longq
12-29 04:35 PM
You might have to define what the word "is" is ;-)
Anyway, that paragraph also states: "If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) [...] exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise issued such visas,." but then continues on with: "the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation"
One could interpret this distinction such that the actual number of visas available is not necessarily the same number of visas made available, which is fixed to 28.6% + spill-over. It might, as well, comprise only those unused visas that haven't been passed down to a lower category. 203 (b) (2) / (3) and 202(5) seem to compete over the unused numbers. Not sure which one has preference.
Well, that's according to your interpretation. You seem to suggest that USCIS disagrees with your interpretation. We probably have to wait for the next immigration statistics to see what rule USCIS has been following.
I'd hope IV would focus on increasing the number of GCs available to all of us, instead of fighting for allocation. ACT-21 increased the number of H1B visas without increasing the number of GCs.
Your interpretation is very simple. However one draft the law (before 2000 or after 2000), EB3 is prefered than EB2 and EB1, just to address the diversity.
The question is simple. Whether diversity is important or employment preference is important? What is the intent of the congress in 202 a 5? Has DOS understand the intent? This is very very important for oversubscribed countries. We know IV is working hard to address the retro. This is also equially important. Even if we achive in incresing the EB visa numbers (by SKIL/CIR) by 2 times or 3 times it will not be usefull for India and China. Thats why it is very important.
In FY2005 India consumed about 16,000 EB2 visa. The total visa issued still about 40,000 only. From 2006 it is going to be 2800 only. Just compare 16,000 with 2,800. With this rate, an Indian guy with PD in 2005 or 2006 may not get GC till his retirement. However a non-Indian, Chinese EB2 guy with PD 2006 get GC with in 6 months.
Anyway, that paragraph also states: "If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) [...] exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise issued such visas,." but then continues on with: "the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation"
One could interpret this distinction such that the actual number of visas available is not necessarily the same number of visas made available, which is fixed to 28.6% + spill-over. It might, as well, comprise only those unused visas that haven't been passed down to a lower category. 203 (b) (2) / (3) and 202(5) seem to compete over the unused numbers. Not sure which one has preference.
Well, that's according to your interpretation. You seem to suggest that USCIS disagrees with your interpretation. We probably have to wait for the next immigration statistics to see what rule USCIS has been following.
I'd hope IV would focus on increasing the number of GCs available to all of us, instead of fighting for allocation. ACT-21 increased the number of H1B visas without increasing the number of GCs.
Your interpretation is very simple. However one draft the law (before 2000 or after 2000), EB3 is prefered than EB2 and EB1, just to address the diversity.
The question is simple. Whether diversity is important or employment preference is important? What is the intent of the congress in 202 a 5? Has DOS understand the intent? This is very very important for oversubscribed countries. We know IV is working hard to address the retro. This is also equially important. Even if we achive in incresing the EB visa numbers (by SKIL/CIR) by 2 times or 3 times it will not be usefull for India and China. Thats why it is very important.
In FY2005 India consumed about 16,000 EB2 visa. The total visa issued still about 40,000 only. From 2006 it is going to be 2800 only. Just compare 16,000 with 2,800. With this rate, an Indian guy with PD in 2005 or 2006 may not get GC till his retirement. However a non-Indian, Chinese EB2 guy with PD 2006 get GC with in 6 months.
wallpaper uilding icon png.
Jaime
08-31 04:22 PM
not sure there are "lies".
No lies, salary cannot be raised and people on H-4 cannot work. The article is right.
What I don't get is where they got that the Sept 18 rally will see 5000 of us attending? That's way too little guys, we need at least double that!
No lies, salary cannot be raised and people on H-4 cannot work. The article is right.
What I don't get is where they got that the Sept 18 rally will see 5000 of us attending? That's way too little guys, we need at least double that!
belmontboy
11-25 11:58 PM
Thanks a million, core team, for the effort!!!!!! As many have already raised the issue, can you please clarify that core does indeed forecast a jump of nearly 3 years for EB-2 India between Jul-10 and Oct-10?
One possible explanation could be labor market being bad. We could anticipate spillover to be considerably bigger than previous years.
One possible explanation could be labor market being bad. We could anticipate spillover to be considerably bigger than previous years.
