pappu
08-04 06:10 PM
more info
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress03/garrity071003.htm
Compare the times with the latest ombudsman report.
==========
FBI name checks blamed for immigration benefits delays
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0607/062207e1.htm
By Elizabeth Newell enewell@nationaljournal.com June 22, 2007
The ombudsman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in a report released last week, cited the untimely completion of FBI name checks as a primary cause of delays in granting immigration benefits to applicants.
"FBI name checks, one of the security screening tools used by USCIS, continue to significantly delay adjudication of immigration benefits for many customers, hinder backlog reduction efforts and may not achieve their intended national security objectives," USCIS ombudsman Prakash said in his annual report, presented to the House and Senate Judiciary committees on June 11.
According to the report, 64 percent of the 329,160 FBI name check cases pending from USCIS have been waiting more than 90 days, and 32 percent are more than one year old. There are more than 31,000 cases that have been pending longer than 33 months.
In his report, said the name check delays are caused by the fact that some require manual review by the FBI and the agency does not have the resources to complete these reviews quickly.
In an e-mail to Government Executive, FBI spokesman Paul Bresson said the National Name Check Program is doing a number of things to improve the process, including scanning documents to build an electronic records system and testing textual analysis software to reduce the need for manual review.
The FBI also is working to develop a Central Records Complex to house paperwork and files.
"Currently, paper files [and] information must be retrieved from over 265 locations throughout the FBI," Bresson said. "The CRC will expedite access to information contained in billions of documents that are currently manually accessed in locations around the U.S. and world."
To decrease the FBI workload, recommended that USCIS adopt a risk-based approach to name checks, allowing the FBI to focus its limited resources on applicants posing the greatest threat. Currently, all immigration and naturalization applicants go through the name-check process.
"Name checks do not differentiate whether the individual has been in the United States for many years or a few days, is from and/or has traveled frequently to a country designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, or is a member of the U.S. military," said in his report.
He said in an interview that while the safety of U.S. citizens is the primary concern of the Homeland Security Department, of which USCIS is a part, it is crucial to use a risk management model to ensure that resources are allocated logically.
"That has to be used as the filtration system to really look at any of our protective measures," said. "There are times when protection can come at such a cost that it's just not worth spending that much money in that area, that it's better to spend it where we can have more effect."
The process of applying for immigrant benefits includes a number of other background checks, and 's report questioned whether the FBI name checks are useful in their current form, especially given the delay they cause.
He said he agrees with USCIS case workers and field office supervisors that "the FBI name check process has limited value to public safety or national security, especially because in almost every case the applicant is in the United States during the name check process, living or working without restriction."
This is the fourth annual report from the ombudsman, whose position was established under the 2002 Homeland Security Act. The act requires the ombudsman to submit annual reports to Congress identifying serious and pervasive problems within USCIS and making recommendations to fix them. The agency is obligated to respond formally to the annual report within three months.
While says he received last year's response more than eight months late, USCIS acknowledged receipt of the report and an agency spokesperson said officials are in the process of reviewing the recommendations.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0607/062207e1.htm
==============
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress03/garrity071003.htm
Compare the times with the latest ombudsman report.
==========
FBI name checks blamed for immigration benefits delays
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0607/062207e1.htm
By Elizabeth Newell enewell@nationaljournal.com June 22, 2007
The ombudsman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in a report released last week, cited the untimely completion of FBI name checks as a primary cause of delays in granting immigration benefits to applicants.
"FBI name checks, one of the security screening tools used by USCIS, continue to significantly delay adjudication of immigration benefits for many customers, hinder backlog reduction efforts and may not achieve their intended national security objectives," USCIS ombudsman Prakash said in his annual report, presented to the House and Senate Judiciary committees on June 11.
According to the report, 64 percent of the 329,160 FBI name check cases pending from USCIS have been waiting more than 90 days, and 32 percent are more than one year old. There are more than 31,000 cases that have been pending longer than 33 months.
In his report, said the name check delays are caused by the fact that some require manual review by the FBI and the agency does not have the resources to complete these reviews quickly.
In an e-mail to Government Executive, FBI spokesman Paul Bresson said the National Name Check Program is doing a number of things to improve the process, including scanning documents to build an electronic records system and testing textual analysis software to reduce the need for manual review.
The FBI also is working to develop a Central Records Complex to house paperwork and files.
"Currently, paper files [and] information must be retrieved from over 265 locations throughout the FBI," Bresson said. "The CRC will expedite access to information contained in billions of documents that are currently manually accessed in locations around the U.S. and world."
To decrease the FBI workload, recommended that USCIS adopt a risk-based approach to name checks, allowing the FBI to focus its limited resources on applicants posing the greatest threat. Currently, all immigration and naturalization applicants go through the name-check process.
"Name checks do not differentiate whether the individual has been in the United States for many years or a few days, is from and/or has traveled frequently to a country designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, or is a member of the U.S. military," said in his report.
He said in an interview that while the safety of U.S. citizens is the primary concern of the Homeland Security Department, of which USCIS is a part, it is crucial to use a risk management model to ensure that resources are allocated logically.
"That has to be used as the filtration system to really look at any of our protective measures," said. "There are times when protection can come at such a cost that it's just not worth spending that much money in that area, that it's better to spend it where we can have more effect."
The process of applying for immigrant benefits includes a number of other background checks, and 's report questioned whether the FBI name checks are useful in their current form, especially given the delay they cause.
He said he agrees with USCIS case workers and field office supervisors that "the FBI name check process has limited value to public safety or national security, especially because in almost every case the applicant is in the United States during the name check process, living or working without restriction."
