americandesi
03-26 02:53 PM
I was thinking exactly like you until she educated me on this yesterday.
The problem with the EAD is you are invoking AC21. There are several possible problems here including
1. Complying with AC21 requirements of job code, 180 days after 485 RD, etc.
2. Invoking AC21 without 140 approval. This is not against the law, but is risky in case of a 140 RFE.
There are more reasons, but these ought to provide enough clarity on the problem. It is in the employer's interest to ensure that the candidate does not have any such issues; issues which will lead to termination of employment. The Recruiter cannot check DOL job codes and USCIS documents. That is the job of Legal which means $$$.
So if the hiring manager does not have a budget for these extra costs or if he has an equally good candidate who is a GC holder or a citizen, it is easier to go with him or her.
Agreed. But EAD doesn’t apply to EB based immigrants alone. There are hundreds of thousands of family based immigrants who use EAD until their status gets adjusted and I-140/AC21/180 days etc. are not applicable to them. Same applies to the spouses of EB applicants. In such cases it’s a waste of time/money for the company to consult with the legal department.
I believe it’s the responsibility of the EAD holder to communicate what he expects from the new employer (like AC21) after which the company could decide whether to go with the legal department or not. Just assuming that all EAD cases fall under I-140/AC21/180 days etc. is plain ignorance.
The problem with the EAD is you are invoking AC21. There are several possible problems here including
1. Complying with AC21 requirements of job code, 180 days after 485 RD, etc.
2. Invoking AC21 without 140 approval. This is not against the law, but is risky in case of a 140 RFE.
There are more reasons, but these ought to provide enough clarity on the problem. It is in the employer's interest to ensure that the candidate does not have any such issues; issues which will lead to termination of employment. The Recruiter cannot check DOL job codes and USCIS documents. That is the job of Legal which means $$$.
So if the hiring manager does not have a budget for these extra costs or if he has an equally good candidate who is a GC holder or a citizen, it is easier to go with him or her.
Agreed. But EAD doesn’t apply to EB based immigrants alone. There are hundreds of thousands of family based immigrants who use EAD until their status gets adjusted and I-140/AC21/180 days etc. are not applicable to them. Same applies to the spouses of EB applicants. In such cases it’s a waste of time/money for the company to consult with the legal department.
I believe it’s the responsibility of the EAD holder to communicate what he expects from the new employer (like AC21) after which the company could decide whether to go with the legal department or not. Just assuming that all EAD cases fall under I-140/AC21/180 days etc. is plain ignorance.
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
jungalee43
09-15 04:21 PM
I've started calling. 6 down and many more to go. Two of them directed me to voice mail and 4 actually talked. I will finish the list today and then tomorrow I would call House Speaker's office and Senate Majority leader's office.
vg1778
09-24 01:42 AM
Fedex recived by J Barret on 10:25 am.
I know few frinds of mine who were July 2nd filers too got their receipts last week on Monday.
So nobody knows whats going on whereas I have heard even August filers are getting receipts too.
I know few frinds of mine who were July 2nd filers too got their receipts last week on Monday.
So nobody knows whats going on whereas I have heard even August filers are getting receipts too.
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
akela_topchi
08-07 11:11 AM
Knowingly, or unknowingly, you are dividing this community on meager self-interests. That's the worst somebody can do to IV.
We don't need NumbersUSA to divide us when people like you are here...
We don't need NumbersUSA to divide us when people like you are here...
more...
anura
03-30 12:10 PM
vdlrao
That sounds about right and realistic. On the other hand I think the movement will be more. I mean if DOS just moves the dates by 4 months after making such a big announcement ...WTH??
And I thought DOS is gonna move the dates by ONE year into June 2007...ha ha ha...
Absolutely, the chances for movement to June 2007 is bright but not in May. One of the old models did predict August 2007 by Sep 2011. And then it was noticed that EB3 porting was not properly accounted for in the equation (only 150 per month was accounted). Thereafter, it was stated that Eb3 -> 2 porting is at least 500/m (which I thought was quite a bit). This burden in the model dragged Aug'07 predicted movement date to Nov'06. Now that 12000 EB1 spillover is being claimed, this would account for and balance even 1000/m Eb3->2 porting. Therefore an August 2007 PD by Sep'11 is a good possibility. But the visa bulletin has it's own brains.