2011 Paper-docs-icon-png in Icons
sanju
03-03 09:51 PM
Hi
Sorry for the delay in response... I did transfer money but not a large amount. Around three or four times I transferred around $3K for personal purposes.
Read this -
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29432007/
If I were you, I would call the cops and report this immediately. One can say that you are calling for the protection of your family because a similar incidence of a fake ICE officer took place recently. They could easily find out if that was a real guy or some hoax.
.
Sorry for the delay in response... I did transfer money but not a large amount. Around three or four times I transferred around $3K for personal purposes.
Read this -
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29432007/
If I were you, I would call the cops and report this immediately. One can say that you are calling for the protection of your family because a similar incidence of a fake ICE officer took place recently. They could easily find out if that was a real guy or some hoax.
.
more...
Kitiara
02-05 05:10 AM
Wow, I've got three votes now... :)
Love the castle, and the background work for it.. Kinda looks like one of those Aztec Mayan thingers you see in the mountains or whatever Thank you very much... It's actually a castle from here in England, near Gloucester. Used to go up around there on holiday when I was a kid, and I had some old holiday snaps.
There's lots of ruined castles round here (there's one 15 minutes from where I live in fact, called Rochester Castle) so I wanted to draw one of those, do something a bit different.
But Soul and Eilsoe are in a whole new league with their pixel art. :)
Love the castle, and the background work for it.. Kinda looks like one of those Aztec Mayan thingers you see in the mountains or whatever Thank you very much... It's actually a castle from here in England, near Gloucester. Used to go up around there on holiday when I was a kid, and I had some old holiday snaps.
There's lots of ruined castles round here (there's one 15 minutes from where I live in fact, called Rochester Castle) so I wanted to draw one of those, do something a bit different.
But Soul and Eilsoe are in a whole new league with their pixel art. :)
nrk
10-30 12:39 PM
Just came back from Info pass appointment.
The officer told me that they haven't seen any thing wrong in the system.
Further he told in both of our cases the back ground check is completed and cases are "pre-adjudicated" (i don't know what does it mean)
Then i have asked him why the letter says "not admissible under the current law"
He said, there might be a very minor details the officer needs to clarify or send it to his superior for review. Further more he said he does not have the physical file in his hand right now if you want i will request for the file and look into that. I asked him what do you suggest on this, he said wait for some more time as i don't see any problems in your case. If i order the file your case will be taken out for nearly two months from the queue.
The officer told me that they haven't seen any thing wrong in the system.
Further he told in both of our cases the back ground check is completed and cases are "pre-adjudicated" (i don't know what does it mean)
Then i have asked him why the letter says "not admissible under the current law"
He said, there might be a very minor details the officer needs to clarify or send it to his superior for review. Further more he said he does not have the physical file in his hand right now if you want i will request for the file and look into that. I asked him what do you suggest on this, he said wait for some more time as i don't see any problems in your case. If i order the file your case will be taken out for nearly two months from the queue.
more...
optimystic
10-12 06:17 PM
Yes, your point is entirely valid. I didn't know about this cross-country provision. Another unfair provision.
In fact, my point was that unfairness should be dealt with on all possible fronts. If the system works properly, nobody will need to do anything that is even remotely unfair.
I have a strong gut feeling that 2009 would be a good year for EB3. They will start approving more cases I think.
I certainly hope for the best this year. My PD is currently current, but I am still helpless. Can't file a service request nor know any kind of status (unless on pure luck I run into a good natured IO over phone or infopass). Just have to pray that they find and get to my application while dates are still current.
This thing is a dual headed monster....If you conquer the PD head, the processing date Head pops up and vice versa.... I was in same situation briefly ( a month or two of PD being current but Processing dates stuck at July 2, 2007 at NSC) early this year and had to sit back and painfully watch the PD for EB3-I becoming 'U' again. I am more afraid of the 'unavailability' than retrogression now!! With retrogression you can atleast hope it might become current in the next month or one after that. But with 'U' , you just have to wait until Oct next year !!!
The moment they advance the PD for EB3 I and my application still remains untouched , I am gonna try to take that info , take an Info Pass and ask the IO, if they had advanced the PDs, it means they exhausted every application that could be approved and wanted to find more....so what ever has happened to my case !! I hope it wouldn't come to that.
In fact, my point was that unfairness should be dealt with on all possible fronts. If the system works properly, nobody will need to do anything that is even remotely unfair.
