Sachin_Stock
07-31 02:50 PM
Sorry but you guys seem to forget the fact that there were very few 2001, 2002 filers.
I dont know about 2003.
I dont know about 2003.
tharu
06-29 12:32 PM
Hi Ms Martin,
Thank you for your information. I understand that as long as my old visa expired and I get entry to US on my new approved extension visa (assuming that it is approved while I am away from US) it goes good.
What if my visa pettion gets dragged and I enter with my AP, after the expiry of my old visa. Is the extension pettition still good? If it is approved after i enter US, can i use the new visa ofcourse after getting out of US and get it stamped in a overseas consulate.
Thank you for your information. I understand that as long as my old visa expired and I get entry to US on my new approved extension visa (assuming that it is approved while I am away from US) it goes good.
What if my visa pettion gets dragged and I enter with my AP, after the expiry of my old visa. Is the extension pettition still good? If it is approved after i enter US, can i use the new visa ofcourse after getting out of US and get it stamped in a overseas consulate.
nashim
08-15 08:50 AM
It is not mandatory to join GC sponsor company while it is under process but it is mandatory to join after approval. Better to consult an attorney.
kramesh_babu
08-20 03:58 PM
once and for all.. the adjudicators dont answer calls. its just cust service people...who are contractors. so if u dont call them.. all they will be doing is sitting around doing nothing.
I fully agree.
I fully agree.
more...
a1b2c3
12-19 11:39 AM
If you think you displaced some americans, please give back their jobs and leave the country.:rolleyes:. Your GC status need not stop you from doing so.
Not before you give yours back. you are a temp anyways. you don't even have to surrender your gc.
Not before you give yours back. you are a temp anyways. you don't even have to surrender your gc.
sam2006
08-03 12:27 PM
we just have to live it :)
or we can work towards making the Sep 13 Rally success
or we can work towards making the Sep 13 Rally success
more...
Prashanthi
12-03 05:13 PM
I stand corrected, thank you for pointing it out, i was thinking of a situation when the I-485 was not filed, in this case the I-485 is pending. See extract from Williams memo issued in February 2003. USCIS has clarified that the date to be looked at is the date that the I-485 was filed when the visa number was available. So basically if you were a dependent when the I-485 was filed and the I-485 visa number then regressed, they will look at your age at the time of filing the I-485 and then subtract the time it took for I-40/I-130 to be approved.
Visa Availability Date Regression
If a visa availability date regresses, and an alien has already filed a Form I-485 based on an approved Form I-130 or Form I-140, the Service should retain the Form I-485 and note the visa availability date at the time the Form I-485 was filed. Once the visa number again becomes available for that preference category, determine whether the beneficiary is a �child� using the visa availability date marked on the Form I-485. If, however, an alien has not filed a Form I-485 prior to the visa availability date regressing, and then files a Form I-485 when the visa availability date again becomes current, the alien�s �age� should be determined using the subsequent visa availability date.
Visa Availability Date Regression
If a visa availability date regresses, and an alien has already filed a Form I-485 based on an approved Form I-130 or Form I-140, the Service should retain the Form I-485 and note the visa availability date at the time the Form I-485 was filed. Once the visa number again becomes available for that preference category, determine whether the beneficiary is a �child� using the visa availability date marked on the Form I-485. If, however, an alien has not filed a Form I-485 prior to the visa availability date regressing, and then files a Form I-485 when the visa availability date again becomes current, the alien�s �age� should be determined using the subsequent visa availability date.
we_r_d_world
10-19 12:30 PM
Look at the profile...... join date and no. of posts.
more...
pointlesswait
02-13 01:10 PM
> American Dream or Pipe Dream!!!
;-)
;-)
BimmerFAn
06-22 09:03 PM
Hi guys, I am trying to understand this whole process and was wondering if you could help me out.