A
That sounds about right and realistic. On the other hand I think the movement will be more. I mean if DOS just moves the dates by 4 months after making such a big announcement ...WTH??
And I thought DOS is gonna move the dates by ONE year into June 2007...ha ha ha...
Absolutely, the chances for movement to June 2007 is bright but not in May. One of the old models did predict August 2007 by Sep 2011. And then it was noticed that EB3 porting was not properly accounted for in the equation (only 150 per month was accounted). Thereafter, it was stated that Eb3 -> 2 porting is at least 500/m (which I thought was quite a bit). This burden in the model dragged Aug'07 predicted movement date to Nov'06. Now that 12000 EB1 spillover is being claimed, this would account for and balance even 1000/m Eb3->2 porting. Therefore an August 2007 PD by Sep'11 is a good possibility. But the visa bulletin has it's own brains.
A
CADude
09-19 04:15 PM
I sent following fax to senator, congressmen, etc.
If any one knows the fax# of any senior executive @ NSC. Please post here.
Bottomline, everyone has to fight his/her battle. Help yourself.
Date: Sept 19th 2007
To,
The Honorable Senator Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954
Sub: Inquiry/status for I-485 AOS application sent to USCIS, Nebraska Service Center on July 2nd 2007 [USPS Tracking No. XXXXXXXUS]
Dear Honorable Ms. Feinstein,
My Adjustment Application [type, e.g. I-485] was delivered to INS Express, Nebraska Service Center, Lincoln, NE on July 2nd 2007. I didn’t get any information for said application. USCIS Customer Service are very unhelpful and don’t provide any information.
USCIS website says NSC are working with August 2007 received AOS applications. So USCIS is either not following the First in First out (FIFO) process for sure or misleading the public.
I need help of your good office to track my AOS application delivered to NSC on July 2nd 2007. Please feel free to contact me for any additional information.
Details as provided below:
...
...
...
Sincerely yours,
If any one knows the fax# of any senior executive @ NSC. Please post here.
Bottomline, everyone has to fight his/her battle. Help yourself.
Date: Sept 19th 2007
To,
The Honorable Senator Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954
Sub: Inquiry/status for I-485 AOS application sent to USCIS, Nebraska Service Center on July 2nd 2007 [USPS Tracking No. XXXXXXXUS]
Dear Honorable Ms. Feinstein,
My Adjustment Application [type, e.g. I-485] was delivered to INS Express, Nebraska Service Center, Lincoln, NE on July 2nd 2007. I didn’t get any information for said application. USCIS Customer Service are very unhelpful and don’t provide any information.
USCIS website says NSC are working with August 2007 received AOS applications. So USCIS is either not following the First in First out (FIFO) process for sure or misleading the public.
I need help of your good office to track my AOS application delivered to NSC on July 2nd 2007. Please feel free to contact me for any additional information.
Details as provided below:
...
...
...
Sincerely yours,
more...
bestofall
09-30 05:52 PM
Guys
please report your Approvals in this thread . wish you luck for EB2 / EB3 guys whose PD s are current in October 2009
“If you think IV as an organization, IV’s leadership team and many members who donated their time and money were in anyways helpful in your GC journey, please consider making a “Thank You” donation to IV. Also, keep visiting IV and support your fellow immigrants stuck in this GC queue” __________________
please report your Approvals in this thread . wish you luck for EB2 / EB3 guys whose PD s are current in October 2009
“If you think IV as an organization, IV’s leadership team and many members who donated their time and money were in anyways helpful in your GC journey, please consider making a “Thank You” donation to IV. Also, keep visiting IV and support your fellow immigrants stuck in this GC queue” __________________
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
gccovet
11-03 12:44 PM
guys, please act on sending letters. This is very important.
thank you.
GCCovet
thank you.
GCCovet
more...
2008FebEb2
09-15 12:18 PM
How can this thread go down today?
Why can't the members understand that nothing else is more important for us today than H.R. 5882 support calls.
Nothing else matters today, not your tax questions, not your political views, no RFEs... nothing.... NOT EVEN LEHMAN BORTHERS.
So Call Call and Call
Hi Junglee, when is HR5882 scheduled again?
