senthil1
04-08 02:15 AM
I think all the issue will be resolved if number 5 is done. No need for H1 extension, and even there is a in efficiency in USCIS you can get gc within 3 years if they double or triple EB quota. So no need to meet President just meet Congressmen and try pressing them to increase EB quota.
Can we get an appointment with the President and explain the problems faced by EB immigrants....
1. Travel restrictions (no travel during H1 extension etc..)
2. Driver license issues
3. Wasted Visa numbers
4. Inefficiency of USCIS
5. Need to increase EB quota
I know that law makers should make these changes, but President has a strong voice and if he hears our pathetic position, he may do something, just a hope :rolleyes:
Can we get an appointment with the President and explain the problems faced by EB immigrants....
1. Travel restrictions (no travel during H1 extension etc..)
2. Driver license issues
3. Wasted Visa numbers
4. Inefficiency of USCIS
5. Need to increase EB quota
I know that law makers should make these changes, but President has a strong voice and if he hears our pathetic position, he may do something, just a hope :rolleyes:
wallpaper map of 13 colonies labeled.
aubGC
02-06 09:01 AM
All EAD renewals for the applicants whose I 485 was filed before August 17, 2007 have to pay $340 as renewal fee.. No exception.. no consfusion.
If you dont send check and pay incorrect fee, more delay or chances of rejection...Hope it helps..
If you dont send check and pay incorrect fee, more delay or chances of rejection...Hope it helps..
GreenCard4US
08-21 12:25 PM
I received an RFE from USCIS 10 days after the date on the letter and need to respond in 33 days.
I came to US through Company A in June 2007 and was with them until Dec 2006. This Company A had applied for my labor and I140 and both of them were approved through them. I joined Company B in Jan of 2007(change of H1) and was with them until April of 2007. I joined Company C in April 2007(change of H1) and been with them since. Company C would not do my GC.
During the July 2007 fiasco, Company A agreed to give me an offer letter that I submitted with my 485 application and my attorney (a good reputed one) mentioned in the application that I was working for company C.
I got an RFE now stating that I did not send my sealed medical exam which I had done and we have a scan of what was sent. They also want �a current letter of employment attesting to your offer of proposed employment. This letter should be written on the company�s official letterhead and cite the date you will begin working, whether the position is temporary or permanent , a description of the position, a description of the position that you currently hold for the company (if any), and offered salary�
Is this RFE bad? What might have triggered this RFW? Now my attorney suggests that since I had filed 485 through company A and I did not really invoke AC21 that I should give a new offer letter from Company A (they are willing to give one). My question is if I do that will there be further questions? The company I work for is a bigger one and Company A is really a body shopper, so I want to go with the letter from the current company. Also since it more than 2 years since I applied for 485 can I say I invoked AC 21? When can I disassociate myself from company A as I do not want to lose my current job.
I would like the attorneys or the members valuable help. Please do offer your opinions. Thank you all in advance.
__________________
I came to US through Company A in June 2007 and was with them until Dec 2006. This Company A had applied for my labor and I140 and both of them were approved through them. I joined Company B in Jan of 2007(change of H1) and was with them until April of 2007. I joined Company C in April 2007(change of H1) and been with them since. Company C would not do my GC.
During the July 2007 fiasco, Company A agreed to give me an offer letter that I submitted with my 485 application and my attorney (a good reputed one) mentioned in the application that I was working for company C.
I got an RFE now stating that I did not send my sealed medical exam which I had done and we have a scan of what was sent. They also want �a current letter of employment attesting to your offer of proposed employment. This letter should be written on the company�s official letterhead and cite the date you will begin working, whether the position is temporary or permanent , a description of the position, a description of the position that you currently hold for the company (if any), and offered salary�
Is this RFE bad? What might have triggered this RFW? Now my attorney suggests that since I had filed 485 through company A and I did not really invoke AC21 that I should give a new offer letter from Company A (they are willing to give one). My question is if I do that will there be further questions? The company I work for is a bigger one and Company A is really a body shopper, so I want to go with the letter from the current company. Also since it more than 2 years since I applied for 485 can I say I invoked AC 21? When can I disassociate myself from company A as I do not want to lose my current job.
