Dhundhun
03-14 07:22 PM
I was offered a ticket to India without me asking them (big american corp). But since I was not going back and found another job within a short time, it was of no use to me. They will usually buy a ticket for you, won't give you money directly.
If company has brought you from India and terminated the job, as a part of filing H1B obligation, they are supposed to give a ticket to go back - but not cash.
If company has brought you from India and terminated the job, as a part of filing H1B obligation, they are supposed to give a ticket to go back - but not cash.
wallpaper Rey Mysterio
desighee
02-25 07:22 PM
** You should Eat only in McDonalds. If USCIS finds evidence that you eat in other places, they will revoke your H1B
** You should Drive only Toyota and Honda cars. If USCIS finds evidence that you were actively searching for other cars, they will revoke your L1
** You should Buy groceries only in Walmart. If USCIS finds evidence that you wish to buy from other stores, they will issue RFE on your I-140
** You should Drink only Cola. If USCIS finds evidence that you think of other drinks, they will deny your I-485
Add many more, there are 101 ways to torture a non-immigrant.
** You should only pee once. If USCIS finds evidence that , they will deny your I-485:)
** You should Drive only Toyota and Honda cars. If USCIS finds evidence that you were actively searching for other cars, they will revoke your L1
** You should Buy groceries only in Walmart. If USCIS finds evidence that you wish to buy from other stores, they will issue RFE on your I-140
** You should Drink only Cola. If USCIS finds evidence that you think of other drinks, they will deny your I-485
Add many more, there are 101 ways to torture a non-immigrant.
** You should only pee once. If USCIS finds evidence that , they will deny your I-485:)
bigboy007
11-05 10:50 PM
OK i e-filed and it showed Nebraska address generating LIN no's instead of MSC etc , it prompted me where my 485 is and i think since it is at NSC it routed automatically to NSC
2011 Rey Mysterio Wallpapers
n4nature
02-05 11:59 AM
Hello,
I graduated with a MS degree and I had 4 years of experience (on H1B) as a Test Engineer. I changed the job to a Software Engineer after 4 years. I am now applying for my labor certification for EB2 category. Do I have to apply as MS + 4 years of experience as a Test Engineer position only? (Since my past experience is as a Test Engineer?) OR Can I apply MS + 0 years of experience as a Software Engineer?
Or is there any other combination, that would help approve labor in EB2?
I am aware about the "MS degree requirement" in the position requirements for the case to qualify in the EB2 category and the employer is willing to do that.
Thanks in advance for all your insights.
I graduated with a MS degree and I had 4 years of experience (on H1B) as a Test Engineer. I changed the job to a Software Engineer after 4 years. I am now applying for my labor certification for EB2 category. Do I have to apply as MS + 4 years of experience as a Test Engineer position only? (Since my past experience is as a Test Engineer?) OR Can I apply MS + 0 years of experience as a Software Engineer?
Or is there any other combination, that would help approve labor in EB2?
I am aware about the "MS degree requirement" in the position requirements for the case to qualify in the EB2 category and the employer is willing to do that.
Thanks in advance for all your insights.
more...
viveksri
02-28 12:08 PM
Thanks Guys,
I really appreciate all your input.
VS
I really appreciate all your input.
VS
xu1
08-03 08:22 AM
The first thing to consider is the job requirement. It must require a minimum of a master's degree or a Bachelor degree plus 5 years progressive experience. If the job description has that requirement, and you have the required background, then it can be filed as EB2. In your case the job description states a minimum of a bachelor's degree and 3 or 4 years experience. This would only qualify as EB3, regarless of your credentials.
I think I missed the part of "- BS Degree plus 3-5 Yrs experience or ..." in the job description.. I remember reading something on the forum, and it can be paraphrased as 'if you have an -OR- in the experience requirement, that spells trouble'. In your case, a BS plus 3 years (rather than 5) would also qualify, so you may not be able to do EB2.
On the other hand, so long as your new employer supports your immigration filing, you may ask them to prepare a new case for you, stripping the BS+3/5 requirements.. good luck!