Is it tomorrow or on 18th?
Thanks.
Why can't the members understand that nothing else is more important for us today than H.R. 5882 support calls.
Nothing else matters today, not your tax questions, not your political views, no RFEs... nothing.... NOT EVEN LEHMAN BORTHERS.
So Call Call and Call
Hi Junglee, when is HR5882 scheduled again?
Is it tomorrow or on 18th?
Thanks.
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
HumHongeKamiyab
06-21 10:08 AM
While filing for I 485, I was wondering if I can file for my wife's EAD and AP and dont apply for mine (at this time) as I am not going to change the job in next few months. So I will keep working on my H1 (valid till 2009) and she can work on her EAD? Is it possible and legal to do ?
Thanks,
Thanks,
more...
kewlchap
10-10 06:33 PM
Folks,
Got the email about being registered as a new permanent resident on Oct 8th. Thanks to SoP, caliguy, fatjoe and all others on the forum who helped / gave me support. I essentially learned that USCIS will not move quickly on their own, they need to be pursued just like any other govt. office in India. I give my time line below for an idea of what I did. If anyone is waiting still, I sincerely think that you should do all of POJ/SR/Infopass/Senator/Ombudsman.
Timeline:
Sept 1st - became current
Sept 5th - contacted NSC several times through POJ. Finally, a very nice lady told me that my case was not even assigned to an officer. Said that she will send in a request to the contractor to pull my case out and get it assigned to an officer.
Sept 11th - Case pulled out of storage area and moved to a smaller waiting room [got this info later, but this is what had happened]
Sept 13th: Opened SR.
Sept 18th - Infopass: Told me that my case was assigned to an officer on Sept 11th (which was wrong really) and that I should wait 30 days. Also told me that my FP were renewed on March 9th and all my checks were clear.
Sept 20th: Contacted Senator's office. Said they will send in inquiry.
Sept 25: Response to SR. Case under review. Wait 30 days.
Sept 27th: Letter from Senator saying my case was under review and I need to wait 30 days.
Oct 2nd: Contacted NSC again through POJ method. A nice lady, Terry, told me that my case was assigned to officer on Sept 30th. She said, "your case was pulled out of storage and put in a rather large holding area where it was till Sept 30th." Also confirmed that my FP was renewed and other checks were clear. Said, just wait, it will happen soon.
Oct 6th: Sent 7001 form to USCIS Ombudsman.
Oct 8th: Got decision email.
Learnings: Pursue your case as much as you can. Call NSC, but be polite. They are usually in good mood on Thu/Friday evenings and if you make some small talk, they will help you. I kept records of which NSC IO is rude and if they picked up the next time, I would just keep the phone down. In fact, the lady who helped me remembered me 'coz I managed to reach her 3 times. Dont just ask for status, say that you have called in the past and so far you know xxxx about your case. Some IOs are nice, some are rude. Nice ones actually tried to explain the entire storage area, holding area, supervisor supply chain to me. I think I kind of understand the process that happens at NSC just through these conversations now. Approach Ombudsman asap with form 7001. Call your Senator office and ask to speak to the immigration person. They are very understanding and will help you.
Long-ish email, but thought that I will put it out there, and it might help someone stuck in this morass. If you need more info, ask me / PM me. I will be around these forums for some more time.
Got the email about being registered as a new permanent resident on Oct 8th. Thanks to SoP, caliguy, fatjoe and all others on the forum who helped / gave me support. I essentially learned that USCIS will not move quickly on their own, they need to be pursued just like any other govt. office in India. I give my time line below for an idea of what I did. If anyone is waiting still, I sincerely think that you should do all of POJ/SR/Infopass/Senator/Ombudsman.
Timeline:
Sept 1st - became current
Sept 5th - contacted NSC several times through POJ. Finally, a very nice lady told me that my case was not even assigned to an officer. Said that she will send in a request to the contractor to pull my case out and get it assigned to an officer.
Sept 11th - Case pulled out of storage area and moved to a smaller waiting room [got this info later, but this is what had happened]
Sept 13th: Opened SR.
Sept 18th - Infopass: Told me that my case was assigned to an officer on Sept 11th (which was wrong really) and that I should wait 30 days. Also told me that my FP were renewed on March 9th and all my checks were clear.