I would like the attorneys or the members valuable help. Please do offer your opinions. Thank you all in advance.
__________________
2011 13 original colonies map
perm2gc
12-18 10:12 PM
yes...one area where we wholeheartedly support them :)
will they join hands with us ..:rolleyes:
will they join hands with us ..:rolleyes:
more...
dc2007
08-04 06:57 PM
I think lot of people here might be having similar issue, which I am having. As a consultant I have stayed at lot of addresses but my on my salary slip I try to keep the same address.
Here is the one scenario out of many:
Scenario 1:
1. My I-140 is cleared 2-3 days back (Thank GOD) and trying to file I-485 by myself (fed up with lawyers). Labor was of 2004 and applied 140 PP in May 2007. Got RFE but finally cleared.
2. I am on H1 and that H1 labor (which says the state where I can work) is of NJ. And hence my employer always puts NJ address as my address (my company address only) on my salary slips.
3. But I am staying in Virginia from Jan 2007 and I have VA license only. Apt. Lease is also on my name and all my bank addresses etc. are also of VA address. I mean if anybody wants to check my residency status, they will come to know easily that I am in VA.
4. Filed I-140 in May 2007 and cleared in July 2007. Used my Virginia address only while filing my I-140
Question 1
So, From Jan 2007 till July 2007, which address should I show - NJ or VA ?
Note: my H1 labor has NJ address only for this duration.
Scenario 2:
In 2003 and 2004 also, I stayed at lot of states but in my tax return I have shown only NJ address (one of my friend's).
Question 2
Should I use NJ address only for these 2 years - 2003 and 2004 ?
Scenario 3:
Between 2002 and 2003, I was in India for 10-11 months (but I was having valid H1 and was still employer of my H1 sponsoring company). And for the year 2002, I used NJ address (of my friend) in my tax return only.
Question 3
Which address should I use for 2002 in g-325a ? Should I mention India address as its a long period - 10 months ?
My main concern is, Is g-325 has anything to do with tax return ?
Should I make sure that my H1 labor state should match my residence address?
In general, should I put addresses as per my previous tax return or should I put the actual addresses where I have resided ?
Thanks in advance
Here is the one scenario out of many:
Scenario 1:
1. My I-140 is cleared 2-3 days back (Thank GOD) and trying to file I-485 by myself (fed up with lawyers). Labor was of 2004 and applied 140 PP in May 2007. Got RFE but finally cleared.
2. I am on H1 and that H1 labor (which says the state where I can work) is of NJ. And hence my employer always puts NJ address as my address (my company address only) on my salary slips.
3. But I am staying in Virginia from Jan 2007 and I have VA license only. Apt. Lease is also on my name and all my bank addresses etc. are also of VA address. I mean if anybody wants to check my residency status, they will come to know easily that I am in VA.
4. Filed I-140 in May 2007 and cleared in July 2007. Used my Virginia address only while filing my I-140
Question 1
So, From Jan 2007 till July 2007, which address should I show - NJ or VA ?
Note: my H1 labor has NJ address only for this duration.
Scenario 2:
In 2003 and 2004 also, I stayed at lot of states but in my tax return I have shown only NJ address (one of my friend's).
Question 2
Should I use NJ address only for these 2 years - 2003 and 2004 ?
Scenario 3:
Between 2002 and 2003, I was in India for 10-11 months (but I was having valid H1 and was still employer of my H1 sponsoring company). And for the year 2002, I used NJ address (of my friend) in my tax return only.
Question 3
Which address should I use for 2002 in g-325a ? Should I mention India address as its a long period - 10 months ?
My main concern is, Is g-325 has anything to do with tax return ?
Should I make sure that my H1 labor state should match my residence address?
In general, should I put addresses as per my previous tax return or should I put the actual addresses where I have resided ?