This is the fourth annual report from the ombudsman, whose position was established under the 2002 Homeland Security Act. The act requires the ombudsman to submit annual reports to Congress identifying serious and pervasive problems within USCIS and making recommendations to fix them. The agency is obligated to respond formally to the annual report within three months.
While says he received last year's response more than eight months late, USCIS acknowledged receipt of the report and an agency spokesperson said officials are in the process of reviewing the recommendations.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0607/062207e1.htm
==============
wallpaper me of Andy Murray.
bobzibub
05-07 12:49 AM
Hi friends,
My husband and me work for the same company now. He applied in EB3 (India) and PD date with December 2006. I-140 approved and I-485 applied in July 2007. Got EAD and AP for both but still working on H1B (Not used EAD and AP).
From other company, in 2007, I applied for labor substitution and it is approved yesterday, which has PD Nov 2004 (EB3 - India). One of my friend working for this company and I got the reference last moment and I was not hoping for this approval.
Now I have to switch to this company as the company management are asking me to join the company. I read many threads in this forum and this thread too about multiple filings of I485s and withdraw one while applying other.
I read some people had no problems with multiple I-485s. But Murthy's advice is against this while others like Rajiv in favour of this.
Please advice me what could be the best in my case.
I have PG in engineering (CS) from India.
Thanks in advance
We may be talking about the same thing...I believe that ALIA as asked USCIS for clarificatin about spouses both filing (my wife and I both have.) Only I have no EADs or AP on my application. Just straight 485. My wife's 485 has EADs, APs, for both of us. Now both of our lawyers said it would be fine. It is not about what USCIS wants, however--it is about what they will lose court cases over. They can't possibly dissallow multiple applications after the fact, after we've paid for them. If USCIS was going to x-nay this, their window of opportunity is over. By not barring it, they've defacto allowed it.
Cheers,
-b
My husband and me work for the same company now. He applied in EB3 (India) and PD date with December 2006. I-140 approved and I-485 applied in July 2007. Got EAD and AP for both but still working on H1B (Not used EAD and AP).
From other company, in 2007, I applied for labor substitution and it is approved yesterday, which has PD Nov 2004 (EB3 - India). One of my friend working for this company and I got the reference last moment and I was not hoping for this approval.
Now I have to switch to this company as the company management are asking me to join the company. I read many threads in this forum and this thread too about multiple filings of I485s and withdraw one while applying other.
I read some people had no problems with multiple I-485s. But Murthy's advice is against this while others like Rajiv in favour of this.
Please advice me what could be the best in my case.
I have PG in engineering (CS) from India.
Thanks in advance
We may be talking about the same thing...I believe that ALIA as asked USCIS for clarificatin about spouses both filing (my wife and I both have.) Only I have no EADs or AP on my application. Just straight 485. My wife's 485 has EADs, APs, for both of us. Now both of our lawyers said it would be fine. It is not about what USCIS wants, however--it is about what they will lose court cases over. They can't possibly dissallow multiple applications after the fact, after we've paid for them. If USCIS was going to x-nay this, their window of opportunity is over. By not barring it, they've defacto allowed it.
Cheers,
-b
Saralayar
01-15 10:01 PM
Till now I do not see any one voted up for this. It is very sad that our own community is not supporting this. If you are not able to search for it in change.gov, give the complete title and see.
Citizenship if you have lived legally in this Country for 10 years continuously (http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087800000004wel)
Guys Vote... Vote ... for us, for our kids....
VOTE FOR THE GOOD... VOTE IMMEDIATELY......
Citizenship if you have lived legally in this Country for 10 years continuously (http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087800000004wel)
Guys Vote... Vote ... for us, for our kids....
VOTE FOR THE GOOD... VOTE IMMEDIATELY......
2011 Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray
vsoni
05-04 06:26 PM
I appreciate your input
more...
nojoke
11-25 06:04 PM
Well, no - my basic argument is that the banks bloated up the 'real' asset value - I had the money then and I have the money now and I am still paying my monthly mortgage amount - the point is about the inflated housing prices.....with these banks knowing the actual value of the asset and still going ahead with the extravagant loans.
From another point of view, tell me 1 reason why would you lend out money to somebody who you know would not be able to pay you back?
your argument is weak. You used these 'extravagant loans' knowing that they are extravagant and then signed on the dotted line and now you are backing off saying 'sorry, you gave me a loan on something I wanted and thought what it is worth and it is no more. So take it back'. If you 'have the money now' then pay by all means and don't end the contract that you signed.
I agree banks were greedy. So is punjabi.
And all the argument about returning used goods is no comparison. The bill says that you can return it in a month. Foreclosure is a provision to help people is serious trouble. It is trying to be sympathetic and nice to people who are in pain. It is not something one is entitled to because he couldn't make a profit. :mad:
From another point of view, tell me 1 reason why would you lend out money to somebody who you know would not be able to pay you back?
your argument is weak. You used these 'extravagant loans' knowing that they are extravagant and then signed on the dotted line and now you are backing off saying 'sorry, you gave me a loan on something I wanted and thought what it is worth and it is no more. So take it back'. If you 'have the money now' then pay by all means and don't end the contract that you signed.
I agree banks were greedy. So is punjabi.
And all the argument about returning used goods is no comparison. The bill says that you can return it in a month. Foreclosure is a provision to help people is serious trouble. It is trying to be sympathetic and nice to people who are in pain. It is not something one is entitled to because he couldn't make a profit. :mad:
walking_dude
01-11 02:42 PM
According to ALIPAC every immigrant is 'illegal'. Who cares? They don't make the laws in this country.
I don't understand where is the conflict here. The website above - ALIPAC - is "Americans for Legal Immigration". From what I read in their website, they want to stop illegal immigration and they support legal immigration. Unless they have a hidden agenda, they should be supporting IV's letter campaign.
