styrum
01-23 11:47 AM
Thank you for contacting me regarding the immigration debate in the
U.S. Senate. It was good to hear from you.
As you know, in the 109th Congress, the Senate considered changes to
immigration law. These efforts would affect more than just undocumented
workers here in the United States � it would affect every American in
one way or another.
I supported the bipartisan Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of
2006, S. 2611, when it was considered in the Senate during the 109th
Congress. This bill would have provided many new provisions for border
security and enforcement and to address legal and illegal immigration. The
legislation would have provided funding to reinforce hundreds of miles
of existing border fences and establish a �virtual fence� comprised
of cameras, sensors, automated aerial surveillance tools, and other
security measures. The bill would also have authorized funding for
additional Customs and Border Patrol agents to assist with security efforts,
and required employers to have a system to verify the required
documentation from potential workers. S. 2611 would have increased the number
of visas for high-skilled workers, including those who have earned an
advanced degree. Finally, the bill would not have allowed for amnesty,
but it would have provided a meaningful way to address the legal status
of undocumented workers who currently live in our country.
Under the Senate proposal, undocumented workers could have earned legal
status after completing all the requirements to begin to adjust their
legal status. These requirements include filing an application, payment
of all fines, fees, and back federal income taxes, and providing proof
of being physically present in the United States and being employed for
five years prior to the bill�s enactment. Undocumented workers must
then continue to show proof of employment and being present for at
least six years after the bill would have gone into effect. Individuals
must also demonstrate basic citizenship skills, pass security and law
enforcement requirements, and complete Selective Service registration
requirements.
As you may know, the comprehensive immigration bill passed the Senate
on a bipartisan vote with the support of the White House. The House of
Representatives passed another version of immigration reform that
emphasized enforcement only. Instead of meeting in conference to negotiate
differences in the respective bills, the House held a series of public
hearings around the country, and refused to meet with Senate
negotiators, and the 109th Congress ended without this issue being addressed.
I believe that we need a comprehensive approach to immigration reform.
Enforcement is important, and securing our borders is important. But
if we focus only on enforcement and border security, then we will only
have addressed part of the problem. Many of the current proposals are
unworkable and would ultimately cause more harm to our economy and our
country. Our immigration policy should also provide positive change for
the future of our country. We should make sure our actions reflect our
security, our economy, and the opportunity that America has offered for
generations of immigrants.
As we move forward to the 110th Congress, please know that I will keep
your thoughts in mind as Congress begins to work on immigration reform.
If you would like to know more about my work in the Senate, please
visit my website at http://murray.senate.gov/updates/.
Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.
Please keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Patty Murray
United States Senator
U.S. Senate. It was good to hear from you.
As you know, in the 109th Congress, the Senate considered changes to
immigration law. These efforts would affect more than just undocumented
workers here in the United States � it would affect every American in
one way or another.
I supported the bipartisan Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of
2006, S. 2611, when it was considered in the Senate during the 109th
Congress. This bill would have provided many new provisions for border
security and enforcement and to address legal and illegal immigration. The
legislation would have provided funding to reinforce hundreds of miles
of existing border fences and establish a �virtual fence� comprised
of cameras, sensors, automated aerial surveillance tools, and other
security measures. The bill would also have authorized funding for
additional Customs and Border Patrol agents to assist with security efforts,
and required employers to have a system to verify the required
documentation from potential workers. S. 2611 would have increased the number
of visas for high-skilled workers, including those who have earned an
advanced degree. Finally, the bill would not have allowed for amnesty,
but it would have provided a meaningful way to address the legal status
of undocumented workers who currently live in our country.
Under the Senate proposal, undocumented workers could have earned legal
status after completing all the requirements to begin to adjust their
legal status. These requirements include filing an application, payment
of all fines, fees, and back federal income taxes, and providing proof
of being physically present in the United States and being employed for
five years prior to the bill�s enactment. Undocumented workers must
then continue to show proof of employment and being present for at
least six years after the bill would have gone into effect. Individuals
must also demonstrate basic citizenship skills, pass security and law
enforcement requirements, and complete Selective Service registration
requirements.