Sept 20th: Contacted Senator's office. Said they will send in inquiry.
Sept 25: Response to SR. Case under review. Wait 30 days.
Sept 27th: Letter from Senator saying my case was under review and I need to wait 30 days.
Oct 2nd: Contacted NSC again through POJ method. A nice lady, Terry, told me that my case was assigned to officer on Sept 30th. She said, "your case was pulled out of storage and put in a rather large holding area where it was till Sept 30th." Also confirmed that my FP was renewed and other checks were clear. Said, just wait, it will happen soon.
Oct 6th: Sent 7001 form to USCIS Ombudsman.
Oct 8th: Got decision email.
Learnings: Pursue your case as much as you can. Call NSC, but be polite. They are usually in good mood on Thu/Friday evenings and if you make some small talk, they will help you. I kept records of which NSC IO is rude and if they picked up the next time, I would just keep the phone down. In fact, the lady who helped me remembered me 'coz I managed to reach her 3 times. Dont just ask for status, say that you have called in the past and so far you know xxxx about your case. Some IOs are nice, some are rude. Nice ones actually tried to explain the entire storage area, holding area, supervisor supply chain to me. I think I kind of understand the process that happens at NSC just through these conversations now. Approach Ombudsman asap with form 7001. Call your Senator office and ask to speak to the immigration person. They are very understanding and will help you.
Long-ish email, but thought that I will put it out there, and it might help someone stuck in this morass. If you need more info, ask me / PM me. I will be around these forums for some more time.
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
sathishkrish
01-08 02:43 PM
If you dont have PR, the rateyou pay is higher. Some deny loans as well.
I own a Home and they asked me for drivers license - thats all. I pay interest rates as anyone does ...
I own a Home and they asked me for drivers license - thats all. I pay interest rates as anyone does ...
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
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...
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
puvathoor
01-14 03:36 PM
I have sent letters on my and my wife's behalf..
Urging my acquaintances who are in the immigration Backlog to do the same..
Administrative fixes are a good idea.. I think the key to success in reforming the system will be a stealth and incremental reforms rather than any "CIR" type of fixes..
Urging my acquaintances who are in the immigration Backlog to do the same..
Administrative fixes are a good idea.. I think the key to success in reforming the system will be a stealth and incremental reforms rather than any "CIR" type of fixes..
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
GCBy3000
06-25 05:39 PM
$100
Conf number: 40N352226W853005X
I am seeing only the past contributors contributing again and again and also giving all the requried clarification on immigration issues for the non-contributing members. I am feeling like we(the contributors) are carrying dead weight with us.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5470
We are running a small funding drive as a gesture of support IV for answering each other's questions in times of need.
If your question is answered by a fellow member, do make a point to contribute some amount. It will help continue this effort.
We understand everyone is busy with I485 filing and have put everything on hold. But we have not put our efforts on hold in the interest of this communty and this cause. Core is working on this issue despite being busy on their own I485 filing.
We are also working with our lobbyists on CIR and as soon as there is an action item we will post it on the forum for all to participate.
At this time, do take out a couple of minutes off your busy schedule with I485 filing and contribute towards Immigrationvoice.
Thanks
Conf number: 40N352226W853005X
I am seeing only the past contributors contributing again and again and also giving all the requried clarification on immigration issues for the non-contributing members. I am feeling like we(the contributors) are carrying dead weight with us.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5470
We are running a small funding drive as a gesture of support IV for answering each other's questions in times of need.
If your question is answered by a fellow member, do make a point to contribute some amount. It will help continue this effort.
We understand everyone is busy with I485 filing and have put everything on hold. But we have not put our efforts on hold in the interest of this communty and this cause. Core is working on this issue despite being busy on their own I485 filing.
We are also working with our lobbyists on CIR and as soon as there is an action item we will post it on the forum for all to participate.
At this time, do take out a couple of minutes off your busy schedule with I485 filing and contribute towards Immigrationvoice.
Thanks
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
singhsa3
10-17 03:21 PM
Anyone in the similar boat as mine?
I am a july 2nd filer and filed my second application on Aug 15th.
Now that I have got receipts for July 2nd applications, I have put stop payments on the checks on Aug 15th application.
