM
Jonty,
Take it easy!!! relax!!! I understand your frustration...but take it easy...we are trying our best to fight for our problems. I already participated in high five drive.
I think people out here have nothing to do. Please concentrate on the cor eissues... and participate in IV campaigns..High FIVE for one...
When new processign dates come out you will know have patience.
Take it easy!!! relax!!! I understand your frustration...but take it easy...we are trying our best to fight for our problems. I already participated in high five drive.
I think people out here have nothing to do. Please concentrate on the cor eissues... and participate in IV campaigns..High FIVE for one...
When new processign dates come out you will know have patience.
more...
pdx_Soft_Eng
07-10 12:33 AM
as far as I know, since she had H1B already with her previous company, she can get a new H1B right now. She doesn't have to wait for Oct 2007. However, the time she spent on H4 is also used against her H1B time since H1 and H4 are both H visas and everybody gets 6 years in total. You should use this info at yor own risk. Double check with a lawyer. Maybe other members can confirm my response as well...
rsdang
08-19 10:44 AM
However I would not like to see socialization items on the home page... If we do go ahead with this suggestion I would suggest a seprate link from the hom page...
I would not want to loose important messages in personal communication with other members...
Thanks
I would not want to loose important messages in personal communication with other members...
Thanks
more...
gcisadawg
09-25 02:45 PM
http://www.reason.com/images/07cf533ddb1d06350cf1ddb5942ef5ad.jpg
Enjoy
The slide is very informative and catchy. But the title could have been better. I thought of sending this to my colleagues at work. But the title
"What part of legal immigration don't you understand?" stopped me.
It could have been "Legal immigration 101" or something to that effect.
Enjoy
The slide is very informative and catchy. But the title could have been better. I thought of sending this to my colleagues at work. But the title
"What part of legal immigration don't you understand?" stopped me.
It could have been "Legal immigration 101" or something to that effect.
pappu
12-16 01:25 PM
There is a possible solution to this. I do not wish to post it as everyone may try to misuse that route and thus block the avenue for deserving people. If you have been denied, you can contact IV.
more...
yoda
08-12 06:25 PM
According to my understanding, PIO is like a long term entry visa but it does not allow you to work. You would still need an employment visa.
Only OCI visa holders can work without employment visa.
You may want confirm the details on the Embassy website as they keep changing rules from time to time.
Only OCI visa holders can work without employment visa.
You may want confirm the details on the Embassy website as they keep changing rules from time to time.
grimreaper
03-29 05:58 PM
I have filed PERM in Nov-2009 and am still waiting. I am a Physician and hope not to get audited. Let us see.
more...
smartboy75
05-25 05:53 PM
Most of I-485 applications are currently stuck with the State Department's Visa Bulletin retrogression which are many years behind. However, aside delays which are attributed to the visa number retrogressions, the cases which were filed during the July 2007 Visa Bulletin fiasco period are expected to take nearly three years from the end of the USCIS itsself processing and adjudications in terms of the workloads, according to the CRS report. July 2007 VB fiasco filers, go figure!
According to the CRS report, the USCIS issues before the Congress are as follows from the perspectives of FY 2009 budget:
USCIS Issues for Congress. USCIS issues for Congress include the surgein immigration benefit applications that occurred in FY2007 and which resulted in an increase in the agency’s backlog, and the use of the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation’s (FBI’s) National Name Check program to vet immigration benefitapplications.
Surge in Benefit Applications and Resulting Backlog. According to the testimony of USCIS Director Emilo T. Gonzalez, USCIS experienced an increasein its backlog of naturalization applications in the second half of FY2007.116 From May through July of 2007 USCIS received three and a half times more applications than during the same three months in the previous year.117 Consequently, published accounts indicate that processing time for applications filed during the FY2007 “surge” would be between 16-18 months, as compared to 6-7 months for applications filed in the same period during FY2006.118 For all immigration benefits, the USCIS director testified that the agency received over 1.2 million more applications during the FY2007 surge than in the same period during FY2006, for a total of over 3 million applications. According to media reports, USCIS officials believe that the backlog created by the application surge could take close to three years to clear. Although citizenship campaigns and a contentious national immigration debate have been cited as contributing factors, many observers believe most of the surge in
applications may be attributed to the USCIS fee increase of July 30, 2007. These fee adjustments followed an internal cost review and they increased application fees by a weighted average of 96% for each benefit. The cost of naturalization, formmigration benefit applications that occurred in FY2007 and which resulted in an increase in the agency’s backlog, and the use of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) National Name Check program to vet immigration benefit applications.example, increased from $330 to $595. Critics of this new naturalization backlog have mainly raised concerns that applicants would not naturalize in time toparticipate in the 2008 election. USCIS did not include a request for direct appropriations to hire additional temporary personnel to adjudicate the backlog.
Use of FBI National Name Check Program. An additional potential issue for Congress concerns USCIS’ use of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Name Check Program. USCIS officials have estimated that roughly 44% of 320,000 pending name checks for immigration benefit applications have taken more than six months to process, including applications for legal permanent residence (LPR) and naturalization. As a result, the White House has authorized USCIS to grant approximately 47,000 LPR applicants their immigration benefits without requiring completed FBI name checks. Critics of this decision believe it could expose the United States to more security threats. The USCIS ombudsman, however, has argued that USCIS employment of the FBI name check process is of limited value to public safety or national security because in most cases the applicants are living and working in the United States without restriction.
Source: www.immigration-law.com
According to the CRS report, the USCIS issues before the Congress are as follows from the perspectives of FY 2009 budget:
USCIS Issues for Congress. USCIS issues for Congress include the surgein immigration benefit applications that occurred in FY2007 and which resulted in an increase in the agency’s backlog, and the use of the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation’s (FBI’s) National Name Check program to vet immigration benefitapplications.
Surge in Benefit Applications and Resulting Backlog. According to the testimony of USCIS Director Emilo T. Gonzalez, USCIS experienced an increasein its backlog of naturalization applications in the second half of FY2007.116 From May through July of 2007 USCIS received three and a half times more applications than during the same three months in the previous year.117 Consequently, published accounts indicate that processing time for applications filed during the FY2007 “surge” would be between 16-18 months, as compared to 6-7 months for applications filed in the same period during FY2006.118 For all immigration benefits, the USCIS director testified that the agency received over 1.2 million more applications during the FY2007 surge than in the same period during FY2006, for a total of over 3 million applications. According to media reports, USCIS officials believe that the backlog created by the application surge could take close to three years to clear. Although citizenship campaigns and a contentious national immigration debate have been cited as contributing factors, many observers believe most of the surge in
applications may be attributed to the USCIS fee increase of July 30, 2007. These fee adjustments followed an internal cost review and they increased application fees by a weighted average of 96% for each benefit. The cost of naturalization, formmigration benefit applications that occurred in FY2007 and which resulted in an increase in the agency’s backlog, and the use of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) National Name Check program to vet immigration benefit applications.example, increased from $330 to $595. Critics of this new naturalization backlog have mainly raised concerns that applicants would not naturalize in time toparticipate in the 2008 election. USCIS did not include a request for direct appropriations to hire additional temporary personnel to adjudicate the backlog.
Use of FBI National Name Check Program. An additional potential issue for Congress concerns USCIS’ use of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Name Check Program. USCIS officials have estimated that roughly 44% of 320,000 pending name checks for immigration benefit applications have taken more than six months to process, including applications for legal permanent residence (LPR) and naturalization. As a result, the White House has authorized USCIS to grant approximately 47,000 LPR applicants their immigration benefits without requiring completed FBI name checks. Critics of this decision believe it could expose the United States to more security threats. The USCIS ombudsman, however, has argued that USCIS employment of the FBI name check process is of limited value to public safety or national security because in most cases the applicants are living and working in the United States without restriction.
Source: www.immigration-law.com
adde72
06-14 09:59 PM
Dear Friends,
Please excuse my ignorance, but I don't know what AC-21 is. Can someone please give me some idea?
Thank you.
Next week is the time to talk more about AC 21 . This week lets complete all the work to file the petition
Long Stroy in short form with the rules underlying AC 21 act
If 140 is approved and 485 petition was pending for adjustment for more than 180 days ( from Receipt Date ) you can move to a similar job under a different employer using EAD
Please excuse my ignorance, but I don't know what AC-21 is. Can someone please give me some idea?
Thank you.
Next week is the time to talk more about AC 21 . This week lets complete all the work to file the petition
Long Stroy in short form with the rules underlying AC 21 act
If 140 is approved and 485 petition was pending for adjustment for more than 180 days ( from Receipt Date ) you can move to a similar job under a different employer using EAD
more...
tiinap
02-01 06:33 PM
I've been trying to research this out of my own curiosity. All candidates speak in rather vague terms at this point in the campaing, but based on the candidates' own websites and media, here's what I've found:
Let's start with Obama:
(quotes from his campaign website):
"Obama believes we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill. (:))
Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens. (presumably, that would include us, if we're lucky, can maybe even get in line before the illegals)
o Fix the Bureaucracy: Obama joined Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) to introduce the Citizenship Promotion Act to ensure that immigration application fees are both reasonable and fair. Obama also introduced legislation that passed the Senate to improve the speed and accuracy of FBI background checks. (:))
"Respect Families: Obama introduced amendments to put greater emphasis on keeping immigrant families together." (Does this include keeping temporary worker families together? :confused:
"In the most recent immigration debate on the U.S. Senate floor, Obama fought to improve and pass a comprehensive bill. Obama introduced amendments to put greater emphasis on keeping immigrant families together and to revisit a controversial new points system that never received a proper public hearing. Obama will continue to work for a comprehensive bill that fixes our broken immigration system." ( :))
BUT... Here is what Obama said on the Senate floor in June 2007 when the subject of points-based immigration system came up:
"�For decades, American citizens and legal permanent residents have been able to sponsor their family members for entry into our country. For decades, American businesses have been able to sponsor valued employees. The bill before us changes a policy that, while imperfect, has worked well and will replace it with a new, untested, unexamined system to provide visas to immigrants who look good on paper, but who may not have any familial or economic ties to our country.�
"..they support the amendment because the new points system shifts us too far away from the value we place on family ties and moves us toward a class-based immigration system.."
�Our current immigration system delivers the lion�s share of green cards � about 63% -- to family members of Americans and legal permanent residents, while roughly 16% of visas are allocated to employment-based categories. The bill before us would reduce visas allocated to the family system in order to dramatically increase the proportion of visas distributed based on economic �points.� Once implemented, these new economic points visas would then account for about 40% of all visas, while family visas would account for less than half of all visas, with the remainder going for humanitarian purposes.�
First of all, believes the current system has worked "well"! :D
Wants to see a continuation of the system where family-based immigration is given priority :mad:
Seems to be glad that only 16% of GC go to EB :mad:
Laments the fact that 40% may go to educated immigrants under the points system. :mad: More educated immigrants, oh the horror!
Votes: Voted in favor of amendment to cut proposed guestworker program in half in 2007 :mad:
He's making some vague but good promises about fixing the system, and seems to be aware key issues like FBI namechecks. But the track record of what he has done in the Senate is pretty horrible. The points system would have given a huge advantage to anyone working in the US currently and Obama played a big role in taking that off the agenda.
Let's start with Obama:
(quotes from his campaign website):
"Obama believes we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill. (:))
Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens. (presumably, that would include us, if we're lucky, can maybe even get in line before the illegals)
o Fix the Bureaucracy: Obama joined Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) to introduce the Citizenship Promotion Act to ensure that immigration application fees are both reasonable and fair. Obama also introduced legislation that passed the Senate to improve the speed and accuracy of FBI background checks. (:))
"Respect Families: Obama introduced amendments to put greater emphasis on keeping immigrant families together." (Does this include keeping temporary worker families together? :confused:
"In the most recent immigration debate on the U.S. Senate floor, Obama fought to improve and pass a comprehensive bill. Obama introduced amendments to put greater emphasis on keeping immigrant families together and to revisit a controversial new points system that never received a proper public hearing. Obama will continue to work for a comprehensive bill that fixes our broken immigration system." ( :))
BUT... Here is what Obama said on the Senate floor in June 2007 when the subject of points-based immigration system came up:
"�For decades, American citizens and legal permanent residents have been able to sponsor their family members for entry into our country. For decades, American businesses have been able to sponsor valued employees. The bill before us changes a policy that, while imperfect, has worked well and will replace it with a new, untested, unexamined system to provide visas to immigrants who look good on paper, but who may not have any familial or economic ties to our country.�
"..they support the amendment because the new points system shifts us too far away from the value we place on family ties and moves us toward a class-based immigration system.."
�Our current immigration system delivers the lion�s share of green cards � about 63% -- to family members of Americans and legal permanent residents, while roughly 16% of visas are allocated to employment-based categories. The bill before us would reduce visas allocated to the family system in order to dramatically increase the proportion of visas distributed based on economic �points.� Once implemented, these new economic points visas would then account for about 40% of all visas, while family visas would account for less than half of all visas, with the remainder going for humanitarian purposes.�
First of all, believes the current system has worked "well"! :D
Wants to see a continuation of the system where family-based immigration is given priority :mad:
Seems to be glad that only 16% of GC go to EB :mad:
Laments the fact that 40% may go to educated immigrants under the points system. :mad: More educated immigrants, oh the horror!
Votes: Voted in favor of amendment to cut proposed guestworker program in half in 2007 :mad:
He's making some vague but good promises about fixing the system, and seems to be aware key issues like FBI namechecks. But the track record of what he has done in the Senate is pretty horrible. The points system would have given a huge advantage to anyone working in the US currently and Obama played a big role in taking that off the agenda.
sam_hoosier
11-27 04:30 PM
My 485 is pending with receipt date of Aug 9th, 2007 . It looks like my company is going to layoff a large # of employees. What is the best possible route to take should I lose my job now?
Pls help.
Thanks.
Best possible route is to move to EAD with your current employer, then look for another job and switch job once you get something else.
Pls help.
Thanks.
Best possible route is to move to EAD with your current employer, then look for another job and switch job once you get something else.
more...
mast_mastmunda
11-10 04:13 PM
Hi,
Thanks for the reply and sorry for creating multiple threads.
- First H1B Employer "A"
-----------------------------
Approved: Oct 2006
Stamped: December 2006
Visa stamp valid till : Oct' 2009
H1B transferred to Employer "B" : June 2007
Traveling to India: November ' 2008
On Dec12, 2007, i saw an update on I-797 from Employer "A" even though
I have moved to Employer "B" by that time.
The Status of I-797 for Employer "A" on USCIS website got changed
to "Cable sent to American Consulate or port of entry notifying them of approval.".
My concern is that whether the above status means that first Employer "A" has revoked the H1B visa?
If yes, doesn't that means that I will NOT be able to use that H1B
visa stamping and *new* I-797 from Employer "B" at port of entry?
Thanks again..look forward to your response
Thanks for the reply and sorry for creating multiple threads.
- First H1B Employer "A"
-----------------------------
Approved: Oct 2006
Stamped: December 2006
Visa stamp valid till : Oct' 2009
H1B transferred to Employer "B" : June 2007
Traveling to India: November ' 2008
On Dec12, 2007, i saw an update on I-797 from Employer "A" even though
I have moved to Employer "B" by that time.
The Status of I-797 for Employer "A" on USCIS website got changed
to "Cable sent to American Consulate or port of entry notifying them of approval.".
My concern is that whether the above status means that first Employer "A" has revoked the H1B visa?
If yes, doesn't that means that I will NOT be able to use that H1B
visa stamping and *new* I-797 from Employer "B" at port of entry?
Thanks again..look forward to your response
peer123
04-17 11:17 AM
How to find associated SOC code with DOT code (DOT code is on LC certification, OCC code , Ind COde and OCC title is on certified LC)? I tried to find my case in the MS Access databases (from year 2001 to 2007) but could not find my case at all. My PD is May 2004, and LC certified March 2006(was sent to Backlog Center in Dallas), which MS Access database do I need to look into?
My title on LC is programmer analyst (OCC code= 030.162-014), read thru the forum replies, found that programmer analyst have OCC code= 030.162-014 and SOC code=15-1031, most of them found their SOC code from MS Access database(some found in their Certified LC??? ). I am presuming my SOC code to be 15-1031, but wanted to confirm that. I am debating on invoking AC21, but need to make certain SOC code matches with future employer (future employer gave me job code as 15-1031) as my future title will be totally different (instead of programmer analyst, it will be IT Business Specialist).
Any help/hint will be highly appreciated.
Regards,
GCCovet
why donot you try to get the letter in the format that confirms to your labor, I know its really hard to make everything the same, but if job duties are the same then you may not have any issues
My title on LC is programmer analyst (OCC code= 030.162-014), read thru the forum replies, found that programmer analyst have OCC code= 030.162-014 and SOC code=15-1031, most of them found their SOC code from MS Access database(some found in their Certified LC??? ). I am presuming my SOC code to be 15-1031, but wanted to confirm that. I am debating on invoking AC21, but need to make certain SOC code matches with future employer (future employer gave me job code as 15-1031) as my future title will be totally different (instead of programmer analyst, it will be IT Business Specialist).
Any help/hint will be highly appreciated.
Regards,
GCCovet
why donot you try to get the letter in the format that confirms to your labor, I know its really hard to make everything the same, but if job duties are the same then you may not have any issues
more...
duttasurajit
10-18 12:19 PM
Thanks everyone for the valued response. One last question:
I was under the impression that the job title does not matter for AC21 as long as the job duties are similar. For example, instead of IT Manager, say, I get a title of Developement Lead/Team Lead and the Job duties are similar.
What happens in this case? Is it still risky to pursue AC21?
I was under the impression that the job title does not matter for AC21 as long as the job duties are similar. For example, instead of IT Manager, say, I get a title of Developement Lead/Team Lead and the Job duties are similar.
What happens in this case? Is it still risky to pursue AC21?
srikondoji
07-02 03:07 PM
One question that comes to my mind regarding contributing for the lawsuit is...
Should i contribute to IV or to my lawyers firm. I believe both ways the funds are going to end up with AILF. Or shud i do part contribution to both these orgs?
I need some answers.
The only way out for me is to contribute and nowhere else to go.
CIR is shut and July has turned back on me.
The only window i can see is through IV now. The sooner we all realize the better for us.
Should i contribute to IV or to my lawyers firm. I believe both ways the funds are going to end up with AILF. Or shud i do part contribution to both these orgs?
I need some answers.
The only way out for me is to contribute and nowhere else to go.
CIR is shut and July has turned back on me.
The only window i can see is through IV now. The sooner we all realize the better for us.
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".
fromnaija
07-30 10:20 PM
This is insane and scary at the same time. So, the child will have to depart the US at that time as he will no longer be able to get any valid non-immigrant visa (except probably an H1). As immigration intent has been expressed such a child will not be able to get F-1 visa. I would have to research this further as the prospect of my child having to depart the US after the rest of the family gets a GC is just too much for me to bear at this time! I'll pose the question to my lawyer and hear her opinion.
Yes assuming after the deduction of the time it took to adjudicate the I140 the child is still over 21. If this occurs the childs application will automatically be transferred to the respective family based category and processed that way and we know how long the waits are for those dates to become current.
Yes assuming after the deduction of the time it took to adjudicate the I140 the child is still over 21. If this occurs the childs application will automatically be transferred to the respective family based category and processed that way and we know how long the waits are for those dates to become current.
ras
05-24 12:17 PM
EAD to H1 involves a status change that while being perfectly legal was just not envisioned policy wise as being a frequent occurrence.
Accordingly, the efforts to get back into non-immigrant status from an immigrant status is unduly complicated.
The reasons the conversion is complicated is because when you come back to H1B from EAD, you literally start from scratch, meaning you count against the cap and you also do not get a full 6 year term. In your case, if you switched back, you will have to wait for the cap to be available and you will get only 1.5 years unless you quailify otherwise for a full 6 year term. It is not enough that you were already in H1B because USCIS does not care about that. To them, you are going to a new status and that means you follow the rules for that just like anyone else.
Also, since you went back from AOS, USCIS may ask for additional documentation to record the reasons you want to switch. This is supposed to be only for cases where there are legitimate reasons to switch, like your AOS application has been denied and in order to continue staying in the US and explore other options, you need to maintain legal status, etc..etc..
Personally, I think the process is designed to be cumbersome in order to discourage people from doing it.
Disclaimer: This is based on what I heard from my attorney in part and my own research. Use at your discretion...
If anyone knows more or can confirm this, that would help...
Thanks!
--Karthik
Do you have a basis that it has to be started from scratch. Why it needs to be started from scratch when there is still time on H1 say about 1.5 years?
I think u need to start afresh a new one only if you are out of country for one year.
Folks, if any one has done this please corraborate
Accordingly, the efforts to get back into non-immigrant status from an immigrant status is unduly complicated.
The reasons the conversion is complicated is because when you come back to H1B from EAD, you literally start from scratch, meaning you count against the cap and you also do not get a full 6 year term. In your case, if you switched back, you will have to wait for the cap to be available and you will get only 1.5 years unless you quailify otherwise for a full 6 year term. It is not enough that you were already in H1B because USCIS does not care about that. To them, you are going to a new status and that means you follow the rules for that just like anyone else.
Also, since you went back from AOS, USCIS may ask for additional documentation to record the reasons you want to switch. This is supposed to be only for cases where there are legitimate reasons to switch, like your AOS application has been denied and in order to continue staying in the US and explore other options, you need to maintain legal status, etc..etc..
Personally, I think the process is designed to be cumbersome in order to discourage people from doing it.
Disclaimer: This is based on what I heard from my attorney in part and my own research. Use at your discretion...
If anyone knows more or can confirm this, that would help...
Thanks!
--Karthik
Do you have a basis that it has to be started from scratch. Why it needs to be started from scratch when there is still time on H1 say about 1.5 years?
I think u need to start afresh a new one only if you are out of country for one year.
Folks, if any one has done this please corraborate