I think I missed the part of "- BS Degree plus 3-5 Yrs experience or ..." in the job description.. I remember reading something on the forum, and it can be paraphrased as 'if you have an -OR- in the experience requirement, that spells trouble'. In your case, a BS plus 3 years (rather than 5) would also qualify, so you may not be able to do EB2.
On the other hand, so long as your new employer supports your immigration filing, you may ask them to prepare a new case for you, stripping the BS+3/5 requirements.. good luck!
more...
GCard_Dream
07-13 01:22 PM
With new threads being created every minute, it's hard to keep track of relevant threads in "Recent Forum Posts" section of the homepage. I am not saying that some threads are irrelevant but there are bunch of threads talking about the same issue or news. Lot of members create new threads without realizing that the topic has been discussed already in some other thread. Some threads are personal in nature (nothing wrong with that) but not all members will benefit from that and so on....
In light of that, I was wondering if there is a way for core team to identify the top 5 or so useful threads and always keep it on the top of the "Recent Forum Posts". All other threads can be displayed further down. This will just allow those top 5 threads (like for media drive, IV action items, breaking news, etc) to be visible on the homepage all the time and members will have easy access to those threads.
I am not a webpage designer to I don't know how difficult that would be to implement but just a suggestion.
In light of that, I was wondering if there is a way for core team to identify the top 5 or so useful threads and always keep it on the top of the "Recent Forum Posts". All other threads can be displayed further down. This will just allow those top 5 threads (like for media drive, IV action items, breaking news, etc) to be visible on the homepage all the time and members will have easy access to those threads.
I am not a webpage designer to I don't know how difficult that would be to implement but just a suggestion.
2010 mysterio wallpaper
DDD
11-07 03:58 PM
Instead of a ps7 section...I think we could do a imaging section or something generic....Because I know some cool tricks with fireworks mx and PSP7........Do people still use paint shop pro....I know i do
Oh mdipi if you use this technique....I would blur the image allot higher than you did in your example....Because I can tell it is a sunset.....unless that is what you wanted. It works better when u cannot tell what it was.:cowboy:
Oh mdipi if you use this technique....I would blur the image allot higher than you did in your example....Because I can tell it is a sunset.....unless that is what you wanted. It works better when u cannot tell what it was.:cowboy:
more...
sachug22
07-21 05:12 PM
As it is mentioned in the RFE, I have to reply with the sealed envlope and copy of letter and the yellow paper attached. I did not receive any yellow paper along with the mail. Did any one received like this ?
The gold coversheet is sent to lawyer, you only get a copy of the RFE letter. You can still respond to RFE without this letter just make sure you provide all the details (Receipt number, Alien number, RFE refernce, copy of RFE) when responding to this RFE.
The gold coversheet is sent to lawyer, you only get a copy of the RFE letter. You can still respond to RFE without this letter just make sure you provide all the details (Receipt number, Alien number, RFE refernce, copy of RFE) when responding to this RFE.
hair Rey Mysterio#39;s Wallpaper
lost_in_migration
09-22 09:35 AM
This was a good one!!
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-inline_21edi.ART.State.Edition1.427fa5a.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-inline_21edi.ART.State.Edition1.427fa5a.html
more...
SK2007
07-11 02:51 PM
Just keep waiting. My PD was current for months now, but my 140 is still pending. just keep waiting.
hot Rey Mysterio Wallpaper
vedicman
01-03 09:20 AM
NEW DELHI: India may drag the United States to the World Trade Organization , or WTO, over its decision to raise professional visa fees for an extended period and impose a 2% import levy on goods and services sold to the US government, a senior official has said.
The commerce department is studying details of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 which aims to increase visa fee and import taxes on supplies to government to set up a $4.3 billion fund for sharing the healthcare burden of those affected by 9/11 terror attack in New York.
The Senate passed the bill last week and India will soon take a decision on approaching the WTO, commerce secretary Rahul Khullar told ET on Monday.
The final bill, which is now with US President Barak Obama to be signed into law, spells more trouble for Indian industry than the one initially proposed as it imposes an additional levy of 2% on all goods and services sold by Indian companies to the US government and extends the period for higher visa fees from 2014 to 2021.