How is this in conflict? Am I missing something?
I don't understand where is the conflict here. The website above - ALIPAC - is "Americans for Legal Immigration". From what I read in their website, they want to stop illegal immigration and they support legal immigration. Unless they have a hidden agenda, they should be supporting IV's letter campaign.
How is this in conflict? Am I missing something?
more...
H1B-GC
02-02 04:03 PM
eb_retrogression,
Can you post the article here? I'm not able to get to it.
Admin,
Here you go ::p
President Takes Dual Tack on Immigration
White House Seeks Tougher Enforcement,
While Pushing Idea of Guest-Worker Program
By JUNE KRONHOLZ
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
February 2, 2006; Page A8
WASHINGTON -- President bush drew big applause during his State of the Union address with a renewed call for "a rational, humane guest-worker program" to keep the economy humming.
But that appeal came only after Mr. Bush issued a much sterner one first -- for tougher enforcement of immigration laws, more vigilance on the border and an immigration policy that "reflects our values."
The message Mr. Bush delivered to lawmakers is the same one an increasingly vocal anti-immigration chorus is sending to him: First get tough; then we'll talk.
Mr. Bush was cheered by an unlikely alliance of pro-business Republicans, Democrats, unions and immigrant groups when he called for a guest-worker program in his State of the Union address two years ago. But the idea has hit a wall of opposition from the party's cultural conservatives and security hawks who first want to stop the flood of illegal immigrants into the U.S. (See related article.)
In December, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would, among other things, extend a short wall on the border with Mexico to 700 miles. The Senate, which had planned to overhaul immigration laws when it takes up its own bill in a few weeks, now also is under pressure from some Republicans to toughen border controls first.
As immigration soars to an all-time high, that get-tough argument is gaining political steam. With the 2006 elections still 10 months away, a half-dozen candidates are running for national office on pledges to stop illegal immigration. Bills on the issue, many denying benefits to illegal immigrants, have been introduced in 31 state legislatures.
STATE OF THE UNION REVIEW
• Can President's Plan Keep America Competitive?
• Bush's Energy Plan Faces Hurdles
• Industry Cheers Cleaner-Coal Push
• Full Text: Read the complete prepared text of the address.
• Question of the Day: Which topic should the Bush administration make its top priority this year?
And polls show mounting voter unease about immigration: A December 2005 Wall Street Journal-NBC poll found that 57% of those questioned think the U.S. is "too open to immigrants."
"It's astonishing how much this has become an issue across the country," says Brian Bilbray, a San Diego Republican who hopes to return to the U.S. House of Representatives this year after spending the past six years as a lobbyist for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which wants to restrict immigration.
But for all the emotion immigration is stirring up, political operatives in both parties warn that it isn't an issue that rallies voters. "Will this impact your electoral ambitions?" asks Ryan Ellis of the conservative group Americans for Tax Reform, who has studied the role immigration played in recent elections. "All history has indicated 'no,' whether you're in Arizona or Maine," he answers.
It didn't prove a successful strategy for the Virginia governor's race in November. Republican Jerry Kilgore seized late in the campaign on the issue of taxpayer-funded job centers for illegal immigrants, and in a stinging television ad asked of his Democratic opponent, "What part of illegal does Tim Kaine not understand?" Although immigration was only one issue in the campaign, Mr. Kaine won with 52% of the vote.
Likewise, in December, in a special House election in California's Orange County -- where illegal immigration is a flashpoint -- Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, a volunteer border-patrol group, won just 25% of the vote.
Mr. Ellis of Americans for Tax Reform also points to seven 2004 Republican primaries where immigration-restriction candidates never won more than 46% of the vote. Among those beating back challenges: Arizona Congressmen James Kolbe and Jeff Flake, who are sponsors of a House bill that would let illegal immigrants earn legal residency in the U.S.
Candidates who want to restrict immigration seem not to fare well because very few people worry enough about immigration to vote on it -- even though many of them tell pollsters they're worried. In the Wall Street Journal-NBC poll, 78% of those questioned favored "tightening" the border with Mexico -- but only 7% said illegal immigration was their biggest national concern.
Immigration is "a loud debate that produces few voters," says Frank Sharry, director of the National Immigration Forum, a Washington immigrants-rights group.
But that doesn't mean immigration won't be talked about this campaign season. Most prominently among 2006 candidates, Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican, is toying with a symbolic run for the White House. Among other things, Mr. Tancredo wants to deport the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants now in the U.S. and deny citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.
Immigration restrictionists also have announced runs for governor in Colorado, for the U.S. Senate from California and for a smattering of House seats. San Diego's Mr. Bilbray is running in an April primary to succeed former Rep. Randall "Duke" Cunningham while also pursuing a class-action lawsuit that would prevent California public colleges from offering in-state tuition to illegal aliens.
Some state legislatures are considering extending in-state tuition, health benefits and driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, even while others want to ban such benefits. In Ohio, a statehouse Republican has said he is considering an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to exclude illegal immigrants from the census counts that are used to apportion Congressional seats.
Bills in New Hampshire and North Carolina would require local policemen to enforce federal immigration laws, and one in Virginia would require proof of legal residency to obtain a marriage license.
With Republicans largely leading the anti-immigration charge, the issue is causing heartburn for the national party, which was hoping that its generally pro-immigration stand would help it pick up Hispanic voters. Twelve years ago, California's Republican Gov. Pete Wilson won re-election in part by campaigning for a ballot measure that would deny benefits to illegal aliens -- a rare instance where an anti-immigration stand won the day.