My hope is that my 2nd application will not be processed.
I am a july 2nd filer and filed my second application on Aug 15th.
Now that I have got receipts for July 2nd applications, I have put stop payments on the checks on Aug 15th application.
My hope is that my 2nd application will not be processed.
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
Macaca
07-22 08:27 AM
Lou Dobbs Tonight 03/28/2007 (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0703/28/ldt.01.html): "It's pretty remarkable. Four hundred thousand H1 visas each year."
Temporary Admissions of Nonimmigrants to the United States: 2005 (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/2005_NI_rpt.pdf) By ELIZABETH M. GRIECO | DHS, Jul 2006
Nonimmigrant visas allow foreign nationals to travel to a U.S. port of entry, such as an international airport, a seaport, or a land border crossing. However, they do not guarantee entry. At the port of entry, an immigration officer of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authorizes a traveler’s admission into the United States and the period of stay (i.e., the length of time the bearer of a nonimmigrant visa is allowed to remain in the United States) for that visit. The initial authorized stay is noted in the DHS Form I-94 Form issued to the nonimmigrant by CBP.
Many visas are valid for several years, allowing those visa holders to enter the United States multiple times. Nonimmigrants on long-term visas, however, are still issued an authorized period of stay by CBP each time they are admitted.
TECS is the primary source for data collected from the Arrival-Departure Record, also known as DHS Form
I-942. Nonimmigrants arriving by air, land, or sea are required to complete Form I-94, with two important exceptions. Canadians who travel to the United States as tourists or on business generally do not need the I-94 Form. Also, certain Mexicans who have a nonresident alien Border Crossing Card, commonly known as a laser visa or a multiple-entry nonimmigrant visa, may not be required to complete the I-94 Form for entry. These exceptions are significant because Canadian and Mexican citizens make up the vast majority of all nonimmigrant admissions.
This Office of Immigration Statistics Annual Flow Report examines the number and characteristics of nonimmigrant admissions in 20051 recorded by the Treasury Enforcement Communications Systems (TECS) of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
The data presented in this report are derived from the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS) of the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection. TECS compiles and maintains information collected from nonimmigrants by DHS Form I-94, which asks for dates of arrival and departure as well as limited demographic information, such as name, sex, nationality, and date of birth.
I-94 Forms issued at air and sea ports of entry, in most cases, can be used for a single entry only. Each time a nonimmigrant enters the United States via air or sea, the arrival portion of the I-94 Form is collected and the information is entered into the data system. Conversely, each time a nonimmigrant leaves the United States via air or sea, the
departure portion is collected and the additional data is recorded into TECS.
By comparison, I-94 Forms issued at land border ports of entry, in most cases, can be used for multiple entries during an authorized period of admission. The arrival portion of the I-94 Form is collected and entered into the data system only at the time of initial form issuance and admission. Thus, while a nonimmigrant may enter the United States at a land border port of entry numerous times using the same I-94 Form, the arrival information recorded in TECS refers to the initial entry only. Also, a nonimmigrant who has been issued a multiple-entry I-94 and who leaves the United States via the land border is not required to surrender the departure portion of the form if the authorized period of admission is still valid and the nonimmigrant intends to return before the I-94 Form has expired.
The information from the departure portion of the form is recorded into TECS after the nonimmigrant surrenders the form. Although TECS records both arrival and departure data, the information presented in this report is based on arrival data only.
Many nonimmigrants, such as students, diplomats, and temporary workers, enter and leave the United States more than once each year, and the TECS system separately records each new issuance of an I-94 Form at arrival and each I-94 Form collected at departure. Since the arrival data are collected each time a new I-94 Form is issued, and an individual might enter more than once in a fiscal year, the count of admissions exceeds the number of individuals arriving.
In 2005, for example, there were 32 million I-94 admissions recorded by TECS, but only 26.9 million individuals entered the United States (see Table 2). Of those 26.9 million, 88 percent arrived once while 12 percent arrived two or more times during the year. This report uses TECS data to describe the number and characteristics of the 32 million I-94 admissions and not the 26.9 million individual nonimmigrants.
There is no limit on the total number of nonimmigrants admitted each year.