India has been trying for months to persuade its third largest trade partner to revoke the proposal to increase H1B and L1 visa fees as it could raise the cost of Indian IT companies operating in the US by $200 million annually.
"We do not rush into disputes, but beyond a point, patience does run out," Dr Khullar said, adding that it may be time for the country to explore the option of settling the issue at the WTO.
The first step would be to seek consultations with the US at the WTO on the contents of the bill and if the matter doesn't get resolved, a dispute settlement panel could be set up, the secretary said.
The 2% tax will be levied on countries that are not signatories to the government procurement agreement (GPA) of the WTO, including India.
The commerce department is studying details of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 which aims to increase visa fee and import taxes on supplies to government to set up a $4.3 billion fund for sharing the healthcare burden of those affected by 9/11 terror attack in New York.
The Senate passed the bill last week and India will soon take a decision on approaching the WTO, commerce secretary Rahul Khullar told ET on Monday.
The final bill, which is now with US President Barak Obama to be signed into law, spells more trouble for Indian industry than the one initially proposed as it imposes an additional levy of 2% on all goods and services sold by Indian companies to the US government and extends the period for higher visa fees from 2014 to 2021.
India has been trying for months to persuade its third largest trade partner to revoke the proposal to increase H1B and L1 visa fees as it could raise the cost of Indian IT companies operating in the US by $200 million annually.
"We do not rush into disputes, but beyond a point, patience does run out," Dr Khullar said, adding that it may be time for the country to explore the option of settling the issue at the WTO.
The first step would be to seek consultations with the US at the WTO on the contents of the bill and if the matter doesn't get resolved, a dispute settlement panel could be set up, the secretary said.
The 2% tax will be levied on countries that are not signatories to the government procurement agreement (GPA) of the WTO, including India.
more...
house mysterio 1
FRUSTRATED
07-07 03:00 PM
The information quoted by morpheus is quite correct. you can attend board meetings as a director although honorory or because of your extensive shareholding. you cannot be a salaried, contracted or basically compensated director or board member. you cannot take salaries but can take dividends (profit). you can also apply for any licenses or authorizations required for the business in your name. just make sure you dont write anything off in your name to save the taxes on the dividends because that will show your active involvement (day to day) which you cannot have.
I owned business and had state and federal licenses when I was on F-1.
And very frankly if you have any innovative ideas are an entrepreneur immigration and visa is the last thing you should worry about. There are many ways to to that and if you have a trustworthy citizen or GC holder as a partner it is very easy. just concentrate on your ideas and plans. contact a lawyer, do some reading of IRS pubs, and immigration law.
I am an entreprenur myself and I wish you very good luck and success.
Please consult an immigraiton attorney. There is a lot of misinformation in this area. I believe several of the posts above are incorrect.
My immigration attorney has advised me I can invest in and own anything - LLC, C Corp - as long as I don't take an active role in the business. Once you become active, you need an employment visa e.g. H1 to cover that. Since moving to the US I have owned and/or founded a couple of companies. I filed a visa so I could actively manage one of them. The others I am just a passive investor. One interesting question is can you attend a board meeting and still be a passive investor? Personally I think so, because board membership is not employment. Some may prefer to err on the conservative side.
Income from activites like Google Adsense or royalties is a grey area. It would make an interesting case, because it's very hard for the USCIS to say it is 'employment' rather than passive income. Any legal advice in this area is just an opinion. According to my attorney, there are no USCIS memoranda or case law on the subject.
Morph
I owned business and had state and federal licenses when I was on F-1.
And very frankly if you have any innovative ideas are an entrepreneur immigration and visa is the last thing you should worry about. There are many ways to to that and if you have a trustworthy citizen or GC holder as a partner it is very easy. just concentrate on your ideas and plans. contact a lawyer, do some reading of IRS pubs, and immigration law.
I am an entreprenur myself and I wish you very good luck and success.
Please consult an immigraiton attorney. There is a lot of misinformation in this area. I believe several of the posts above are incorrect.
