nave_kum
07-22 03:24 AM
07/21/2007: RFE/NOID Flexible Time Frame Rule and Need for USCIS Discretion for Pe-July 17, 2007 EB-485 Filers
July VB Fiasco was a tragic event in the American immigration history and we are grateful that the USCIS rectified the problem on July 17, 2007 by reversing its decision to deny July 2007 EB-485 applications. We do not have specific statisics on EB-485 filers from July 2, 2007 until July 17, 2007. However, for the two reasons, among others, a large number of applicants sent in EB-485 applications during the period. Firstly, they more or less anticipated that either DOS or USCIS would rectify the problems because of the potential serious flaws in their decisions. Secondly, AILF was preparing class action lawsuits and they wanted to make it sure that they took advantage of being a member of the class without actually being named as plaintiffs. One time, people thought it was a smart move and right thing to do it, even though this reporter suggested to the people to wait until August VB was released.
Currently, these early filers are literally going through nightmares, hardships, and sleepless nights because of the two reasons. The first reason is that their cases have been on hold and no Receipt Notices have been issued. The second reason is that recently the USCIS revised its rule (1) allowing the adjudicating officers to exercise a discretion and issue a RFE with the response time of less than 12 weeks and (2) to exercise a discretion to either reject or deny a petition or an application without issuing RFE when the "initial evidence" is missing in the filing. Combination of these facts is currently creating a turmoil to these filers for the two reasons. There are some filers who submitted I-140/I-485 application without a sufficient documentation in haste, for instance, medical report, or other flaws in the submitted evidence. These people are restless not knowing whether their application could be rejected or denied, indeed a truly deadly consequences. The circumstances force them to wonder whether they should refile the petition/application before August 17, 2007 not to take any chances. There are, however, two hurdles to such decision. One is the recent denial of I-140 petitions by the adjudicators if the petition was not accompanied by the "original" labor certification. The another reason is no fixed rule or policy on the filing of multiple I-485 applications. This creates a fear that their second filing may also be rejected or denied. They are thus trapped! The second victims are international travelers. If the application is either rejected or denied and they are present in the U.S., they will be able to refile it after correcting the flaws in their initial evidence before August 17, 2007. However, when they are not present in the U.S., they will be deprived of such opportunities, which may be considered "deadly." Some people are still present in the U.S. at this time, but because of business or personal emergency, they will have to travel outside of the country using their H-1B/H-4 or L-1/L-2 visa. If their cases are rejcted or denied during their absence, they will not be able to refile it timely before August 17, 2007. They are trapped again! Their act which was considered a right thing to do to one time turns out to be a nightmare. Who would have anticipated the nightmare?
We urge the USCIS to consider the following actions to relieve these applicants from the unnecesary hardship:
Under he RFE/NOID Flexible Timeframe rule, a decision to reject or deny without a RFE remains a "discretion" of the individual adjudicator in each case. This reporter proposes that considering the unusual circumstances involving the July VB fiasco and the USCIS unusual remedial action at the last minute, the USCIS exempts these filers from the rule and make it mandatory to issue RFE before rejection or denial unless the following flaws are found in the filing:
No filing fee checks or flaws in the filing fee checks
Missing signatures in the forms
Missing forms
Missing underlying certified labor certification application for I-140 petitions (either original or copy).
Should the filers decide to refile it before August 17, 2007, the USCIS should accept a copy of the certified labor certification application rather than rejection or denial of the refiled I-140 petition. In fact, it has been the INS/USCIS tradition to accept I-140 petition with a copy of the certified labor certification application inasmuch as the original was on file with the agency, albeit in other file of the same applicant or other applicants. Accordingly, it should be a matter of adhering to the tradition and to instruct the adjudicators not to reject such refiling on the issue of a copy of the certified labor certification application. Additionally, inasmuch as there is an evidence that the labor certification has been certified by the DOL but the applicant was unable to submit the original or copy because the application was lost or yet to be delivered to the applicant, such I-140 which was filed during the period should not be rejected or denied. Again, it has been a tradition of the agency to request a duplicate certified labor certification from the DOL by the agency itself when there was a proof of certification. We urge the USCIS to exercise the discretion and instruct the adjudicators not to reject or deny I-140 filed during the problem period for the reasons of missing "original."
Foregoing actions will relieve these filers from most of the nightmares or status of being trapped. It is thus strongly urged that the leaders of the USCIS extend a compassion on a human level and exercise a discretion immediately to take the foregoing actions. This reporter has been receiving hundres of emails from these filers and had to share the pains and emotional despair since there was no answer to the foregoing issues under the curcumstances. Since the deadline of filing is August 17, 2007, the USCIS should swiftly release an announcement to relieve these people from the problem "effectively." On behalf of all these trapped, this reporter personally pleas the leaders of the USCIS to act quickly.
July VB Fiasco was a tragic event in the American immigration history and we are grateful that the USCIS rectified the problem on July 17, 2007 by reversing its decision to deny July 2007 EB-485 applications. We do not have specific statisics on EB-485 filers from July 2, 2007 until July 17, 2007. However, for the two reasons, among others, a large number of applicants sent in EB-485 applications during the period. Firstly, they more or less anticipated that either DOS or USCIS would rectify the problems because of the potential serious flaws in their decisions. Secondly, AILF was preparing class action lawsuits and they wanted to make it sure that they took advantage of being a member of the class without actually being named as plaintiffs. One time, people thought it was a smart move and right thing to do it, even though this reporter suggested to the people to wait until August VB was released.