I'm a CPA working for a Big4 in the US for h1-B. I have 2 years of experiences (1 with the same company). I am not from Europe. I have the following 2 questions:
1. What can I expect in terms of waiting for a GC if my employer were to file today? It's a huge firm and submits many GC sponsorship requests per year. I belieave 700 were submitted in 2009.
2. Would my CPA/Lvl 2 CFA Certification as well as my membership in professional organizations and performance bonuses (highlighting exceptional ability) bump me up to EB2 if EB3 is not current?
Thank you for your input.
I'm a CPA working for a Big4 in the US for h1-B. I have 2 years of experiences (1 with the same company). I am not from Europe. I have the following 2 questions:
1. What can I expect in terms of waiting for a GC if my employer were to file today? It's a huge firm and submits many GC sponsorship requests per year. I belieave 700 were submitted in 2009.
2. Would my CPA/Lvl 2 CFA Certification as well as my membership in professional organizations and performance bonuses (highlighting exceptional ability) bump me up to EB2 if EB3 is not current?
Thank you for your input.
more...
arihant
06-19 03:38 PM
Finally This Is My Turn To Rejoice. My Lawyer Email Me Saying That She Got Off From Phone From Dol And My Lc Is Approved.
1)how Long It Takes For The Physical Paper To Arrive? Do We Need That Physical Paper To File For 140 And 485?
2)the Online Status Still Shows "in Process"
Gurus, Please Help Me
I got mine in less than 2 weeks from DBEC. I think you need this to file 140.
1)how Long It Takes For The Physical Paper To Arrive? Do We Need That Physical Paper To File For 140 And 485?
2)the Online Status Still Shows "in Process"
Gurus, Please Help Me
I got mine in less than 2 weeks from DBEC. I think you need this to file 140.
bharad
05-07 12:10 PM
Me and my wife's 485 applications received a soft LUD on 04/30/2009 and 05/01/2009 for two consecutive days.
more...
Libra
12-21 10:03 AM
:D:D:D:D
First we need to contact the madam @ 10 Janpath. Without her choreography Papa singh won't dance and neither will the daughter.
( Papa Singh isn't helping us much! It would be naive to assume his daughter will help us because of who her Papa is)
First we need to contact the madam @ 10 Janpath. Without her choreography Papa singh won't dance and neither will the daughter.
( Papa Singh isn't helping us much! It would be naive to assume his daughter will help us because of who her Papa is)
needhelp!
03-06 01:06 PM
FROM IV: PLEASE EMAIL THIS RESPONSE TO USCIS IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THE FOIA RESPONSE:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=24231
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=24231
more...
skumar9
04-13 11:07 AM
My date is also not Current(Eb3 2006 ) got RFE today requesting The TB test. Think they opened the case and working. :)
neeidd
08-06 12:20 PM
My husband and I are July 2 Neb transfer to TX and we got approval email on 8/1. PD is 2005 Dec.
Does your receipt number starts with SRC#? I don't see any non SRC# approvals so far at TSC. Please share your PD also.
Thanks
Does your receipt number starts with SRC#? I don't see any non SRC# approvals so far at TSC. Please share your PD also.
Thanks
more...
Img
10-19 08:20 AM
Apparantly checks are not accpted any more.
C. Personal Check in Mail:
Begining Oct 18 2007, we are not accepting paper checks in the mail for an indefinate amount of time. If you have already sent the check before Oct 18 2007, we will accept it and encash it. Please contribute funds electronically using the Paypal or Google checkout links above. Thank you for your contributions and sorry for the inconvenience.
RK
C. Personal Check in Mail:
Begining Oct 18 2007, we are not accepting paper checks in the mail for an indefinate amount of time. If you have already sent the check before Oct 18 2007, we will accept it and encash it. Please contribute funds electronically using the Paypal or Google checkout links above. Thank you for your contributions and sorry for the inconvenience.
RK
suresh.emails
09-14 10:49 AM
The following are answers to your questions. Even I got stamping in Singapore. I use to work in Singapore. I came to USA couple years ago.