But a decade passed before Republicans won the governor's office again, and they still haven't won back Hispanic voters. "It was a metaphor for short-term gain, long-term loss," says the National Immigration Forum's Mr. Sharry.
Republican pollster Ed Goeas says he urges his clients to talk about solutions to illegal immigration instead of focusing on emotion-charged issues like immigrant job centers if they want to win. His firm, the Tarrance Group, does polling for several immigration-restriction candidates, including Mr. Tancredo, he says.
But in anticipation of the 2006 elections, he's also running voter focus groups to help candidates handle such volatile issues as amnesty for illegal immigrants and whether to allow guest workers to eventually stay in the U.S. After voters let off steam, he says, focus groups show that immigration "becomes a very reasoned conversation very quickly."
Write to June Kronholz at june.kronholz@wsj.com
Source : Wall Street Journal : 02/01/2006
Can you post the article here? I'm not able to get to it.
Admin,
Here you go ::p
President Takes Dual Tack on Immigration
White House Seeks Tougher Enforcement,
While Pushing Idea of Guest-Worker Program
By JUNE KRONHOLZ
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
February 2, 2006; Page A8
WASHINGTON -- President bush drew big applause during his State of the Union address with a renewed call for "a rational, humane guest-worker program" to keep the economy humming.
But that appeal came only after Mr. Bush issued a much sterner one first -- for tougher enforcement of immigration laws, more vigilance on the border and an immigration policy that "reflects our values."
The message Mr. Bush delivered to lawmakers is the same one an increasingly vocal anti-immigration chorus is sending to him: First get tough; then we'll talk.
Mr. Bush was cheered by an unlikely alliance of pro-business Republicans, Democrats, unions and immigrant groups when he called for a guest-worker program in his State of the Union address two years ago. But the idea has hit a wall of opposition from the party's cultural conservatives and security hawks who first want to stop the flood of illegal immigrants into the U.S. (See related article.)
In December, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would, among other things, extend a short wall on the border with Mexico to 700 miles. The Senate, which had planned to overhaul immigration laws when it takes up its own bill in a few weeks, now also is under pressure from some Republicans to toughen border controls first.
As immigration soars to an all-time high, that get-tough argument is gaining political steam. With the 2006 elections still 10 months away, a half-dozen candidates are running for national office on pledges to stop illegal immigration. Bills on the issue, many denying benefits to illegal immigrants, have been introduced in 31 state legislatures.
STATE OF THE UNION REVIEW
• Can President's Plan Keep America Competitive?
• Bush's Energy Plan Faces Hurdles
• Industry Cheers Cleaner-Coal Push
• Full Text: Read the complete prepared text of the address.
• Question of the Day: Which topic should the Bush administration make its top priority this year?
And polls show mounting voter unease about immigration: A December 2005 Wall Street Journal-NBC poll found that 57% of those questioned think the U.S. is "too open to immigrants."
"It's astonishing how much this has become an issue across the country," says Brian Bilbray, a San Diego Republican who hopes to return to the U.S. House of Representatives this year after spending the past six years as a lobbyist for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which wants to restrict immigration.
But for all the emotion immigration is stirring up, political operatives in both parties warn that it isn't an issue that rallies voters. "Will this impact your electoral ambitions?" asks Ryan Ellis of the conservative group Americans for Tax Reform, who has studied the role immigration played in recent elections. "All history has indicated 'no,' whether you're in Arizona or Maine," he answers.
It didn't prove a successful strategy for the Virginia governor's race in November. Republican Jerry Kilgore seized late in the campaign on the issue of taxpayer-funded job centers for illegal immigrants, and in a stinging television ad asked of his Democratic opponent, "What part of illegal does Tim Kaine not understand?" Although immigration was only one issue in the campaign, Mr. Kaine won with 52% of the vote.
Likewise, in December, in a special House election in California's Orange County -- where illegal immigration is a flashpoint -- Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, a volunteer border-patrol group, won just 25% of the vote.
Mr. Ellis of Americans for Tax Reform also points to seven 2004 Republican primaries where immigration-restriction candidates never won more than 46% of the vote. Among those beating back challenges: Arizona Congressmen James Kolbe and Jeff Flake, who are sponsors of a House bill that would let illegal immigrants earn legal residency in the U.S.
Candidates who want to restrict immigration seem not to fare well because very few people worry enough about immigration to vote on it -- even though many of them tell pollsters they're worried. In the Wall Street Journal-NBC poll, 78% of those questioned favored "tightening" the border with Mexico -- but only 7% said illegal immigration was their biggest national concern.
Immigration is "a loud debate that produces few voters," says Frank Sharry, director of the National Immigration Forum, a Washington immigrants-rights group.
But that doesn't mean immigration won't be talked about this campaign season. Most prominently among 2006 candidates, Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican, is toying with a symbolic run for the White House. Among other things, Mr. Tancredo wants to deport the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants now in the U.S. and deny citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.
Immigration restrictionists also have announced runs for governor in Colorado, for the U.S. Senate from California and for a smattering of House seats. San Diego's Mr. Bilbray is running in an April primary to succeed former Rep. Randall "Duke" Cunningham while also pursuing a class-action lawsuit that would prevent California public colleges from offering in-state tuition to illegal aliens.
Some state legislatures are considering extending in-state tuition, health benefits and driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, even while others want to ban such benefits. In Ohio, a statehouse Republican has said he is considering an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to exclude illegal immigrants from the census counts that are used to apportion Congressional seats.
Bills in New Hampshire and North Carolina would require local policemen to enforce federal immigration laws, and one in Virginia would require proof of legal residency to obtain a marriage license.
