sai
07-09 11:37 PM
I am in the same boat..
If we have a gap between the expiry and new EAD card,
we should not work thats for sure,
but wont have any issues of going out of status during the gap?
If we have a gap between the expiry and new EAD card,
we should not work thats for sure,
but wont have any issues of going out of status during the gap?
wallpaper clipart car accident. clipart
rghrdr777
08-15 08:57 PM
485 RD - 06/25/2007 (Filed at NSC)
485 ND - 08/01/2007 (Came from TSC)
FP ND - 08/09/2007
FP Notice Received by mail on - 08/15/2007
FP Appointment - 09/06/2007
485 ND - 08/01/2007 (Came from TSC)
FP ND - 08/09/2007
FP Notice Received by mail on - 08/15/2007
FP Appointment - 09/06/2007
prom2
10-25 05:30 PM
Hi prom2, thanks for continuing this thread. Could you rename it to early-June filers or something more broad? Or maybe even the same name as the previous thread? That way, the same members can simply join this thread. Your present title is way too specific and with all the other similar threads out there, we might be missed by some members.
Hi, Why did you ask me rename the thread with a broader name?, it is June 07 filers - General Tracker, seems broader enough.
Thanks.
Hi, Why did you ask me rename the thread with a broader name?, it is June 07 filers - General Tracker, seems broader enough.
Thanks.
2011 clipart car crash. clip art of
psk79
05-30 12:20 AM
My few cents.. I was well aware of this situation from my past.. When you first filed h1 with A in 2006 and got approved, it doesn't mean anything unless u started the job with A. So that 'overridden' stuff is WRONG.
Basically u could continue with univ. as along as ur h1 is with them is valid.. then when u tried to transfer that old employerA's h1 to B, u are in GOOD status as u r working with the univ. However, the reason for using A is only to show uscis that u were counted against the CAP once before and u don't need cap for this new employment with B.
Since the problem here is with B, you better get some more info on why it was denied. See if they can appeal or something.. I didn't know that employer has to be qualified? Do they mean this company doesn't have enough revenue to support u or something?
Also there are different opinions on using employer A's h1 to transfer without actually working with A. Half the people say its not possible as u never worked for A and the other half say its fine as u were counted in CAP. B should have told you to wait until ur H1 was approved as this is a weird situation.
Anyway, since u already left univ, u can try to go back to univ or atleast start with A. Once u go out of the country and get the visa stamped, you should be clear of any out of status issues I believe.
Basically u could continue with univ. as along as ur h1 is with them is valid.. then when u tried to transfer that old employerA's h1 to B, u are in GOOD status as u r working with the univ. However, the reason for using A is only to show uscis that u were counted against the CAP once before and u don't need cap for this new employment with B.
Since the problem here is with B, you better get some more info on why it was denied. See if they can appeal or something.. I didn't know that employer has to be qualified? Do they mean this company doesn't have enough revenue to support u or something?
Also there are different opinions on using employer A's h1 to transfer without actually working with A. Half the people say its not possible as u never worked for A and the other half say its fine as u were counted in CAP. B should have told you to wait until ur H1 was approved as this is a weird situation.
Anyway, since u already left univ, u can try to go back to univ or atleast start with A. Once u go out of the country and get the visa stamped, you should be clear of any out of status issues I believe.
more...
h1bemployee
06-23 06:29 PM
On what basis will you apply for a H-1 transfer, your present H-1 request has been denied. Even If you apply for a MTR you have pending status, based on which you cannot request for a further extension/change of status. You can apply for a new H-1 consular processing petition, leave the country, once approved, apply for a visa from the consulate and come back on the new H-1.
As my H1 transfer got denied.... I can apply for a new H1 transfer.... right?
I am assuming this from the information I got form this forum. I am really confused..
As my H1 transfer got denied.... I can apply for a new H1 transfer.... right?
I am assuming this from the information I got form this forum. I am really confused..
atlfp
04-11 03:52 PM
I think I should apologize for being not careful about the tone. It was just an thought poping out of my head anyway. Also I want to clarify that I do understand and realize how much work IV has done. It's a tremendous amount of sacrifice that not everybody can or willing to afford. I believe most other visitors/members think the same way.
CCC,
Wonderful to hear from a contributing member and thanks for the warm words.