1 We both are planning to go for visa interview on the same day. So, who should go first so that it would not interfere others interview? Or does it really make any difference?
There is NO order; who should go first.
Even I was married when I appeared for the interview. I did not take my wife along with me to the interview. Usually, Interview officer does not ask you about where is your spouse?. It is up to you to take spouse for dependent status visa. Visa officer always thinks that spouse will get H4 visa processed once after actual H1-B visa is stamped.
Usually, most of us will go for H1-B visa stamping first and later we send our respective spouses for stamping on dependent status.
2 Will visa officer ask any of us that since you are married why you haven't bring your spouse together? Can we say that the other also has h1b interview on the same day?
The only evidence they can ask you is about your marriage certificate and your marriage photos. Even this is for when dependent goes to get H4 visa stamping . But definitely not for actual H1-B visa stamping.
As per as I know (remember), they are not suppose to ask you beyond that. I mean, there is a limit to ask on the questions. Otherwise, No deep personal questions.
3 I am not sure whether my wife would face any questions regarding that she is married and does she have any spouse issues or what if mine H1b is not going to approved? would she still be interested to pursue her h1b or like that?
In your cases; you will be by default be dependent to each other (as you will be mention your spouse information in DS-156 form).
If one of your H1-B is approved; then other will be automatically dependent (in case H1-B is not approved for other).
US embassy in Singapore interview is kind of cool on just like an interview in Mexico. Cool .. Answer to the question asked; All it takes to decide is 2 minutes in the interview process.
4 My h1b was denied last year because of company project document issue with same Singapore embassy. So I am not sure does it going to make any impact this time or not? Any help appreciated.
You have to mention that in your DS-156 form (for any previous visa refusals). It is up to the visa officer to ask you questions on that.
I believe it is US Consulate in Singapore (but not Singapore Embassy)
Try to be genuine on providing information.
It took about 15 minutes; from the time I entered into US Consulate , to finish the whole interview process and go come out.
You donot have to provide information about your spouse that she/he is appearing for interview on the same day unless otherwise is asked by the visa officer.
Answer to the questions asked; don't be over smart and start answering questions.
I wish you best of luck for your H1-B stamping.
1 We both are planning to go for visa interview on the same day. So, who should go first so that it would not interfere others interview? Or does it really make any difference?
There is NO order; who should go first.
Even I was married when I appeared for the interview. I did not take my wife along with me to the interview. Usually, Interview officer does not ask you about where is your spouse?. It is up to you to take spouse for dependent status visa. Visa officer always thinks that spouse will get H4 visa processed once after actual H1-B visa is stamped.
Usually, most of us will go for H1-B visa stamping first and later we send our respective spouses for stamping on dependent status.
2 Will visa officer ask any of us that since you are married why you haven't bring your spouse together? Can we say that the other also has h1b interview on the same day?
The only evidence they can ask you is about your marriage certificate and your marriage photos. Even this is for when dependent goes to get H4 visa stamping . But definitely not for actual H1-B visa stamping.
As per as I know (remember), they are not suppose to ask you beyond that. I mean, there is a limit to ask on the questions. Otherwise, No deep personal questions.
3 I am not sure whether my wife would face any questions regarding that she is married and does she have any spouse issues or what if mine H1b is not going to approved? would she still be interested to pursue her h1b or like that?
In your cases; you will be by default be dependent to each other (as you will be mention your spouse information in DS-156 form).
If one of your H1-B is approved; then other will be automatically dependent (in case H1-B is not approved for other).
US embassy in Singapore interview is kind of cool on just like an interview in Mexico. Cool .. Answer to the question asked; All it takes to decide is 2 minutes in the interview process.
4 My h1b was denied last year because of company project document issue with same Singapore embassy. So I am not sure does it going to make any impact this time or not? Any help appreciated.
You have to mention that in your DS-156 form (for any previous visa refusals). It is up to the visa officer to ask you questions on that.
I believe it is US Consulate in Singapore (but not Singapore Embassy)
Try to be genuine on providing information.
