vicky007
05-10 12:16 PM
Sorry, the link is not working anymore.
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
wallpaper justin bieber shirtless 2011
WeShallOvercome
12-12 07:50 PM
Fellow IV members who have their GCs approved and some of those who are still waiting:
I have a few questions on how my brand new GC will help me in my situation..
My current project is ending 12/31 and I have about 20 PTO days left(yes, I get PTO from my desi employer)...Like many others I have signed a 'bond' with them that I will not leave them before july 2008.
Now after my current project is over, can they force me to use my PTO? or ask me to go on unpaid vacation even if I'm willing to work for them if they have work for me...
What if I get something on my own but my employer is not able to find work for me and pay me... Am I still bound by the contract I signed with them?
Thanks for your inputs
I have a few questions on how my brand new GC will help me in my situation..
My current project is ending 12/31 and I have about 20 PTO days left(yes, I get PTO from my desi employer)...Like many others I have signed a 'bond' with them that I will not leave them before july 2008.
Now after my current project is over, can they force me to use my PTO? or ask me to go on unpaid vacation even if I'm willing to work for them if they have work for me...
What if I get something on my own but my employer is not able to find work for me and pay me... Am I still bound by the contract I signed with them?
Thanks for your inputs
EADchallenged
07-27 04:17 PM
CIR is akin to churning the ocean and in an election year highly unlikely. Our best opportunity this year would be to get some retrogression relief in this bill. Filing for 485 gets some extra dollars for the ICE and at the same time does not add a single extra immigrant. Is this being pursued seriously?
2011 justin bieber shirtless
nozerd
10-08 11:48 PM
Texas has joined the bandwagon. Starting 10/1 anyone other than Perm Residents and Citizens will have to show proof of legal residency and will only be issued a 1 yr license that will look different from everyone elses. Seee details in the link below
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6047852.html
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6047852.html
more...
lostinbeta
10-21 01:47 AM
See, rev you like my idea :P
Bow to the untrained designer :P =)
Bow to the untrained designer :P =)
pal351
02-11 05:55 PM
http://www.prweb. com/releases/ 2009/02/prweb200 0494.htm
If more People think like this we will be in good shape.
Thanks,
If more People think like this we will be in good shape.
Thanks,
more...
doubleyou
05-18 01:22 PM
Congressional Reply says that the applicant is pending completion of background check. Previous congressional reply was that the name check is completed.
AILA is not getting any response from USCIS as per the lawyer.
How to check on the status of background check.
AILA is not getting any response from USCIS as per the lawyer.
How to check on the status of background check.
2010 tattoo 2011 wallpaper justin
mlkedave
03-30 11:58 AM
when is this thing going in completed battles? Just wondering...
more...
senthil1
04-30 11:01 PM
I heard that you can get more updates from IV if you become donor. You can try that.
What is the agenda now?
What is the agenda now?
hair justin bieber new photoshoot
perseus
07-17 01:04 AM
here is a brief account of my, and my spouse's, arduous but successful journey toward the coveted green cards. i hope this account helps you somehow.
(note: what you read below is all of what i am willing to share. i have spent a lot of time in typing it. i will not have the time or inclination for any elaborations or explanations!)
1. landed in the united states on f-1 visa -- september 2000.
2. arrested on misdemeanor shoplifting charge after prank went awry -- june 2001; judge dropped charge in july 2001 and also sealed and expunged the record.
3. changed from f-1 to h-1b upon accepting job offer from employer A, via about two months of c.p.t. in september 2003 (never used o.p.t.)
4. obtained labor certification in may 2004, and approval of i-140 (via eb-2) in march 2005, both via employer A. (priority date was, hence, may 2004).
5. got married in home country in june 2006; spouse landed in the united states on h-4 in november 2006.
6. graduated with advanced degree (and high academic honors) in december 2006.
7. transferred h-1b from employer A to employer B in september 2007; abandoned employer A's i-140 approval.
8. spouse, who had been on h-4 since november 2006, changed to f-1 in september 2007 to pursue advanced degree; spouse graduated in may 2009.
9. arrested in april 2008 for driving while visually impaired; convicted and punished by judge with three-month driving probation and fine.
10. obtained new labor certification in march 2008 and obtained new i-140 approval (again via eb-2) in september 2008; both via employer B.
11. mailed i-485s for self and spouse in october 2008; did not realize while mailing that the priority date had recently retrogressed (had no attorney assistance); but uscis accepted petitions, cashed checks, and processed the i-485s by sending self and spouse biometric appointments and an r.f.e. (for spouse).
