purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
wallpaper robert-mapplethorpe-debbie-
Karthikthiru
08-01 11:16 PM
We all have to keep assuming like this only. The only way is to lobby and increase the the VISA numbers per year. So we all should show up on the Sep 13th rally and show our strength
Karthik
Karthik
desi3933
02-21 08:29 AM
......
My concern is (1) that when the time comes to adjudicate his 485, someone might look back and say err, ten years ago there was a problem... I hope it won't happen, but I just want to be safe and my understanding is that returning with a stamped H4 would cure this and (2) that if we decide to go for the stamping, whether someone in the embassy would dig up the records and cause us problems.
Thanks for the insight.
For employment based I-485, out of status is looked only since last entry into US on visa. Even then out-of-status (since last entry) for upto 180 days is forgiven as per section 245(k).
Here is my old post dated 09/09/2008 on this topic
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum5-all-other-green-card-issues/21386-ead-status-when-ead-renewal-delayed.html#post286704
.....
Section 245(k) allows adjustment of status if person is out of status for less than 180 calendar days since last legal entry into the US. Entering US on AP does NOT count as legal entry.
.....
And, my last point, out of status rule applies ONLY to applicants 17 years or older. so your son is ok.
In short, aal izz well.
_______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
My concern is (1) that when the time comes to adjudicate his 485, someone might look back and say err, ten years ago there was a problem... I hope it won't happen, but I just want to be safe and my understanding is that returning with a stamped H4 would cure this and (2) that if we decide to go for the stamping, whether someone in the embassy would dig up the records and cause us problems.
Thanks for the insight.
For employment based I-485, out of status is looked only since last entry into US on visa. Even then out-of-status (since last entry) for upto 180 days is forgiven as per section 245(k).
Here is my old post dated 09/09/2008 on this topic
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum5-all-other-green-card-issues/21386-ead-status-when-ead-renewal-delayed.html#post286704
.....
Section 245(k) allows adjustment of status if person is out of status for less than 180 calendar days since last legal entry into the US. Entering US on AP does NOT count as legal entry.
.....
And, my last point, out of status rule applies ONLY to applicants 17 years or older. so your son is ok.
In short, aal izz well.
_______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
2011 Patti Smith and Robert
GCcomesoon
08-01 12:31 PM
Hi
I have read the thread for FP & biometrics.In my case 485 was approved in April this year & later in May I got the biometrics done. Due to which my physical card delivery got delayed. Till date I haven't received it but the passport is stamped for travel & employment purposes.
I had recent LUD of card mailed yesterday , so hopefully in next few days I should get it. My point is if you haven't received your FP/Bio then call USCIS , talk to IO, take info pass & get it scheduled & see to it that the data is correctly uploaded to your case by calling up again.
This would reduce all the possible delay.
Thanks
GCcomesoon
I have read the thread for FP & biometrics.In my case 485 was approved in April this year & later in May I got the biometrics done. Due to which my physical card delivery got delayed. Till date I haven't received it but the passport is stamped for travel & employment purposes.
I had recent LUD of card mailed yesterday , so hopefully in next few days I should get it. My point is if you haven't received your FP/Bio then call USCIS , talk to IO, take info pass & get it scheduled & see to it that the data is correctly uploaded to your case by calling up again.
This would reduce all the possible delay.
Thanks
GCcomesoon
more...
pasupuleti
09-25 05:25 PM
It was't a federal loan. Also it is just co-signing for a citizen.
About discover card, i told them it is just thier loss.:)
Discover Card is a bit picky...I applied a second time around and they approved it.
Student loans - federal loans require full citizenship.
About discover card, i told them it is just thier loss.:)
Discover Card is a bit picky...I applied a second time around and they approved it.
Student loans - federal loans require full citizenship.
pappu
11-19 11:11 AM
They posted it sometime back: But this does not talk about applications like II40 that were filed last year and still pending for some people in NSC. I140 for EB2 NIW is as late as August 01, 2006.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=67257de128ce5110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D
Advisory on Processing Times
In the past few months, USCIS has received a significant increase in the number of applications filed. As a result, processing times will likely become longer for applications filed after June 1, 2007.
USCIS is working hard to address the increased volume and will continue to provide additional information on application processing times as it becomes available. For more information, please see our Frequently Asked Questions on receipt delays.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=67257de128ce5110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D
Advisory on Processing Times
In the past few months, USCIS has received a significant increase in the number of applications filed. As a result, processing times will likely become longer for applications filed after June 1, 2007.
USCIS is working hard to address the increased volume and will continue to provide additional information on application processing times as it becomes available. For more information, please see our Frequently Asked Questions on receipt delays.
more...