There are also limits on the number of petitions approved for initial employment for certain categories of temporary workers. For example, in 2005, high-skilled H-1B visas for certain first-time applicants were limited to 65,000. In general, there are few limitations on the number of immediate family members who can enter the country with nonimmigrant visa holders.
From How many H-1B visa workers? Counts vary (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=114543&postcount=737) VALLEY EMPLOYERS AMONG TOP USERS By Chris O'Brien (cobrien@mercurynews.com or (415) 298-0207) | Mercury News, 07/15/2007
A company that wants H-1B visas files an application with the U.S. Department of Labor. The Labor Department screens the applications, then passes them to the Department of Homeland Security, which includes the office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Applications approved by the immigration service are then forwarded to the U.S. Department of State, which actually issues the visas.
There's a startling lack of publicly available data about the program, which makes it almost impossible to know which companies are getting the controversial visas and why. And much of the data that does exist is disputed by one side or another.
Oracle was issued 1,022 H-1B visas in calendar year 2006, a figure that includes renewals of previously issued visas. But Robert Hoffman, an Oracle spokesman, said his company could only confirm that it made 170 new H-1B hires in the federal government's fiscal year 2007, which runs from October to September.
The list is dominated by India-based outsourcing companies, such as Wipro and Infosys, which at No. 1 and No. 2 respectively received 3,143 and 3,125 new visas. The only Silicon Valley company on the list was Intel, ranked No. 13 with 613. Microsoft was fifth with 1,297.
But another list circulating on Capitol Hill told a somewhat different story. That list was also from the Homeland Security Department and included the number of new visas as well as the number of renewal visas.
According to that list, Oracle outranked Intel, receiving 1,022 visas in 2006. Intel received 828, as did Cisco; Yahoo received 347; and Hewlett-Packard received 333.
But Shotwell, the tech-industry lobbyist, said such tallies are misleading because companies often file multiple applications for a single person or large blanket applications for a number of positions they might not ultimately need because they want as many as possible before the cap is reached.
The federal government awarded 124,096 H-1B visas in the fiscal year ending October 2005, the most recent annual totals available. That includes renewed visas, which don't count against the annual cap.
From Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2005 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/H1B_FY05_Characteristics.pdf) November 2006
Number of H1B petitions approved for initial employment is 116,927. (page 5)
The number of approved petitions exceeds the number of individual H-1B workers because more than one U.S. employer may file a petition on behalf of an individual H-1B worker. (page 5)
Blogged at All Reader Comments (http://app.businessweek.com/UserComments/combo_review?action=all&style=wide&productId=20045&pageIndex=5) for A Green Light on the Road to Green Cards (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jul2007/db20070717_923080.htm?chan=search)
Temporary Admissions of Nonimmigrants to the United States: 2005 (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/2005_NI_rpt.pdf) By ELIZABETH M. GRIECO | DHS, Jul 2006
Nonimmigrant visas allow foreign nationals to travel to a U.S. port of entry, such as an international airport, a seaport, or a land border crossing. However, they do not guarantee entry. At the port of entry, an immigration officer of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authorizes a traveler’s admission into the United States and the period of stay (i.e., the length of time the bearer of a nonimmigrant visa is allowed to remain in the United States) for that visit. The initial authorized stay is noted in the DHS Form I-94 Form issued to the nonimmigrant by CBP.
Many visas are valid for several years, allowing those visa holders to enter the United States multiple times. Nonimmigrants on long-term visas, however, are still issued an authorized period of stay by CBP each time they are admitted.
TECS is the primary source for data collected from the Arrival-Departure Record, also known as DHS Form
I-942. Nonimmigrants arriving by air, land, or sea are required to complete Form I-94, with two important exceptions. Canadians who travel to the United States as tourists or on business generally do not need the I-94 Form. Also, certain Mexicans who have a nonresident alien Border Crossing Card, commonly known as a laser visa or a multiple-entry nonimmigrant visa, may not be required to complete the I-94 Form for entry. These exceptions are significant because Canadian and Mexican citizens make up the vast majority of all nonimmigrant admissions.
This Office of Immigration Statistics Annual Flow Report examines the number and characteristics of nonimmigrant admissions in 20051 recorded by the Treasury Enforcement Communications Systems (TECS) of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
The data presented in this report are derived from the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS) of the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection. TECS compiles and maintains information collected from nonimmigrants by DHS Form I-94, which asks for dates of arrival and departure as well as limited demographic information, such as name, sex, nationality, and date of birth.