My immigration attorney has advised me I can invest in and own anything - LLC, C Corp - as long as I don't take an active role in the business. Once you become active, you need an employment visa e.g. H1 to cover that. Since moving to the US I have owned and/or founded a couple of companies. I filed a visa so I could actively manage one of them. The others I am just a passive investor. One interesting question is can you attend a board meeting and still be a passive investor? Personally I think so, because board membership is not employment. Some may prefer to err on the conservative side.
Income from activites like Google Adsense or royalties is a grey area. It would make an interesting case, because it's very hard for the USCIS to say it is 'employment' rather than passive income. Any legal advice in this area is just an opinion. According to my attorney, there are no USCIS memoranda or case law on the subject.
Morph
tattoo rey mysterio wallpapers.
Blog Feeds
09-12 09:40 AM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
Today's guest blogger is William Stock (http://www.klaskolaw.com/our-team.php?action=view&id=3), member of AILA's Board of Governors and partner in the law firm Klasko, Rulon, Stock & Seltzer
Employers who rely on foreign nationals to provide needed expertise in their workforce - from technical programmers to biochemists to wind turbine engineers - should take notice of three troubling trends which are becoming clearer as the discussion about employment-based immigration reform gets drowned out by the ongoing debate about comprehensive immigration reform.
The first trend is captured in this blog post (http://www.klaskolaw.com/our-team.php?action=view&id=3) by Vivek Wadhwa, a professor at Duke University who has studied high-tech entrepreneurship extensively. Current backlogs in the employment-based immigration categories trap foreign workers in the original job for which they were sponsored, meaning their companies cannot promote them to positions where their experience and skills can best be used. Nor can the workers take the initiative to start their own companies - while a small company may be able to sponsor one of its owners as an H-1B, a green card is much less likely in that situation. Wadhwa points out that eliminating the green card backlog (a major part of which consists of cases trapped by bureaucratic delays that should have been approved in past years� quotas, which do not carry over from year to year) would free an enormous amount of human capital to innovate and create the next generation of companies that will drive economic growth in the US.
More troubling, a combination of the green card quotas (which tie foreign nationals to one specific job) and rules for terminated H-1B workers (described in detail here (http://www.klaskolaw.com/articles.php?action=view&id=8)) are driving away the most talented foreign graduates of our universities. Recent surveys and profiles of foreign nationals in the US - particularly Indian engineers in Silicon Valley (http://www.sanfranmag.com/story/home-where-brain) - have highlighted an increase in the number of H-1B who are opting to return home, either from necessity or because the Indian economy now offers them opportunities to start or manage companies that the U.S. can�t match because of their visa situation. While opponents of high-tech immigration love to argue that H-1B visas allow tech workers to come to the US and learn skills that they can use back home, the fact is that most tech workers would prefer to use those skills in the US - and that immigrants are a key part of the Silicon Valley start-up community (given how many start-ups have at least one immigrant founder).
The most troubling trend, however, will not be immediate in its impact. For the first time in five years, US graduate programs reported a drop (http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/aug2009/bs20090820_960342.htm) in the number of international applications to their programs and the number of accepted applicants who chose to come to their programs. These students are the best and brightest from their countries, and when they choose to go to other countries rather than the US, we lose out not only on the tuition dollars they would have spent (at rates higher than out-of-state students pay), but also on their talents for companies in the US.
While these trends are troubling, they are not irreversible. What it will take, however, is a rational reform of our employment-based immigration system to recognize the contributions these immigrants make, and the national interest in providing a welcome mat to them.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-8233644330835442863?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/09/americas-shrinking-immigration.html)
Today's guest blogger is William Stock (http://www.klaskolaw.com/our-team.php?action=view&id=3), member of AILA's Board of Governors and partner in the law firm Klasko, Rulon, Stock & Seltzer
Employers who rely on foreign nationals to provide needed expertise in their workforce - from technical programmers to biochemists to wind turbine engineers - should take notice of three troubling trends which are becoming clearer as the discussion about employment-based immigration reform gets drowned out by the ongoing debate about comprehensive immigration reform.