As you may know, the comprehensive immigration bill passed the Senate
on a bipartisan vote with the support of the White House. The House of
Representatives passed another version of immigration reform that
emphasized enforcement only. Instead of meeting in conference to negotiate
differences in the respective bills, the House held a series of public
hearings around the country, and refused to meet with Senate
negotiators, and the 109th Congress ended without this issue being addressed.
I believe that we need a comprehensive approach to immigration reform.
Enforcement is important, and securing our borders is important. But
if we focus only on enforcement and border security, then we will only
have addressed part of the problem. Many of the current proposals are
unworkable and would ultimately cause more harm to our economy and our
country. Our immigration policy should also provide positive change for
the future of our country. We should make sure our actions reflect our
security, our economy, and the opportunity that America has offered for
generations of immigrants.
As we move forward to the 110th Congress, please know that I will keep
your thoughts in mind as Congress begins to work on immigration reform.
If you would like to know more about my work in the Senate, please
visit my website at http://murray.senate.gov/updates/.
Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.
Please keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Patty Murray
United States Senator
starving_dog
07-13 01:37 PM
Your bank statement should back-up the deposit values for the five different pay periods. The pay-stubs will fly because the pay period encompasses the time span required.
newon
07-21 09:57 PM
Hello,
I have a couple of questions here:
1) The last digit of the I-94# number is not very clear(Not sure if it is a 3 or 8). What do I write in the 485? Is there any way to find the correct one?
2) I filed the I140 without providing the A#. I understand that when I dont provide one, a new one is generated. And the A# is usually used to link the 485 with the 140. Now when I apply for 485, if I give the A# from my OPT EAD, will it be a problem because a new number will be already generated for I140? Should I write the A# in 485 or just leave it??
Thanks in advance for all the replies.
I have a couple of questions here:
1) The last digit of the I-94# number is not very clear(Not sure if it is a 3 or 8). What do I write in the 485? Is there any way to find the correct one?
2) I filed the I140 without providing the A#. I understand that when I dont provide one, a new one is generated. And the A# is usually used to link the 485 with the 140. Now when I apply for 485, if I give the A# from my OPT EAD, will it be a problem because a new number will be already generated for I140? Should I write the A# in 485 or just leave it??
Thanks in advance for all the replies.
Munshi75
06-06 07:30 PM
Indian consumers have to bail out Tata soon as the bogus credit rating agencies consider to downgrade its ratings troubled after Tata placed its hands on those two white elephants. Or we can balme it on Ford and Mulay.
more...
Saralayar
03-18 02:01 PM
There are many applicants who are at the 485 stage waiting for years. Some have recieved RFE on their case. The case status says "Case Resumed" once the documents requested are submitted.
It would be nice if we can get a administrative fix to have USCIS update the case status as "Pre-Adjudicated waiting on Visa Availability". This should also trigger them to also issue EAD and AP for longer periods.
Apart from the peace of mind, this would definately help applicants to take some bold steps like buying a house or starting a business and investing, etc. If none of these are in someone's interest, they could atleast get a drivers license that lasts a longer time:)
Yes it is a good idea.
It would be nice if we can get a administrative fix to have USCIS update the case status as "Pre-Adjudicated waiting on Visa Availability". This should also trigger them to also issue EAD and AP for longer periods.
Apart from the peace of mind, this would definately help applicants to take some bold steps like buying a house or starting a business and investing, etc. If none of these are in someone's interest, they could atleast get a drivers license that lasts a longer time:)
Yes it is a good idea.
milind70
06-04 11:59 AM
My PD 15 July 2002 EB3 India and
I485 Receipt Date May 12, 2004
Found that someone with Aug 2002 PD got approved on June 1 whose I485 Receipt date was May 2003.
I guess USCIS does not go by PD to select who should be adjucated first but by what date the I485 was received. They are really ingenious and creative in finding ways to be inefficient and unjust.
Oh well....
IV is the only place that is doing a lot to change.
Keep the good work IV.
Have donated $200 under my name and $150 under my wife's name to IV
Well this is always going to be there,FIFO is not guaranteed during adjustement of status.It is quite possible someone who has filed later and has a PD which is later is likely to be approved because this depends on various factors i.e case to case basis,FBI name check ,security clearance,immigration officer who is adjucating your case etc.
But the good news for you is that your case has now has a available Visa Number and if your application is in order (as per the Immigration Officer)
then u will get an approval.
