nrk
10-15 05:42 PM
What number did you called man, If possible please can you give the details of the call.
i want to find my out case is pre adjudicated or not.
2 months back or so when i called the representative told that they don't have access to those details.
I could reach IO yesterday. representative said that me and my wife's cases are preadjudicated. Not sure if I could believe this...
i want to find my out case is pre adjudicated or not.
2 months back or so when i called the representative told that they don't have access to those details.
I could reach IO yesterday. representative said that me and my wife's cases are preadjudicated. Not sure if I could believe this...
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
dhiruseh
08-17 03:10 PM
EB2I Oct 26 2005, Approved on Aug 16th, 2010 with ADIT request in email notification.
Nebraska Service Center
Filed on Aug 14th, 2008 and raised SR on Aug 1st, received standard reply in 7 days that I am in queue for review and will hear back in 30 days
Nebraska Service Center
Filed on Aug 14th, 2008 and raised SR on Aug 1st, received standard reply in 7 days that I am in queue for review and will hear back in 30 days
gc_on_demand
03-31 09:13 AM
I think you have wrong info... Last year, EB2 I&C did receive spill over from EB2 ROW, EB1 (~3K), EB5.. Also from reading other posts it is my understanding that in fact there was NO spill over from Family Based.
I could be wrong though!!
May be I am wrong. I want to be wrong since I would like to File for I 485 , but this is from DOS site, can you share your source ?
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY10AnnualReport-TableV.pdf
Table V (Part 2)
You will see total at the bottom of this page.
E1 = 41,026
E2 = 53,872
E3 = 42,431
E4 = 11,048
E5 = 1,885 [Table V (Part 3)]
If allocation for 2010 was like below then EB1 gave us 1 k ,
E1 = 42.5
E2 = 42.5
E3 = 42.5
E4 = 11.5
E5 = 11
Then Eb1 gave only 1k. E2 ROW didn't give any. Eb2 India / China got from Eb1 and EB2 row is because of overflow from family based.
We are lacking those number this year. I would say if we didn't have those 10k family visas spill over would be only 10k for 2010.
I could be wrong though!!
May be I am wrong. I want to be wrong since I would like to File for I 485 , but this is from DOS site, can you share your source ?
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY10AnnualReport-TableV.pdf
Table V (Part 2)
You will see total at the bottom of this page.
E1 = 41,026
E2 = 53,872
E3 = 42,431
E4 = 11,048
E5 = 1,885 [Table V (Part 3)]
If allocation for 2010 was like below then EB1 gave us 1 k ,
E1 = 42.5
E2 = 42.5
E3 = 42.5
E4 = 11.5
E5 = 11
Then Eb1 gave only 1k. E2 ROW didn't give any. Eb2 India / China got from Eb1 and EB2 row is because of overflow from family based.
We are lacking those number this year. I would say if we didn't have those 10k family visas spill over would be only 10k for 2010.
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
desi3933
08-23 04:35 PM
Guys,
.....
.....
Just send the loud message" UNLESS YOU DO SOMETHING, WE ARE GOING BACK."
Send the message in different ways. And ofcors good to meet personally.
Sri.
Try that and see what happens. :D :D
Nobody cares if you stay here or go back.
.....
.....
Just send the loud message" UNLESS YOU DO SOMETHING, WE ARE GOING BACK."
Send the message in different ways. And ofcors good to meet personally.
Sri.
Try that and see what happens. :D :D
Nobody cares if you stay here or go back.
more...
Saralayar
01-08 01:08 AM
I am surprised to see this thread active this long. Earlier I have with help of Saralayar and other members have bring this point to attention. But at that time no one was supporting Idea.
I see increasing support for the Idea as GC journey become longer and longer.
Earlier I have pointed following points that I want to bring to remind if we want to get real support for this idea of early CITIZENSHIP AFTER GREEN CARD
(1) I-140 and I-485 must be approved.