Thanks in advance
rChinna
04-01 12:20 PM
Hi All,
My Wife�s I-94 expired on Jan 15, 2010 and I did not know that I had to apply for her H4 extension while applying for my H1B extension under regular processing on March 1, 2010.My employer also forgot to apply for H4 extension. Now that, it�s been more than 2 months with the I-94 expired, Can you please let me know what options I have to resolve this issue?
1.Can I upgrade my H1 Processing to Premium and add the H4 processing to it, so that both H1 and H4 are processed simultaneously?
2.If adding H4 while upgrading H1 to premium is not possible, Should I just upgrade my H1 to Premium so that I can know the results soon and have ample time (before the 180 days grace period) to apply for H4 extension(I-539).Is it true that H1B premium approval is risky compared to regular processing ?
3.Is it safe to go back to India within 180 days (after I-94 expiration) and get H4 stamping in her home country once I get my H1 Extension?
4.Should I just leave my H1B in regular processing and attach the H4 extension (I-539) to it? If attaching H4 is not possible, Can I file H4 separately and get it approved before 180 days expiration?
5.Once her H4 extension is approved, can she get her H4 VISA re-validated in US? Can she apply under �Nunc-pro-tunc� Category?
6.Does she have an option to attend H4 visa interview in Canada or Mexico as her Visa and I-94 are expired? If yes, is this better option than going to India?
Please reply.
Thanks in advance
Chinna
My Wife�s I-94 expired on Jan 15, 2010 and I did not know that I had to apply for her H4 extension while applying for my H1B extension under regular processing on March 1, 2010.My employer also forgot to apply for H4 extension. Now that, it�s been more than 2 months with the I-94 expired, Can you please let me know what options I have to resolve this issue?
1.Can I upgrade my H1 Processing to Premium and add the H4 processing to it, so that both H1 and H4 are processed simultaneously?
2.If adding H4 while upgrading H1 to premium is not possible, Should I just upgrade my H1 to Premium so that I can know the results soon and have ample time (before the 180 days grace period) to apply for H4 extension(I-539).Is it true that H1B premium approval is risky compared to regular processing ?
3.Is it safe to go back to India within 180 days (after I-94 expiration) and get H4 stamping in her home country once I get my H1 Extension?
4.Should I just leave my H1B in regular processing and attach the H4 extension (I-539) to it? If attaching H4 is not possible, Can I file H4 separately and get it approved before 180 days expiration?
5.Once her H4 extension is approved, can she get her H4 VISA re-validated in US? Can she apply under �Nunc-pro-tunc� Category?
6.Does she have an option to attend H4 visa interview in Canada or Mexico as her Visa and I-94 are expired? If yes, is this better option than going to India?
Please reply.
Thanks in advance
Chinna
more...
waitingmygc
10-23 08:46 PM
One correction in wandmaker above response, if it helps
B.Sc (3 years) + MCA (3years) = US Masters or Even M.E
B.Sc (3 years) + MCA (3years) = US Masters or Even M.E
2010 map of 13 colonies labeled.
Shujaat
05-27 10:33 AM
I did my three years diploma (polytechnic) and three years engineering degree (B.E.) after that and I had @ eight years of experience while I had applied for GC through EB2 category. I had no problem in getting my I-140 approval; so far I have not received single rfe.
Hi,
Can you share you EE copy with me? It will really help me to understand that on which basis your evaluation has done.. Either 13 years schooling and 3 year Bachelor equivelent to US Bachelor...
Hi,
Can you share you EE copy with me? It will really help me to understand that on which basis your evaluation has done.. Either 13 years schooling and 3 year Bachelor equivelent to US Bachelor...
more...
qualified_trash
01-01 12:03 AM
provided u workout with the employer that they don't cancel the 140 after u move or u cannot port the priority date ....
this is not true. you can port the I 140 even if the employer has USCIS cancel the I140.
you CANNOT port PD from an approved I140 if I140 was revoked due to fraud.
this is not true. you can port the I 140 even if the employer has USCIS cancel the I140.
you CANNOT port PD from an approved I140 if I140 was revoked due to fraud.
hair map of 13 colonies labeled.
indyanguy
10-22 11:43 AM
My Labour was For EB-3 and my I-140 was filled in EB2
One of my Colleague also had same case but he got query on his
I-140 and mine got denied
I have a question
Now I will have to file new labour and I-140 can
Will I loose my old priority dates
How can the labor be filed under EB3 and the 140 under EB2? Is this possible only if Labor mentioned BS + 5 (or MS) as the requirement even though it was filed under EB3?