In other words your chances of your case /PD being retrogressed are highly unlikely.
I485 Receipt Date May 12, 2004
Found that someone with Aug 2002 PD got approved on June 1 whose I485 Receipt date was May 2003.
I guess USCIS does not go by PD to select who should be adjucated first but by what date the I485 was received. They are really ingenious and creative in finding ways to be inefficient and unjust.
Oh well....
IV is the only place that is doing a lot to change.
Keep the good work IV.
Have donated $200 under my name and $150 under my wife's name to IV
Well this is always going to be there,FIFO is not guaranteed during adjustement of status.It is quite possible someone who has filed later and has a PD which is later is likely to be approved because this depends on various factors i.e case to case basis,FBI name check ,security clearance,immigration officer who is adjucating your case etc.
But the good news for you is that your case has now has a available Visa Number and if your application is in order (as per the Immigration Officer)
then u will get an approval.
In other words your chances of your case /PD being retrogressed are highly unlikely.
more...
waitingimmigrant
10-21 03:54 PM
I just called Senate Judiciary committee 202 224 7703 asking about
the status of S. 1085 that talks about unused visa number capture...
She mentioned that they are reviewing it this fall ....
will appreciate if any one has any other information
the status of S. 1085 that talks about unused visa number capture...
She mentioned that they are reviewing it this fall ....
will appreciate if any one has any other information
uma001
11-16 04:56 PM
Hi,
My educational background is Bachelor of Engginerring in Computer science.
I came to United states in December 2006. when i came i was having six years of experience.
My employer applied for my Labor in 2nd week of August 2008. After 2 weeks my attorney asked for a self affidavit having details about my work experience from 2001 till 2006 and also he gave me a format.
I prepared one affidavit for one employer ( totaly five affidavit for five employers between 2001 to 2006 ). I was team member in First and second Employer, i was a Team Lead in third employer, I was a Project Leader in Fourth and Fifth employer.
When i prepared the self affidavit i made a mistake, I gave the correct dates, correct designation ( Which is in my offer and reliving letter ) but i kept same responsiblities for all employers.
I didnot get any issues in my Labor. My Labor got approved in March 2009. Now my employer filed I - 140 in the end of september. Two days back he said that there is a RFE regarding my I - 140 case. THe RFE contains the Below Details.
"SINCE THE EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THE BENEFICIARY DOES NOT HOLD AN ADVANCED DEGREE, IT MUST ESTABLISH THAT HIS POST-BACCALAUREATE EXPERIENCE WAS PROGRESSIVE. HOWEVER, HIS SWORN AFFIDAVITS INDICATES THAT WHILE HIS JOB TITLES CHANGED, HIS DUTIES IN 2006 WERE STILL THE SAME AS THEY WERE IN 2001 FOR EMPLOYER 2. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW HIS EXPERIENCE WAS PROGRESSIVE"
I explained the suitation to my employer but he is saying there is only 50:50 chance for I-140 to get approved.
What will happen now ?
What type of document i should provide to USCIS for this query?
Will my I - 140 get approved ?
Thanks & Regards,
Raj..
This is the first case I am seeing like this. USCIS decided to scrutinize to maximum extent so that not many H1 guys get green cards
My educational background is Bachelor of Engginerring in Computer science.
I came to United states in December 2006. when i came i was having six years of experience.
My employer applied for my Labor in 2nd week of August 2008. After 2 weeks my attorney asked for a self affidavit having details about my work experience from 2001 till 2006 and also he gave me a format.
I prepared one affidavit for one employer ( totaly five affidavit for five employers between 2001 to 2006 ). I was team member in First and second Employer, i was a Team Lead in third employer, I was a Project Leader in Fourth and Fifth employer.
When i prepared the self affidavit i made a mistake, I gave the correct dates, correct designation ( Which is in my offer and reliving letter ) but i kept same responsiblities for all employers.
I didnot get any issues in my Labor. My Labor got approved in March 2009. Now my employer filed I - 140 in the end of september. Two days back he said that there is a RFE regarding my I - 140 case. THe RFE contains the Below Details.