Currently, these early filers are literally going through nightmares, hardships, and sleepless nights because of the two reasons. The first reason is that their cases have been on hold and no Receipt Notices have been issued. The second reason is that recently the USCIS revised its rule (1) allowing the adjudicating officers to exercise a discretion and issue a RFE with the response time of less than 12 weeks and (2) to exercise a discretion to either reject or deny a petition or an application without issuing RFE when the "initial evidence" is missing in the filing. Combination of these facts is currently creating a turmoil to these filers for the two reasons. There are some filers who submitted I-140/I-485 application without a sufficient documentation in haste, for instance, medical report, or other flaws in the submitted evidence. These people are restless not knowing whether their application could be rejected or denied, indeed a truly deadly consequences. The circumstances force them to wonder whether they should refile the petition/application before August 17, 2007 not to take any chances. There are, however, two hurdles to such decision. One is the recent denial of I-140 petitions by the adjudicators if the petition was not accompanied by the "original" labor certification. The another reason is no fixed rule or policy on the filing of multiple I-485 applications. This creates a fear that their second filing may also be rejected or denied. They are thus trapped! The second victims are international travelers. If the application is either rejected or denied and they are present in the U.S., they will be able to refile it after correcting the flaws in their initial evidence before August 17, 2007. However, when they are not present in the U.S., they will be deprived of such opportunities, which may be considered "deadly." Some people are still present in the U.S. at this time, but because of business or personal emergency, they will have to travel outside of the country using their H-1B/H-4 or L-1/L-2 visa. If their cases are rejcted or denied during their absence, they will not be able to refile it timely before August 17, 2007. They are trapped again! Their act which was considered a right thing to do to one time turns out to be a nightmare. Who would have anticipated the nightmare?
We urge the USCIS to consider the following actions to relieve these applicants from the unnecesary hardship:
Under he RFE/NOID Flexible Timeframe rule, a decision to reject or deny without a RFE remains a "discretion" of the individual adjudicator in each case. This reporter proposes that considering the unusual circumstances involving the July VB fiasco and the USCIS unusual remedial action at the last minute, the USCIS exempts these filers from the rule and make it mandatory to issue RFE before rejection or denial unless the following flaws are found in the filing:
No filing fee checks or flaws in the filing fee checks
Missing signatures in the forms
Missing forms
Missing underlying certified labor certification application for I-140 petitions (either original or copy).
Should the filers decide to refile it before August 17, 2007, the USCIS should accept a copy of the certified labor certification application rather than rejection or denial of the refiled I-140 petition. In fact, it has been the INS/USCIS tradition to accept I-140 petition with a copy of the certified labor certification application inasmuch as the original was on file with the agency, albeit in other file of the same applicant or other applicants. Accordingly, it should be a matter of adhering to the tradition and to instruct the adjudicators not to reject such refiling on the issue of a copy of the certified labor certification application. Additionally, inasmuch as there is an evidence that the labor certification has been certified by the DOL but the applicant was unable to submit the original or copy because the application was lost or yet to be delivered to the applicant, such I-140 which was filed during the period should not be rejected or denied. Again, it has been a tradition of the agency to request a duplicate certified labor certification from the DOL by the agency itself when there was a proof of certification. We urge the USCIS to exercise the discretion and instruct the adjudicators not to reject or deny I-140 filed during the problem period for the reasons of missing "original."
Foregoing actions will relieve these filers from most of the nightmares or status of being trapped. It is thus strongly urged that the leaders of the USCIS extend a compassion on a human level and exercise a discretion immediately to take the foregoing actions. This reporter has been receiving hundres of emails from these filers and had to share the pains and emotional despair since there was no answer to the foregoing issues under the curcumstances. Since the deadline of filing is August 17, 2007, the USCIS should swiftly release an announcement to relieve these people from the problem "effectively." On behalf of all these trapped, this reporter personally pleas the leaders of the USCIS to act quickly.
wallpaper love poems spanish. i love u poems in spanish. i
jayram123
07-18 04:50 PM
Is it not all about the bottomline?
Can any one of you as a single person make a difference? NO
Can WE as a group make a difference? YES and we have proved that.
Are WE focused as a group? Yes. In its entirety? No, and we will probably never be since we are a group.
This mess was not created by the guy with a PD of 2007 but by USCIS. So, you can hate USCIS all you want but what did the guy with PD2007 do. He just got lucky. He got lucky, plain and simple. Why should anybody feel bad about someone else's luck?
Come on guys, at least some of us are seeing the end of the light. Don't think I am PD 2007. My PD is Dec 2003. This is my fourth employer I am pursuing my GC with. I started working in 1997 and my first labor was filed in 1997. For various reasons I had to switch. I have seen all different cases. People who came in 2004 and got their GC by 2005. Is it fair? No, but it isn't the guy's fault. It is USCIS's and that's what we are trying to change. One issue at a time.
This was a can't miss opportunity caused by the USCIS foul-up. Nobody could miss out on pursuing this. Now that we are done with that, I am sure core will focus on other important issues like BEC victims etc.
Hope that helps. Peace!
Can any one of you as a single person make a difference? NO
Can WE as a group make a difference? YES and we have proved that.
Are WE focused as a group? Yes. In its entirety? No, and we will probably never be since we are a group.