(@) Time should be considered only after getting GC
(3) For getting closer for political support our proposal should be close to Existing laws for FAMILY BASED and MARRIAGE BASED CITIZENSHIPS
So we should argur that if YOU HAVE MASTER AND ABOVE IN STEM FILEDS YOu can get CITIZEN SHIP 5 yrs from date of Approval of I-140 ( which make it closer to fmaily based) and THREE YEARS from Date of Approval of I-485 (closer to marriage based citizens). You can get earlier of two . But when you get Citizenship your I-485 must be approved for ATLEAST 1 year.
The above requirements can get closer to Marriage and family based and also help 90% of IV members.
Adding the clause for the EDUCATIONAL THING might be able to get more political support also
Thanks
Core IV can consolidate the valueable points like this for the argument.
I see increasing support for the Idea as GC journey become longer and longer.
Earlier I have pointed following points that I want to bring to remind if we want to get real support for this idea of early CITIZENSHIP AFTER GREEN CARD
(1) I-140 and I-485 must be approved.
(@) Time should be considered only after getting GC
(3) For getting closer for political support our proposal should be close to Existing laws for FAMILY BASED and MARRIAGE BASED CITIZENSHIPS
So we should argur that if YOU HAVE MASTER AND ABOVE IN STEM FILEDS YOu can get CITIZEN SHIP 5 yrs from date of Approval of I-140 ( which make it closer to fmaily based) and THREE YEARS from Date of Approval of I-485 (closer to marriage based citizens). You can get earlier of two . But when you get Citizenship your I-485 must be approved for ATLEAST 1 year.
The above requirements can get closer to Marriage and family based and also help 90% of IV members.
Adding the clause for the EDUCATIONAL THING might be able to get more political support also
Thanks
Core IV can consolidate the valueable points like this for the argument.
PlainSpeak
03-29 12:07 PM
its been long time I have been waiting....if you understand hindi then
"Mere jaisi ban jaoge jab Ishq Tumhe ho jayega"
"Diwaro se takraoge jab Ishq Tumhe ho jayega"
Ayega Ayega Ayega ....
Ayega anne wala (GC) Ayega Ayega .....
or as Bobby McFerrin says Don't Worry, Be Happy
"Mere jaisi ban jaoge jab Ishq Tumhe ho jayega"
"Diwaro se takraoge jab Ishq Tumhe ho jayega"
Ayega Ayega Ayega ....
Ayega anne wala (GC) Ayega Ayega .....
or as Bobby McFerrin says Don't Worry, Be Happy
more...
bitzbytz
03-29 05:18 PM
Thanks to IV for getting this done
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
aruny5
09-09 01:49 PM
called...
Elton Gallegly (R-CA) 202-225-5811
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) 202-225-5431
Dan Lungren (R-CA) 202-225-5716
J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) 202-225-6365
Louie Gohmert (R-TX) 202-225-3035
called these 5 representative during lunch time. Operator who picks the phone is taking messages by him / her self. I think they are getting lots of calls (most probably from NumbersUSA). These operators won't let you speak for more than 1 min.
Elton Gallegly (R-CA) 202-225-5811
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) 202-225-5431
Dan Lungren (R-CA) 202-225-5716
J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) 202-225-6365
Louie Gohmert (R-TX) 202-225-3035
called these 5 representative during lunch time. Operator who picks the phone is taking messages by him / her self. I think they are getting lots of calls (most probably from NumbersUSA). These operators won't let you speak for more than 1 min.
more...
skrish
09-09 12:09 PM
what should we be saying. it might be better if all of us conveys the same forceful message detailing all the points
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
ndialani
10-26 02:13 PM
I couldn't believe. Got CPO and Welcoming New Resident emails for me and my son after 10 years.
All Glory and Praise to my Lord Jesus Christ.
Got the Text message on my mobile on Thursday Oct 22, at 7:45 pm. But didn't see it until 23rd morning at 9:00 am. Went to church on Thursday morning, and Friday morning, and prayed ardently. Came out of the church, and just opened my cell phone, and saw the text message from uscis saying "Your case # is updated. check 'My case status' on USCIS Home Page (http://www.uscis.gov)... ".