IV has no interest in curbing free speech. All we ask is that new members go through forum posts and resource docs to see what IV has said on a given subject, and also realize that we have done our homework. How about asking us if we have considered an issue rather than telling us what to do (without much research) -- which is the tone that some new member posts take.
As for not responding to theories -- well they just take on a life of their own if we don't respond. :) IV has no intention of letting its forums become a chaotic space with misinformation and assorted half-baked theories. :)
best,
Berkeleybee
CCC,
Wonderful to hear from a contributing member and thanks for the warm words.
IV has no interest in curbing free speech. All we ask is that new members go through forum posts and resource docs to see what IV has said on a given subject, and also realize that we have done our homework. How about asking us if we have considered an issue rather than telling us what to do (without much research) -- which is the tone that some new member posts take.
As for not responding to theories -- well they just take on a life of their own if we don't respond. :) IV has no intention of letting its forums become a chaotic space with misinformation and assorted half-baked theories. :)
best,
Berkeleybee
more...
Catherine
06-23 09:46 AM
The link and article are a little confusing in that they say that divorce does not affect immigration status once a green card has been issued. This is not always correct. I have a green card but it has conditions, i.e. an expiration date. This is what married couples have to apply to have removed after two years (actually in a 90 day window prior to the two year anniversary of receiving the card).
If you divorce prior to that date, you will be unable to file jointly (or at least, technically you shouldn't, though I've heard of some couples that may have done so as their relationship is still amicable) to have the conditions removed and attain unconditional residency.
Thus, you could have a green card (with conditions) and divorce WOULD affect your immigration status. As per the article, you would need then to file a waiver to have the conditions removed and keep your green card past its expiration date.
Hope that helps someone.
If you divorce prior to that date, you will be unable to file jointly (or at least, technically you shouldn't, though I've heard of some couples that may have done so as their relationship is still amicable) to have the conditions removed and attain unconditional residency.
Thus, you could have a green card (with conditions) and divorce WOULD affect your immigration status. As per the article, you would need then to file a waiver to have the conditions removed and keep your green card past its expiration date.
Hope that helps someone.
2010 wallpaper clipart car
paskal
03-15 06:17 PM
The maximum duration of a J-1 is 7 years but the visa is issued 1 year at a time (royal pain). Therefore there is nothing such as a transfer. When residency is over, if you get a fellowship the program files with ECFMG the necessary papers to prove that it's an accredited program etc It is ECFMG that sponsors you not your program/hospital. Each year the program informs ECFMG on your progress and based on that a new sponsorship for another year is granted.
After my first fellowship i was board certified. In order to specialize further I (and my new department) had to convince ECFMG that there was some merit in the whole proposal. anyway long story, they did sponsor me and I did another 2 years thus completing the entire 7 year period.
As for GC, my employer just started the process and insisted on choosing an expensive corporate lawyer they have worked with before. She is in no hurry and I don't know when I will even have a priority date let alone a GC. This is after 11 years here. such fun....
After my first fellowship i was board certified. In order to specialize further I (and my new department) had to convince ECFMG that there was some merit in the whole proposal. anyway long story, they did sponsor me and I did another 2 years thus completing the entire 7 year period.
As for GC, my employer just started the process and insisted on choosing an expensive corporate lawyer they have worked with before. She is in no hurry and I don't know when I will even have a priority date let alone a GC. This is after 11 years here. such fun....
more...
mjadala
08-20 09:11 PM
I support this
hair clipart car crash.
milind70
08-04 01:42 PM
Hi,
My employer is filing my I-140 and I-485/131/765 concurrently. My lawyer/representative send a list which says G-28 signed by lawyer and my employer. I understand for I-140, G-28 is signed by lawyer and employer(petitioner). When filed concurrently is one G-28 is enough for whole forms?
I read we need to have G-28 form for each form and for 485/131/765 forms G-28 should be signed by the actual applicant and the lawyer instead of the petitioner(my employer). Right now in my case there is only G-28 form they were sending that was signed by my employer(petitioner) and the lawyer...is one G-28 is fine for whole application packet when filed concurrently...
USCIS website clearly says without G-28 form they will reject the application right away...but it didn't mentioned for each form though...but all my colleagues says they signed three G-28 forms one each 485/765/131...i am little confused and concerend..please suggest..
thanks in advance..
For 140 G 28 needs to signed by employer and lawyer.
For 485 related g 28 neeeds to signed by applicants and lawyer.