I have a strong gut feeling that 2009 would be a good year for EB3. They will start approving more cases I think.
I certainly hope for the best this year. My PD is currently current, but I am still helpless. Can't file a service request nor know any kind of status (unless on pure luck I run into a good natured IO over phone or infopass). Just have to pray that they find and get to my application while dates are still current.
This thing is a dual headed monster....If you conquer the PD head, the processing date Head pops up and vice versa.... I was in same situation briefly ( a month or two of PD being current but Processing dates stuck at July 2, 2007 at NSC) early this year and had to sit back and painfully watch the PD for EB3-I becoming 'U' again. I am more afraid of the 'unavailability' than retrogression now!! With retrogression you can atleast hope it might become current in the next month or one after that. But with 'U' , you just have to wait until Oct next year !!!
The moment they advance the PD for EB3 I and my application still remains untouched , I am gonna try to take that info , take an Info Pass and ask the IO, if they had advanced the PDs, it means they exhausted every application that could be approved and wanted to find more....so what ever has happened to my case !! I hope it wouldn't come to that.
2010 uilding icon png. here
drona
09-01 03:17 PM
We are happy to report that certain members that initially voted NO in this poll, have had a change of heart and are now flying to DC! Let's hope more CA members will join in! Ticket prices are still reasonable, please reconsider folks!
more...
optimystic
10-28 10:05 PM
Tough crowd :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
You said it !
To give super-sensitive people a break, let me suggest something to the tough crowd...
- When you want to give a negative comment, give it with a Green Dot - This is akin to positive/constructive criticism!
- When you want to give a positive comment, Give it with a Red Dot - This is akin to an incentiveless praise. So as to keep a person down to earth :D
Just kidding!! :D .
Go have fun with dots/comments if you don't have too much on your hands ! But try to keep it *clean/civilized* !
You said it !
To give super-sensitive people a break, let me suggest something to the tough crowd...
- When you want to give a negative comment, give it with a Green Dot - This is akin to positive/constructive criticism!
- When you want to give a positive comment, Give it with a Red Dot - This is akin to an incentiveless praise. So as to keep a person down to earth :D
Just kidding!! :D .
Go have fun with dots/comments if you don't have too much on your hands ! But try to keep it *clean/civilized* !
hair 1 cash. Gift from Farmville
jsb
01-14 11:01 AM
Tired of waiting ( PD: August 2001) I finally wrote to both my local congressman and Senator today. My senator is on senate Immigration commitee so lets see what happens. Hopefully something will move.
If this doesnt help I will try Ombudsman next after couple of months. The Ombudsman form has a question of if you have tried through Congressman etc first so we can try and see that.
Guys its so funny when you see ppl with PD of 2003 and 2005 complaining and bitching. Here we have waited 7 + yrs our PD's are current and we are doing OK. Wait sure brings maturity :)
USCIS does not process cases in PD order, because they can't. Thousands of files they receive, are sequenced in order they receive them at Centers. They claim that cases are processed in order they receive them. "Receive Date" is not what you see on your receipt, it is the date they physically received the case on (thus if case is moved from one center to another, true Receive Date is the date it was recieved by the last center). You see this data online status as "...we received (or transferred) your case on ...".
PD critieria is limited to certain countries only. Therefore, by and large, "cases are processed in order they are received..." works well. However, for India, China etc. where PD cutoff has to be factored, it is used merely to decide to work or skip a file (when seen in the receive date order). If PD cutoff date is very restricted, they will have to skip a lot of cases, which slows them down. That's the reason every July they ask for wider PD cutoff dates so that they can consume a lot of visas, as they don't have to skip that many cases.
This process is a mockery of the PD cutoff dates, but that's how it works. If you sent your case on June 28, 07, with July 2, 07 as the printed Receive Data on your receipt, but the case where it finally rested, was entered in their database on Oct. 28, '07 (with a Notice Date soon thereafter), you case will not be looked at, no matter what the PD cutoff date is, unless all cases received before Oct. 28, '07 have been reviewed.
If this doesnt help I will try Ombudsman next after couple of months. The Ombudsman form has a question of if you have tried through Congressman etc first so we can try and see that.