Got the email also on Thursday evening, but saw only on Friday morning.
Mine is at TSC, spouse's moved to local USCIS a few months back, for an interview.
Went to local uscis at 3:35, but it was closed. Hope my spouse's case also approved soon by the end of this week.
Thanks a bunch to IV, will continue to give my support to IV.
Cali: I called that # and spoke to the rep..
[/QUOTE]
Congrats! Fatjoe!!!
What was your SR Response from CRIS?
All Glory and Praise to my Lord Jesus Christ.
Got the Text message on my mobile on Thursday Oct 22, at 7:45 pm. But didn't see it until 23rd morning at 9:00 am. Went to church on Thursday morning, and Friday morning, and prayed ardently. Came out of the church, and just opened my cell phone, and saw the text message from uscis saying "Your case # is updated. check 'My case status' on USCIS Home Page (http://www.uscis.gov)... ".
Got the email also on Thursday evening, but saw only on Friday morning.
Mine is at TSC, spouse's moved to local USCIS a few months back, for an interview.
Went to local uscis at 3:35, but it was closed. Hope my spouse's case also approved soon by the end of this week.
Thanks a bunch to IV, will continue to give my support to IV.
Cali: I called that # and spoke to the rep..
[/QUOTE]
Congrats! Fatjoe!!!
What was your SR Response from CRIS?
more...
h1bmajdoor
01-10 08:12 PM
That is naive... AC21 is not an administrative decision of USCIS... It is a law... AC21 = American Competitiveness in the 21st Century act!! It was passed by congress and the only body that can revoke it is congress.
USCIS cannot revoke AC21.. only congress can. Please dont be paranoid. The most USCIS can do is refuse to change their current stance on same/similar job.
Gurus, correct me if I am wrong.
i am not a guru... but CIS can easily make things more difficult for you than congress intended.
namechecks are not authorized by congress (for GC anyway), by CIS uses them to screw people anyway.
"same or similar" in AC21 is a good enough clause. Do not needle them to come up with a rigid rule, because whatever they come up with will be worse than what you have now.
At least now they have some leeway to help you, and you have _some_ chance to move in career.
jeez...
USCIS cannot revoke AC21.. only congress can. Please dont be paranoid. The most USCIS can do is refuse to change their current stance on same/similar job.
Gurus, correct me if I am wrong.
i am not a guru... but CIS can easily make things more difficult for you than congress intended.
namechecks are not authorized by congress (for GC anyway), by CIS uses them to screw people anyway.
"same or similar" in AC21 is a good enough clause. Do not needle them to come up with a rigid rule, because whatever they come up with will be worse than what you have now.
At least now they have some leeway to help you, and you have _some_ chance to move in career.
jeez...
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
drona
07-11 02:32 PM
I'd be surprised if Arnie is anti-immigration considering he is an immigrant himself.
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
dtekkedil
07-11 02:30 PM
I think the company should be filing the fees but lawyers fee for filing is not their liability.
I am paying for everything including filing fees. I thought that the company is no longer involved once you are through the I-140 stage.
I am paying for everything including filing fees. I thought that the company is no longer involved once you are through the I-140 stage.
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
aadimanav
01-03 12:55 AM
Source:
http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/current.php?artType=view&artMonth=January&artYear=2008&EntryNo=7723
Delay In The Age Of Security - Employee Green Card Woes
Geoffrey Forney
WolfBlock
Geoffrey Forney is an Associate in WolfBlock's Employment Services Practice Group and is a member of the group's Immigration Services Team. Geoffrey handles all aspects of immigration and nationality law, including employment- and family-based immigration, removal (deportation) defense and asylum.
Many human resources representatives who handle immigration matters are well aware that dealing with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) can be confusing and at times frustrating. The agency has volumes of regulations, policies, decisions and guidelines governing the admission and employment of foreign nationals. Understanding the agency's requirements can be an overwhelming task. In addition, the agency's decision process is often obscure, leaving employers and foreign nationals guessing about the procedures that affect them directly.