I-94 Forms issued at air and sea ports of entry, in most cases, can be used for a single entry only. Each time a nonimmigrant enters the United States via air or sea, the arrival portion of the I-94 Form is collected and the information is entered into the data system. Conversely, each time a nonimmigrant leaves the United States via air or sea, the
departure portion is collected and the additional data is recorded into TECS.
By comparison, I-94 Forms issued at land border ports of entry, in most cases, can be used for multiple entries during an authorized period of admission. The arrival portion of the I-94 Form is collected and entered into the data system only at the time of initial form issuance and admission. Thus, while a nonimmigrant may enter the United States at a land border port of entry numerous times using the same I-94 Form, the arrival information recorded in TECS refers to the initial entry only. Also, a nonimmigrant who has been issued a multiple-entry I-94 and who leaves the United States via the land border is not required to surrender the departure portion of the form if the authorized period of admission is still valid and the nonimmigrant intends to return before the I-94 Form has expired.
The information from the departure portion of the form is recorded into TECS after the nonimmigrant surrenders the form. Although TECS records both arrival and departure data, the information presented in this report is based on arrival data only.
Many nonimmigrants, such as students, diplomats, and temporary workers, enter and leave the United States more than once each year, and the TECS system separately records each new issuance of an I-94 Form at arrival and each I-94 Form collected at departure. Since the arrival data are collected each time a new I-94 Form is issued, and an individual might enter more than once in a fiscal year, the count of admissions exceeds the number of individuals arriving.
In 2005, for example, there were 32 million I-94 admissions recorded by TECS, but only 26.9 million individuals entered the United States (see Table 2). Of those 26.9 million, 88 percent arrived once while 12 percent arrived two or more times during the year. This report uses TECS data to describe the number and characteristics of the 32 million I-94 admissions and not the 26.9 million individual nonimmigrants.
There is no limit on the total number of nonimmigrants admitted each year.
There are also limits on the number of petitions approved for initial employment for certain categories of temporary workers. For example, in 2005, high-skilled H-1B visas for certain first-time applicants were limited to 65,000. In general, there are few limitations on the number of immediate family members who can enter the country with nonimmigrant visa holders.
From How many H-1B visa workers? Counts vary (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=114543&postcount=737) VALLEY EMPLOYERS AMONG TOP USERS By Chris O'Brien (cobrien@mercurynews.com or (415) 298-0207) | Mercury News, 07/15/2007
A company that wants H-1B visas files an application with the U.S. Department of Labor. The Labor Department screens the applications, then passes them to the Department of Homeland Security, which includes the office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Applications approved by the immigration service are then forwarded to the U.S. Department of State, which actually issues the visas.
There's a startling lack of publicly available data about the program, which makes it almost impossible to know which companies are getting the controversial visas and why. And much of the data that does exist is disputed by one side or another.
Oracle was issued 1,022 H-1B visas in calendar year 2006, a figure that includes renewals of previously issued visas. But Robert Hoffman, an Oracle spokesman, said his company could only confirm that it made 170 new H-1B hires in the federal government's fiscal year 2007, which runs from October to September.
The list is dominated by India-based outsourcing companies, such as Wipro and Infosys, which at No. 1 and No. 2 respectively received 3,143 and 3,125 new visas. The only Silicon Valley company on the list was Intel, ranked No. 13 with 613. Microsoft was fifth with 1,297.
But another list circulating on Capitol Hill told a somewhat different story. That list was also from the Homeland Security Department and included the number of new visas as well as the number of renewal visas.
According to that list, Oracle outranked Intel, receiving 1,022 visas in 2006. Intel received 828, as did Cisco; Yahoo received 347; and Hewlett-Packard received 333.
But Shotwell, the tech-industry lobbyist, said such tallies are misleading because companies often file multiple applications for a single person or large blanket applications for a number of positions they might not ultimately need because they want as many as possible before the cap is reached.
The federal government awarded 124,096 H-1B visas in the fiscal year ending October 2005, the most recent annual totals available. That includes renewed visas, which don't count against the annual cap.
From Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2005 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/H1B_FY05_Characteristics.pdf) November 2006
Number of H1B petitions approved for initial employment is 116,927. (page 5)
The number of approved petitions exceeds the number of individual H-1B workers because more than one U.S. employer may file a petition on behalf of an individual H-1B worker. (page 5)
Blogged at All Reader Comments (http://app.businessweek.com/UserComments/combo_review?action=all&style=wide&productId=20045&pageIndex=5) for A Green Light on the Road to Green Cards (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jul2007/db20070717_923080.htm?chan=search)
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
dontcareaboutGC
04-05 03:10 PM
I am posting this from Ron Gotcher's forum-
"Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11040563 (posted Apr. 5, 2011)"
Following-up on his earlier observations on EB-1 demand and "spill-down" to EB-2 reported on InfoNet on March 29, 2011 (InfoNet Doc. No. 11032960), Charlie Oppenheim discussed scenarios for EB-2 movement in the coming months. In preparation of the May 2011 Visa Bulletin, DOS will consider the approximately 12,000 unused EB-1 numbers that will "spill-down" to EB-2, EB-2 demand and possible unused numbers, and will consult with USCIS on its processing potential. A quick look by DOS at this point indicates that there is the possibility for greater advancement of the India EB-2 category than had earlier been thought. Doing so will give DOS better visibility into EB-3 upgrade demand in the pipeline, and will better ensure that all visas allowed annually are used. However, a rapid advance could spur a surge in demand that could impact the cut-off dates later in the year. The May Visa Bulletin, generally issued mid-April, will contain a discussion of visa availability projections for the remainder of the year.
"Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11040563 (posted Apr. 5, 2011)"
Following-up on his earlier observations on EB-1 demand and "spill-down" to EB-2 reported on InfoNet on March 29, 2011 (InfoNet Doc. No. 11032960), Charlie Oppenheim discussed scenarios for EB-2 movement in the coming months. In preparation of the May 2011 Visa Bulletin, DOS will consider the approximately 12,000 unused EB-1 numbers that will "spill-down" to EB-2, EB-2 demand and possible unused numbers, and will consult with USCIS on its processing potential. A quick look by DOS at this point indicates that there is the possibility for greater advancement of the India EB-2 category than had earlier been thought. Doing so will give DOS better visibility into EB-3 upgrade demand in the pipeline, and will better ensure that all visas allowed annually are used. However, a rapid advance could spur a surge in demand that could impact the cut-off dates later in the year. The May Visa Bulletin, generally issued mid-April, will contain a discussion of visa availability projections for the remainder of the year.
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
desi3933
06-16 03:40 PM
Grow up dude... You don't have any facts or knowledge on this only you have hatered
Day dreaming is bad thing. You could be fired for this.
Anyway, please spend some more time before passing any judgment, since you are new to earth.
:D :D :D
.
Day dreaming is bad thing. You could be fired for this.
Anyway, please spend some more time before passing any judgment, since you are new to earth.
:D :D :D
.
unseenguy
06-19 02:14 AM
You are certainly showing your class and language skills here. Your momma teach you to talk like that? :rolleyes:
Tell me something.. when you applied for your L1 visa, did you fill out a DS157 form? All males in a certain age group are required to fill that, women are not.. but I'm not sure what they require from hijras like you :D
Again dumb idiot check your comprehension skills. You are making an assumption I am on L1.
And before you invoke my family members, check what yours have taught you. Did I ever mention your mother eventhough I could? What did your mother teach you, too call others hijras? :)) sounds very cultured family.
Tell me something.. when you applied for your L1 visa, did you fill out a DS157 form? All males in a certain age group are required to fill that, women are not.. but I'm not sure what they require from hijras like you :D
Again dumb idiot check your comprehension skills. You are making an assumption I am on L1.
And before you invoke my family members, check what yours have taught you. Did I ever mention your mother eventhough I could? What did your mother teach you, too call others hijras? :)) sounds very cultured family.
feedfront
09-23 01:09 AM
Congrats!
Did you directly get card production ordered or approval then CPO?
Card Ordererd/Productin email
Did you directly get card production ordered or approval then CPO?
Card Ordererd/Productin email
No comments:
Post a Comment