Guys its so funny when you see ppl with PD of 2003 and 2005 complaining and bitching. Here we have waited 7 + yrs our PD's are current and we are doing OK. Wait sure brings maturity :)
USCIS does not process cases in PD order, because they can't. Thousands of files they receive, are sequenced in order they receive them at Centers. They claim that cases are processed in order they receive them. "Receive Date" is not what you see on your receipt, it is the date they physically received the case on (thus if case is moved from one center to another, true Receive Date is the date it was recieved by the last center). You see this data online status as "...we received (or transferred) your case on ...".
PD critieria is limited to certain countries only. Therefore, by and large, "cases are processed in order they are received..." works well. However, for India, China etc. where PD cutoff has to be factored, it is used merely to decide to work or skip a file (when seen in the receive date order). If PD cutoff date is very restricted, they will have to skip a lot of cases, which slows them down. That's the reason every July they ask for wider PD cutoff dates so that they can consume a lot of visas, as they don't have to skip that many cases.
This process is a mockery of the PD cutoff dates, but that's how it works. If you sent your case on June 28, 07, with July 2, 07 as the printed Receive Data on your receipt, but the case where it finally rested, was entered in their database on Oct. 28, '07 (with a Notice Date soon thereafter), you case will not be looked at, no matter what the PD cutoff date is, unless all cases received before Oct. 28, '07 have been reviewed.
more...
gcisadawg
02-28 10:06 AM
"A. USCIS is currently aware of approximately 47,000 applications for permanent residence (I-485) cases that are otherwise approvable but for the fact that an FBI name check is pending. In a subset of these case, the FBI name check request that been pending for more than 180 days. USCIS anticipates that the majority of the cases that are subject to this policy modification will be processed by mid-March 2008."
It says otherwise approvable but for name check. Does that mean Visa numbers are already allotted for these 47K cases hence they wont eat up the visa numbers?
It says otherwise approvable but for name check. Does that mean Visa numbers are already allotted for these 47K cases hence they wont eat up the visa numbers?
hot news icon png. uilding icon
jonty_11
06-04 06:25 PM
only reason USCIS can afford to do it is becoz they are not accountable (As we are not a vote bank)...
But with IV on our side, we can make them streamline their procedures and work efficiently - whcih has never been a priority.
But with IV on our side, we can make them streamline their procedures and work efficiently - whcih has never been a priority.
more...
house pictures Building icon high
nk29
08-05 12:32 PM
GCMaine:
I agree with Eb3Retro... My husband did his PMP Certification on his own.. he used a couple of pmi guides that he bought from amazon.com in addition to the PMBOK book. he worked on this certification for 3 to 4 months and passed it. It is possible. It is quite useful according to him if you want to lead teams. No need to spend money on this training.
NK29
I agree with Eb3Retro... My husband did his PMP Certification on his own.. he used a couple of pmi guides that he bought from amazon.com in addition to the PMBOK book. he worked on this certification for 3 to 4 months and passed it. It is possible. It is quite useful according to him if you want to lead teams. No need to spend money on this training.
NK29
tattoo Merit Roofing Systems
Carlau
01-10 10:05 PM
I wish some group were working on getting attached in some bill a provision that lets the H-4s work. I thought we had a good chance because it is under discussion a bill similar to Bill S.2611 that would let the spouses of the Illegal workers regularized under Blue card status to also work so I assumed that a some point they were going to have a provision for the spouses of H-1Bs. I hope IV and QGA are doing something about this. If no group brings to the senators etc.'s attention that there is a part unattended regading the H-1B spouses right to work, nothing would happen. Here is what I am trying to say:
If S.2611 is going to be discussed in the senate/house, this will allow the spouse of the Blue card status worker (previously illegal worker and now regularized) to work for any employer -while the spouse is in blue card status-, shouldn't it be mentioned in the same law in the parragraph with the H-1B and dependandts provision that that the same applies for the H-1B spouses -that they could work for any employer while the H-1B status of the spouse is valid-? The L-1 spouses can work too so why do we H-4s have to suffer? Why nobody is advocating this?