Bpositive
01-03 01:23 PM
I am trying to get a handle on recent 221g processing times..it seems like a routine exercise and we are submitting the requested information..however, if it is delayed for too long, we may use advance parole..
2010 Robert Mapplethorpe
raysaikat
01-29 12:22 PM
My sister got her H-1B in 2008 but didn't work for her employer due to health problems. After about 3 to 4 months she left for India and recovered. Over there she joined a multi-national who sent her on B1 this year. (She already had traveled on B1 from a very old employer and used that).
Now after coming here on B1, she has a job offer from an Indian MNC. My understanding is that the MNC will have to file two petitions:
1. A Change of Status from B1 to H1B
2. A I-129 requesting H-1B (or H-1B transfer)
Question -
a) Can she start working for the Indian MNC after filing both of these two, or will we have to wait for both approvals?
She must wait for H1-B approval (I-797) form. In addition, if the I-797 does not have an attached I-94, then she must go out of the country, get H1-B stamped (if she does not have one) and reenter on H1-B VISA before she can start working.
b) Do we require paystubs from the original H-1B employer from 2008 for H-1B transfer? My understanding is that paystubs are usually required to establish one is currently in status, but she is on B1 right now and not H1B.
Attorneys, please advise.
Much thanks in advance,
P
Now after coming here on B1, she has a job offer from an Indian MNC. My understanding is that the MNC will have to file two petitions:
1. A Change of Status from B1 to H1B
2. A I-129 requesting H-1B (or H-1B transfer)
Question -
a) Can she start working for the Indian MNC after filing both of these two, or will we have to wait for both approvals?
She must wait for H1-B approval (I-797) form. In addition, if the I-797 does not have an attached I-94, then she must go out of the country, get H1-B stamped (if she does not have one) and reenter on H1-B VISA before she can start working.
b) Do we require paystubs from the original H-1B employer from 2008 for H-1B transfer? My understanding is that paystubs are usually required to establish one is currently in status, but she is on B1 right now and not H1B.
Attorneys, please advise.
Much thanks in advance,
P
more...
CADude
11-20 11:53 PM
I sent too..
message sent to CBS60 minutes...
message sent to CBS60 minutes...
hair Rocker Patti Smith was
Danko
01-06 07:36 AM
I have no interest in fragmenting the site by covering new topics that are less designer focused and more for developers.
Sounds like a conflict of interest then:
kirupa.com - Shocked Resource for Making Designers better Developers!
:beam:
Sounds like a conflict of interest then:
kirupa.com - Shocked Resource for Making Designers better Developers!
:beam:
more...
satyasaich
10-03 12:36 PM
Even PA DMV also adopted more troublesome procedure of giving DL to the LEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
Even after having VALID EAD DOCUMENT, verifying ORIGINAL USCIS documents and ORIGINAL SOCIAL SECURITY CARD why DMV want to check status with USCIS again?
What do they get out of that process?? Seems like another way of harassing LEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
Why redundant procedures???... Why to waste tax payers money with these kinds of redundant policies??
Why individual states like PA, GA and SC adopting these policies??
Please share your experiences from other states if any similar sort.
Same is the case with Missouri. Earlier in one of the DMVs ( in the same city of St.louis) one official just bluntly denied to consider a valid EAD card, where as 5 miles on the otherside of city, same day, same deparment issued a paper License and sent all the copies of 'Oroginal' documents such as EAD card, SS Card to USCIS for "verification"
my personal opinion is not that they are trying to harass, but rather lack of proper directions
Even after having VALID EAD DOCUMENT, verifying ORIGINAL USCIS documents and ORIGINAL SOCIAL SECURITY CARD why DMV want to check status with USCIS again?
What do they get out of that process?? Seems like another way of harassing LEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
Why redundant procedures???... Why to waste tax payers money with these kinds of redundant policies??
Why individual states like PA, GA and SC adopting these policies??
Please share your experiences from other states if any similar sort.
Same is the case with Missouri. Earlier in one of the DMVs ( in the same city of St.louis) one official just bluntly denied to consider a valid EAD card, where as 5 miles on the otherside of city, same day, same deparment issued a paper License and sent all the copies of 'Oroginal' documents such as EAD card, SS Card to USCIS for "verification"
my personal opinion is not that they are trying to harass, but rather lack of proper directions
hot patti-smith-robert-
same_old_guy
11-10 03:42 PM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3779
more...
house Patti Smith#39;s memoir paints a
sparky_jones
12-10 01:28 PM
I recall receiving only 2 copies of AP from TSC. Is that normal?
tattoo Robert Mapplethorpe: An early
cagedcactus
06-11 12:53 PM
Hmmm....