My lawyer asked for 4 copies of G 28
My employer is filing my I-140 and I-485/131/765 concurrently. My lawyer/representative send a list which says G-28 signed by lawyer and my employer. I understand for I-140, G-28 is signed by lawyer and employer(petitioner). When filed concurrently is one G-28 is enough for whole forms?
I read we need to have G-28 form for each form and for 485/131/765 forms G-28 should be signed by the actual applicant and the lawyer instead of the petitioner(my employer). Right now in my case there is only G-28 form they were sending that was signed by my employer(petitioner) and the lawyer...is one G-28 is fine for whole application packet when filed concurrently...
USCIS website clearly says without G-28 form they will reject the application right away...but it didn't mentioned for each form though...but all my colleagues says they signed three G-28 forms one each 485/765/131...i am little confused and concerend..please suggest..
thanks in advance..
For 140 G 28 needs to signed by employer and lawyer.
For 485 related g 28 neeeds to signed by applicants and lawyer.
My lawyer asked for 4 copies of G 28
more...
WeldonSprings
01-29 12:40 AM
Guys,
I had to open a new thread to get your attention to this. But it seems that the House Stimulus Bill passed this evening contains the 'E-Verify' . Incidently, when Sen. Menendez introduced the Visa Recapture Bill last year, he held the republican's at bay by not passing E-verify in the senate. If, E-verify is passed in the senate, then we will loose an important bargaining chip for visa recapture bill of any kind. Please read the info. below. You can also google e-verify house stimulus bill to get the latest.
Action step is to strip e-verify from the Senate Stimulus bill. Please see below.
ACTION: Stimulus Bill Includes E-verify Requirement
January 23, 2009 � 2 Comments
The House Appropriations Committee made a serious mistake when it approved an amendment to the stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) that would require all businesses and other public or private �entities� that contract to receive money from the stimulus package to use the flawed federal Basic Pilot/E-Verify program. This will not only delay use of stimulus funds, but will hurt millions of workers. It should be stripped from the bill.
The E-Verify provision in the stimulus will:
� Harm workers who are either falsely denied work or are targeted by employers abusing the E-verify program;
� Create substantial new burdens for businesses, especially small businesses, at precisely the wrong time;
� Send the wrong signal to new voters that the Congress prefers to play politics by enacting symbolic and ineffective immigration �enforcement� measures over serious and effective economic stimulus or serious immigration reform.
ACTION NEEDED
1. Call Speaker Nancy Pelosi (head of Democratic Leadership) at 202-225-0100.
2. Call Chairman Obey (chair of the House Appropriations committee) at 202-225-3365.
3. Call Democrats who sit on the appropriations committee if you live in their state.
4. Tell them:
� You are extremely disappointed that the E-Verify requirement was included on the Stimulus and you want the provision stripped from the bill.
� Including E-verify in the stimulus package completely undercuts the purpose of the bill and will only be counterproductive for American business, workers and the economy.
� Real solutions to our economic problems and immigration reform should be approached seriously and separately.
� The flawed E-Verify program�s database errors will wrongly workers their jobs.
FAIR (the Federation for American Immigration Reform) just sent out an alert to its very active network to call committee members in support of this provision. We need to counter their calls.
I had to open a new thread to get your attention to this. But it seems that the House Stimulus Bill passed this evening contains the 'E-Verify' . Incidently, when Sen. Menendez introduced the Visa Recapture Bill last year, he held the republican's at bay by not passing E-verify in the senate. If, E-verify is passed in the senate, then we will loose an important bargaining chip for visa recapture bill of any kind. Please read the info. below. You can also google e-verify house stimulus bill to get the latest.
Action step is to strip e-verify from the Senate Stimulus bill. Please see below.
ACTION: Stimulus Bill Includes E-verify Requirement
January 23, 2009 � 2 Comments
The House Appropriations Committee made a serious mistake when it approved an amendment to the stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) that would require all businesses and other public or private �entities� that contract to receive money from the stimulus package to use the flawed federal Basic Pilot/E-Verify program. This will not only delay use of stimulus funds, but will hurt millions of workers. It should be stripped from the bill.
The E-Verify provision in the stimulus will:
� Harm workers who are either falsely denied work or are targeted by employers abusing the E-verify program;
� Create substantial new burdens for businesses, especially small businesses, at precisely the wrong time;
� Send the wrong signal to new voters that the Congress prefers to play politics by enacting symbolic and ineffective immigration �enforcement� measures over serious and effective economic stimulus or serious immigration reform.
ACTION NEEDED
1. Call Speaker Nancy Pelosi (head of Democratic Leadership) at 202-225-0100.
2. Call Chairman Obey (chair of the House Appropriations committee) at 202-225-3365.
3. Call Democrats who sit on the appropriations committee if you live in their state.
4. Tell them:
� You are extremely disappointed that the E-Verify requirement was included on the Stimulus and you want the provision stripped from the bill.
� Including E-verify in the stimulus package completely undercuts the purpose of the bill and will only be counterproductive for American business, workers and the economy.
� Real solutions to our economic problems and immigration reform should be approached seriously and separately.
� The flawed E-Verify program�s database errors will wrongly workers their jobs.
FAIR (the Federation for American Immigration Reform) just sent out an alert to its very active network to call committee members in support of this provision. We need to counter their calls.
hot clipart car crash. clip art of
glus
11-06 09:06 AM
Hi
I my PD is July 2003 EB3 (India).
My I140 was approved in 2006 and had applied for 485, EAD, A/P in July 2007 like most of you. Yesterday LUD on my approved I140 and 485, EAD, A/P applications in USCIS changed after months. But now my approved I140 status has changed to
What is even more surprising is that it also says This is incorrect since i got the approval notice in Nov 2006.
I have NOT done any labor substitution or anything like that.
As usually our corporate lawyer and HR were useless and think this is just some system issue at USCIS. Did anyone else see this before? I was looking for other threads but couldn't find anyone else having similar issues.
Immigration gurus - any suggestions/comments? Is this normal?
Thanks!
Hi PSN,
Please do not worry. I have seen this happening with one of my friend's I-130. Although a different application, his status suddenly changed to "pending" from approved years ago. He took infopass and they told him it was a system glitch. A few days later after infopass his status reversed back to "approved." I would take info pass, along with approval notice and just explain the situation. Do not worry until you know the reason. Also, do not think it is some kind of an investigation. When USCIS does investigations on approved cases, the status shows "Case re-opened". Let us know what they told you after infopass.
I my PD is July 2003 EB3 (India).
My I140 was approved in 2006 and had applied for 485, EAD, A/P in July 2007 like most of you. Yesterday LUD on my approved I140 and 485, EAD, A/P applications in USCIS changed after months. But now my approved I140 status has changed to
What is even more surprising is that it also says This is incorrect since i got the approval notice in Nov 2006.
I have NOT done any labor substitution or anything like that.
As usually our corporate lawyer and HR were useless and think this is just some system issue at USCIS. Did anyone else see this before? I was looking for other threads but couldn't find anyone else having similar issues.
Immigration gurus - any suggestions/comments? Is this normal?
Thanks!
Hi PSN,
Please do not worry. I have seen this happening with one of my friend's I-130. Although a different application, his status suddenly changed to "pending" from approved years ago. He took infopass and they told him it was a system glitch. A few days later after infopass his status reversed back to "approved." I would take info pass, along with approval notice and just explain the situation. Do not worry until you know the reason. Also, do not think it is some kind of an investigation. When USCIS does investigations on approved cases, the status shows "Case re-opened". Let us know what they told you after infopass.
more...
house tattoo CAR WRECK CLIP ART
vicsthedude
04-28 09:15 AM
I travelled back from India on 04/26/09 via Detroit. All I was carrying was PP, AP and EAD.
There were absolutely no issues, wasn't asked a single question on entry.... looks like all
the stories of trouble at POE are baseless.
There were absolutely no issues, wasn't asked a single question on entry.... looks like all
the stories of trouble at POE are baseless.
tattoo car wreck clipart image
cbpds
07-02 08:43 PM
You can file Motion to reopen
more...
pictures a car crash clipart car
PD_Dec2002
07-07 09:46 PM
We just published the ad a week ago. Is that a big deal to revise now ?
Well, it's going to cost the company to put out a new ad. Might be a big deal for them.
Thanks,
Jayant
Well, it's going to cost the company to put out a new ad. Might be a big deal for them.