This is the parragraph:
"... (iii) EMPLOYMENT- The spouse of an alien granted blue card status may apply to the Secretary for a work permit to authorize such spouse to engage in any lawful employment in the United States while such alien maintains blue card status. ..."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN02611: then select "Text of legislation" and then select "2 . Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate)[S.2611.ES] " (unfortunately the direct link is temporary so you need to follow these instructions to reach it)
.2611
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate)
________________________________________
TITLE IV--NONIMMIGRANT AND IMMIGRANT VISA REFORM
Subtitle A--Temporary Guest Workers
CHAPTER 1--PILOT PROGRAM FOR EARNED STATUS ADJUSTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS
SEC. 613. AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.
(a) Blue Card Program-
(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall confer blue card status upon an alien who qualifies under this subsection if the Secretary determines that the alien--
(A) has performed agricultural employment in the United States for at least 863 hours or 150 work days during the 24-month period ending on December 31, 2005;
(B) applied for such status during the 18-month application period beginning on the first day of the seventh month that begins after the date of enactment of this Act; and
(C) is otherwise admissible to the United States under section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182), except as otherwise provided under subsection (e)(2).
(2) AUTHORIZED TRAVEL- An alien in blue card status has the right to travel abroad (including commutation from a residence abroad) in the same manner as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
(3) AUTHORIZED EMPLOYMENT- An alien in blue card status shall be provided an `employment authorized' endorsement or other appropriate work permit, in the same manner as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
(4) TERMINATION OF BLUE CARD STATUS-
(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary may terminate blue card status granted under this subsection only upon a determination under this subtitle that the alien is deportable.
(B) GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION OF BLUE CARD STATUS- ...
(b) Rights of Aliens Granted Blue Card Status-
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as otherwise provided under this subsection, an alien in blue card status shall be considered to be an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for purposes of any law other than any provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).
(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall adjust the status of an alien granted blue card status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if the Secretary determines that the following requirements are satisfied:
(i) QUALIFYING EMPLOYMENT- The alien has performed at least--
(I) 5 years of agricultural employment in the United States, for at least 100 work days or 575 hours, but in no case less than 575 hours per year, during the 5-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act; or
(II) 3 years of agricultural employment in the United States, for at least 150 work days or 863 hours, but in no case less than 863 hours per year, during the 5-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(ii) PROOF- An alien may demonstrate compliance with the requirement under clause (i) by submitting--
...
(C) GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL- Any alien granted blue card status who does not apply for adjustment of status under this subsection before the expiration of the application period described in subparagraph (A)(iv), or who fails to meet the other requirements of subparagraph (A) by the end of the applicable period, is deportable and may be removed under section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a).
(D) PAYMENT OF TAXES-
(i) IN GENERAL- Not later than the date on which an alien's status is adjusted under this subsection, the alien shall establish the payment of any applicable Federal tax liability by establishing that--
(I) no such tax liability exists;
(II) all outstanding liabilities have been paid; or
(III) the alien has entered into an agreement for payment of all outstanding liabilities with the Internal Revenue Service.
....
(2) SPOUSES AND MINOR CHILDREN-(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall confer the status of lawful permanent resident on the spouse and minor child of an alien granted status under paragraph (1), including any individual who was a minor child on the date such alien was granted blue card status, if the spouse or minor child applies for such status, or if the principal alien includes the spouse or minor child in an application for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident.
(B) TREATMENT OF SPOUSES AND MINOR CHILDREN BEFORE ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS-
(i) REMOVAL- The spouse and any minor child of an alien granted blue card status may not be removed while such alien maintains such status, except as provided in subparagraph (C).
(ii) TRAVEL- The spouse and any minor child of an alien granted blue card status may travel outside the United States in the same manner as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
(iii) EMPLOYMENT- The spouse of an alien granted blue card status may apply to the Secretary for a work permit to authorize such spouse to engage in any lawful employment in the United States while such alien maintains blue card status.
(C) GROUNDS FOR DENIAL OF ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS AND REMOVAL- The Secretary may deny an alien spouse or child adjustment of status under subparagraph (A) and may remove such spouse or child under section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a) if the spouse or child--
(i) commits an act that makes the alien spouse or child inadmissible to the United States under section 212 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1182), except as provided under subsection (e)(2);
(ii) is convicted of a felony or 3 or more misdemeanors committed in the United States; or
(iii) is convicted of a single misdemeanor for which the actual sentence served is 6 months or longer.