Anyone care to throw some light on this?
One of my Colleague also had same case but he got query on his
I-140 and mine got denied
I have a question
Now I will have to file new labour and I-140 can
Will I loose my old priority dates
How can the labor be filed under EB3 and the 140 under EB2? Is this possible only if Labor mentioned BS + 5 (or MS) as the requirement even though it was filed under EB3?
Anyone care to throw some light on this?
more...
wandmaker
10-20 04:36 PM
I'm going to meet the lawyer to see what is the option here. But what is the best thing to do ...go back to India and get the H4 or apply the cos from h1->H4 from here?
What did your lawyer say?
Anyone guys...?
I've to decide fast what to do....get the H4 stamped from India or do the COS from US. If we go to India and get the H4 stamping there is a chance that the consulate people might ask about H1 and if they found that my wife was out of status they might bar her from entering US.
let me know if anyone has the same case or gone through this.
Thanks
it is up to you decide, which side of the double edged sword you want to hold onto.
What did your lawyer say?
Anyone guys...?
I've to decide fast what to do....get the H4 stamped from India or do the COS from US. If we go to India and get the H4 stamping there is a chance that the consulate people might ask about H1 and if they found that my wife was out of status they might bar her from entering US.
let me know if anyone has the same case or gone through this.
Thanks
it is up to you decide, which side of the double edged sword you want to hold onto.
hot map of 13 colonies labeled.
Leo07
10-05 03:57 PM
This definitely improves the legitimacy of IV and should stop at least some naysayers.
more...
house 13+colonies+map+with+
logiclife
06-30 06:11 PM
Do not start new thread to respond back or add to what gc_hoga_re has said. His post was offensive to members and detrimental to the organization.
That thread is now closed and gc_hoga_re has been banned.
To those who dont like censorship and moderation of forums:
Immigration Voice neither promises nor practices "Free speech" and "First amendment rights" claimed by members who dont like moderation and censorship.
We are an organization for Greencard backlogs advocacy, not civil rights like First amendment rights and free speech. In order to worship civil rights like free speech and first amendment rights, please join the ACLU (www.aclu.org).
Also, Immigration Voice is in its full rights to censor its own site as the site is owned by organization and it is not a public property. Your first amendment rights to "Say whatever you feel like" are guaranteed by the constitution to protect you from congress passing laws that can take away those rights. The constitutional rights dont guarantee you the right to say whatever you want on other citizen's/organization's property/website/domain. So please do not come back to preach the US constitution to the core group. There are thousands of blogs, sites and discussion forums that practice much higher level of censorship. The only way to guarantee the retention of online material is to start your own website and we encourage members who find Immigration Voice as a "Restrictive" or "Non Democratic" website to do that.
Immigration Voice will ban users, ban posts, delete posts, close threads and remove material that is detrimental to the organization.
Also, gc_hoga_re has been banned for posting offensive material.
That thread is now closed and gc_hoga_re has been banned.
To those who dont like censorship and moderation of forums:
Immigration Voice neither promises nor practices "Free speech" and "First amendment rights" claimed by members who dont like moderation and censorship.
We are an organization for Greencard backlogs advocacy, not civil rights like First amendment rights and free speech. In order to worship civil rights like free speech and first amendment rights, please join the ACLU (www.aclu.org).
Also, Immigration Voice is in its full rights to censor its own site as the site is owned by organization and it is not a public property. Your first amendment rights to "Say whatever you feel like" are guaranteed by the constitution to protect you from congress passing laws that can take away those rights. The constitutional rights dont guarantee you the right to say whatever you want on other citizen's/organization's property/website/domain. So please do not come back to preach the US constitution to the core group. There are thousands of blogs, sites and discussion forums that practice much higher level of censorship. The only way to guarantee the retention of online material is to start your own website and we encourage members who find Immigration Voice as a "Restrictive" or "Non Democratic" website to do that.