This mess was not created by the guy with a PD of 2007 but by USCIS. So, you can hate USCIS all you want but what did the guy with PD2007 do. He just got lucky. He got lucky, plain and simple. Why should anybody feel bad about someone else's luck?
Come on guys, at least some of us are seeing the end of the light. Don't think I am PD 2007. My PD is Dec 2003. This is my fourth employer I am pursuing my GC with. I started working in 1997 and my first labor was filed in 1997. For various reasons I had to switch. I have seen all different cases. People who came in 2004 and got their GC by 2005. Is it fair? No, but it isn't the guy's fault. It is USCIS's and that's what we are trying to change. One issue at a time.
This was a can't miss opportunity caused by the USCIS foul-up. Nobody could miss out on pursuing this. Now that we are done with that, I am sure core will focus on other important issues like BEC victims etc.
Hope that helps. Peace!
gcretroiv
04-10 02:38 AM
I do not know why ssd213 is suggesting some front office jobs
and where as idlinginc is siggesting about some cut and paste jobs.
Are u guys kidding. This guy if from IIT MUmbai/ BTech computers.
It means his JEE rank shd have been below 200.
and where as idlinginc is siggesting about some cut and paste jobs.
Are u guys kidding. This guy if from IIT MUmbai/ BTech computers.
It means his JEE rank shd have been below 200.
2011 SAD LOVE POEMS IN SPANISH
whiteStallion
09-10 04:49 PM
Any updates ?
more...
Picasa
07-28 08:27 AM
I have not received my stimulus check yet. Here are the details:
Paper filed the tax returns early February.
Opted for direct deposit in the checking account.
Last 2 of social security are between 39-50
According to the following link http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=180250,00.html, I should have received it by now.
I am wondering if some one else is in the same boat & has called the Rebate Hotline at 1-866-234-2942.
Thanks,
Paper filed the tax returns early February.
Opted for direct deposit in the checking account.
Last 2 of social security are between 39-50
According to the following link http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=180250,00.html, I should have received it by now.
I am wondering if some one else is in the same boat & has called the Rebate Hotline at 1-866-234-2942.
Thanks,
venkygct
06-10 02:18 PM
EB2 (India) - 01OCT05
EB3 (India) - 22NOV01
EB3 (India) - 22NOV01
more...
abhijitp
11-15 05:13 PM
Is there anyway we could go about pushing our story in the media? I am sure all of us combined have a a few thousand bachelor's, master's and ph.d. degrees. We are a group of people with highly advanced skill sets and this needs to be advertised. Maybe convincing a few journalists to take up our cause could be an option. Local newspapers, political blogs, radio stations etc. etc.
IV has been doing this already! Please join your state chapter, and help continue doing it. Thanks!
IV has been doing this already! Please join your state chapter, and help continue doing it. Thanks!
2010 images spanish love poems for
acs_78
06-26 04:29 PM
All,
Is LUD mandetory after finger printing? I applied for EAD for my wife and me on 5/21. Sent supporting docs and had LUD on 5/23. Went for finger printing on 6/10 but no LUD so far. I am concerned if the finger printing center sent the data to USCIS or not. Our EAD expired 7/30 so I am concerned.
Thanks
ACS
Is LUD mandetory after finger printing? I applied for EAD for my wife and me on 5/21. Sent supporting docs and had LUD on 5/23. Went for finger printing on 6/10 but no LUD so far. I am concerned if the finger printing center sent the data to USCIS or not. Our EAD expired 7/30 so I am concerned.
Thanks
ACS
more...
BharatPremi
03-14 01:56 PM
No one is talking about what happened in Apr-2001. Bill Clinton allowed all illegal aliens to file AOS in EB-3 category. That brought estimated 8-10 million filings in Jan-Apr 2001 under EB-3 category. That's why it took so long for EB-3 to get past Apr-2001. With EB-3 having a number cap, I still have a feeling that those estimated 8-10 million are still floating around in the system and dragging EB-3 category. Any thoughts on this?
Nobody is talking because that suffering period and criteria and reasons all over. Nowonwards you will see the effects of what happened in 2002-2004.EB3-I the slowest in the group is at Oct 2001. So Forget Apr 2001.
Nobody is talking because that suffering period and criteria and reasons all over. Nowonwards you will see the effects of what happened in 2002-2004.EB3-I the slowest in the group is at Oct 2001. So Forget Apr 2001.
hair love poems english. love poems
Totoro
05-28 04:22 PM
All,
I visited the local office at Waukegan (Chicago suburb) last week to apply for SSN for my wife (H1 & EAD) and my minor son (H4) and was surprised to see SSN card in my mail box today for both of them!! :) (frankly I was expecting to see a denial letter for my son). Sequence of events
Me: submitted SSN form, passport for my minor Son
SSN officer: Upon seeing the visa. We do not accept application for h4 w/o work authorization
Me: I produced the printout of SSN provision 20 C.F.R. � 422.104(a)(3) and informed here that I need to apply for Federal benefit (stimulus package) and for that I would need one
SSN Officer: Oh yea..Oh yea.. there is a provision and she accepted the application
My sons SSN card displays "Not authorized to work".Thanks to Totoro posting the information on 05/03/2008.
link http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18907
That's great news. You can apply for the stimulus payment next year.