If S.2611 is going to be discussed in the senate/house, this will allow the spouse of the Blue card status worker (previously illegal worker and now regularized) to work for any employer -while the spouse is in blue card status-, shouldn't it be mentioned in the same law in the parragraph with the H-1B and dependandts provision that that the same applies for the H-1B spouses -that they could work for any employer while the H-1B status of the spouse is valid-? The L-1 spouses can work too so why do we H-4s have to suffer? Why nobody is advocating this?
This is the parragraph:
"... (iii) EMPLOYMENT- The spouse of an alien granted blue card status may apply to the Secretary for a work permit to authorize such spouse to engage in any lawful employment in the United States while such alien maintains blue card status. ..."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN02611: then select "Text of legislation" and then select "2 . Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate)[S.2611.ES] " (unfortunately the direct link is temporary so you need to follow these instructions to reach it)
.2611
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate)
________________________________________
TITLE IV--NONIMMIGRANT AND IMMIGRANT VISA REFORM
Subtitle A--Temporary Guest Workers
CHAPTER 1--PILOT PROGRAM FOR EARNED STATUS ADJUSTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS
SEC. 613. AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.
(a) Blue Card Program-
(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall confer blue card status upon an alien who qualifies under this subsection if the Secretary determines that the alien--
(A) has performed agricultural employment in the United States for at least 863 hours or 150 work days during the 24-month period ending on December 31, 2005;
(B) applied for such status during the 18-month application period beginning on the first day of the seventh month that begins after the date of enactment of this Act; and
(C) is otherwise admissible to the United States under section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182), except as otherwise provided under subsection (e)(2).
(2) AUTHORIZED TRAVEL- An alien in blue card status has the right to travel abroad (including commutation from a residence abroad) in the same manner as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
(3) AUTHORIZED EMPLOYMENT- An alien in blue card status shall be provided an `employment authorized' endorsement or other appropriate work permit, in the same manner as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
(4) TERMINATION OF BLUE CARD STATUS-
(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary may terminate blue card status granted under this subsection only upon a determination under this subtitle that the alien is deportable.
(B) GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION OF BLUE CARD STATUS- ...
(b) Rights of Aliens Granted Blue Card Status-
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as otherwise provided under this subsection, an alien in blue card status shall be considered to be an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for purposes of any law other than any provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).
(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall adjust the status of an alien granted blue card status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if the Secretary determines that the following requirements are satisfied:
(i) QUALIFYING EMPLOYMENT- The alien has performed at least--
(I) 5 years of agricultural employment in the United States, for at least 100 work days or 575 hours, but in no case less than 575 hours per year, during the 5-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act; or
(II) 3 years of agricultural employment in the United States, for at least 150 work days or 863 hours, but in no case less than 863 hours per year, during the 5-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(ii) PROOF- An alien may demonstrate compliance with the requirement under clause (i) by submitting--
...
(C) GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL- Any alien granted blue card status who does not apply for adjustment of status under this subsection before the expiration of the application period described in subparagraph (A)(iv), or who fails to meet the other requirements of subparagraph (A) by the end of the applicable period, is deportable and may be removed under section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a).
(D) PAYMENT OF TAXES-
(i) IN GENERAL- Not later than the date on which an alien's status is adjusted under this subsection, the alien shall establish the payment of any applicable Federal tax liability by establishing that--
(I) no such tax liability exists;
(II) all outstanding liabilities have been paid; or
(III) the alien has entered into an agreement for payment of all outstanding liabilities with the Internal Revenue Service.
....
(2) SPOUSES AND MINOR CHILDREN-(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall confer the status of lawful permanent resident on the spouse and minor child of an alien granted status under paragraph (1), including any individual who was a minor child on the date such alien was granted blue card status, if the spouse or minor child applies for such status, or if the principal alien includes the spouse or minor child in an application for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident.
(B) TREATMENT OF SPOUSES AND MINOR CHILDREN BEFORE ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS-
(i) REMOVAL- The spouse and any minor child of an alien granted blue card status may not be removed while such alien maintains such status, except as provided in subparagraph (C).
(ii) TRAVEL- The spouse and any minor child of an alien granted blue card status may travel outside the United States in the same manner as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
(iii) EMPLOYMENT- The spouse of an alien granted blue card status may apply to the Secretary for a work permit to authorize such spouse to engage in any lawful employment in the United States while such alien maintains blue card status.