Immigration Voice will ban users, ban posts, delete posts, close threads and remove material that is detrimental to the organization.
Also, gc_hoga_re has been banned for posting offensive material.
tattoo map of 13 colonies labeled.
ash0210
11-18 03:52 PM
logiclife, thats the "trap" (& excuse) I am trying to break by providing some solution in my earlier mail...
Is "immigration" process a "Rocket" science?
When this country supports "complex" process of landing on "moon" with "efficient" high-technology that spread across Electrical, Mechanical & computational areas/divisions, why not "Immigration" process?
Look, we as "IT" guys knows that "Customer process" can be spread across different "divisons" of the organization and still we "devise" solution to implement that process by providing "homogeneous" solution...and therefore I feel that WE should not "buy" this idea of "Process" etc...
What I am saying is..If guy/gal is having EAD for more than 3-4 times, paying taxes & "have clean police record" then he/she is not threat to "security" of country and USCIS do not avail VISA# then assign a "Temporary" VISA # to such I-485 applicant who is hanging around for last 5-6 years with EAD!!
Also, when PD of China & Mexico is moving beyond April 2001 while "India" PD for last 7 months is "lingering" between April 15 & April 21, I do suspect of "Transparency". Why USCIS do not gives count# of Indians that are pending in BPCS and also NOT even "trying" to find out "How many Indians will complain" if they will pass beyond April 31, 2001?
Let USCIS pass India PD beyond April 31, 2001, let them collect the complains of Indians, compile the "statistics" and let them arrive at # Indians that are hiding behind 245(i) "Titanium" wall and then we should buy this excuse of "Process"..
Guys apart from "Political reasons", USCIS have to show some transprency for not moving "India" PD beyond April 31, 2001 to convince us...!!!
The problem with premium processing of 485 is that there a procedures in 485, like the FBI namecheck, the Fingerprinting etc, that is perfect recipe for bureaucratic nightmare.
USCIS is in the Department of Homeland security. That's where I485 starts. Then comes FBI namecheck. That's US dept of Justice. After that, comes the issue of alloting visa numbers. That is US State Department.
So you have 3 big bodies of US government who have to all work at premium speed IN SYNC with each other, without passing the buck to each other, to make premium processing possible for 485 filing.
As we all know, USCIS that alone handles I140 petitions took years to implement premium I140. Now if 3 entirely different Departments of US govt were to be asked to harmoniously streamline another procedure, then I guess its wish very less likely to come true, EVEN IF they want it as much as we do.
Is "immigration" process a "Rocket" science?
When this country supports "complex" process of landing on "moon" with "efficient" high-technology that spread across Electrical, Mechanical & computational areas/divisions, why not "Immigration" process?
Look, we as "IT" guys knows that "Customer process" can be spread across different "divisons" of the organization and still we "devise" solution to implement that process by providing "homogeneous" solution...and therefore I feel that WE should not "buy" this idea of "Process" etc...
What I am saying is..If guy/gal is having EAD for more than 3-4 times, paying taxes & "have clean police record" then he/she is not threat to "security" of country and USCIS do not avail VISA# then assign a "Temporary" VISA # to such I-485 applicant who is hanging around for last 5-6 years with EAD!!
Also, when PD of China & Mexico is moving beyond April 2001 while "India" PD for last 7 months is "lingering" between April 15 & April 21, I do suspect of "Transparency". Why USCIS do not gives count# of Indians that are pending in BPCS and also NOT even "trying" to find out "How many Indians will complain" if they will pass beyond April 31, 2001?
Let USCIS pass India PD beyond April 31, 2001, let them collect the complains of Indians, compile the "statistics" and let them arrive at # Indians that are hiding behind 245(i) "Titanium" wall and then we should buy this excuse of "Process"..
Guys apart from "Political reasons", USCIS have to show some transprency for not moving "India" PD beyond April 31, 2001 to convince us...!!!