I visited the local office at Waukegan (Chicago suburb) last week to apply for SSN for my wife (H1 & EAD) and my minor son (H4) and was surprised to see SSN card in my mail box today for both of them!! :) (frankly I was expecting to see a denial letter for my son). Sequence of events
Me: submitted SSN form, passport for my minor Son
SSN officer: Upon seeing the visa. We do not accept application for h4 w/o work authorization
Me: I produced the printout of SSN provision 20 C.F.R. � 422.104(a)(3) and informed here that I need to apply for Federal benefit (stimulus package) and for that I would need one
SSN Officer: Oh yea..Oh yea.. there is a provision and she accepted the application
My sons SSN card displays "Not authorized to work".Thanks to Totoro posting the information on 05/03/2008.
link http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18907
That's great news. You can apply for the stimulus payment next year.
more...
pkv
05-06 02:43 PM
I was told that people on H4 are not eligible for SSN, and if I want she (the person on counter in ssa office) can issue me a denial letter for that. It sounded useless to me that time, so I didn't bother to get that letter.
This idea sounds good to me, I'll go to SSA office again and try to apply. Offcourse they will say that they can't accept application. So I'll get a denial letter and I can appeal against that.
They cannot refuse to accept your application. Fill in the forms and send them in. They can deny your application and then you can appeal. If they refuse to accept the application, you have two options. You can contact your congressman and complain. You can file a discrimination complaint with the SSA ombudsman. Here is the discrimination form.
https://ssa.gov/online/ssa-437.pdf
Finally, if you believe you have been denied your rights because you are an immigrant, you can contact your local ACLU and ask them to represent your case. As a last resort, you can file a lawsuit at the federal district court. The filing fee for this is $350. However, I hope we are all doing this to exercise our rights rather than for the money. At least that is my motivation.
In my case, the first time I called, the person hung up on me. But I did not give up. I got them to accept the application and it is currently under reconsideration. I was also able to get a response from the Regional Office. So far they have not addressed any of the points I made in the original case as described in the OP. I expect they will continue to ignore their own laws and regulations, until I appeal this to an administrative judge, who will make a legal ruling.
BTW: All this costs you nothing but your time.
This idea sounds good to me, I'll go to SSA office again and try to apply. Offcourse they will say that they can't accept application. So I'll get a denial letter and I can appeal against that.
They cannot refuse to accept your application. Fill in the forms and send them in. They can deny your application and then you can appeal. If they refuse to accept the application, you have two options. You can contact your congressman and complain. You can file a discrimination complaint with the SSA ombudsman. Here is the discrimination form.
https://ssa.gov/online/ssa-437.pdf
Finally, if you believe you have been denied your rights because you are an immigrant, you can contact your local ACLU and ask them to represent your case. As a last resort, you can file a lawsuit at the federal district court. The filing fee for this is $350. However, I hope we are all doing this to exercise our rights rather than for the money. At least that is my motivation.
In my case, the first time I called, the person hung up on me. But I did not give up. I got them to accept the application and it is currently under reconsideration. I was also able to get a response from the Regional Office. So far they have not addressed any of the points I made in the original case as described in the OP. I expect they will continue to ignore their own laws and regulations, until I appeal this to an administrative judge, who will make a legal ruling.
BTW: All this costs you nothing but your time.
hot i love you poems in spanish.
ghouse1742
05-03 04:15 PM
This is just beautiful. THANK YOU !!!. I will defintely look into this. This looks very promising to me. Like me there are lot of my friends who have their spouses on ITIN for their own reasons and would not have received a single penny. Thanks again for posting this information.
more...
house love poems in spanish and
pappu
04-28 11:43 AM
Thanks dba9ioracle.
thank you for your paymentPayment by PayPal
Total amount: $100.00 USD
Receipt ID: 70C41707463138256
We are working on the technical issue so that you can post on the forums with your id
thank you for your paymentPayment by PayPal
Total amount: $100.00 USD
Receipt ID: 70C41707463138256
We are working on the technical issue so that you can post on the forums with your id
tattoo Sad+love+poems+in+spanish
ssingh92
06-11 08:29 AM
Congratulations to all who will get GC now. I understand that after receiving GC you will leave this form for good. My Request is before leaving if you can contribute something then will be highly appreciated.
more...
pictures spanish love poems,
pitha
02-12 05:58 PM
Thanks for sticking with IV!!!. Its a bit ironic that you decided to contribute to IV only after 485 measure failed, which you were opposing. I agree with your message of unity, but that should hold good at all times, irrespective of whether you agree and do not agree with IV. People holding off contributions, heckling IV, questioning IV rationale when they don�t agree with IV is outright selfish and should be avoided at all times.
Couple of days back, I do differed with IV objective to persue only filing of I-485 by Feb 15. Also, one gentleman from this forum asked me to quit IV...
I am of the opinion that "Difference of opinion" to achieve goal is OK but not to loose UNITY...
I did not quit IV but today contributed IV because I beleive IV is fighting for Immigration issues/cause..
Amen...!!
Couple of days back, I do differed with IV objective to persue only filing of I-485 by Feb 15. Also, one gentleman from this forum asked me to quit IV...
I am of the opinion that "Difference of opinion" to achieve goal is OK but not to loose UNITY...
I did not quit IV but today contributed IV because I beleive IV is fighting for Immigration issues/cause..
Amen...!!
dresses site focuses on love poems
ajay
03-05 09:07 AM
This letter came to me also y'day dated 2/24/09.
If everybody agrees on pledging some money towards it, I also can contribute to it.
