newbee7
07-05 11:56 AM
Ombudsman had correctly predicted this fiasco back in June before the dates were made current:
There will be severe consequences from rapid fluctuations in priority dates. If the priority date became current today, due to delayed USCIS processing and thus underutilization of visa numbers, some have predicted that within a few months as many as 500,000 to 750,000 individuals now residing in the United States under a temporary worker visa could apply for a green card. Additionally, DOL’s recent backlog elimination efforts, scheduled to be completed by September 30, 2007, are predicted to add 70,000 or more approved labor certifications yielding as many as 170,000 additional green card applications. As USCIS begins to complete these applications and request visa numbers from DOS, the 140,000 statutorily authorized visa numbers will be used. DOS then will be required to retrogress priority dates. Consequently, most applicants in this scenario will find themselves trapped where as they anticipated timely receipt of a green card, their wait exceeds seven or more years. In addition, all future employment-based green card applicants effectively would be barred from applying for many years.38
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual%20Report_2007.pdf
Yes, if USCIS makes the dates current again it will be a great help.
But unless we try to get the visa numbers increased we might still have to wait for SEVEN or more years in "same or similar" job.
There will be severe consequences from rapid fluctuations in priority dates. If the priority date became current today, due to delayed USCIS processing and thus underutilization of visa numbers, some have predicted that within a few months as many as 500,000 to 750,000 individuals now residing in the United States under a temporary worker visa could apply for a green card. Additionally, DOL’s recent backlog elimination efforts, scheduled to be completed by September 30, 2007, are predicted to add 70,000 or more approved labor certifications yielding as many as 170,000 additional green card applications. As USCIS begins to complete these applications and request visa numbers from DOS, the 140,000 statutorily authorized visa numbers will be used. DOS then will be required to retrogress priority dates. Consequently, most applicants in this scenario will find themselves trapped where as they anticipated timely receipt of a green card, their wait exceeds seven or more years. In addition, all future employment-based green card applicants effectively would be barred from applying for many years.38
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual%20Report_2007.pdf
Yes, if USCIS makes the dates current again it will be a great help.
But unless we try to get the visa numbers increased we might still have to wait for SEVEN or more years in "same or similar" job.
immi_enthu
08-28 11:44 AM
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=2994050912&m=6611023531&r=6611023531#6611023531
Attorney_8
posted August 11, 2006 11:29 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The employee must sign the 9089 once it is approved in order to get the I-140 approved.
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=2994050912&m=7431057041&r=7431057041#7431057041
Attorney_13
Attorney posted December 02, 2006 10:55 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Beneficiary of the LC is required to sign the original, certified LC. There are no other documents that the Beneficiary will need to sign associated with the filing of the I-140. All other forms/letters are signed by the company.
Attorney_8
posted August 11, 2006 11:29 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The employee must sign the 9089 once it is approved in order to get the I-140 approved.
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=2994050912&m=7431057041&r=7431057041#7431057041
Attorney_13
Attorney posted December 02, 2006 10:55 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Beneficiary of the LC is required to sign the original, certified LC. There are no other documents that the Beneficiary will need to sign associated with the filing of the I-140. All other forms/letters are signed by the company.
camilopino
01-08 04:48 PM
Well the processing times for my cathegory are January 07, which I supose means that there are five months later than my I485 receipt date: July 07. I suppose it will happen one day. Thanks!
gparr
July 25th, 2005, 07:06 PM
I enjoy shooting white objects, particularly snow and white flowers, because it's difficult to get the exposures right and to avoid blowing out highlights. However, I'm never happy with the results I get when I process the images in Photoshop. Below is a shot of an Angel's Trumpet bloom I shot the other day. The challenge is to download the RAW file (link below) and process it to either show me that it can be better than my effort or to confirm for me that I'm on target with my image processing. If you post your version, please also post details of what you did in Photoshop so I can try to replicate it. Have fun and thanks.
Gary
Download the RAW file:
http://www.gparr.com/images/gparrraw.zip
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/angeltrump03.jpg
Gary
Download the RAW file:
http://www.gparr.com/images/gparrraw.zip
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/angeltrump03.jpg
more...
franklin
07-17 06:05 PM
Donate so we can continue fighting!
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=25#HowToContribute
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=25#HowToContribute
misha
07-12 01:13 PM
Question for July I-485 filers.