Thanks,
Jayant
dresses Clipart Car Crash Online Cheap
Leo07
11-14 09:41 PM
All the thoughts...and suggestions in the heat of the moment is fine....but let'sa ll stick to the same passion and participate in IV efforts with the same enthusiasm.
more...
makeup car crash, plane crash, crash
sabbygirl99
03-28 11:23 AM
My LC is languishing in Philly backlog center. Not sure if I beleive that they will have it completed by Sep 2007. In any case, I am blessed enough to be able to switch to a part time status at work. I am enrolling in a part time graduate program. My question is - will going part time at work hurt me with LC or even later with 140, 485, or maybe even green card interview?? Thanks.
girlfriend clipart car crash.
gsiskind
05-11 09:55 AM
HI
I am planning to file a for a fresh EAD or new EAD.
I had filed 485 on 08/06/2007.
Now I have the following questions:
1) I am confused about the filing fee for EAD. Some say Filing fee is dependent on your 485 filign date.
For example, on usics website under 'Special Instructions' it says (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=73ddd59cb7a5d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D)
"If you filed a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, on July 30, 2007, or after, then no fee is required to file a request for employment authorization on Form I-765. You may file the I-765 concurrently with your I-485, or you may submit the I-765 at a later date."
Does that mean I donot have to pay any fee to USICS for EAD application?
2)What are the documents I have to submit along with I-485 receipt, I-94 copy & 2 photos?
On the I-765Instr document it says
"You must submit a copy of your Federal Government-issued identity document, such as a passport showing your picture, name and date of birth; a birth certificate with photo ID; a visa issued by a foreign consulate; or a national ID document with photo and/or fingerprint.The identity document photocopy must clearly show the facial feature of the applicant and the boigraphical information."
Which document I should provide as per the above statement?
3)What is the EAD application current processing time for Nebraska as I am in California and have to apply to NSC(Nebraska)?
Thanks in advance.
With respect to your first question, anyone filing since the 2007 rules change you note would only pay a single I-485 filing fee which now has the EAD and advanced parole fees built in. Basically, you're paying for the EAD whether you actually apply for it or not.
As for your second question, you should be supplying that documentation with your I-485. If you're filing separately, then note the instruction giving you a choice. One document should not be better than another.
As for processing times, generally estimate 60 to 90 days on employment cards.
Regards,
Greg Siskind
Gregory Siskind, Attorney at Law
Siskind Susser - Immigration Lawyers
Telephone: 800-748-3819 or 901-682-6455
Fax: 800-684-1267 or 901-339-9604
Email: gsiskind@visalaw.com
Web: www.visalaw.com
Warning: Unless you have a signed engagement letter with me, you should not consider information contained herein as legal advice and you should check with your own counsel before relying on this message.
I am planning to file a for a fresh EAD or new EAD.
I had filed 485 on 08/06/2007.
Now I have the following questions:
1) I am confused about the filing fee for EAD. Some say Filing fee is dependent on your 485 filign date.
For example, on usics website under 'Special Instructions' it says (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=73ddd59cb7a5d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D)
"If you filed a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, on July 30, 2007, or after, then no fee is required to file a request for employment authorization on Form I-765. You may file the I-765 concurrently with your I-485, or you may submit the I-765 at a later date."
Does that mean I donot have to pay any fee to USICS for EAD application?
2)What are the documents I have to submit along with I-485 receipt, I-94 copy & 2 photos?
On the I-765Instr document it says
"You must submit a copy of your Federal Government-issued identity document, such as a passport showing your picture, name and date of birth; a birth certificate with photo ID; a visa issued by a foreign consulate; or a national ID document with photo and/or fingerprint.The identity document photocopy must clearly show the facial feature of the applicant and the boigraphical information."
Which document I should provide as per the above statement?
3)What is the EAD application current processing time for Nebraska as I am in California and have to apply to NSC(Nebraska)?
Thanks in advance.
With respect to your first question, anyone filing since the 2007 rules change you note would only pay a single I-485 filing fee which now has the EAD and advanced parole fees built in. Basically, you're paying for the EAD whether you actually apply for it or not.
As for your second question, you should be supplying that documentation with your I-485. If you're filing separately, then note the instruction giving you a choice. One document should not be better than another.
As for processing times, generally estimate 60 to 90 days on employment cards.
Regards,
Greg Siskind
Gregory Siskind, Attorney at Law
Siskind Susser - Immigration Lawyers
Telephone: 800-748-3819 or 901-682-6455
Fax: 800-684-1267 or 901-339-9604
Email: gsiskind@visalaw.com
Web: www.visalaw.com
Warning: Unless you have a signed engagement letter with me, you should not consider information contained herein as legal advice and you should check with your own counsel before relying on this message.
hairstyles after a car accident on a
FinalGC
04-14 08:57 AM
Guys:
All who have incorrect details on parents passport for visitor visa....all you may need is an affidavit during application to B1 visa. Since the parents record does not matter in India.