With Republicans largely leading the anti-immigration charge, the issue is causing heartburn for the national party, which was hoping that its generally pro-immigration stand would help it pick up Hispanic voters. Twelve years ago, California's Republican Gov. Pete Wilson won re-election in part by campaigning for a ballot measure that would deny benefits to illegal aliens -- a rare instance where an anti-immigration stand won the day.
But a decade passed before Republicans won the governor's office again, and they still haven't won back Hispanic voters. "It was a metaphor for short-term gain, long-term loss," says the National Immigration Forum's Mr. Sharry.
Republican pollster Ed Goeas says he urges his clients to talk about solutions to illegal immigration instead of focusing on emotion-charged issues like immigrant job centers if they want to win. His firm, the Tarrance Group, does polling for several immigration-restriction candidates, including Mr. Tancredo, he says.
But in anticipation of the 2006 elections, he's also running voter focus groups to help candidates handle such volatile issues as amnesty for illegal immigrants and whether to allow guest workers to eventually stay in the U.S. After voters let off steam, he says, focus groups show that immigration "becomes a very reasoned conversation very quickly."
Write to June Kronholz at june.kronholz@wsj.com
Source : Wall Street Journal : 02/01/2006
2010 Paul J. Bereswill/Associated Press Andy Murray of Britain chased down the
anotherone
01-30 01:42 PM
that the offer was taken back based on EAD status.
anyway, I understand the lawyers need to be paid! I just want them to stop changing the rules in the middle of the game. Its been a long frigging wait and now this.
My hope is that there was some misunderstanding and that they will just quietly remake the offer and give me the job back.
At will employment does not mean you can discriminate. Its akin to firing someone if they get pregnant or me leaving because I did not like the skin color of my boss. Both are discriminatory if they can be proven. In this case it can be.
anyway, I understand the lawyers need to be paid! I just want them to stop changing the rules in the middle of the game. Its been a long frigging wait and now this.
My hope is that there was some misunderstanding and that they will just quietly remake the offer and give me the job back.
At will employment does not mean you can discriminate. Its akin to firing someone if they get pregnant or me leaving because I did not like the skin color of my boss. Both are discriminatory if they can be proven. In this case it can be.
more...
angelfire76
11-04 10:34 AM
Good talent is sought after. So if one is really good, multiple companies would want to get them to work for them. That would result in multiple labor petitions.
Good talent also needs to make up its mind as to which company to stick to. The "future job" labor petition is so full of holes that its misused lot more than its used.
Individuals who are scared (company not reputed; they had issues in the past; or any other reason) tend to approach multiple companies and have them file a labor for them as a "backup".
These "backups" are the ones clogging the system right now blocking genuine petitions from getting approved / denied quicker. Otherwise even at the rate at which the DOL works, I would think a decent time for petition approval/denial under PERM would be 8 weeks instead of 16+ weeks right now
Someone gets laid off from their initial sponsoring company finds another sponsor and files a subsequent labor.
This should be a pretty genuine case, which should survive any audit. No worries here.
Good talent also needs to make up its mind as to which company to stick to. The "future job" labor petition is so full of holes that its misused lot more than its used.
Individuals who are scared (company not reputed; they had issues in the past; or any other reason) tend to approach multiple companies and have them file a labor for them as a "backup".
These "backups" are the ones clogging the system right now blocking genuine petitions from getting approved / denied quicker. Otherwise even at the rate at which the DOL works, I would think a decent time for petition approval/denial under PERM would be 8 weeks instead of 16+ weeks right now
Someone gets laid off from their initial sponsoring company finds another sponsor and files a subsequent labor.
This should be a pretty genuine case, which should survive any audit. No worries here.
hair Hopeful: Britain#39;s Andy Murray returns a shot to Spain#39;s Feliciano Lopez
ruby
06-20 07:51 PM
I'm filling I-131 form and there is a question for which i need help. It asks for "Class of Admission" (Question 3). What it is? Is it H1B?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
more...
whitecollarslave
04-17 06:26 PM
8 USC 1324b
(a)(1) General rule
It is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to discriminate against any individual (other than an unauthorized alien, as defined in section 1324a (h)(3) of this title) with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment—
(A) because of such individual’s national origin, or
(B) in the case of a protected individual (as defined in paragraph (3)), because of such individual’s citizenship status.
(3) “Protected individual” defined
As used in paragraph (1), the term “protected individual” means an individual who—
(A) is a citizen or national of the United States, or
(B) is an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence, is granted the status of an alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence under section 1160 (a) or 1255a (a)(1) of this title, is admitted as a refugee under section 1157 of this title, or is granted asylum under section 1158 of this title;
(4) Additional exception providing right to prefer equally qualified citizens
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, it is not an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to prefer to hire, recruit, or refer an individual who is a citizen or national of the United States over another individual who is an alien if the two individuals are equally qualified.
So EAD folks are excluded from "protected individuals" and employer has a right to prefer US citizens according to this.
I disagree with your conclusion. The employer has the right to prefer US Citizens over another individual only if the two individuals are equally qualified. For the cases mentioned in this thread, employers have flatly refused to consider anybody on EAD. So the clause of preference to US citizens does not apply. The you posted is the original text and does not include amendments or changes.
If you read up on section 1160 (a) or 1255a (a)(1) you will find that it includes people who have filed for AOS. It is my understanding that an EB immigrant with AOS pending is included in the "alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence under section 1160 (a) or 1255a (a)(1)" category. I am not a lawyer and could be wrong but this is my interpretation. If you are on H-1B, this does not apply. But if you have EAD and AOS pending this should apply. There is no way for an employer to distinguish between an EB immigrant with EAD and AOS pending v/s a FB immigrant with EAD and AOS pending.