If you watched the way he won last two terms as President, you wouldnt doubt anything about this man. If he says "see you at the bill signing", then he WILL see you at the bill signing.
We better move quick and start pulling every string that is in our control, or else it will be too late.
If you watched the way he won last two terms as President, you wouldnt doubt anything about this man. If he says "see you at the bill signing", then he WILL see you at the bill signing.
We better move quick and start pulling every string that is in our control, or else it will be too late.
more...
pictures Robert Mapplethorpe, Patti
nareshg
10-05 06:01 PM
they responded today to USCIS, nothing much here I guess...
one of the forms had my birth date wrong, so USCIS was asking for the actual birth date.
one of the forms had my birth date wrong, so USCIS was asking for the actual birth date.
dresses Patti Smith and Robert
PHANI_TAVVALA
12-02 04:17 PM
>>>You cannot transfer to H4, since the 6 year limit is for the "H" category<<<<
I thought this rule changed couple of years back. H4 time is not considered towards H1B anymore and generally the spouses who were on h4 became eligible for full 6 years of H1B. Isn't this right? Sorry for testing your patience with too many questions. Generally I am a cool head but I guess I have been way overcool on this issue.
I thought this rule changed couple of years back. H4 time is not considered towards H1B anymore and generally the spouses who were on h4 became eligible for full 6 years of H1B. Isn't this right? Sorry for testing your patience with too many questions. Generally I am a cool head but I guess I have been way overcool on this issue.
more...
makeup Patti Smith, by Robert
pardesh
02-01 08:59 PM
I recently entered the US using AP, basically she would be abandoning her F1 as soon as she enters using her AP. Her status changes from International Student to Pending Immigrant (or something similar). BTW carry at least two original copies of AP. Even if she plans to work on EAD at school or later after graduation, it just makes sense to enter using her AP (think..).
girlfriend Freja Does Patti Smith for
HaveQuestions
04-13 01:43 PM
I have got an H1B reject because LCA did not include the client location. So most of you who say its ok to work elsewhere without an LCA change, you have been lucky!
hairstyles Robert Mapplethorpe#39;s last
phillyag
05-30 04:43 PM
2. I140 receipt
3. I485 receipt
Would photocopies do for the above 2 docs ?
3. I485 receipt
Would photocopies do for the above 2 docs ?
PHANI_TAVVALA
12-02 08:06 AM
Hello Guys, I am in dilemma about applying for my greencard. I cam to U.S in 1999 ON F-1 and later converted to H1B after working on CPT and OPT. My 6th year is going to end Spet 30th 2009. I have never been too inclined about settling over in U.S and I didn't care to apply for my Greencard. I am in the process of completing my part-time M.B.A and would like to extend my stay by another year or 2 (that is end of 2010 or 2011).
My question is: I have all my papers ready to be submitted to my lawyer to apply for labor certification. But considering that it will take 3-4 months for advertisement and other stuff and probably another 3 months or more for getting labor cleared, I am wondering if I will be able to apply for I-140 and therby H1B 7th year extension. Have I runt out of time? Should I even apply for my labor or just convert to F-1 and wrap up my studies before returning back? I will greatly appreciate your suggestions.
My question is: I have all my papers ready to be submitted to my lawyer to apply for labor certification. But considering that it will take 3-4 months for advertisement and other stuff and probably another 3 months or more for getting labor cleared, I am wondering if I will be able to apply for I-140 and therby H1B 7th year extension. Have I runt out of time? Should I even apply for my labor or just convert to F-1 and wrap up my studies before returning back? I will greatly appreciate your suggestions.
ebizash
07-24 05:06 PM
Sanjay:
Most likely you will not have to do anything further and your application will be approved when the Visa Bulletin reaches your priority date. However it will depend on how long it is before that date is reached. you may have to be fingerprinted again, as the fingerprint checks are only valid for 18 months. Also, if the wait is long enough, USCIS may want you to go for another interview to make sure you are still eligible.
I heard contrary to what you mentioned about the fingerprints being valid only for 18 months. I think someone had posted a document from USCIS site that said that they have digitized FPs and can reuse them without having to do fingerprinting every 18 months. I will try to search for that document and will post if I find it
Most likely you will not have to do anything further and your application will be approved when the Visa Bulletin reaches your priority date. However it will depend on how long it is before that date is reached. you may have to be fingerprinted again, as the fingerprint checks are only valid for 18 months. Also, if the wait is long enough, USCIS may want you to go for another interview to make sure you are still eligible.
I heard contrary to what you mentioned about the fingerprints being valid only for 18 months. I think someone had posted a document from USCIS site that said that they have digitized FPs and can reuse them without having to do fingerprinting every 18 months. I will try to search for that document and will post if I find it
No comments:
Post a Comment