However, if you have not filed your 485 yet, then I encourage all to make the corrections related to your spouses birthday, name and whatever is needed, otherwise u will get an unnecessary RFE.
My wife's mother's name, father's name and her birth location was all messed up in her passport, between the birth certificate and parents passport. By God's grace I was able to correct all of it, after pleading at Indian Consulate and running between various courts in India......It is a time consuming effort, but looking back i am glad I did that...since now my wife's records are all accurate and were corrected before we filed 485.
All who have incorrect details on parents passport for visitor visa....all you may need is an affidavit during application to B1 visa. Since the parents record does not matter in India.
However, if you have not filed your 485 yet, then I encourage all to make the corrections related to your spouses birthday, name and whatever is needed, otherwise u will get an unnecessary RFE.
My wife's mother's name, father's name and her birth location was all messed up in her passport, between the birth certificate and parents passport. By God's grace I was able to correct all of it, after pleading at Indian Consulate and running between various courts in India......It is a time consuming effort, but looking back i am glad I did that...since now my wife's records are all accurate and were corrected before we filed 485.
SGP
10-11 10:25 AM
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
It seems that the bill S 1085 (the Reuniting Families Act (RFA) has become active again. I received e-mails from Senator Menedez and Senator Lautenberg talking about the bill. Senator Menendex mentioned the recapture employment-based visas that haven't been used in past years so that they may be used in future years. Among other things, he also mentioned that he will continue to address the concerns of employment-based visas in the context of comprehensive immigration reform. He is the sponsor of the S 1085 bill.
Senetor Lautenberg mentioned "Under current immigration law, employment-based immigration is limited to 140,000 visas, or green cards, per year. The process for obtaining employment-based visas can take years to complete, causing many of these visas to go unused. There is also an annual per-country limit that caps at seven percent the number of employment-based immigrants that can come from any one country. In some instances, this per-country cap causes employers to consider country of origin, not talent, when hiring foreign workers.
A bill has been introduced in the Senate that would address some of these delays and caps. The �Reuniting American Families Act� (S. 1085) would recapture unused employment-based visas from prior years. This bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security to issue any unused visas from Fiscal Years 1992-2007 and in the future roll over any unused visas from one year to the next. It would also increase the per-country cap for employment-based visas to ten percent of the annual total."
It seems that Senator Menendez is doing a lot of work to bring relief to all immigrants including employment based. It may be brought in the lame-duck session in December.
Please call your Senators to co-sponsor/support this bill.
I have emailed The Congressman for 12th district of NJ (Rush Holt)
It seems that the bill S 1085 (the Reuniting Families Act (RFA) has become active again. I received e-mails from Senator Menedez and Senator Lautenberg talking about the bill. Senator Menendex mentioned the recapture employment-based visas that haven't been used in past years so that they may be used in future years. Among other things, he also mentioned that he will continue to address the concerns of employment-based visas in the context of comprehensive immigration reform. He is the sponsor of the S 1085 bill.
Senetor Lautenberg mentioned "Under current immigration law, employment-based immigration is limited to 140,000 visas, or green cards, per year. The process for obtaining employment-based visas can take years to complete, causing many of these visas to go unused. There is also an annual per-country limit that caps at seven percent the number of employment-based immigrants that can come from any one country. In some instances, this per-country cap causes employers to consider country of origin, not talent, when hiring foreign workers.
A bill has been introduced in the Senate that would address some of these delays and caps. The �Reuniting American Families Act� (S. 1085) would recapture unused employment-based visas from prior years. This bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security to issue any unused visas from Fiscal Years 1992-2007 and in the future roll over any unused visas from one year to the next. It would also increase the per-country cap for employment-based visas to ten percent of the annual total."
It seems that Senator Menendez is doing a lot of work to bring relief to all immigrants including employment based. It may be brought in the lame-duck session in December.
Please call your Senators to co-sponsor/support this bill.
I have emailed The Congressman for 12th district of NJ (Rush Holt)
WaitingForMyGC
04-30 10:40 AM
You are there for a long wait..mine was filed in dec and still pending.