(a)(1) General rule
It is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to discriminate against any individual (other than an unauthorized alien, as defined in section 1324a (h)(3) of this title) with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment—
(A) because of such individual’s national origin, or
(B) in the case of a protected individual (as defined in paragraph (3)), because of such individual’s citizenship status.
(3) “Protected individual” defined
As used in paragraph (1), the term “protected individual” means an individual who—
(A) is a citizen or national of the United States, or
(B) is an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence, is granted the status of an alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence under section 1160 (a) or 1255a (a)(1) of this title, is admitted as a refugee under section 1157 of this title, or is granted asylum under section 1158 of this title;
(4) Additional exception providing right to prefer equally qualified citizens
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, it is not an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to prefer to hire, recruit, or refer an individual who is a citizen or national of the United States over another individual who is an alien if the two individuals are equally qualified.
So EAD folks are excluded from "protected individuals" and employer has a right to prefer US citizens according to this.
I disagree with your conclusion. The employer has the right to prefer US Citizens over another individual only if the two individuals are equally qualified. For the cases mentioned in this thread, employers have flatly refused to consider anybody on EAD. So the clause of preference to US citizens does not apply. The you posted is the original text and does not include amendments or changes.
If you read up on section 1160 (a) or 1255a (a)(1) you will find that it includes people who have filed for AOS. It is my understanding that an EB immigrant with AOS pending is included in the "alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence under section 1160 (a) or 1255a (a)(1)" category. I am not a lawyer and could be wrong but this is my interpretation. If you are on H-1B, this does not apply. But if you have EAD and AOS pending this should apply. There is no way for an employer to distinguish between an EB immigrant with EAD and AOS pending v/s a FB immigrant with EAD and AOS pending.
hot success of Andy Murray and
sri1309
01-06 12:45 PM
I would like this idea to materialize but I am just wondering how it is practical.
Except for waiting for a visa number to be available all other delays are due to the time that it takes to process a case (and also due to the country quota). In labor stage, DOL determines if there is any citizen who fit in the labor description and who is looking for a job. In 140 stage, USCIS determines if the company is in good standing and has the ability to pay. In final stage, the candidate’s biometrics is taken and his background checked. All these are essential process in adjudicating a GC case in the employment category. I just do not how all these can be surpassed and candidates handed over a GC, let alone citizenship.
Allocating recaptured visa numbers and following a sensible order is more practical in eliminating some of the delays…
Most of the people in this forum or most are very highly motivated and cant wait in queues for ever due to the delays that make no sense. I am not sure whats not so clear to you. Looks like you got used to these waits. Are you used to these waits, or have no motivation to do bigger things like rising in jobs, creating companies, creating jobs, but are ok to be stuck forever in these processes that make no sense... Sorry, but not many want to wait in lines beyond the limit.
Except for waiting for a visa number to be available all other delays are due to the time that it takes to process a case (and also due to the country quota). In labor stage, DOL determines if there is any citizen who fit in the labor description and who is looking for a job. In 140 stage, USCIS determines if the company is in good standing and has the ability to pay. In final stage, the candidate’s biometrics is taken and his background checked. All these are essential process in adjudicating a GC case in the employment category. I just do not how all these can be surpassed and candidates handed over a GC, let alone citizenship.
Allocating recaptured visa numbers and following a sensible order is more practical in eliminating some of the delays…
Most of the people in this forum or most are very highly motivated and cant wait in queues for ever due to the delays that make no sense. I am not sure whats not so clear to you. Looks like you got used to these waits. Are you used to these waits, or have no motivation to do bigger things like rising in jobs, creating companies, creating jobs, but are ok to be stuck forever in these processes that make no sense... Sorry, but not many want to wait in lines beyond the limit.
more...
house Andy Murray lost 6-4, 7-6,
CADude
09-25 01:45 PM
Recent approved 140s (i.e. sept 2006 or later) has A#. Not all Approved 140 has A#. So don't worry. Earlier applicants used to get A# after filing AOS. Still in AOS process, CRU[one dept of USCIS] will verify the written A# or assign new to each applicant.
on my i-140 I have A#
on my i-140 I have A#
tattoo Britain#39;s Andy Murray faces the media at a press conference,
funny
09-09 04:16 PM
30,951 Immigration Voice Members
Please call all Numbers except co-sponsors ...
Find people And ask everyone else also to call ...
1033 (198 members and 835 guests) are active right now....Every body please call..
Please call all Numbers except co-sponsors ...
Find people And ask everyone else also to call ...
1033 (198 members and 835 guests) are active right now....Every body please call..
more...
pictures ANDY MURRAY limped to fight
sGC
08-12 02:41 PM
it looks like many folks got their approval one day after filing an SR - coincidence or a trigger? Is filing the SR somehow triggering the IOs to look at your file ?
However, many people who filed SR on the first working day of the month 08/02 were not approved the next day. Also, the many others who bombarded the USCIS with multiple requests/queries had to wait much longer or are still waiting.
It is almost like the IOs didn't like to be bothered on the first working day of this month (when the begin working on a fresh set of files) and also didn't like to be pushed too much.
Or is this all just a super coincidence for hundreds of people?
:confused:
Well i opened an SR 08/05 and still waiting with a PD of 12/15/2005. I guess it's all random.
However, many people who filed SR on the first working day of the month 08/02 were not approved the next day. Also, the many others who bombarded the USCIS with multiple requests/queries had to wait much longer or are still waiting.
It is almost like the IOs didn't like to be bothered on the first working day of this month (when the begin working on a fresh set of files) and also didn't like to be pushed too much.
Or is this all just a super coincidence for hundreds of people?