Added to the confusion is the baffling situation of the excessively long-delayed adjudication of green card and naturalization applications. Employers spend a lot of time and money to sponsor valued foreign national employees only to find that the last stage of the process (adjustment of status or "green" card) is bogged down within a quagmire of endless and seemingly unexplainable delay. Applicants for green cards can face delays up to seven years or more. From an HR perspective, the situation is frustrating: all of the employee's appropriate paperwork has been filed, but the USCIS simply refuses to act on the application. Employers and foreign nationals make inquires with the USCIS only to be told that their applications are being held up because of "security" issues.
What "security" issues? Many foreign nationals are upset by this response, because they know that they have never had any contacts with law enforcement. Just because a foreign national is caught in security clearance delays does not necessarily mean that the person has had problems with law enforcement authorities. In the vast majority of cases, it simply means that the foreign national's name matches in some way a name in an FBI administrative file. Only after the USCIS confirms that the foreign national is not the same individual who is listed in the FBI administrative file will the USCIS proceed with the adjudication of the green card or naturalization application. It sounds simple enough, so why does this process take so long?
Congress requires the USCIS to perform criminal background checks on foreign nationals applying to become permanent residents (green card holders) or naturalized citizens of the United States. In addition to the Congressionally mandated criminal background check, DHS performs two other background checks on foreign nationals applying for green cards or citizenship. The criminal background check is a relatively easy and fast check: the USCIS obtains a fingerprint impression from the foreign national and checks this fingerprint image against the FBI's Criminal Master File. This check is usually completed within 48 hours, as it is largely a computer automated system. The second type of check, the Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS) check, is also very quick. The IBIS check is based on a database containing information from 26 different federal agencies that includes information on persons of "interest" to law enforcement. This check is usually completed immediately upon entering the foreign national's name into a computer database.
The problem arises with the third and final background check, known as the "name check." Although Congress does not require name checks, in 2002 legacy INS began requesting name checks for all green card and citizenship applications as part of its post-9/11 heightening of security. A "name check" is performed by taking every permutation of the foreign national's full name and comparing those various permutations against the FBI's "Universal Index," which references the FBI's Central Records System, a voluminous archive of administrative, personnel and investigative files. Of course, foreign nationals with common names will usually "match" an FBI file. In addition, a foreign national's name need not necessarily match a "main" file name, containing, for example, a suspect's name, but may match "reference" names, including informants and witnesses. Hence, the universe of possible matches is very large.
Although the FBI usually responds to a USCIS request for a name check within two weeks, if there is a "hit" or match between one or more permutations of the foreign national's name, a more extensive search must be completed. If a secondary search does not clear the foreign national's name, the USCIS requests a manual investigation of the relevant FBI case files. Since a "match" ultimately leads to a manual inspection of physical files. The process is time and labor intensive. One of the main reasons for the excessive delays in this arena is the lack of resources devoted to the manual inspection of files. To date, the USCIS and FBI currently have more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman.
As a result, a foreign national stuck in the name check backlog can expect to wait a very long time - a matter of years - before expecting a final adjudication of his or her application for a green card or citizenship. In some cases, a final resolution never occurs. It is not unusual to find applicants with unresolved cases that are more than five years old.
Recently, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman cited "name check" delays as a major problem for the agency in his 2007 annual report. The Ombudsman questioned the utility and effectiveness of the name check process, noting that "[n]ame check[s] are not conducted by the FBI as part of an ongoing investigation or from a need to learn more about an individual because of any threat or risk perceived by the FBI." Furthermore, the Ombudsman suggested that the name check program does not comply with DHS Secretary Chertoff's risk management modeling, because the cost of name checks far outweighs the purported national security benefit: "Considering the protection the FBI name check provides, the cost of government resources used, and mental and actual hardships to applicants and their families, USCIS should reassess the continuation of its policy to require FBI name checks in their current form." Notwithstanding the Ombudsman's criticism of the name check program, other high-level USCIS officials continue to support the process, so it appears that name checks will remain a part of green card and naturalization applications.