"SINCE THE EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THE BENEFICIARY DOES NOT HOLD AN ADVANCED DEGREE, IT MUST ESTABLISH THAT HIS POST-BACCALAUREATE EXPERIENCE WAS PROGRESSIVE. HOWEVER, HIS SWORN AFFIDAVITS INDICATES THAT WHILE HIS JOB TITLES CHANGED, HIS DUTIES IN 2006 WERE STILL THE SAME AS THEY WERE IN 2001 FOR EMPLOYER 2. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW HIS EXPERIENCE WAS PROGRESSIVE"
I explained the suitation to my employer but he is saying there is only 50:50 chance for I-140 to get approved.
What will happen now ?
What type of document i should provide to USCIS for this query?
Will my I - 140 get approved ?
Thanks & Regards,
Raj..
This is the first case I am seeing like this. USCIS decided to scrutinize to maximum extent so that not many H1 guys get green cards
more...
Leo07
02-17 04:24 PM
you can find this on state Dept site.Although, this is the first one that I came across, it appears that this will be updated monthly. ( this one is dated Jan 30,2010)
Source:Welcome to Travel.State.Gov (http://www.travel.state.gov)
Where does one get this document that you have posted here?
Source:Welcome to Travel.State.Gov (http://www.travel.state.gov)
Where does one get this document that you have posted here?
cheg
08-20 10:00 PM
you'll see your private message (PM) on the top right side of your screen. Just click on that. :)
GCOrNoGC - what do u mean by PM's..? I have not recd. anything from u.!
GCOrNoGC - what do u mean by PM's..? I have not recd. anything from u.!
more...
rama_mvs
07-18 03:45 PM
Hi,
I have worked for the same employer who filed my 485 as future employment for more than 6 years. He filed for H1 extension in last November'2006. It got denied in June'2007. But he send this denial as Motion to Reopen Case . For my safety I filed another H1 with another employer during this time and I am working for the new employer.
My 140 got approved when I am with my old employer itself. Now he is filing 485 for me as Future employment.
My question is after I receive AC21 and also after six months of receiving the receipt for 485 . Can I jump to another company or is it advisable to work for the company who filed my I-485 until I get my Green card or for how many months ?
Thanks,
Ram :mad:
I have worked for the same employer who filed my 485 as future employment for more than 6 years. He filed for H1 extension in last November'2006. It got denied in June'2007. But he send this denial as Motion to Reopen Case . For my safety I filed another H1 with another employer during this time and I am working for the new employer.
My 140 got approved when I am with my old employer itself. Now he is filing 485 for me as Future employment.
My question is after I receive AC21 and also after six months of receiving the receipt for 485 . Can I jump to another company or is it advisable to work for the company who filed my I-485 until I get my Green card or for how many months ?
Thanks,
Ram :mad:
alex99
09-28 09:03 AM
Can the employer sue me with a Faxed copy(Signed by me on the Company Letter head.
Is this a Valid Legal Bond?.
Is this a Valid Legal Bond?.
more...
Libra
09-15 08:26 PM
so it means you are waiting for your amnesty right?:p
Thread number 8 by Chandu......you must have filed under EB - "Too much time on my hands"
Thread number 8 by Chandu......you must have filed under EB - "Too much time on my hands"
f_b_2007
07-19 10:10 AM
guys,
NSC received my application July 2nd (concurrent filing 485/EAD/AP..)
1. When do the 90 days wait start counting? From July 2nd? (that would mean I should receive my EAD by 1st October.
2. I read walk in centers is a service not provided by USCIS anymore. However, cannot find conclusive information (many people say they still do). What will happen then after the 90 day period? How can I get my interim EAD if it does not arrive on time?
Thanks for your answers and for answering to new thread :-)
NSC received my application July 2nd (concurrent filing 485/EAD/AP..)
1. When do the 90 days wait start counting? From July 2nd? (that would mean I should receive my EAD by 1st October.
2. I read walk in centers is a service not provided by USCIS anymore. However, cannot find conclusive information (many people say they still do). What will happen then after the 90 day period? How can I get my interim EAD if it does not arrive on time?
Thanks for your answers and for answering to new thread :-)
more...
Bobby Digital
November 21st, 2005, 12:21 PM
I think #4 is the best-I like how you can see the smoke coming out of his nose. All
great shots though-again.
great shots though-again.
saurin
02-09 09:24 AM
I inquired about the possiblity of LOA and that is definately possible according to my manager. Now how to get paystubs when there is an RFE?
more...