If everybody agrees on pledging some money towards it, I also can contribute to it.
more...
makeup short love poems in spanish. spanish. short love poems
paulan
08-04 02:28 PM
Please see the answers below:
Thank you so much for the reply. As you suggested, I will try to find an attorney and get more details. In the mean time I just have a few more questions.
1.Do you know if pay stubs would be a problem to get the "transfer/new" H1B before Oct 1st? Since I wouldn't actually work with Company A, so I wouldn't have any pay stubs.
I am not sure if I understand your question. Do you mean to ask if the lack of pay stubs will be a problem if you file before Oct 1? There is no way that you can get pay stubs before Oct 1 because you are not allowed to work before that date.
2. Actually what's difference between getting the "transfer" before Oct 1st and getting a "new" H1B before Oct 1st? Is there some procedure difference?
The determining factor here is the timing. The term "transfer" is used when people have an H1B and they are under H1B status, meaning they are working already, in this case after Oct1. For example, Mr.X has been working for company A and gets a better offer for company B. The latter would file for an H1B petition in his name and under AC21, he would be allowed to start working with company B as soon as there is proof or receipt from USCIS of the H1B petition. That would be what is referred to as a "transfer".
The second option is to file before the H1B petition from company A takes effect (Oct 1). In this case, company B files for a new H1B petition in his name and instead of being able to start working as soon as the receipt number is received (AC21), Mr.X needs to wait for the application to be approved by USCIS. This can take anywhere from 2 weeks if done with premium processing to up to who knows how long depending on his case.
Keep in mind, that no matter what, you will not be able to work before Oct 1.
I would highly encourage you to ask an attorney for advice because this is a very important decision and you should not guide yourself by postings. I can only tell you what I have been informed and what I have researched, but I am not sure how it applies in your case.
You are asking about pay stubs and such and I am not sure how that would apply if you decide to say, work for 2 weeks for company A and then transfer to company B without proof of paystubs.
Company A (the company through which I got the H1B) is withholding the H1B approval notice Original until I am put on project. I went ahead with them for sponsorship because they guaranteed getting projects in my area and no "bench" time, but now after the approval came through, they don't seem as enthusiastic about placing me in local projects. In case there's a problem, I don't want to risk going through the whole "bench" period thing, that's why I am considering changing companies early itself, instead of waiting to find out for sure.
So my third question is
3. Is a COPY of H1B approval notice enough for getting a "new" H1B with company B?
Again, I think it is best to ask an attorney. I have no idea if a copy is enough or if they need an original. I am not familiar with this "bench-time" concept. Good luck and again, I recommend you consult with an attorney. I can only inform you on what relates to my experience.
Again THANK YOU for your replies, it's a BIG HELP!
Thank you so much for the reply. As you suggested, I will try to find an attorney and get more details. In the mean time I just have a few more questions.
1.Do you know if pay stubs would be a problem to get the "transfer/new" H1B before Oct 1st? Since I wouldn't actually work with Company A, so I wouldn't have any pay stubs.
I am not sure if I understand your question. Do you mean to ask if the lack of pay stubs will be a problem if you file before Oct 1? There is no way that you can get pay stubs before Oct 1 because you are not allowed to work before that date.
2. Actually what's difference between getting the "transfer" before Oct 1st and getting a "new" H1B before Oct 1st? Is there some procedure difference?
The determining factor here is the timing. The term "transfer" is used when people have an H1B and they are under H1B status, meaning they are working already, in this case after Oct1. For example, Mr.X has been working for company A and gets a better offer for company B. The latter would file for an H1B petition in his name and under AC21, he would be allowed to start working with company B as soon as there is proof or receipt from USCIS of the H1B petition. That would be what is referred to as a "transfer".
The second option is to file before the H1B petition from company A takes effect (Oct 1). In this case, company B files for a new H1B petition in his name and instead of being able to start working as soon as the receipt number is received (AC21), Mr.X needs to wait for the application to be approved by USCIS. This can take anywhere from 2 weeks if done with premium processing to up to who knows how long depending on his case.
Keep in mind, that no matter what, you will not be able to work before Oct 1.
I would highly encourage you to ask an attorney for advice because this is a very important decision and you should not guide yourself by postings. I can only tell you what I have been informed and what I have researched, but I am not sure how it applies in your case.
You are asking about pay stubs and such and I am not sure how that would apply if you decide to say, work for 2 weeks for company A and then transfer to company B without proof of paystubs.
Company A (the company through which I got the H1B) is withholding the H1B approval notice Original until I am put on project. I went ahead with them for sponsorship because they guaranteed getting projects in my area and no "bench" time, but now after the approval came through, they don't seem as enthusiastic about placing me in local projects. In case there's a problem, I don't want to risk going through the whole "bench" period thing, that's why I am considering changing companies early itself, instead of waiting to find out for sure.
So my third question is
3. Is a COPY of H1B approval notice enough for getting a "new" H1B with company B?
Again, I think it is best to ask an attorney. I have no idea if a copy is enough or if they need an original. I am not familiar with this "bench-time" concept. Good luck and again, I recommend you consult with an attorney. I can only inform you on what relates to my experience.
Again THANK YOU for your replies, it's a BIG HELP!
girlfriend Spanish Love Poems For Her.
gc_mania_03
06-13 10:29 PM
I am sure we are all rejoicing and this is surely a cause to celebrate.
But, the battle is not over yet. I hope once most of the members get their 485/EAD applications rolling, they will get back on track and fight for the real objective. To obtain our green cards in time!! Dont forget the wait is NOT over yet...