(Part 2 in the next post below)
http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/current.php?artType=view&artMonth=January&artYear=2008&EntryNo=7723
Delay In The Age Of Security - Employee Green Card Woes
Geoffrey Forney
WolfBlock
Geoffrey Forney is an Associate in WolfBlock's Employment Services Practice Group and is a member of the group's Immigration Services Team. Geoffrey handles all aspects of immigration and nationality law, including employment- and family-based immigration, removal (deportation) defense and asylum.
Many human resources representatives who handle immigration matters are well aware that dealing with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) can be confusing and at times frustrating. The agency has volumes of regulations, policies, decisions and guidelines governing the admission and employment of foreign nationals. Understanding the agency's requirements can be an overwhelming task. In addition, the agency's decision process is often obscure, leaving employers and foreign nationals guessing about the procedures that affect them directly.
Added to the confusion is the baffling situation of the excessively long-delayed adjudication of green card and naturalization applications. Employers spend a lot of time and money to sponsor valued foreign national employees only to find that the last stage of the process (adjustment of status or "green" card) is bogged down within a quagmire of endless and seemingly unexplainable delay. Applicants for green cards can face delays up to seven years or more. From an HR perspective, the situation is frustrating: all of the employee's appropriate paperwork has been filed, but the USCIS simply refuses to act on the application. Employers and foreign nationals make inquires with the USCIS only to be told that their applications are being held up because of "security" issues.
What "security" issues? Many foreign nationals are upset by this response, because they know that they have never had any contacts with law enforcement. Just because a foreign national is caught in security clearance delays does not necessarily mean that the person has had problems with law enforcement authorities. In the vast majority of cases, it simply means that the foreign national's name matches in some way a name in an FBI administrative file. Only after the USCIS confirms that the foreign national is not the same individual who is listed in the FBI administrative file will the USCIS proceed with the adjudication of the green card or naturalization application. It sounds simple enough, so why does this process take so long?
Congress requires the USCIS to perform criminal background checks on foreign nationals applying to become permanent residents (green card holders) or naturalized citizens of the United States. In addition to the Congressionally mandated criminal background check, DHS performs two other background checks on foreign nationals applying for green cards or citizenship. The criminal background check is a relatively easy and fast check: the USCIS obtains a fingerprint impression from the foreign national and checks this fingerprint image against the FBI's Criminal Master File. This check is usually completed within 48 hours, as it is largely a computer automated system. The second type of check, the Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS) check, is also very quick. The IBIS check is based on a database containing information from 26 different federal agencies that includes information on persons of "interest" to law enforcement. This check is usually completed immediately upon entering the foreign national's name into a computer database.
The problem arises with the third and final background check, known as the "name check." Although Congress does not require name checks, in 2002 legacy INS began requesting name checks for all green card and citizenship applications as part of its post-9/11 heightening of security. A "name check" is performed by taking every permutation of the foreign national's full name and comparing those various permutations against the FBI's "Universal Index," which references the FBI's Central Records System, a voluminous archive of administrative, personnel and investigative files. Of course, foreign nationals with common names will usually "match" an FBI file. In addition, a foreign national's name need not necessarily match a "main" file name, containing, for example, a suspect's name, but may match "reference" names, including informants and witnesses. Hence, the universe of possible matches is very large.
Although the FBI usually responds to a USCIS request for a name check within two weeks, if there is a "hit" or match between one or more permutations of the foreign national's name, a more extensive search must be completed. If a secondary search does not clear the foreign national's name, the USCIS requests a manual investigation of the relevant FBI case files. Since a "match" ultimately leads to a manual inspection of physical files. The process is time and labor intensive. One of the main reasons for the excessive delays in this arena is the lack of resources devoted to the manual inspection of files. To date, the USCIS and FBI currently have more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman.
As a result, a foreign national stuck in the name check backlog can expect to wait a very long time - a matter of years - before expecting a final adjudication of his or her application for a green card or citizenship. In some cases, a final resolution never occurs. It is not unusual to find applicants with unresolved cases that are more than five years old.
Recently, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman cited "name check" delays as a major problem for the agency in his 2007 annual report. The Ombudsman questioned the utility and effectiveness of the name check process, noting that "[n]ame check[s] are not conducted by the FBI as part of an ongoing investigation or from a need to learn more about an individual because of any threat or risk perceived by the FBI." Furthermore, the Ombudsman suggested that the name check program does not comply with DHS Secretary Chertoff's risk management modeling, because the cost of name checks far outweighs the purported national security benefit: "Considering the protection the FBI name check provides, the cost of government resources used, and mental and actual hardships to applicants and their families, USCIS should reassess the continuation of its policy to require FBI name checks in their current form." Notwithstanding the Ombudsman's criticism of the name check program, other high-level USCIS officials continue to support the process, so it appears that name checks will remain a part of green card and naturalization applications.
(Part 2 in the next post below)
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
akred
07-15 05:44 PM
let's compile a list of famous immigrants like Albert Einstien, Henry Kissinger, Madalene Albright et al and change the face of what constitutes a legal immigrant. We need stories of doctors, scientists, engineers (the success of NASA) who were immigrants and benefited this country. That way we can fight the image of the immigrant as a low wage seeking will work for food kind of a worker being created by anti immigrants. Let Lou Dobbs fight history and deny it.
You can find material for this on www.competeamerica.org (http://www.competeamerica.org).
http://www.competeamerica.org/Passport_to_Prosperity_FINAL_07_20041.pdf
You can find material for this on www.competeamerica.org (http://www.competeamerica.org).
http://www.competeamerica.org/Passport_to_Prosperity_FINAL_07_20041.pdf
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
sundarpn
01-02 12:27 AM
This is useful info. But scary :(:mad:
I was planning to get my h1b visa revalidation done at Chennai end of Jan '08.
Can anyone who goes for H1b revalidation post their experiences?
is this showing any signs of improvement?
I was planning to get my h1b visa revalidation done at Chennai end of Jan '08.
Can anyone who goes for H1b revalidation post their experiences?
is this showing any signs of improvement?
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
alias
08-07 02:29 PM
If someone is smarter to get his way ahead of me, it is good for him/her. I cannot blame my status on someone else's intelligence/ smartness. If I do not know how to play the game, it is my problem (it actually is, hence I am stuck). But that is OK. I am happy the way I am.
I like what you say. That attitude helps long-term for leadership! Selfishness and mean attitude is only shortsightedness.
I like what you say. That attitude helps long-term for leadership! Selfishness and mean attitude is only shortsightedness.
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
optimystic
03-24 02:54 PM
That's true actually. They have no business asking you about details of what your work authorization status is. All they need to know is that you are legally allowed to work. Doesn't matter EAD, GC or US citizenship. Sponsoring for H1B might come up during the hiring stage but that doesn't apply here.
Hypothetically in an interview, if directly asked, and if I am planning on using EAD, I would simply tell them that I have authorization from the DHS to work for any employer, and leave it at that. If they persist, I will tell them that I have the required documents for I-9. No need for more details unless some kind of security clearance is required.
Its a little hard to understand how the issue of 'work authorization' cannot be raised during interview or hiring process.
- Say I am an employer who has a critical project that needs a person to be on job for at least few months, to ensure that the project goes smoothly
- The DHS/USICS/DOL or the Fed (or whoever it is) has told me that it is illegal for me to hire anyone without proper work authorization
- I may not have sufficient funds to sponsor H1B
- During the interview process I want to know whether the candidate a) has work authorization b) how long his work authorization is valid for? so that I can prescreen and not trouble candidates with the whole interview process only to tell them later that I can't hire them.
Based on the criteria above I dont see how it is illegal to ask what type of work authorization one has, and if EAD , how long it is valid. It may be illegal to disqualify a candidate who has EAD with validity for the required amount of time. But I sure can ask about the details within legal limits, can't I?
I dont think DOL or whatever dept it is, that regulates employment, can force an employer that they have to treat seekers of H1B Visa [and/or EAD people with for example only 1 month validity left] on par with US citizens (On the other hand, it is the vice versa that they are more concerned about :) )....I mean what if the financial position of the employer cannot afford him to sponsor an H1B or take the risk of employing an EAD guy with only 1 month validity and risk financial loss if that guy had to quit after a month due to EAD renewal delay etc.... Would they be forced to sponsor H1B or take a risk by hiring the 1 month EAD guy?
What might be illegal though is rejecting to employ EAD people with reasonable amount of validity left on their card.
Isn't that right? [ I am just curious...I am not supporting the employer here, but just trying to understand the practical enforcement of the legality of such issues]
Regards.
Hypothetically in an interview, if directly asked, and if I am planning on using EAD, I would simply tell them that I have authorization from the DHS to work for any employer, and leave it at that. If they persist, I will tell them that I have the required documents for I-9. No need for more details unless some kind of security clearance is required.
Its a little hard to understand how the issue of 'work authorization' cannot be raised during interview or hiring process.
- Say I am an employer who has a critical project that needs a person to be on job for at least few months, to ensure that the project goes smoothly
- The DHS/USICS/DOL or the Fed (or whoever it is) has told me that it is illegal for me to hire anyone without proper work authorization
- I may not have sufficient funds to sponsor H1B
- During the interview process I want to know whether the candidate a) has work authorization b) how long his work authorization is valid for? so that I can prescreen and not trouble candidates with the whole interview process only to tell them later that I can't hire them.
Based on the criteria above I dont see how it is illegal to ask what type of work authorization one has, and if EAD , how long it is valid. It may be illegal to disqualify a candidate who has EAD with validity for the required amount of time. But I sure can ask about the details within legal limits, can't I?
I dont think DOL or whatever dept it is, that regulates employment, can force an employer that they have to treat seekers of H1B Visa [and/or EAD people with for example only 1 month validity left] on par with US citizens (On the other hand, it is the vice versa that they are more concerned about :) )....I mean what if the financial position of the employer cannot afford him to sponsor an H1B or take the risk of employing an EAD guy with only 1 month validity and risk financial loss if that guy had to quit after a month due to EAD renewal delay etc.... Would they be forced to sponsor H1B or take a risk by hiring the 1 month EAD guy?
What might be illegal though is rejecting to employ EAD people with reasonable amount of validity left on their card.
Isn't that right? [ I am just curious...I am not supporting the employer here, but just trying to understand the practical enforcement of the legality of such issues]
Regards.
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
jayleno
10-01 07:58 PM
I'm a great fan of Obama for what he has achieved so far and in all probability he will in Nov. I hope the new CIR will not be similar to CIR 2007 as far legal immigration is concerned. After 8 years of paying taxes I would definitely feel greatly disappointed if we get a raw deal for being legal
CADude
09-20 04:33 PM
immigration-law.com also raised general concern. may be our application is sitting in janitor rooms or some inaccessible cornor or lost. But some one in USCIS has to move a$$ to find out. We need AILA or powerful congressmen or senator's one letter and USCIS will act. That's a way, Govt Agency works. unless you make noise, nothing works. Baby also don't get milk unless cry.. :)
SunnySurya
08-07 02:56 PM
PD porting is another labor sub in making. I hope I have presented my case logically to show who all are the people who are in position to be benefitted by this rule. Of course there will be some genuine cases too but on other hand think about the people in Eb2 line that will be severely affected.
See, that's the reason I think the lawsuit idea has issues. I suspect the lawsuit may end up making life difficult for a lot of genuine cases without actually achieving what you set out to achieve.
But I have no data one way or the other.
See, that's the reason I think the lawsuit idea has issues. I suspect the lawsuit may end up making life difficult for a lot of genuine cases without actually achieving what you set out to achieve.
But I have no data one way or the other.
No comments:
Post a Comment