(C) GROUNDS FOR DENIAL OF ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS AND REMOVAL- The Secretary may deny an alien spouse or child adjustment of status under subparagraph (A) and may remove such spouse or child under section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a) if the spouse or child--
(i) commits an act that makes the alien spouse or child inadmissible to the United States under section 212 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1182), except as provided under subsection (e)(2);
(ii) is convicted of a felony or 3 or more misdemeanors committed in the United States; or
(iii) is convicted of a single misdemeanor for which the actual sentence served is 6 months or longer.
more...
pictures uilding icon png. uilding
coloniel60
08-15 01:32 PM
Some peoples think that they are the smartest world has ever Produced.
When you go for Fedex/USPS Express they takes your Name, Current Address in a page which has Pointer to the TRACKING NO. 1 copy comes to you , 1 copy goes out with Package and 1 Copy gets saved with FEDEX/USPS.
The 3rd copy above is sufficient to straightout any "Potential Liars" :mad:
If a lawyer is mailing the application and he probably is mailing hundreds of applications, he won't give the applicant's address in the USPS senders address. So there is no way to match a receipt to an applicant. Besides USCIS won't know what the contents of the package are.
When you go for Fedex/USPS Express they takes your Name, Current Address in a page which has Pointer to the TRACKING NO. 1 copy comes to you , 1 copy goes out with Package and 1 Copy gets saved with FEDEX/USPS.
The 3rd copy above is sufficient to straightout any "Potential Liars" :mad:
If a lawyer is mailing the application and he probably is mailing hundreds of applications, he won't give the applicant's address in the USPS senders address. So there is no way to match a receipt to an applicant. Besides USCIS won't know what the contents of the package are.
dresses PNG and ICO formats.
ksircar
07-28 03:54 PM
Ignore it. Even I had the same problem. Goahead and certify.
I can not certify the form. Even if I certify it comes back with error and tells me to enter middle initial. Tried couple of times, but without any success.
Dos anyone has any idea?
Thanks.
I can not certify the form. Even if I certify it comes back with error and tells me to enter middle initial. Tried couple of times, but without any success.
Dos anyone has any idea?
Thanks.
more...
makeup Xiao Icon
psaxena
04-14 01:59 PM
The bill states failing to show evidence of your immigrant status, is a misdemeanor and will result an arrest. So this is going to trouble a lot legal residents to prove they are legal and there will be a lot of litigation as a result of this.
See how Mr. Blog feed has omitted the fact that this law is against "unauthorized alien". To a casual observer it would appear that IV supports such endeavors (promoting illegal immigration).
See how Mr. Blog feed has omitted the fact that this law is against "unauthorized alien". To a casual observer it would appear that IV supports such endeavors (promoting illegal immigration).
girlfriend Desktop Building Icons are
hsingh82
06-10 04:46 PM
Realistically ... What if they retrogress enuf to a date when v ver a British colony (rather than sovereign nation) and we change our country to chargeability :confused:?
Good one!
Good one!
hairstyles uilding icon png. mobile icon
dhurinder
05-11 06:22 PM
- How has greencard changed your life after receiving it?
It was a relief. No change on the work or personal side of life. Still at the same job. It pays well (always has) and I like it.
- What did you do on the day you received it?
Called my wife (who was in India). Bought a bottle of 'Blue Label' and polished it off in one night. Skipped the next day at work b'cos of the hangover.
** For people who wonder what happens if your GC is approved when you are in India. My wife was in India when our GC was approved. I did not mail her the GC. She entered US using Advance Parole. At the POE, she was asked if she was aware that her GC was approved. She did say "yes" and she was welcomed into US without any hassles.
- How did the long wait upset your life?
The wait was long (PD : May 2002 , GC AD : June 2007). The initial stage (2002 to 2004) was carefree (not worried about GC. More focussed on establishing career). The middle stage (2005 to 2006) was painful. We were in the I485 stage for almost 3 years. Then the final stage (2006 onwards) was carefree again. We had given up on the GC process and had decided that it will come when it has to come. We even bought a house in 2006 and decided to live life as we always wanted to. And then suddenly the GC arrived in June 2007 (interestingly there was no email .. nor any LUDs).
The only frustrating thing in the I485 stage was the annual renewal for EAD, AP. Fortunately, my employer paid for all that (including spouse). But it was hassle to get the papers ready, fill in the forms, interact with the immigration department ..so on. This was a little irritating every year.