It took about 15 minutes; from the time I entered into US Consulate , to finish the whole interview process and go come out.
You donot have to provide information about your spouse that she/he is appearing for interview on the same day unless otherwise is asked by the visa officer.
Answer to the questions asked; don't be over smart and start answering questions.
I wish you best of luck for your H1-B stamping.
Blog Feeds
07-08 11:30 AM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
chinna2003
07-03 09:13 AM
Sorry if you find it offensive, but I dont think its going to prove anything to the USCIS and I am not even sure they will notice it.
Why is no one talking about a public demonstartion in New York or something along those lines that is bound to get TV reporters attention and having a spokesperson who can speak on our behalf in front of a national audience and talk about the discrimintaion that US shows against legal workers
If Illegal Immigrants have the courage to pursue their agenda on the streets what is stopping us from doing it.
What are we afraid of? its not the lack of issues, its the lack of resolve
Lets see if thread swells to dewcent levels we can organize a protest against USCIS infront of NBC studios
Please read, sign and observe
http://www.petitiononline.com/aos485/petition.html
To: U,S. Congress American Government
USCIS/DOS has made fun of a set of highly skilled immigrant workers of America. They issued a bulletin in June 2007 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3258.html) declaring all classes of employment-based visa priority dates current from July 1, 2007 and then pulled the carpet under everyone's feet by issuing a bulletin in July 2007 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3263.html) which declared all July applications ineligible.
The June bulletin caused a frenzy of activity amongst the applicants which ranged from applicants cancelling their travel plans and rushing to file their petitions to applicants tying the nuptial knot and cancelling their plans of higher studies. This act is mockery and disrespect of such skilled workers, causing them huge emotional and mental trauma. It also represents a huge economic loss in terms of time and resources consumed for readiness in filing the applications that involved the individuals, their employers and the attorneys representing them.
As a mark of protest we would like to observe July 13, 2007 as "NO WORK DAY". We demand justice from America and the American Governement. We believe our voices will only be heard when our presence (and importance) is made conspicuous by our absence. So, all those who believe in this are urged to refrain from going to work on Friday July 13, 2007.
Sincerely,
Why is no one talking about a public demonstartion in New York or something along those lines that is bound to get TV reporters attention and having a spokesperson who can speak on our behalf in front of a national audience and talk about the discrimintaion that US shows against legal workers
If Illegal Immigrants have the courage to pursue their agenda on the streets what is stopping us from doing it.
What are we afraid of? its not the lack of issues, its the lack of resolve
Lets see if thread swells to dewcent levels we can organize a protest against USCIS infront of NBC studios
Please read, sign and observe
http://www.petitiononline.com/aos485/petition.html
To: U,S. Congress American Government
USCIS/DOS has made fun of a set of highly skilled immigrant workers of America. They issued a bulletin in June 2007 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3258.html) declaring all classes of employment-based visa priority dates current from July 1, 2007 and then pulled the carpet under everyone's feet by issuing a bulletin in July 2007 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3263.html) which declared all July applications ineligible.
The June bulletin caused a frenzy of activity amongst the applicants which ranged from applicants cancelling their travel plans and rushing to file their petitions to applicants tying the nuptial knot and cancelling their plans of higher studies. This act is mockery and disrespect of such skilled workers, causing them huge emotional and mental trauma. It also represents a huge economic loss in terms of time and resources consumed for readiness in filing the applications that involved the individuals, their employers and the attorneys representing them.
As a mark of protest we would like to observe July 13, 2007 as "NO WORK DAY". We demand justice from America and the American Governement. We believe our voices will only be heard when our presence (and importance) is made conspicuous by our absence. So, all those who believe in this are urged to refrain from going to work on Friday July 13, 2007.
Sincerely,
greenguru
03-31 03:00 PM
Thanks all for your help and great inputs. IV has helped me a lot.
I wish you all the best ...
TKs, GG
I wish you all the best ...
TKs, GG
.jpg)