Ramba
08-13 10:55 AM
Hi All,
I have a very starge situation. I have an approved I-140 based on PERM LC - EB3 -India with PD of Jan 2006.
Before July 07, my company substituted me for LC Sub with PD of Jan 2003 and did the I-485 filing based on this pending LC Sub.
(Guys...please dont jump on me for using LC SUB...I work for a one of the biggest tech companies with 60000 employees for 6 years and its their policy to do LC Sub for their employees..i didn't buy the LCs through consulting or some one...). I got EAD renewals, AP etc...Since my LC Sub I-140 is beyond its processing dates, my attorney filed a AILA request and got a reponse saying
"The AILA Liaison committee member working on your case reviewed the petition with an I-140 senior officer at USCIS. It appears that the employee that had the original labor certification application adjusted his status based on the labor certification. Unfortunately, this means that the labor cert and priority date cannot be used for your green card application."
But, they also mentioned that "Your AOS that is pending will continue to be active based on your own approved I-140. This was verified by CIS in their response to our inquiry"
Question 1: My attorney said its an unofficial USCIS/AILA determination. Howmuch to rely on this AILA/USCIS unofficial determination? Because, Still, USCIS case status shows my I-140 is pending. Should i wait until the decision comes on my case?
Question 2: My understanding is that, if the LC is already used, then my LC Sub I-140 will be denied... if the I-140 is denied then the I-485 will also be denied..is it correct?
Question 3: If my above understanding is correct, then how will my AOS will continue to be active based on my original I-140 if my AOS was files uding pending LC Sub-I140? Is it true or they lawyer is giving me a fake answer? I thought you can only change underlying I-140, only if the new I-140s dates are current..in my case Jan 2006 date is not current.....
Please give me your thoughts...I would really appreciate your help...
Whatever response you got from the AILa may be true. If the first employee got GC through that LC (by AC21), you cannot get second one and even you can not port the PD. In nutshell, one LC cannot produce two 140 or 2 GC. You may be lucky, instead of denying your 485, the uscis perhaps replaced underlying first I-140 (LC sub) by your second approved (original) I-140 with PD 2006. Dont rely on web case status check.
I have a very starge situation. I have an approved I-140 based on PERM LC - EB3 -India with PD of Jan 2006.
Before July 07, my company substituted me for LC Sub with PD of Jan 2003 and did the I-485 filing based on this pending LC Sub.
(Guys...please dont jump on me for using LC SUB...I work for a one of the biggest tech companies with 60000 employees for 6 years and its their policy to do LC Sub for their employees..i didn't buy the LCs through consulting or some one...). I got EAD renewals, AP etc...Since my LC Sub I-140 is beyond its processing dates, my attorney filed a AILA request and got a reponse saying
"The AILA Liaison committee member working on your case reviewed the petition with an I-140 senior officer at USCIS. It appears that the employee that had the original labor certification application adjusted his status based on the labor certification. Unfortunately, this means that the labor cert and priority date cannot be used for your green card application."
But, they also mentioned that "Your AOS that is pending will continue to be active based on your own approved I-140. This was verified by CIS in their response to our inquiry"
Question 1: My attorney said its an unofficial USCIS/AILA determination. Howmuch to rely on this AILA/USCIS unofficial determination? Because, Still, USCIS case status shows my I-140 is pending. Should i wait until the decision comes on my case?
Question 2: My understanding is that, if the LC is already used, then my LC Sub I-140 will be denied... if the I-140 is denied then the I-485 will also be denied..is it correct?
Question 3: If my above understanding is correct, then how will my AOS will continue to be active based on my original I-140 if my AOS was files uding pending LC Sub-I140? Is it true or they lawyer is giving me a fake answer? I thought you can only change underlying I-140, only if the new I-140s dates are current..in my case Jan 2006 date is not current.....
Please give me your thoughts...I would really appreciate your help...