I am sure we all are going to be a lot rejuvenated and continue fighting retrogression with greater zeal..
Just to set the record straight even I benefit from the visa update, but I hope we dont slow down at this juncture...
waddle along folks...
-gc_mania_03
But, the battle is not over yet. I hope once most of the members get their 485/EAD applications rolling, they will get back on track and fight for the real objective. To obtain our green cards in time!! Dont forget the wait is NOT over yet...
I am sure we all are going to be a lot rejuvenated and continue fighting retrogression with greater zeal..
Just to set the record straight even I benefit from the visa update, but I hope we dont slow down at this juncture...
waddle along folks...
-gc_mania_03
hairstyles love poems in spanish for him.
bharat2008
08-09 09:49 AM
Hi all,
This discussion is very valuble for people like me deciding between living in Canada as PR vs H1B USA .We all know that salaries in USA are slightly better than Canada .But now the exchange rate is almost equal.
Salary:
Can a person with family(2 kids) survive in Canada with CAD 50,000 / year salary in a place like Toronto.? I heard in Canada you pay 13 % tax on anything you buy .Does 50 % of your income goes in taxes ?
HealthCare:
Also is the government sponsored health care good compared to USA .I mean do you have any wait to see specialists.Is healthcare comparable to USA .
Immigration:
In USA anyone can get a Greencard regardless of their qualifications and it depends how early you enter the GC queue.But looks like in Canada they value your educations and other qualifications.Can IT professionals (non-managers) apply for Canada PR without a job or canadian education?
Canadian Citizenship:
Many people want to get Canadian citizenship and return to USA with TN Visa .In future ,could USA put restrictions on this .?
Please share your thoughts .
Thankyou
This discussion is very valuble for people like me deciding between living in Canada as PR vs H1B USA .We all know that salaries in USA are slightly better than Canada .But now the exchange rate is almost equal.
Salary:
Can a person with family(2 kids) survive in Canada with CAD 50,000 / year salary in a place like Toronto.? I heard in Canada you pay 13 % tax on anything you buy .Does 50 % of your income goes in taxes ?
HealthCare:
Also is the government sponsored health care good compared to USA .I mean do you have any wait to see specialists.Is healthcare comparable to USA .
Immigration:
In USA anyone can get a Greencard regardless of their qualifications and it depends how early you enter the GC queue.But looks like in Canada they value your educations and other qualifications.Can IT professionals (non-managers) apply for Canada PR without a job or canadian education?
Canadian Citizenship:
Many people want to get Canadian citizenship and return to USA with TN Visa .In future ,could USA put restrictions on this .?
Please share your thoughts .
Thankyou
mirage
06-29 07:43 AM
Somebody has to pay for the govt's bills..
Feds have virtually lifted all grants and support to USCIS as they have to fund their other projects. USCIS was asked to be self sufficient. I also read it somewhere that they are pressured to fund some govt. projects. How that will come ?? Skin the immigration seekers...beat them, whip them.. after all it's their choice to live here...
How can anyone explain this now? Isn't it a money scheme? Is it reasonable to loose 3 months when you had already paid for it? There is always confusion in this whole GC affair. There seems no option than to live with it and move forward.
Feds have virtually lifted all grants and support to USCIS as they have to fund their other projects. USCIS was asked to be self sufficient. I also read it somewhere that they are pressured to fund some govt. projects. How that will come ?? Skin the immigration seekers...beat them, whip them.. after all it's their choice to live here...
How can anyone explain this now? Isn't it a money scheme? Is it reasonable to loose 3 months when you had already paid for it? There is always confusion in this whole GC affair. There seems no option than to live with it and move forward.
chanduv23
09-25 12:59 PM
http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/press/00/profcondfaks.htm
"Professional Conduct for Immigration Practitioners -- Rules and Procedures"
On June 27, 2000, the Department of Justice published a regulation in the Federal Register (at 65 FR 39513) concerning professional conduct for attorneys and other representatives (practitioners) who practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the Immigration Courts, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (formerly known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service).
The regulation, which was effective on July 27, 2000, explains procedures for filing and investigating complaints and for conducting disciplinary proceedings against practitioners who may be subject to sanctions. Its purpose is to protect the public, to preserve the integrity of all immigration proceedings and adjudications, and to maintain high professional standards among practitioners.
This fact sheet outlines the major regulatory provisions and answers certain questions that may arise among prospective complainants and practitioners.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
This professional conduct regulation applies to every private immigration practitioner authorized to practice before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and DHS (including attorneys, accredited representatives, and law students, among others). This rule does not apply to Government attorneys, such as DHS trial counsel, because they are subject to separate regulations and disciplinary procedures.
Agency Jurisdiction
Each agency has jurisdiction over practitioners who appear before their respective tribunals. The Office of the General Counsel in EOIR will investigate and prosecute ethical complaints against practitioners involving alleged misconduct associated with practice before the Immigration Courts and the BIA. DHS will investigate complaints involving alleged misconduct associated with practice before DHS (e.g., asylum, adjustment of status, visa petitions, etc.).
Disciplinary Process
Any individual who believes that an immigration practitioner has engaged in criminal, unethical, or unprofessional conduct may file a complaint with the agency with jurisdiction (EOIR or DHS). The complaint must be in writing and include relevant names, dates, locations, and other details sufficient to clearly identify the offending conduct or behavior.