The problem with premium processing of 485 is that there a procedures in 485, like the FBI namecheck, the Fingerprinting etc, that is perfect recipe for bureaucratic nightmare.
USCIS is in the Department of Homeland security. That's where I485 starts. Then comes FBI namecheck. That's US dept of Justice. After that, comes the issue of alloting visa numbers. That is US State Department.
So you have 3 big bodies of US government who have to all work at premium speed IN SYNC with each other, without passing the buck to each other, to make premium processing possible for 485 filing.
As we all know, USCIS that alone handles I140 petitions took years to implement premium I140. Now if 3 entirely different Departments of US govt were to be asked to harmoniously streamline another procedure, then I guess its wish very less likely to come true, EVEN IF they want it as much as we do.
more...
pictures MAP OF 13 COLONIES LABELED
VivekAhuja
05-28 06:29 PM
I keep reading about how immigrants are important and pay taxes and contribute to the economy so they should be given rights/important and all that. There was even a thread that said if GCs were given to EB based immigrants the housing problem could be solved because of this buying power. STOP IT.
The US does not need you, you need the USA. No one put a gun to your head and told you to come to the USA, you chose. You need to follow the tax laws so roads and other sevices you come to this country for can be maintained. Your buying power is less than 1% of the US economy. The laws do NOT prohibit you from buying property here so you can buy a house without GC.
So STOP trying to potray it like you are doing a favor to the USA. Be realistic and solve the real problems instead of trying to find loopholes of hw to get the US govt. to give you GCs.
The US does not need you, you need the USA. No one put a gun to your head and told you to come to the USA, you chose. You need to follow the tax laws so roads and other sevices you come to this country for can be maintained. Your buying power is less than 1% of the US economy. The laws do NOT prohibit you from buying property here so you can buy a house without GC.
So STOP trying to potray it like you are doing a favor to the USA. Be realistic and solve the real problems instead of trying to find loopholes of hw to get the US govt. to give you GCs.
dresses when james 13+colonies+map
sledge_hammer
06-29 11:37 AM
^^^^
more...
makeup gt original colonies map
naan
07-15 10:02 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP79UslTUr8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovhoH0ZW0No
MSNBC coverage of the July 2nd Fiasco.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovhoH0ZW0No
MSNBC coverage of the July 2nd Fiasco.
girlfriend map of 13 colonies labeled. map of 13 colonies labeled
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)
hairstyles French colonies were british
meridiani.planum
11-08 11:43 PM
How about meeting Michelle Obama... her highness the soon to be First Lady?
sure. how about friday evening. say around 7:00? you bring the chips, I'll bring the salsa.
sure. how about friday evening. say around 7:00? you bring the chips, I'll bring the salsa.
santa123
06-07 05:43 PM
At what stage am I determined as EB2 or EB3? Is it at the labor or I-140 stage?
This may be a basic fact, but I am not aware of the fact. Pardon my ignorance.
:confused:
This may be a basic fact, but I am not aware of the fact. Pardon my ignorance.
:confused:
jamesbond007
12-08 04:39 PM
I wish! :)
I am pretty sure Obama-Biden's team does not want to see the headlines like "Foreigners" on Obama-Biden's transition team!
Yes. We are foreigners no matter how much tax we pay or how law abiding we are...
Let us not assume. The worst that can happen from this request for a seat at the table is that they will deny the request.
There is a first time for everything. The transition team having a transparent open door policy for anyone's suggestion itself is a novel idea.
Obama and company are looking for ways to create jobs and revive the economy. Any idea that works towards those goals, I am pretty sure they will be all ears.
I am pretty sure Obama-Biden's team does not want to see the headlines like "Foreigners" on Obama-Biden's transition team!
Yes. We are foreigners no matter how much tax we pay or how law abiding we are...
Let us not assume. The worst that can happen from this request for a seat at the table is that they will deny the request.
There is a first time for everything. The transition team having a transparent open door policy for anyone's suggestion itself is a novel idea.
Obama and company are looking for ways to create jobs and revive the economy. Any idea that works towards those goals, I am pretty sure they will be all ears.
No comments:
Post a Comment