:confused:
Well i opened an SR 08/05 and still waiting with a PD of 12/15/2005. I guess it's all random.
dresses Andy Murray
drona
07-09 11:57 PM
Thanks gdhiren! Please take pictures if possible!
Please post your message at the thread below as that is where the group is coordinating the event tomorrow.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6287
Please post your message at the thread below as that is where the group is coordinating the event tomorrow.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6287
more...
makeup Andy Murray lost his second
sanjayb
09-22 02:29 PM
realraghu is the new addition to the infamous J.Barret list.
J.BARRET:
sanjayb - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN 140 LUD - 08/05
Ashres11 - 2nd July/ 10:28/ Fedex/ J.Barrret/ NSC/ NO CC/ NO RN
Sairam - 2nd July/10:28/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No RN - 07/28
InsKrish - 2nd July/10.25/J.Barret/NSC/I-140 approved from TSC/No CC/RN
sudhi - 2nd July/ 10:25/ Fedex/ J.Barrret/ NSC/ NO CC/ NO RN - CHECKS CASHED 09/13
Danu2007 - 2nd July/10:25AM/J. Barret/NSC/140-TSC/NO RN
Triviagal - 2nd July/ 10:25AM/ J. Barret/NSC/140-TSC/NO RN
rkartik78- 2nd july/10:25am/ J.Barret/ I140-TSC/ NO RN NO CC
GCFISH- 2nd july/10:25am/ J.Barret/ I140-TSC/ 485 went to NE/NO RN NOCC
rexjamla- 2ndJuly/10:25am/J.Barret/ I-140-NSC/ NO RN NO CC
kmkanth- 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN
BU007- 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN
veerufs - 2nd july/10:28am/J. BARRET/I140-TSC/NO RN/NO CC
123456mg - 2nd july/10:25am at NSC/J BARRET/I140-Approved from TSC/NO RN/NO CC
aussie731- 2ndJuly/10:25am/J.Barret/ I-140-NSC/ NO RN NO CC
nkavjs - 2nd July/ 10:25am/ Fedex/ J.Barrret/ NSC/ I-140 TSC lud on I-140 8-5-07/ NO CC/ NO RN
jsb - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN 140 LUD - 07/27
gc_us - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN 140 LUD - 07/28
srinitls - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/NO RN NO CC
realraghu - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN
R Mickels :
giddu- 2nd july/9:01am/R Mickels/ I140-TSC/ NO RN NO CC
mahendra_t - 2nd july/9:01am/R Mickels/ I140-TSC/ NO RN NO CC
Satya- 2nd july/9:01am/R Mickels/ I140-TSC/ NO RN NO CC
pareshtyagi- 2nd july/9:01am/R Mickels/ I140-TSC/ NO RN NO CC
sapking - 2nd july/9:01am/R Mickels/ I140 pending-TSC/ NO RN NO CC
smshen- 2nd July/9:01/Fedex/R Mickels/NSC/140 - TSS/No CC/No RN
gcgoodluck- 2nd July/9:01/Fedex/R Mickels/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN/No data
dudenj - 2nd july/9:03am/R.Mickels/I140-NSC/NO RN/NO CC/NO EAD
F HEINAUER:
cadude- 2nd July/11.11am/F HEINAUER/NSC/1-40 TSC/NO RN NO CC
helpme1234-2nd July/11.14am/F HEINAUER/NSC/1-40 TSC/NO RN NO CC
cowboy-2nd July/12.34 pm/F HEINAUER/NSC/1-40 TSC/NO RN NO CC
R.Williams :
Jignesh - 2nd July/7:55am/ R.Williams /I140 -NCS/ NO RN NO CC, NO DATA IN SYSTEM
doshhar-2nd July/2:02PM/ R.Williams /I140 -TCS/ NO RN NO CC - I-140 LUD 08/05
C UHRMACHER :
Bayboy -2nd July/8.oam/C UHRMACHER/I140-TSC/NO RN NO CC
nk2007-2nd July/8.26am/C UHRMACHER/I140-TSC/NO RN NO CC
Other -
zdong -- 2nd july No check encash/No RN
HNaik-2nd July/10:04am/ Armstrong/I140 -TCS/ NO RN NO CC
mashu - 2nd july/11:34am/Gerkenmeyer/I140 TSC/ No RN No CC
abhis0 -- 2nd july/11:34am/Gerkenmeyer/I140 TSC/ No RN No CC 140 LUD - 08/05
Applications are returned:Incorrect filing fees :
noendinsight- 2nd July/NSC/1-40 Approved NSC/NO RN NO CC
J.BARRET:
sanjayb - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN 140 LUD - 08/05
Ashres11 - 2nd July/ 10:28/ Fedex/ J.Barrret/ NSC/ NO CC/ NO RN
Sairam - 2nd July/10:28/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No RN - 07/28
InsKrish - 2nd July/10.25/J.Barret/NSC/I-140 approved from TSC/No CC/RN
sudhi - 2nd July/ 10:25/ Fedex/ J.Barrret/ NSC/ NO CC/ NO RN - CHECKS CASHED 09/13
Danu2007 - 2nd July/10:25AM/J. Barret/NSC/140-TSC/NO RN
Triviagal - 2nd July/ 10:25AM/ J. Barret/NSC/140-TSC/NO RN
rkartik78- 2nd july/10:25am/ J.Barret/ I140-TSC/ NO RN NO CC
GCFISH- 2nd july/10:25am/ J.Barret/ I140-TSC/ 485 went to NE/NO RN NOCC
rexjamla- 2ndJuly/10:25am/J.Barret/ I-140-NSC/ NO RN NO CC
kmkanth- 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN
BU007- 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN
veerufs - 2nd july/10:28am/J. BARRET/I140-TSC/NO RN/NO CC
123456mg - 2nd july/10:25am at NSC/J BARRET/I140-Approved from TSC/NO RN/NO CC
aussie731- 2ndJuly/10:25am/J.Barret/ I-140-NSC/ NO RN NO CC
nkavjs - 2nd July/ 10:25am/ Fedex/ J.Barrret/ NSC/ I-140 TSC lud on I-140 8-5-07/ NO CC/ NO RN
jsb - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN 140 LUD - 07/27
gc_us - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN 140 LUD - 07/28
srinitls - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/NO RN NO CC
realraghu - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN
R Mickels :
giddu- 2nd july/9:01am/R Mickels/ I140-TSC/ NO RN NO CC
mahendra_t - 2nd july/9:01am/R Mickels/ I140-TSC/ NO RN NO CC
Satya- 2nd july/9:01am/R Mickels/ I140-TSC/ NO RN NO CC
pareshtyagi- 2nd july/9:01am/R Mickels/ I140-TSC/ NO RN NO CC
sapking - 2nd july/9:01am/R Mickels/ I140 pending-TSC/ NO RN NO CC
smshen- 2nd July/9:01/Fedex/R Mickels/NSC/140 - TSS/No CC/No RN
gcgoodluck- 2nd July/9:01/Fedex/R Mickels/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN/No data
dudenj - 2nd july/9:03am/R.Mickels/I140-NSC/NO RN/NO CC/NO EAD
F HEINAUER:
cadude- 2nd July/11.11am/F HEINAUER/NSC/1-40 TSC/NO RN NO CC
helpme1234-2nd July/11.14am/F HEINAUER/NSC/1-40 TSC/NO RN NO CC
cowboy-2nd July/12.34 pm/F HEINAUER/NSC/1-40 TSC/NO RN NO CC
R.Williams :
Jignesh - 2nd July/7:55am/ R.Williams /I140 -NCS/ NO RN NO CC, NO DATA IN SYSTEM
doshhar-2nd July/2:02PM/ R.Williams /I140 -TCS/ NO RN NO CC - I-140 LUD 08/05
C UHRMACHER :
Bayboy -2nd July/8.oam/C UHRMACHER/I140-TSC/NO RN NO CC
nk2007-2nd July/8.26am/C UHRMACHER/I140-TSC/NO RN NO CC
Other -
zdong -- 2nd july No check encash/No RN
HNaik-2nd July/10:04am/ Armstrong/I140 -TCS/ NO RN NO CC
mashu - 2nd july/11:34am/Gerkenmeyer/I140 TSC/ No RN No CC
abhis0 -- 2nd july/11:34am/Gerkenmeyer/I140 TSC/ No RN No CC 140 LUD - 08/05
Applications are returned:Incorrect filing fees :
noendinsight- 2nd July/NSC/1-40 Approved NSC/NO RN NO CC
girlfriend Andy Murray during his
anotherone
01-29 05:14 PM
ofcourse, all employees are protected against discrimination based on religion, gender etc.,
that was not my point.
I understand that a company CAN refuse to hire someone based on their visa status, such as h1, f1, and that is legal.
But EAD is a different matter. It is not a visa. when the AOS is pending it is like a precursior to a GC and has similar rights or whatever
I was trying to clarify if it is legal to refuse employing someone based on their EAD when their AOS is pending.
that was not my point.
I understand that a company CAN refuse to hire someone based on their visa status, such as h1, f1, and that is legal.
But EAD is a different matter. It is not a visa. when the AOS is pending it is like a precursior to a GC and has similar rights or whatever
I was trying to clarify if it is legal to refuse employing someone based on their EAD when their AOS is pending.
hairstyles Andy Murray mania grips Britain as Roger Federer defeated by Tsonga at
jonty_11
06-25 05:23 PM
wow! you guys are 2 weeks apart man. How does it matter? :)
it coul dmatter..if the histrionics of teh last 2 years are repeated...
it coul dmatter..if the histrionics of teh last 2 years are repeated...
fiona6
02-26 10:07 AM
Called the DOS. Told them I need to travel to my home country and asked them if they can verify if my information is in PIMS. She asked if the H1-B is an extension case which it is. She said the extension cases are taking a bit longer than the new ones. That is quite surprising. Finally she looked in the database or whatever and said they do not have my extension information yet. All they have is the information from the expired petition. No timelines just asked me to call back in a week.:rolleyes:
I need to know if anyone had any luck if their lawyers pursued this matter with the DOS.
What is the phone number to call to verify the information?
I need to know if anyone had any luck if their lawyers pursued this matter with the DOS.
What is the phone number to call to verify the information?
polapragada
09-10 11:23 PM
I just read DICE
http://seeker.dice.com/olc/thread.jspa?threadID=9965&tstart=0
They are very active when compared to us to stop this bill
I think we need to act more. Rather than calling then again and again and irritate them,
I think we should start the flowers campain again
1. Where ever possible we need to educate our american fellow workes and people in these forums that this bill is about
a. People already working in US
b. They is no possibility to they will loose their jobs
c. We already live here
d. By increasing H1B is the real trouble for the American Citizens not GC
http://seeker.dice.com/olc/thread.jspa?threadID=9965&tstart=0
They are very active when compared to us to stop this bill
I think we need to act more. Rather than calling then again and again and irritate them,
I think we should start the flowers campain again
1. Where ever possible we need to educate our american fellow workes and people in these forums that this bill is about
a. People already working in US
b. They is no possibility to they will loose their jobs
c. We already live here
d. By increasing H1B is the real trouble for the American Citizens not GC
No comments:
Post a Comment