Upon receipt of a complaint, or on its own initiative, the agency with jurisdiction will conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine the merits of the complaint, informing both the practitioner and the complainant of any action taken. The office will dismiss without further action any complaint that is found to have no merit. The office may close a preliminary inquiry if the complainant fails to cooperate or provide reasonable information or assistance. During the preliminary inquiry, the complaint remains confidential unless the practitioner waives the right to confidentiality.
Hearing and Appeal
If a complaint is found to have merit, the agency with jurisdiction will issue a Notice of Intent to Discipline (NID) to the practitioner. The practitioner must respond to the NID within 30 days and may request a hearing. A practitioner’s failure to respond to the allegations in the NID in a timely manner may be treated as an admission of misconduct and a forfeiture of the right to a hearing. The BIA will then issue a final order imposing the sanctions recommended in the NID.
If a complaint about criminal conduct is found to have merit, it may also be referred to appropriate investigative or prosecutorial authorities within the Department of Justice or DHS. Complaints about unethical or unprofessional conduct may also be referred to appropriate local government or licensing authorities.
When a practitioner requests a hearing, the Chief Immigration Judge will appoint an Immigration Judge as the adjudicating official who will conduct a hearing and render a decision in the case. The adjudicating official shall not be an Immigration Judge before whom the practitioner regularly appears or who has intervened as a complainant or witness in the matter. The disciplinary hearing generally is open to the public.
Either party may appeal an adjudicating official’s decision to the BIA within 30 days. The BIA will conduct its appellate review of disciplinary decisions in the same way it reviews appeals of decisions in immigration proceedings. Final administrative orders in disciplinary cases are also subject to Federal judicial review.
GROUNDS FOR IMPOSING SANCTIONS
Disciplinary sanctions may follow if, among other things, a practitioner has been found to have engaged in conduct that constitutes a violation of one or more of the following grounds:
Charging a grossly excessive fee;
Engaging in bribery or coercion;
Knowingly or with reckless disregard makes a false statement or willfully misleading, misinforming, threatening, or deceiving any person;
Soliciting professional employment – a practitioner is prohibited from distributing solicitation material in or around the premises of any building in which an Immigration Court is located;
Is or has been subject to a final order of disbarment or suspension, or has resigned with an admission of misconduct, by any State or Federal court;
Knowingly or with reckless disregard makes a false or misleading communication about qualifications or services (e.g., practitioners must be recognized as certified specialists in immigration law in order to refer to themselves as such);
Engaging in contumelious or obnoxious conduct;
Has been convicted in any State or Federal court of a serious crime;
Falsely certifying a copy of a document as being true and complete;
Engaging in frivolous behavior;Engaging in conduct that constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel; and
Repeatedly failing to appear for scheduled hearings in a timely manner without good cause.
IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION
Provisions in the regulation permit the BIA to immediately suspend a practitioner who has been subject to either disbarment, suspension, or resignation with an admission of misconduct, as imposed by a State or Federal court, or conviction for a serious crime (including any felony). Thereafter, a summary proceeding will be conducted to consider imposition of any final discipline.
REINSTATEMENT
A reinstatement procedure will permit a practitioner to regain authorization to practice once his or her period of suspension before EOIR has expired or, as provided in limited circumstances under the rule, when the period of suspension has not yet expired. Prior to any reinstatement, the practitioner will be required to request reinstatement with the BIA and to provide evidence of good standing in his or her licensing jurisdiction.
FORMS
There are four EOIR forms in connection with the regulation concerning Professional Conduct for Practitioners:
EOIR-27 “Notice of Entry of Appearance before the BIA” – Practitioners must file the EOIR-27 to enter an appearance with the BIA. The form is used to:
Determine whether or not a practitioner is authorized under the regulations to represent aliens before the BIA,
Provide the represented alien an opportunity to expressly consent to the practitioner’s representation and to the release of EOIR records to the practitioner where required by law, and
Formally notify DHS and EOIR of such representation.
In addition, the form provides information regarding appearances and representation before the BIA, including the manner in which a practitioner may properly withdraw from a proceeding.
EOIR-28 “Notice of Entry of Appearance before the Immigration Court” – Practitioners must file the EOIR-28 to enter an appearance with the Immigration Courts. The form is used to:
Determine whether or not a practitioner is authorized under the regulations to represent aliens before the Immigration Court,
Provide the alien an opportunity to expressly consent to the practitioner’s representation and to the release of EOIR records to the practitioner where required by law, and
Formally notify DHS and EOIR of such representation.
In addition, the form provides information regarding appearances and representation before the Immigration Courts, including how a practitioner may properly withdraw from a proceeding.
Continued in next post
"Professional Conduct for Immigration Practitioners -- Rules and Procedures"
On June 27, 2000, the Department of Justice published a regulation in the Federal Register (at 65 FR 39513) concerning professional conduct for attorneys and other representatives (practitioners) who practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the Immigration Courts, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (formerly known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service).
The regulation, which was effective on July 27, 2000, explains procedures for filing and investigating complaints and for conducting disciplinary proceedings against practitioners who may be subject to sanctions. Its purpose is to protect the public, to preserve the integrity of all immigration proceedings and adjudications, and to maintain high professional standards among practitioners.
This fact sheet outlines the major regulatory provisions and answers certain questions that may arise among prospective complainants and practitioners.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
This professional conduct regulation applies to every private immigration practitioner authorized to practice before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and DHS (including attorneys, accredited representatives, and law students, among others). This rule does not apply to Government attorneys, such as DHS trial counsel, because they are subject to separate regulations and disciplinary procedures.