Whatever response you got from the AILa may be true. If the first employee got GC through that LC (by AC21), you cannot get second one and even you can not port the PD. In nutshell, one LC cannot produce two 140 or 2 GC. You may be lucky, instead of denying your 485, the uscis perhaps replaced underlying first I-140 (LC sub) by your second approved (original) I-140 with PD 2006. Dont rely on web case status check.
dixie
07-18 05:10 PM
It is puzzling that EB3 World didn't move a single day. Per my calculations, it should move three months in each month.
My calcuations were based upon that there are about 100,000 applicants (excluding Indian) between year 2001 and 2005. Currently, China Mexico Philippine's cut off date is the same as ROW. I just assumed that there are about 35,000 visas available for ROW including China, Mexico, and Philipine (the remaining 10,000 for India) per year. In this case, it should move by three months in each month.
I accept that there are lots of loop holes in my calculations as it didn't move a single day.
Does anyone have a rough idea how many non Indian applicants out there between year 2001 and 2005?
I think many of you can do more accurate calculations based upon more reliable sources. Please show me how.
Many people say uselessness of predictions but I think we can predict to certain extent.
There are two things that make calculations uncertain : One, there is no way to know how many people applied for GC. Remember, many workers are exempt from the H1-B quota (people working in hospitals, universities and other non-profit research institutes). Then there are other dual-intent categories like L1 with no cap on them.Even USCIS does not know how many cap-exempt visas it issued.
Second, there is the operation of those two black-holes, PBEC and DBEC. Nobody knows how many apps are in there, nor do we know how slow/fast they will/ have been operating.
But one point is increasingly clear : retrogression is NOT an India and China specific issue. so far all of EB3 is retrogressed. The day may not be too far when that virus spreads to EB2. The only long-term solution is to unitedly fight for legislative change.
My calcuations were based upon that there are about 100,000 applicants (excluding Indian) between year 2001 and 2005. Currently, China Mexico Philippine's cut off date is the same as ROW. I just assumed that there are about 35,000 visas available for ROW including China, Mexico, and Philipine (the remaining 10,000 for India) per year. In this case, it should move by three months in each month.
I accept that there are lots of loop holes in my calculations as it didn't move a single day.
Does anyone have a rough idea how many non Indian applicants out there between year 2001 and 2005?
I think many of you can do more accurate calculations based upon more reliable sources. Please show me how.
Many people say uselessness of predictions but I think we can predict to certain extent.
There are two things that make calculations uncertain : One, there is no way to know how many people applied for GC. Remember, many workers are exempt from the H1-B quota (people working in hospitals, universities and other non-profit research institutes). Then there are other dual-intent categories like L1 with no cap on them.Even USCIS does not know how many cap-exempt visas it issued.
Second, there is the operation of those two black-holes, PBEC and DBEC. Nobody knows how many apps are in there, nor do we know how slow/fast they will/ have been operating.
But one point is increasingly clear : retrogression is NOT an India and China specific issue. so far all of EB3 is retrogressed. The day may not be too far when that virus spreads to EB2. The only long-term solution is to unitedly fight for legislative change.
eldrick
07-31 03:46 PM
Last week, I submitted my documents to my lawyer but until now I haven't received any confirmation from my employer yet if my application has been filed already. We are not allowed to contact our lawyer directly so I'm just relying on my employer about this. I'm quite concerned coz there's no way for me to find out if they have filed it or not.
Is there a way? Please help me please. Thank you
Is there a way? Please help me please. Thank you
mirage
07-11 01:29 PM
1 year from now, only EB3-Indians with PDs of 2001-2006 will hang on the IV website. Everybody else(or atleast 99%) will be gone...
We will need help renewing our EADs and AP each year forever...and will seek answers on wague rules and regulations USCIS/DHS will keep putting in
We will need help renewing our EADs and AP each year forever...and will seek answers on wague rules and regulations USCIS/DHS will keep putting in
BlueSoft
01-16 06:19 AM
Hello,
Do not upgrade your file for Premium Processing. Any time you do that, chances for an RFE from USCIS goo higher. You will get a decision from USCIS within two weeks for sure. You can also call USCIS as right now they are processing cases which they have received in late July and mid August.
Do not upgrade your file for Premium Processing. Any time you do that, chances for an RFE from USCIS goo higher. You will get a decision from USCIS within two weeks for sure. You can also call USCIS as right now they are processing cases which they have received in late July and mid August.
No comments:
Post a Comment