The first trend is captured in this blog post (http://www.klaskolaw.com/our-team.php?action=view&id=3) by Vivek Wadhwa, a professor at Duke University who has studied high-tech entrepreneurship extensively. Current backlogs in the employment-based immigration categories trap foreign workers in the original job for which they were sponsored, meaning their companies cannot promote them to positions where their experience and skills can best be used. Nor can the workers take the initiative to start their own companies - while a small company may be able to sponsor one of its owners as an H-1B, a green card is much less likely in that situation. Wadhwa points out that eliminating the green card backlog (a major part of which consists of cases trapped by bureaucratic delays that should have been approved in past years� quotas, which do not carry over from year to year) would free an enormous amount of human capital to innovate and create the next generation of companies that will drive economic growth in the US.
More troubling, a combination of the green card quotas (which tie foreign nationals to one specific job) and rules for terminated H-1B workers (described in detail here (http://www.klaskolaw.com/articles.php?action=view&id=8)) are driving away the most talented foreign graduates of our universities. Recent surveys and profiles of foreign nationals in the US - particularly Indian engineers in Silicon Valley (http://www.sanfranmag.com/story/home-where-brain) - have highlighted an increase in the number of H-1B who are opting to return home, either from necessity or because the Indian economy now offers them opportunities to start or manage companies that the U.S. can�t match because of their visa situation. While opponents of high-tech immigration love to argue that H-1B visas allow tech workers to come to the US and learn skills that they can use back home, the fact is that most tech workers would prefer to use those skills in the US - and that immigrants are a key part of the Silicon Valley start-up community (given how many start-ups have at least one immigrant founder).
The most troubling trend, however, will not be immediate in its impact. For the first time in five years, US graduate programs reported a drop (http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/aug2009/bs20090820_960342.htm) in the number of international applications to their programs and the number of accepted applicants who chose to come to their programs. These students are the best and brightest from their countries, and when they choose to go to other countries rather than the US, we lose out not only on the tuition dollars they would have spent (at rates higher than out-of-state students pay), but also on their talents for companies in the US.
While these trends are troubling, they are not irreversible. What it will take, however, is a rational reform of our employment-based immigration system to recognize the contributions these immigrants make, and the national interest in providing a welcome mat to them.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-8233644330835442863?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/09/americas-shrinking-immigration.html)
more...
pictures rey mysterio wallpapers.
Roger Binny
06-06 08:47 AM
Which service center your case is in ?
dresses Rey Mysterio photos
Blog Feeds
10-15 06:30 PM
[Federal Register: October 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 192)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
makeup Rey Mysterio: Ignite the
EndlessWait
07-09 01:08 PM
Interesting - CNN has Sanjay Gupta, Kiran Chetri etc... all highly skilled Asian Americans and still endorse Loo Doggs
lets not pick few desi names..by the way those are indian americans and lets not expect them to endorse us. They are just another american trying not to discuss about our issues for the same reason Lou Dobbs won't.
Ofcourse its protectionism for those who thought its a fair game!
lets not pick few desi names..by the way those are indian americans and lets not expect them to endorse us. They are just another american trying not to discuss about our issues for the same reason Lou Dobbs won't.
Ofcourse its protectionism for those who thought its a fair game!
girlfriend rey misterio wallpapers.
fxok425
01-09 11:44 PM
Are you joking? Then I will ask my husband apply for NIW. I hate my job!!!! Can not stand woking in this profession full time for another 5 years!!!!!
hairstyles Rey Misterio
cdeneo
01-11 04:39 AM
Thanks so much for your feedback on this query - this is really helpful.
I am a resident of Washington state and would really appreciate any additional information you can share with me regarding eligibility and application for UC benefits here (documentation required (A# required?), other application requirements to be aware of, etc). My I-140 is approved and I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days and I am currently working on my EAD.
Thanks again for your help with this query, I look forward to hearing from you.
There are really two questions here. First, are you eligible for unemployment compensation? And second, will applying for unemployment compensation adversely impact your application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident?