12. transferred h-1b again, from employer B to employer C, in june 2009, more than 180 days after i-485s had been pending; spouse simultaneously applied for change of status from f-1 to h-4.
13. self and spouse invited for i-485 interviews in october 2009 based on self's i-140 approval obtained through employer B; i-485 petitions denied because priority date had not been current when filed; self and spouse shocked and in near-panic! self began to consider restarting green card process from i-140 stage, this time via eb-1.
14. h-1b extended in december 2010 for a year, via employer C's petition; at time of extension approval, self's original six years on h-1b had elapsed.
15. re-filed i-485s in january 2010, this time with attorney's help (mainly to write cover letter).
16. self and spouse invited for i-485 interviews again in june 2010, based on second i-485 petitions (based on self's i-140 approval obtained via employer B, even though at this time self was with employer C with previously denied -- for a technicality -- i-485s); i-485 petitions approved at the interview -- jai siyaram!
17. self and spouse received approval notices and "card production ordered" emails, all dated 13 days after interview.
18. received green cards and "welcome to the united states" fliers, both in july 2010, 29 days after i-485 interviews -- jai shri krishna!
notes in conclusion:
1. the green card process via employment, from h-1b through i-485, with possible multiple approvals/denials of each, is daunting due to the time and expense involved (including possible cost of attorney)
2. uscis's emphasis on technicalities can be frustrating; in our experience, approval of a i-485 is ultimately a discretion exercised by a single reviewing officer.
3. overall, applicant and any spouse/kids (a) must have maintained legal status throughout the h1b through i-485 process, and (b) must never have been convicted of felonious assault or moral turpitude.
4. in the end, applicant would find that the immigration system works, slow though it is because of congressional quotas and a somewhat slothful or myopic uscis.
5. i offer my best wishes to all that are reading this, regardless of citizenship. as a proud (and relieved!) new permanent resident of the united states, i say to you, "good luck and an advance welcome!"
reminder: what you read above is all of what i am willing to share. i spent a lot of time in typing it. i won't have the time or inclination for elaborations or explanations but, most sincerely, i wish you well!
(note: what you read below is all of what i am willing to share. i have spent a lot of time in typing it. i will not have the time or inclination for any elaborations or explanations!)
1. landed in the united states on f-1 visa -- september 2000.
2. arrested on misdemeanor shoplifting charge after prank went awry -- june 2001; judge dropped charge in july 2001 and also sealed and expunged the record.
3. changed from f-1 to h-1b upon accepting job offer from employer A, via about two months of c.p.t. in september 2003 (never used o.p.t.)
4. obtained labor certification in may 2004, and approval of i-140 (via eb-2) in march 2005, both via employer A. (priority date was, hence, may 2004).
5. got married in home country in june 2006; spouse landed in the united states on h-4 in november 2006.
6. graduated with advanced degree (and high academic honors) in december 2006.
7. transferred h-1b from employer A to employer B in september 2007; abandoned employer A's i-140 approval.
8. spouse, who had been on h-4 since november 2006, changed to f-1 in september 2007 to pursue advanced degree; spouse graduated in may 2009.
9. arrested in april 2008 for driving while visually impaired; convicted and punished by judge with three-month driving probation and fine.
10. obtained new labor certification in march 2008 and obtained new i-140 approval (again via eb-2) in september 2008; both via employer B.
11. mailed i-485s for self and spouse in october 2008; did not realize while mailing that the priority date had recently retrogressed (had no attorney assistance); but uscis accepted petitions, cashed checks, and processed the i-485s by sending self and spouse biometric appointments and an r.f.e. (for spouse).
12. transferred h-1b again, from employer B to employer C, in june 2009, more than 180 days after i-485s had been pending; spouse simultaneously applied for change of status from f-1 to h-4.
13. self and spouse invited for i-485 interviews in october 2009 based on self's i-140 approval obtained through employer B; i-485 petitions denied because priority date had not been current when filed; self and spouse shocked and in near-panic! self began to consider restarting green card process from i-140 stage, this time via eb-1.
14. h-1b extended in december 2010 for a year, via employer C's petition; at time of extension approval, self's original six years on h-1b had elapsed.
15. re-filed i-485s in january 2010, this time with attorney's help (mainly to write cover letter).
16. self and spouse invited for i-485 interviews again in june 2010, based on second i-485 petitions (based on self's i-140 approval obtained via employer B, even though at this time self was with employer C with previously denied -- for a technicality -- i-485s); i-485 petitions approved at the interview -- jai siyaram!
17. self and spouse received approval notices and "card production ordered" emails, all dated 13 days after interview.
18. received green cards and "welcome to the united states" fliers, both in july 2010, 29 days after i-485 interviews -- jai shri krishna!
notes in conclusion:
1. the green card process via employment, from h-1b through i-485, with possible multiple approvals/denials of each, is daunting due to the time and expense involved (including possible cost of attorney)
2. uscis's emphasis on technicalities can be frustrating; in our experience, approval of a i-485 is ultimately a discretion exercised by a single reviewing officer.
3. overall, applicant and any spouse/kids (a) must have maintained legal status throughout the h1b through i-485 process, and (b) must never have been convicted of felonious assault or moral turpitude.
4. in the end, applicant would find that the immigration system works, slow though it is because of congressional quotas and a somewhat slothful or myopic uscis.
5. i offer my best wishes to all that are reading this, regardless of citizenship. as a proud (and relieved!) new permanent resident of the united states, i say to you, "good luck and an advance welcome!"
reminder: what you read above is all of what i am willing to share. i spent a lot of time in typing it. i won't have the time or inclination for elaborations or explanations but, most sincerely, i wish you well!
more...
OLDMONK
06-15 03:13 PM
I believe it is the number which is assigned to you when your I-140 is approved. It is mentioned on your I -140 approval notice. and it is used to fill your AR-11 form
Thanks, thats what I thought too. So in that case I am the only one who has that (not dependents) so their forms would be marked as "None".
Google Search Results as follows:
An Alien Registration Number or A# is an eight or nine digit number that is assigned to foreign nationals by the United States Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Services. Foreign nationals who apply for visas without a U.S. relative or employer petition may not have an A#. Most immigrations forms request the A# number. If you do not have an A# just leave this field blank.
Upon submission of a petition to the USCIS you will be assigned an A#. You can find your A# on the USCIS filing receipt you will receive after the USCIS receives and processes you petition.
Thanks, thats what I thought too. So in that case I am the only one who has that (not dependents) so their forms would be marked as "None".
Google Search Results as follows:
An Alien Registration Number or A# is an eight or nine digit number that is assigned to foreign nationals by the United States Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Services. Foreign nationals who apply for visas without a U.S. relative or employer petition may not have an A#. Most immigrations forms request the A# number. If you do not have an A# just leave this field blank.
Upon submission of a petition to the USCIS you will be assigned an A#. You can find your A# on the USCIS filing receipt you will receive after the USCIS receives and processes you petition.
hot 2011 · Justin Bieber
mdipi
10-28 09:15 PM
eberth, did you do the bed?
more...
house hair 2010 justin bieber
Berkeleybee
03-31 06:00 PM
Thank you Jkays and Cpolisetti for bringing this to our attention.
I just sent Mitra an email.
best,
Berkeleybee
I just sent Mitra an email.
best,
Berkeleybee
tattoo hot justin bieber shirtless
dcrtrv27
11-13 02:56 PM
Is tehre is any way for PREMIUM PROCESSING for I485 pending case?
In my case PD is current since years the I140 is approved. Backbround check etc is over. Confirmed by various sources that my case JUST needs to be picked up by IO.
I have somebusiness trips coming up. My employer want me to find out the way to get the GC faster that way there wont be any hassle for every year renewal od AP and also EADs. and then appplying VISAs which will expire along with teh AP last date.
Along with me my employer is also fed up now:p.
Our lawyer being stupid; the employer wants me to find out the way to expedite I485. Since it is in last stages I think theer could be quicker way.
I know there is the way WOM but is there any other way?:rolleyes:
In my case PD is current since years the I140 is approved. Backbround check etc is over. Confirmed by various sources that my case JUST needs to be picked up by IO.
I have somebusiness trips coming up. My employer want me to find out the way to get the GC faster that way there wont be any hassle for every year renewal od AP and also EADs. and then appplying VISAs which will expire along with teh AP last date.
Along with me my employer is also fed up now:p.
Our lawyer being stupid; the employer wants me to find out the way to expedite I485. Since it is in last stages I think theer could be quicker way.
I know there is the way WOM but is there any other way?:rolleyes:
more...
pictures girlfriend justin bieber new
Eveready
07-11 05:25 PM
Thanks syed your post has been a great help.:)
dresses 2011 justin bieber 2011
shreekhand
12-08 10:53 PM
Good info Bpositive...
LPR coz you didn't present the card. Henceforth... when you re-enter using your physical GC, they will write ARC on the immigration stamp, that is, Alien Resident Card.
LPR coz you didn't present the card. Henceforth... when you re-enter using your physical GC, they will write ARC on the immigration stamp, that is, Alien Resident Card.
more...
makeup 2011 justin bieber 2011 haircut justin bieber 2011 haircut shirtless.
capriol
01-26 07:19 PM
Folks,
I am not getting my hopes too high about the EB-485 processing dates--either for the TSC or the NSC. Correct me if I am wrong...but I think that this huge progress in the EB 485 processing dates can be attributed to the fact that EB2 (India) is retrogressed and even unavailable (currently) and EB 3 (India) is also regtrogressed, and of course, not to mention China. So, perhaps both the service centers are processing EB 485's for ROW--and thus this quite impressive forward move.
If at some point India's EB2 and 3 priority dates move by a great leap beyond what it is now (ie., if the centers start processing the July 2007 VB submissions of EB2 and 3) , then should not we expect that the processing dates of the two centers be back-logged again and thus retrogressed?
What so you folks think? Thanks.
I am not getting my hopes too high about the EB-485 processing dates--either for the TSC or the NSC. Correct me if I am wrong...but I think that this huge progress in the EB 485 processing dates can be attributed to the fact that EB2 (India) is retrogressed and even unavailable (currently) and EB 3 (India) is also regtrogressed, and of course, not to mention China. So, perhaps both the service centers are processing EB 485's for ROW--and thus this quite impressive forward move.
If at some point India's EB2 and 3 priority dates move by a great leap beyond what it is now (ie., if the centers start processing the July 2007 VB submissions of EB2 and 3) , then should not we expect that the processing dates of the two centers be back-logged again and thus retrogressed?
What so you folks think? Thanks.
girlfriend Justin+ieber+2011+
ilikekilo
05-27 12:22 PM
When did they say they have repealed AC21? Is this true?
Regarding (6) above, it is not 10K, more like 5K.
form immigrationlaw.com
Final Version of Sanders' Amendment of H-1B Supplemental Fee and American Student Scholarship Fund as Passed
The controversial Sanders' amendment initially was passed in the Senate last week which imposes $3,500 (or $1,750) for a supplemental fee for the American Student Scholarship Fund. The supplemental fee is added to the current fees that include $1,500 (or $750) ACWIA fee, $500 fraud prevention fee, and $190 H-1B petition (which will in itself increase substantially when the fee increase regulation is implemented). Go figure! The text of the final amendment is as follows:
SEC. 713. SUPPLEMENTAL FEES.
Section 214(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:``(15)(A) In each instance where the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Secretary of State is required to impose a fee pursuant to paragraph (9) or (11), the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Secretary of State, as appropriate, shall impose a supplemental fee on the employer in addition to any other fee required by such paragraph or any other provision of law, in the amount determined under subparagraph (B).
``(B) The amount of the supplemental fee shall be $3,500, except that the fee shall be 1/2 that amount for any employer with not more than 25 full-time equivalent employees who are employed in the United States (determined by including any affiliate or subsidiary of such employer).
``(C) Fees collected under this paragraph shall be deposited in the Treasury in accordance with section 286(x).''
Initially it was proposed to charge $10,000!!!
Regarding (6) above, it is not 10K, more like 5K.
form immigrationlaw.com
Final Version of Sanders' Amendment of H-1B Supplemental Fee and American Student Scholarship Fund as Passed
The controversial Sanders' amendment initially was passed in the Senate last week which imposes $3,500 (or $1,750) for a supplemental fee for the American Student Scholarship Fund. The supplemental fee is added to the current fees that include $1,500 (or $750) ACWIA fee, $500 fraud prevention fee, and $190 H-1B petition (which will in itself increase substantially when the fee increase regulation is implemented). Go figure! The text of the final amendment is as follows:
SEC. 713. SUPPLEMENTAL FEES.
Section 214(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:``(15)(A) In each instance where the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Secretary of State is required to impose a fee pursuant to paragraph (9) or (11), the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Secretary of State, as appropriate, shall impose a supplemental fee on the employer in addition to any other fee required by such paragraph or any other provision of law, in the amount determined under subparagraph (B).
``(B) The amount of the supplemental fee shall be $3,500, except that the fee shall be 1/2 that amount for any employer with not more than 25 full-time equivalent employees who are employed in the United States (determined by including any affiliate or subsidiary of such employer).