Agency Jurisdiction
Each agency has jurisdiction over practitioners who appear before their respective tribunals. The Office of the General Counsel in EOIR will investigate and prosecute ethical complaints against practitioners involving alleged misconduct associated with practice before the Immigration Courts and the BIA. DHS will investigate complaints involving alleged misconduct associated with practice before DHS (e.g., asylum, adjustment of status, visa petitions, etc.).
Disciplinary Process
Any individual who believes that an immigration practitioner has engaged in criminal, unethical, or unprofessional conduct may file a complaint with the agency with jurisdiction (EOIR or DHS). The complaint must be in writing and include relevant names, dates, locations, and other details sufficient to clearly identify the offending conduct or behavior.
Upon receipt of a complaint, or on its own initiative, the agency with jurisdiction will conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine the merits of the complaint, informing both the practitioner and the complainant of any action taken. The office will dismiss without further action any complaint that is found to have no merit. The office may close a preliminary inquiry if the complainant fails to cooperate or provide reasonable information or assistance. During the preliminary inquiry, the complaint remains confidential unless the practitioner waives the right to confidentiality.
Hearing and Appeal
If a complaint is found to have merit, the agency with jurisdiction will issue a Notice of Intent to Discipline (NID) to the practitioner. The practitioner must respond to the NID within 30 days and may request a hearing. A practitioner’s failure to respond to the allegations in the NID in a timely manner may be treated as an admission of misconduct and a forfeiture of the right to a hearing. The BIA will then issue a final order imposing the sanctions recommended in the NID.
If a complaint about criminal conduct is found to have merit, it may also be referred to appropriate investigative or prosecutorial authorities within the Department of Justice or DHS. Complaints about unethical or unprofessional conduct may also be referred to appropriate local government or licensing authorities.
When a practitioner requests a hearing, the Chief Immigration Judge will appoint an Immigration Judge as the adjudicating official who will conduct a hearing and render a decision in the case. The adjudicating official shall not be an Immigration Judge before whom the practitioner regularly appears or who has intervened as a complainant or witness in the matter. The disciplinary hearing generally is open to the public.
Either party may appeal an adjudicating official’s decision to the BIA within 30 days. The BIA will conduct its appellate review of disciplinary decisions in the same way it reviews appeals of decisions in immigration proceedings. Final administrative orders in disciplinary cases are also subject to Federal judicial review.
GROUNDS FOR IMPOSING SANCTIONS
Disciplinary sanctions may follow if, among other things, a practitioner has been found to have engaged in conduct that constitutes a violation of one or more of the following grounds:
Charging a grossly excessive fee;
Engaging in bribery or coercion;
Knowingly or with reckless disregard makes a false statement or willfully misleading, misinforming, threatening, or deceiving any person;
Soliciting professional employment – a practitioner is prohibited from distributing solicitation material in or around the premises of any building in which an Immigration Court is located;
Is or has been subject to a final order of disbarment or suspension, or has resigned with an admission of misconduct, by any State or Federal court;
Knowingly or with reckless disregard makes a false or misleading communication about qualifications or services (e.g., practitioners must be recognized as certified specialists in immigration law in order to refer to themselves as such);
Engaging in contumelious or obnoxious conduct;
Has been convicted in any State or Federal court of a serious crime;
Falsely certifying a copy of a document as being true and complete;
Engaging in frivolous behavior;Engaging in conduct that constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel; and
Repeatedly failing to appear for scheduled hearings in a timely manner without good cause.
IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION
Provisions in the regulation permit the BIA to immediately suspend a practitioner who has been subject to either disbarment, suspension, or resignation with an admission of misconduct, as imposed by a State or Federal court, or conviction for a serious crime (including any felony). Thereafter, a summary proceeding will be conducted to consider imposition of any final discipline.
REINSTATEMENT
A reinstatement procedure will permit a practitioner to regain authorization to practice once his or her period of suspension before EOIR has expired or, as provided in limited circumstances under the rule, when the period of suspension has not yet expired. Prior to any reinstatement, the practitioner will be required to request reinstatement with the BIA and to provide evidence of good standing in his or her licensing jurisdiction.
FORMS
There are four EOIR forms in connection with the regulation concerning Professional Conduct for Practitioners:
EOIR-27 “Notice of Entry of Appearance before the BIA” – Practitioners must file the EOIR-27 to enter an appearance with the BIA. The form is used to:
Determine whether or not a practitioner is authorized under the regulations to represent aliens before the BIA,
Provide the represented alien an opportunity to expressly consent to the practitioner’s representation and to the release of EOIR records to the practitioner where required by law, and
Formally notify DHS and EOIR of such representation.
In addition, the form provides information regarding appearances and representation before the BIA, including the manner in which a practitioner may properly withdraw from a proceeding.
EOIR-28 “Notice of Entry of Appearance before the Immigration Court” – Practitioners must file the EOIR-28 to enter an appearance with the Immigration Courts. The form is used to:
Determine whether or not a practitioner is authorized under the regulations to represent aliens before the Immigration Court,
Provide the alien an opportunity to expressly consent to the practitioner’s representation and to the release of EOIR records to the practitioner where required by law, and
Formally notify DHS and EOIR of such representation.
In addition, the form provides information regarding appearances and representation before the Immigration Courts, including how a practitioner may properly withdraw from a proceeding.
Continued in next post
No comments:
Post a Comment