Did anybody receive I-485 July Rejection Notice by mail?
Did anybody receive I-485 July Rejection Notice by mail?
more...
kartikiran
05-28 03:21 PM
I did it on May 1st and did it again on May 20th.
For any agenda to be pushed forward funds are needed.
Even just to run a portal like this to give us an opportunity to discuss our issues at a single source also costs.
For any agenda to be pushed forward funds are needed.
Even just to run a portal like this to give us an opportunity to discuss our issues at a single source also costs.
nave_kum
07-19 09:26 PM
[QUOTE=srsrsr]Hello everyone!
I am planning to apply I-140 and I-485 simultaneously. My problem is, Can I change my job after 180 days of applying my I-485 and without using my EAD? I am not married yet and I have a valid H1B. Please help!
Thanks,
Raj[/QUOTE
If u dont use ur EAD for the first 6 months, then u can join the new employer any time using ur H1B. But immediately after the date of EAD activation, u will need to stick with the corresponding employer for the next 6 mnths.
I am planning to apply I-140 and I-485 simultaneously. My problem is, Can I change my job after 180 days of applying my I-485 and without using my EAD? I am not married yet and I have a valid H1B. Please help!
Thanks,
Raj[/QUOTE
If u dont use ur EAD for the first 6 months, then u can join the new employer any time using ur H1B. But immediately after the date of EAD activation, u will need to stick with the corresponding employer for the next 6 mnths.
more...
eilsoe
10-15 07:25 PM
Has this thread been forgotten?
I'm still waiting to hear what a "dog's clue" is... :P
isn't the paw pring a standard vector shape in PS7? Or did I download it somewhere...?
hm.... never can remember...
I'm still waiting to hear what a "dog's clue" is... :P
isn't the paw pring a standard vector shape in PS7? Or did I download it somewhere...?
hm.... never can remember...
hebron
04-03 03:40 AM
I can apply for 3 years H1-B extension (8,9 and 10th year) based on my approved I-140. However, my Indian passport expires in August 2008. Does this have anything to do with H1-B extension? Will I geet 3 years extension?
Can I renew my passport now before applying for my H1-B extn? Can I get my passport renewed before 6 months of expiry?
Kindly help.
Thanks!
Can I renew my passport now before applying for my H1-B extn? Can I get my passport renewed before 6 months of expiry?
Kindly help.
Thanks!
more...
tammman
10-09 03:08 AM
So does CA....
lvinaykumar
01-31 10:17 AM
I usually get 40$ or max 50$ bill per month. But from last few months i am getting bill around 180$ per month. I live in a similar size apartment as you.. :mad:
I was totally shocked when i get the bill for the first time but i think i am getting used to it :(:confused:
I was totally shocked when i get the bill for the first time but i think i am getting used to it :(:confused:
more...
raysaikat
07-12 01:01 PM
Situation:
Currently working full time on H1-B with I-140 approved already with company A. Cannot file 485 due to retrogression.
Want to work with company B part time,but need to file another H1-B part time.
My question is:
Will filling for a 2nd H1-B for comapny B (part time) without talking to the lawyer of Company A affect my first H1-B in anyway what so ever. Or are the 2 cases entirely separate and will not be linked by USCIS. Thanks in advance for assisting me on this situation.
You will have to provide proof of your current H1-B status so that the concurrent H1-B can be issued as cap-exempt. There is no official need to let the first company know about the second H1-B. However I do not know if the first company could/would come to know about it at a later date.
Currently working full time on H1-B with I-140 approved already with company A. Cannot file 485 due to retrogression.
Want to work with company B part time,but need to file another H1-B part time.
My question is:
Will filling for a 2nd H1-B for comapny B (part time) without talking to the lawyer of Company A affect my first H1-B in anyway what so ever. Or are the 2 cases entirely separate and will not be linked by USCIS. Thanks in advance for assisting me on this situation.
You will have to provide proof of your current H1-B status so that the concurrent H1-B can be issued as cap-exempt. There is no official need to let the first company know about the second H1-B. However I do not know if the first company could/would come to know about it at a later date.
GCanyMinute
08-23 08:34 AM
Hi GCanyMinute;
The PD only shows on the Approval Notice of the I140 . The I485 does not show any PD.
thanks
andy
You guys were right!!! :)
I took a look at my I-140 and thank God yes the PD is over there!!
I guess i'll really get the GC Any minute :D !!!
Thanks a lot guys and good luck for you all.
The PD only shows on the Approval Notice of the I140 . The I485 does not show any PD.
thanks
andy
You guys were right!!! :)
I took a look at my I-140 and thank God yes the PD is over there!!
I guess i'll really get the GC Any minute :D !!!
Thanks a lot guys and good luck for you all.
more...
chanduv23
07-02 01:07 PM
My wife name in not mentioned while applying I140 , how does it imact?
Can i add her while applying I485
Yes, add your dependents on 485
Can i add her while applying I485
Yes, add your dependents on 485
Tazike
06-27 09:44 PM
I read an answer written by an immigration lawyer about this type of situation and according to him once the divorce is final the conditional green card is invalid effective that day. That means that the immigrant spouse becomes out of status and would lose her right to work. Because of this the immigrant spouse should apply for a waiver right away once the divorce is final. Staying here and working while being out of status can cause problems of its own.
It's generally true that getting divorced does not affect one's green card. The exception however is when a person has a conditional marriage based green card and gets divorced before the conditions are removed.
It's generally true that getting divorced does not affect one's green card. The exception however is when a person has a conditional marriage based green card and gets divorced before the conditions are removed.
more...
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".
abracadabra102
07-21 10:57 AM
LOL! I did that already in May and the Local office IO was so incredibly RUDE and unhelpful. She told me absolutely nothing other than confusing me by saying my application was being processed on the East Coast and it would be another 3 months or so....... Bet she was just looking at the "EAC" in my receipt # to come up with "East Coast". I confirmed today it is definitely at TSC.
I am not surprised. USCIS/DHS employees have no accountability and utterly incompetent. They throw around national security whenever someone tries to hold them responsible.
They made a mess of those VSC-TSC, CSC-TSC, transfer cases and some are still waiting for their fingerprint notices.
I am not surprised. USCIS/DHS employees have no accountability and utterly incompetent. They throw around national security whenever someone tries to hold them responsible.
They made a mess of those VSC-TSC, CSC-TSC, transfer cases and some are still waiting for their fingerprint notices.
milind70
04-01 05:58 PM
Folks,
I checked my status online today (4/1/2008) and this is what it says:
"On December 13, 2007, the post office returned the notice we last sent you on this case I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS as undeliverable. This may have serious effects on processing this case. Please call 1-800-375-5283 to update your mailing address for this notice to be re-sent."
I had subscribed to email notification, but I didn't get any email in december :confused: . It has been 3.5 months since that notice.. So I am little tensed.
My Situation:
PD - Feb-2005
Labor - Approved
I-140 - Approved
I-485 - Address mistake, filed the address correction on 9/18/2008 and got the confirmation in the mail that the address was changed.
I immediately called the number listed and opened a SR for this. The CSR said he cannot look at my file to see what address is listed. I am not sure how I can get to a Level 2 IO ?
So I am not sure, what notice was sent and where ? Is there anything else I can do ? Will InfoPass help ?
I am thinking that it might be the FP appointment but I am not sure.
-Bipin
I and my wife had applied online for our EADs in Nov2007 , we got our EAD RN in a week time but in Jan i got FP notice for EAD and Jan 19 2008 my EAD got approved and mailed as per the online status , but when i checked for my wifes status it said notice returned undeliverable . My wife wrote to to the service centre with copies of her 485 FP, EAD RN which had the same address as well as a copy of the EAD application showing the same address as well as to the local Post Office as to why this was returned as undeliverable when all the other notices were fine . We did fedex these applications overnight and two days the online status changed as card approved and she got her EAD on Jan 30th or so.
I would suggest if this is a mistake of USPS who have returned the notice even though the address is correct write to USCIS with copies of earlier notices with the same address and request them to resend and to USPS asking as to why the notice was returned as underlivered where as earlier other notices were delivered.
It worked for us , we did not get into the hassle of calling Customer Support and taking infopass and going to Local office as these are pretty cumbersome and time consuming. It did cost us 14 dollars for express mail via USPS but apart from that it was fine and it worked. Hope our experience helps
I checked my status online today (4/1/2008) and this is what it says:
"On December 13, 2007, the post office returned the notice we last sent you on this case I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS as undeliverable. This may have serious effects on processing this case. Please call 1-800-375-5283 to update your mailing address for this notice to be re-sent."
I had subscribed to email notification, but I didn't get any email in december :confused: . It has been 3.5 months since that notice.. So I am little tensed.
My Situation:
PD - Feb-2005
Labor - Approved
I-140 - Approved
I-485 - Address mistake, filed the address correction on 9/18/2008 and got the confirmation in the mail that the address was changed.
I immediately called the number listed and opened a SR for this. The CSR said he cannot look at my file to see what address is listed. I am not sure how I can get to a Level 2 IO ?
So I am not sure, what notice was sent and where ? Is there anything else I can do ? Will InfoPass help ?
I am thinking that it might be the FP appointment but I am not sure.
-Bipin
I and my wife had applied online for our EADs in Nov2007 , we got our EAD RN in a week time but in Jan i got FP notice for EAD and Jan 19 2008 my EAD got approved and mailed as per the online status , but when i checked for my wifes status it said notice returned undeliverable . My wife wrote to to the service centre with copies of her 485 FP, EAD RN which had the same address as well as a copy of the EAD application showing the same address as well as to the local Post Office as to why this was returned as undeliverable when all the other notices were fine . We did fedex these applications overnight and two days the online status changed as card approved and she got her EAD on Jan 30th or so.
I would suggest if this is a mistake of USPS who have returned the notice even though the address is correct write to USCIS with copies of earlier notices with the same address and request them to resend and to USPS asking as to why the notice was returned as underlivered where as earlier other notices were delivered.
It worked for us , we did not get into the hassle of calling Customer Support and taking infopass and going to Local office as these are pretty cumbersome and time consuming. It did cost us 14 dollars for express mail via USPS but apart from that it was fine and it worked. Hope our experience helps
chanukya
10-18 12:39 PM
Dutta,
Thank you very much for the link.
This helps many of us to decide on even approaching a Lawyer.
Excellent link.
My LC filed as Programmer Analyst and I am working as a Sys Admin, the detailed work activities listed for programmer analyst and Sys Admin seems to match or similar.
I think Lawyer can take on from there and I guess we need make sure we consult a lawyer and get his inputs to make sure some minimum activities of the new job role whatever may be it is called .("Rose" or "Lilly" as long it is not a "Mangoe" or "orange" or vice-versa), match or similar when we get the employer app letter and refernce letters.
Thank you once again for the link.
See this link:
http://www.onetcodeconnector.org/ccreport/11-3021.00
It says that "Computer Programmers" is a related occupation. Can I not accept this designation.
Also, what if the job title varies as "Application Architect" but the job duties are similar?
Thank you very much for the link.
This helps many of us to decide on even approaching a Lawyer.
Excellent link.
My LC filed as Programmer Analyst and I am working as a Sys Admin, the detailed work activities listed for programmer analyst and Sys Admin seems to match or similar.
I think Lawyer can take on from there and I guess we need make sure we consult a lawyer and get his inputs to make sure some minimum activities of the new job role whatever may be it is called .("Rose" or "Lilly" as long it is not a "Mangoe" or "orange" or vice-versa), match or similar when we get the employer app letter and refernce letters.
Thank you once again for the link.
See this link:
http://www.onetcodeconnector.org/ccreport/11-3021.00
It says that "Computer Programmers" is a related occupation. Can I not accept this designation.
Also, what if the job title varies as "Application Architect" but the job duties are similar?
dixie
09-18 01:32 PM
No, we are not against the concept of H1-B visas as such .. just that we want it to be conditional on reforming the broken EB system; we believe that is in the interest of all future H1-Bs. In any case, the point of excluding H1-B and FB is not so much that we are against it as to focus our objectives clearly and cut down on opposition - as nycgal pointed out, lot more ordinary americans are concerned about H1-Bs than granting GCs to those already here.
I never knew IV was against H1Bs. Is IV only for people that have filed a petition for GC? Why is it then that one of our publicity drive is to recruit students still in school on F1?? Aren't they going to get an H1B before even filing for a GC?? Am I missing something??
....better still:
Immigration Voice
A Voice for High Skilled Legal Immigrants
I never knew IV was against H1Bs. Is IV only for people that have filed a petition for GC? Why is it then that one of our publicity drive is to recruit students still in school on F1?? Aren't they going to get an H1B before even filing for a GC?? Am I missing something??
....better still:
Immigration Voice
A Voice for High Skilled Legal Immigrants
0 comments:
Post a Comment