- How did immigrationvoice help you during this long wait?
The immigrationvoice leaders are very inspiring. It is very heartening to see everyone so excited and willing to stand up for a common cause. Of course, there are the occasional "wet towels" in the forums who want to see the negative in everything. But I have seen the IV leaders learn to ignore them.
- Would you like to continue your support to immigration voice and help others waiting?
Sure. We are hard pressed for time. But have contributed financially in the past (anonymously). We believe in doing a deed and not talking about it. (so please do not read more in the financial contribution part). We will continue to send in the few dollars as usual.
- Any advice for everyone?
It is very easy to say that do not let this process affect you. And we are not going to say it. It is like preaching to the choir.
All we can say is "Hang in there". Plan for your future. Have your goals and work towards them. And we hope GC is just one of them.
It was a relief. No change on the work or personal side of life. Still at the same job. It pays well (always has) and I like it.
- What did you do on the day you received it?
Called my wife (who was in India). Bought a bottle of 'Blue Label' and polished it off in one night. Skipped the next day at work b'cos of the hangover.
** For people who wonder what happens if your GC is approved when you are in India. My wife was in India when our GC was approved. I did not mail her the GC. She entered US using Advance Parole. At the POE, she was asked if she was aware that her GC was approved. She did say "yes" and she was welcomed into US without any hassles.
- How did the long wait upset your life?
The wait was long (PD : May 2002 , GC AD : June 2007). The initial stage (2002 to 2004) was carefree (not worried about GC. More focussed on establishing career). The middle stage (2005 to 2006) was painful. We were in the I485 stage for almost 3 years. Then the final stage (2006 onwards) was carefree again. We had given up on the GC process and had decided that it will come when it has to come. We even bought a house in 2006 and decided to live life as we always wanted to. And then suddenly the GC arrived in June 2007 (interestingly there was no email .. nor any LUDs).
The only frustrating thing in the I485 stage was the annual renewal for EAD, AP. Fortunately, my employer paid for all that (including spouse). But it was hassle to get the papers ready, fill in the forms, interact with the immigration department ..so on. This was a little irritating every year.
- How did immigrationvoice help you during this long wait?
The immigrationvoice leaders are very inspiring. It is very heartening to see everyone so excited and willing to stand up for a common cause. Of course, there are the occasional "wet towels" in the forums who want to see the negative in everything. But I have seen the IV leaders learn to ignore them.
- Would you like to continue your support to immigration voice and help others waiting?
Sure. We are hard pressed for time. But have contributed financially in the past (anonymously). We believe in doing a deed and not talking about it. (so please do not read more in the financial contribution part). We will continue to send in the few dollars as usual.
- Any advice for everyone?
It is very easy to say that do not let this process affect you. And we are not going to say it. It is like preaching to the choir.
All we can say is "Hang in there". Plan for your future. Have your goals and work towards them. And we hope GC is just one of them.
asindu
07-14 10:03 PM
IN RESPONSE to AKRED: My dads priority date is july 2005, so how does that give me amnesty...he applied under PERM!!! Btw if you do not support DREAM ACT than you shouldn't be on this forum...
alterego
12-06 11:10 PM
I am not sure why so many people so naively jump to the defence of India without looking at the context in which things are said.
Most Indians love India and that includes most NRIs. If there was any doubt just look at the support the NRI PAC gave in pushing the nuclear deal.
The main point here is that this thread was started on the premise that the negotiation of this deal to transfer social security payments was somehow good news for our money. I think one can disagree with this and still love India.
Frankly, if my choice was between foregoing the money here and that money going for something good such as infrastructure development in India, I and I am sure most Indians here will happily sign off on those funds.
Point however is I do not see it as good news for our social security money.
Most Indians love India and that includes most NRIs. If there was any doubt just look at the support the NRI PAC gave in pushing the nuclear deal.
The main point here is that this thread was started on the premise that the negotiation of this deal to transfer social security payments was somehow good news for our money. I think one can disagree with this and still love India.
Frankly, if my choice was between foregoing the money here and that money going for something good such as infrastructure development in India, I and I am sure most Indians here will happily sign off on those funds.
Point however is I do not see it as good news for our social security money.
No comments:
Post a Comment