``(C) Fees collected under this paragraph shall be deposited in the Treasury in accordance with section 286(x).''
Initially it was proposed to charge $10,000!!!
hairstyles justin bieber 2011 photoshoot
logiclife
02-12 06:28 PM
Hi,
I am with employer A (he is good except that he doesn't like me talking to the attorney directly about GC process. I have to go through him for every single details and he is busy usually so contacting him is also a bit pain. Because of this my process is getting delayed sometimes).
Having said this, I joined this employer A in 2004 after I graduated and i am with him for 2.5 yrs since then. Now I am starting my GC process and I cannot show this 2.5 yrs of experience to my LC process (which is logical). On the other hand, I found another employer B who is willing to process my GC with one of the top attorneys.
So if i switch now, I will
1. Be able to apply for EB2 (MS + 2.5yrs + 1 yrs(before MS) = MS + 3.5yrs)
2. I get a very good attorney to file my GC
3. I will be able to have a direct conversation with the attorney (employer said its between me and the attorney)
If I don't switch, my odds are that
1. I have to go with Eb3 (MS + 1 yrs(before MS) = MS + 1yr)
2. Can't talk to the attorney directly
So IS IT WORTH switching the employer for
1. Gettting into EB2
2. Getting a good attorney to file my LC
3. Be able to talk to attorney directly
Your thoughts and suggestions are highly important. So please let me know what you will do if this is the case ?
Thanks
All employers, who refuse to share copies of 140, labor or H1 fully intend to retain employees by restricting their ability to switch jobs and retain priority dates for future GC petitions. There are not exceptions to this rule. Even if its your brother who employs you, the only reason for withholding documents is to bond you. That is the only motive to withhold copies. "Its property of employer..." excuse is BS. Yes, it is property of employer. But the xerox copies dont change the ownership.
I am with employer A (he is good except that he doesn't like me talking to the attorney directly about GC process. I have to go through him for every single details and he is busy usually so contacting him is also a bit pain. Because of this my process is getting delayed sometimes).
Having said this, I joined this employer A in 2004 after I graduated and i am with him for 2.5 yrs since then. Now I am starting my GC process and I cannot show this 2.5 yrs of experience to my LC process (which is logical). On the other hand, I found another employer B who is willing to process my GC with one of the top attorneys.
So if i switch now, I will
1. Be able to apply for EB2 (MS + 2.5yrs + 1 yrs(before MS) = MS + 3.5yrs)
2. I get a very good attorney to file my GC
3. I will be able to have a direct conversation with the attorney (employer said its between me and the attorney)
If I don't switch, my odds are that
1. I have to go with Eb3 (MS + 1 yrs(before MS) = MS + 1yr)
2. Can't talk to the attorney directly
So IS IT WORTH switching the employer for
1. Gettting into EB2
2. Getting a good attorney to file my LC
3. Be able to talk to attorney directly
Your thoughts and suggestions are highly important. So please let me know what you will do if this is the case ?
Thanks
All employers, who refuse to share copies of 140, labor or H1 fully intend to retain employees by restricting their ability to switch jobs and retain priority dates for future GC petitions. There are not exceptions to this rule. Even if its your brother who employs you, the only reason for withholding documents is to bond you. That is the only motive to withhold copies. "Its property of employer..." excuse is BS. Yes, it is property of employer. But the xerox copies dont change the ownership.
averagedesi
09-14 10:58 AM
Here is something interesting
My wife got her EAD approved for 2 years, she is suppose to get her extension only for a year as on Sep 10 when they renewed her card the priority dates were current.
USCIS an organization that is above and beyond the laws of this country.
My wife got her EAD approved for 2 years, she is suppose to get her extension only for a year as on Sep 10 when they renewed her card the priority dates were current.
USCIS an organization that is above and beyond the laws of this country.
CantLeaveAmerica
12-08 05:37 PM
not a redundant mail..just their process.
I got the CPO email on Oct 22, a welcome notice in my email on oct 24, actual welcome notices in my snail mail on oct 27 and the actual cards on Oct 30...so it took me 8 to 9 days to get the physical cards.
I'd say wait till you get the cards in your hand before you travel if you can..it's a different feeling :)
I got the CPO email on Oct 22, a welcome notice in my email on oct 24, actual welcome notices in my snail mail on oct 27 and the actual cards on Oct 30...so it took me 8 to 9 days to get the physical cards.
I'd say wait till you get the cards in your hand before you travel if you can..it's a different feeling :)
No comments:
Post a Comment