The answer to the first question is controlled by the law of the particular state in which you worked and/or reside. In theory, to be eligible one must have worked long enough that an adequate amount of UC insurance was paid into the UC system, AND one must be willing and ABLE to accept new employment. The law varies from state to state with respect to whether someone in your situation qualifies as "ABLE" to accept new employment. If you let me know where you reside and work, I can try to provide further guidance as to eligibility for UC benefits.
As to the second question, (assuming your I-140 has been approved and your I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days) under the INA, when your PD is reached and your I-485 is adjudicated, you are required to have the intention to take up an offer of permanent full time employment in the same or similar occupation for which your LC was granted. This is a prospective requirement, and your employment status prior to the actual grant of AOS is relevant only to the extent that it supports or undercuts your ability to prove that you have an appropriate offer of full time employment which you intend to take up. There is no requirement that you be employed while you are waiting for your priority date to become current and your I-485 to be adjudicated. However, being unemployed or employed in an entirely unrelated occupation could trigger USCIS to perform a more searching inquiry into the bona fides of the prospective AC21 qualifying job offer and your intention to accept it.
To the best of my knowledge, USCIS is not notified when an AOS applicant applies for UC. Similarly, I am not aware of any cases where an UC claim triggered an RFE. Nevertheless, it would be prudent to act on the assumption that USCIS is aware of UC claims and be well prepared to prove one's intention to take up a bona fide offer of AC 21 qualifying employment once your PD is reached.
I am a resident of Washington state and would really appreciate any additional information you can share with me regarding eligibility and application for UC benefits here (documentation required (A# required?), other application requirements to be aware of, etc). My I-140 is approved and I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days and I am currently working on my EAD.
Thanks again for your help with this query, I look forward to hearing from you.
There are really two questions here. First, are you eligible for unemployment compensation? And second, will applying for unemployment compensation adversely impact your application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident?
The answer to the first question is controlled by the law of the particular state in which you worked and/or reside. In theory, to be eligible one must have worked long enough that an adequate amount of UC insurance was paid into the UC system, AND one must be willing and ABLE to accept new employment. The law varies from state to state with respect to whether someone in your situation qualifies as "ABLE" to accept new employment. If you let me know where you reside and work, I can try to provide further guidance as to eligibility for UC benefits.
As to the second question, (assuming your I-140 has been approved and your I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days) under the INA, when your PD is reached and your I-485 is adjudicated, you are required to have the intention to take up an offer of permanent full time employment in the same or similar occupation for which your LC was granted. This is a prospective requirement, and your employment status prior to the actual grant of AOS is relevant only to the extent that it supports or undercuts your ability to prove that you have an appropriate offer of full time employment which you intend to take up. There is no requirement that you be employed while you are waiting for your priority date to become current and your I-485 to be adjudicated. However, being unemployed or employed in an entirely unrelated occupation could trigger USCIS to perform a more searching inquiry into the bona fides of the prospective AC21 qualifying job offer and your intention to accept it.
To the best of my knowledge, USCIS is not notified when an AOS applicant applies for UC. Similarly, I am not aware of any cases where an UC claim triggered an RFE. Nevertheless, it would be prudent to act on the assumption that USCIS is aware of UC claims and be well prepared to prove one's intention to take up a bona fide offer of AC 21 qualifying employment once your PD is reached.
askreddy
02-23 10:38 AM
Hi
We are in AOS pending status.iam on EAD.
After seeing the economy Iam planning to send my wife to india. She is pregnant ( 2 months).
Now I have job and in future if I get into any trouble with project Etc.. I need to pay the medical insurance and will have lot of financial issues.
How difficult is to bring new infant to US from India while our AOS is pending and apply 485.
( Visito visa Etc..)
Any suggestions.
Thanks
We are in AOS pending status.iam on EAD.
After seeing the economy Iam planning to send my wife to india. She is pregnant ( 2 months).
Now I have job and in future if I get into any trouble with project Etc.. I need to pay the medical insurance and will have lot of financial issues.
How difficult is to bring new infant to US from India while our AOS is pending and apply 485.
( Visito visa Etc..)
Any suggestions.
Thanks
kish006
10-30 08:56 AM
I am in the same boat. I USCIS called yesterday still not the in the system. They told to wait next week. Let see what will happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment