pcs
12-31 09:16 PM
I tried it a lot but could not find it. Actually a lot of us have this situation, where we want to change jobs as the market changed for good.
If you could tell me which thread has this info, it will be wonderful
Have a great 2007
If you could tell me which thread has this info, it will be wonderful
Have a great 2007
wallpaper half sleeve tattoo ideas for
ivar
04-16 02:03 PM
Yes, I saw that you are applying for the third time, I saw in another post your 140 got approved too earlier. May I ask what screwed it up for you couple of times? You can IM me if you don't want to discuss here, just want to get some idea not complete details.
Good luck!!
I sent you a PM.
Thanks.
Good luck!!
I sent you a PM.
Thanks.
mhtanim
06-08 02:44 PM
Wow...another LUD today. So far this is what happened: after sending RFE response, I got 1st LUD on 06/02/2009 with message change.
Soft LUDs on: 06/03/2009, 06/04/2009, 06/05/2009, 06/08/2009
My PD is not current and my application cannot be approved at this time. Not sure why I am getting so many LUDs.
Soft LUDs on: 06/03/2009, 06/04/2009, 06/05/2009, 06/08/2009
My PD is not current and my application cannot be approved at this time. Not sure why I am getting so many LUDs.
2011 dresses Half Sleeve Tattoo
msadiqali
05-22 08:59 PM
Not sure what the big deal is..those guys looted the world anyway..
be happy that they are not thrown in jail..brain drain in these kind of activities is what is needed..put your brain to good use and not just in creating junk papers..
be happy that they are not thrown in jail..brain drain in these kind of activities is what is needed..put your brain to good use and not just in creating junk papers..
more...
learning01
02-25 05:03 PM
This is the most compelling piece I read about why this country should do more for scientists and engineers who are on temporary work visas. Read it till the end and enjoy.
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
gcadream
12-10 07:43 AM
Its so depressing & frustrating Not to see any movement in EB2 dates. For the past 3 months there had been no movement in the EB2 dates. Every time I open with a hope that something will happen but its the same shit each time.
Don't know when this wait for GC will be over, friend of mine who spend equal or may be less time as me in UK had now got the PR of UK, some who went to AUS, S'Pore got PR within 1 yr and same with Canada...but this US is the only sucking place with screwed up policies which benefits only the business and govts.
Don't know when this wait for GC will be over, friend of mine who spend equal or may be less time as me in UK had now got the PR of UK, some who went to AUS, S'Pore got PR within 1 yr and same with Canada...but this US is the only sucking place with screwed up policies which benefits only the business and govts.
more...
Prashanthi
08-21 01:54 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.
__________________
The RFE is not unusual, they are sending RFE's on all pending I-485 applications in an attempt to pre-process the applications and have them ready before the priority date becomes available.
Even though the beneficiary does not have to be working for the GC sponsoring company and the offer of employment can be a future offer, i always advice my clients to work for the sponsoring employer, if possible, otherwise the USCIS might raise the issue of the validity of the job offer, they have done this in the past. I also always advice clients to do AC-21 whenever they can, rather than depend on future employment.
It is difficult to predict what the Officers decision will be and what factors he will look at, and your attorney is not wrong in his response, however if you were my client i would advice you to use AC-21. The USCIS has not indicated that AC-21 has to be invoked as soon as you join the new employer, no deadline for invoking AC-21. However, you should have a GC sponsor at all times to keep your GC alive. In your case, company A was your sponsor until the time that company C has agreed to be your sponsor and invoke AC-21.
It is also good to invoke AC-21 because at the time of filing for citizenship they will see if you worked for your sponsoring employer for at least 6 months after getting the GC and if you did not, they will ask why dint you.
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.
__________________
The RFE is not unusual, they are sending RFE's on all pending I-485 applications in an attempt to pre-process the applications and have them ready before the priority date becomes available.
Even though the beneficiary does not have to be working for the GC sponsoring company and the offer of employment can be a future offer, i always advice my clients to work for the sponsoring employer, if possible, otherwise the USCIS might raise the issue of the validity of the job offer, they have done this in the past. I also always advice clients to do AC-21 whenever they can, rather than depend on future employment.
It is difficult to predict what the Officers decision will be and what factors he will look at, and your attorney is not wrong in his response, however if you were my client i would advice you to use AC-21. The USCIS has not indicated that AC-21 has to be invoked as soon as you join the new employer, no deadline for invoking AC-21. However, you should have a GC sponsor at all times to keep your GC alive. In your case, company A was your sponsor until the time that company C has agreed to be your sponsor and invoke AC-21.
It is also good to invoke AC-21 because at the time of filing for citizenship they will see if you worked for your sponsoring employer for at least 6 months after getting the GC and if you did not, they will ask why dint you.
2010 Japanese Half Sleeve Tattoos
pd_recapturing
10-14 07:27 PM
My DL is going to be expired in Nov and I have H1 stamped till Jan 08. I received EAD till Sep 08. I am planning to go to DMV to renew the DL. I will be carrying EAD and Passport (with H1b stamp). Please note that I have not applied H1B extn so far. I have following questions:
1) Will I get my DL extended till Jan 08 (based on H1b) or Sep 08 (based on EAD)?
2) If they extend DL based on EAD, will I loose H1 status as I used EAD?
3) I live in VA, can someone pls share his/her experience in this regard ?
Thanks
1) Will I get my DL extended till Jan 08 (based on H1b) or Sep 08 (based on EAD)?
2) If they extend DL based on EAD, will I loose H1 status as I used EAD?
3) I live in VA, can someone pls share his/her experience in this regard ?
Thanks
more...
Antonio Trivelin
June 16th, 2006, 01:16 PM
i like the 4th one of the percussionist but my favorite is the last one for some reason. have you photographed concerts before? these are pretty good.
eu vou ver o seu jorge amana em los angeles. voce o conhece? ele e um musico carioca.
have a great weekend. vai brasil este domingo!!!! 5-0! :)
kevin
Kevin,
This my second time at concert photos. You can see another ones at my "site" here: http://actrivelin.multiply.com/photos/album/10
About "Seu Jorge", yes ! He is famous musician here in Brazil, but i really don�t know well his work. You can see more details about him at his site: http://www.seujorge.com/
My cousin has a amateur band and he loves this kind of music, if you want see: http://www.ofinodabola.com/ This site will be better soon, but there you can listen some musics, its great !!
Domingo espero que o Brasil jogue o verdadeiro futebol !!!! :)
Abra��o !
Antonio
eu vou ver o seu jorge amana em los angeles. voce o conhece? ele e um musico carioca.
have a great weekend. vai brasil este domingo!!!! 5-0! :)
kevin
Kevin,
This my second time at concert photos. You can see another ones at my "site" here: http://actrivelin.multiply.com/photos/album/10
About "Seu Jorge", yes ! He is famous musician here in Brazil, but i really don�t know well his work. You can see more details about him at his site: http://www.seujorge.com/
My cousin has a amateur band and he loves this kind of music, if you want see: http://www.ofinodabola.com/ This site will be better soon, but there you can listen some musics, its great !!
Domingo espero que o Brasil jogue o verdadeiro futebol !!!! :)
Abra��o !
Antonio
hair Japanese Half Sleeve Tattoos
jonty_11
08-10 12:12 PM
concentrate on IV Rally instead....guys..
Who has gained any solace from Calling USCIS....
the tier 1 2, or 3 or Tier N at USCIS know nothing......
All we know ...there is bound to be delays...ther e will always be a few lucky ones getting receipts and stuff in a months time....but most of us like the GC process itself will be backlogged again....for receipts now....
I suggest we make IV our horse and ride it to end the problem at its source rather than calling USCIS and hoping for an Update from themmmm
They would already be pissed at us due to VB July restoration...
So attack the problem at the source.
Who has gained any solace from Calling USCIS....
the tier 1 2, or 3 or Tier N at USCIS know nothing......
All we know ...there is bound to be delays...ther e will always be a few lucky ones getting receipts and stuff in a months time....but most of us like the GC process itself will be backlogged again....for receipts now....
I suggest we make IV our horse and ride it to end the problem at its source rather than calling USCIS and hoping for an Update from themmmm
They would already be pissed at us due to VB July restoration...
So attack the problem at the source.
more...
drirshad
03-13 04:31 PM
03/13/2009: Senate Bill, S. 577 to Punish Immigration Sharks Defrauding and Victimizing Immigrants and Related Parties
Senate Dianne Feinstine from California, cosponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy, introduced this bill in the Senate yesterday. The full text of the bill is as follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Immigration Fraud Prevention Act of 2009''.
SEC. 2. SCHEMES TO DEFRAUD ALIENS.
(a) Amendments to Title 18.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:``�1041. Schemes to defraud aliens
``(a) In General.--Any person who willfully and knowingly executes a scheme or artifice, in connection with any matter that is authorized by or arises under Federal immigration laws or any matter the offender willfully and knowingly claims or represents is authorized by or arises under Federal immigration laws, to--
``(1) defraud any person; or
``(2) obtain or receive money or anything else of value from any person by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
Here is the background for this bill: The Immigration Fraud Prevention Act would prevent and punish fraud and misrepresentation in the context of immigration proceedings. The act would create a new Federal crime to penalize those who engage in schemes to defraud aliens in connection with Federal immigration laws. Specifically, the act would make it a Federal crime to wilfully and knowingly defraud or obtain or receive money or anything else of value from any person by false or fraudulent pretences, representations, or promises; and to wilfully, knowingly, and falsely represent that an individual is an attorney or accredited representative in any matter arising under Federal immigration law. Violations of these crimes would result in a fine, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to use task forces currently in existence to detect and investigate individuals who are in violation of the immigration fraud crimes as created by the bill. The act would also work to prevent immigration fraud by requiring that Immigration Judges issue warnings about unauthorized practice of immigration law to immigrants in removal proceedings, similar to the current law that requires notification of pro bono legal services to these immigrants; requiring the Attorney General to provide outreach to the immigrant community to help prevent fraud; providing that any materials used to carry out notification on immigration law fraud is done in the appropriate language for that community; and requiring the distribution of the disciplinary list of individuals not authorized to appear before the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, BIA, currently maintained by the Executive Office of Immigration Review, EOIR. Unfortunately, the need for Federal action to prevent and prosecute immigration fraud has escalated in recent years as citizens and non-citizens attempt to navigate the immigration legal system. Thus far, only States have sought to regulate the unauthorized practice of immigration law. Since immigration law is a federal matter, I believe the solution to such misrepresentation and fraud should be addressed by Congress. By enacting this bill, Congress would help prevent more victims like Vincent Smith, a Mexican national who has resided in California since 1975. His wife is an American citizen, and they live with their 6 U.S. citizen children in Palmdale, CA. Mr. Smith would likely have received a green card at least two different times during his stay in California. However, in attempting to get legal counsel, Mr. Smith hired someone whom he thought was an attorney, but was not. As a result, Mr. Smith was charged more than $10,000 for processing his immigration paperwork, which was never filed. Mr. Smith now has no legal status and faces removal proceedings. Another victim of immigration fraud is Raul, a Mexican national, who came to the United States in 2000. He also married a U.S. citizen, Loraina, making him eligible to apply for a green card. Raul and his wife went to Jose for legal help. Jose's business card said he had a ``law office'' and that he was an ``immigration specialist.'' But Jose was not a specialist and charged Raul $4,000 to file a frivolous asylum petition. While Raul thought he was going to receive a green card, he was instead placed into removal proceedings. From California to New York, there are hundreds of stories like these. Many immigrants are preyed on because of their fears--others on their hope of realizing the American dream. They are charged exorbitant fees for the filing of frivolous paperwork that clog our immigration courts and keep families and businesses waiting in limbo for years. Law enforcement officials say that many fraudulent ``immigration specialists'' close their businesses or move on to another part of the state or country before they can be held accountable. They can make $100,000 to $200,000 a year and the few who have been caught rarely serve more than a few months in jail. Often victims of such crimes are deported, sending them back to their home countries without accountability for the perpetrator of the fraud. Most recently, hundreds of immigrants were exploited by Victor M. Espinal, who was arrested for allegedly posing as an immigration attorney. Nearly 125 of Mr. Espinal's clients attended the New York City Bar Association's free clinic to address their legal and immigration options. According to prosecutors, Mr. Espinal falsely claimed on his business cards that he was licensed and admitted to the California bar as well as the bar in the Dominican Republic. Organizations such as the Los Angeles Country Bar Association, National Immigration Forum, American Immigration Lawyers Association, and American Bar Association have been documenting this exploitation for many years.
Senate Dianne Feinstine from California, cosponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy, introduced this bill in the Senate yesterday. The full text of the bill is as follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Immigration Fraud Prevention Act of 2009''.
SEC. 2. SCHEMES TO DEFRAUD ALIENS.
(a) Amendments to Title 18.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:``�1041. Schemes to defraud aliens
``(a) In General.--Any person who willfully and knowingly executes a scheme or artifice, in connection with any matter that is authorized by or arises under Federal immigration laws or any matter the offender willfully and knowingly claims or represents is authorized by or arises under Federal immigration laws, to--
``(1) defraud any person; or
``(2) obtain or receive money or anything else of value from any person by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
Here is the background for this bill: The Immigration Fraud Prevention Act would prevent and punish fraud and misrepresentation in the context of immigration proceedings. The act would create a new Federal crime to penalize those who engage in schemes to defraud aliens in connection with Federal immigration laws. Specifically, the act would make it a Federal crime to wilfully and knowingly defraud or obtain or receive money or anything else of value from any person by false or fraudulent pretences, representations, or promises; and to wilfully, knowingly, and falsely represent that an individual is an attorney or accredited representative in any matter arising under Federal immigration law. Violations of these crimes would result in a fine, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to use task forces currently in existence to detect and investigate individuals who are in violation of the immigration fraud crimes as created by the bill. The act would also work to prevent immigration fraud by requiring that Immigration Judges issue warnings about unauthorized practice of immigration law to immigrants in removal proceedings, similar to the current law that requires notification of pro bono legal services to these immigrants; requiring the Attorney General to provide outreach to the immigrant community to help prevent fraud; providing that any materials used to carry out notification on immigration law fraud is done in the appropriate language for that community; and requiring the distribution of the disciplinary list of individuals not authorized to appear before the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, BIA, currently maintained by the Executive Office of Immigration Review, EOIR. Unfortunately, the need for Federal action to prevent and prosecute immigration fraud has escalated in recent years as citizens and non-citizens attempt to navigate the immigration legal system. Thus far, only States have sought to regulate the unauthorized practice of immigration law. Since immigration law is a federal matter, I believe the solution to such misrepresentation and fraud should be addressed by Congress. By enacting this bill, Congress would help prevent more victims like Vincent Smith, a Mexican national who has resided in California since 1975. His wife is an American citizen, and they live with their 6 U.S. citizen children in Palmdale, CA. Mr. Smith would likely have received a green card at least two different times during his stay in California. However, in attempting to get legal counsel, Mr. Smith hired someone whom he thought was an attorney, but was not. As a result, Mr. Smith was charged more than $10,000 for processing his immigration paperwork, which was never filed. Mr. Smith now has no legal status and faces removal proceedings. Another victim of immigration fraud is Raul, a Mexican national, who came to the United States in 2000. He also married a U.S. citizen, Loraina, making him eligible to apply for a green card. Raul and his wife went to Jose for legal help. Jose's business card said he had a ``law office'' and that he was an ``immigration specialist.'' But Jose was not a specialist and charged Raul $4,000 to file a frivolous asylum petition. While Raul thought he was going to receive a green card, he was instead placed into removal proceedings. From California to New York, there are hundreds of stories like these. Many immigrants are preyed on because of their fears--others on their hope of realizing the American dream. They are charged exorbitant fees for the filing of frivolous paperwork that clog our immigration courts and keep families and businesses waiting in limbo for years. Law enforcement officials say that many fraudulent ``immigration specialists'' close their businesses or move on to another part of the state or country before they can be held accountable. They can make $100,000 to $200,000 a year and the few who have been caught rarely serve more than a few months in jail. Often victims of such crimes are deported, sending them back to their home countries without accountability for the perpetrator of the fraud. Most recently, hundreds of immigrants were exploited by Victor M. Espinal, who was arrested for allegedly posing as an immigration attorney. Nearly 125 of Mr. Espinal's clients attended the New York City Bar Association's free clinic to address their legal and immigration options. According to prosecutors, Mr. Espinal falsely claimed on his business cards that he was licensed and admitted to the California bar as well as the bar in the Dominican Republic. Organizations such as the Los Angeles Country Bar Association, National Immigration Forum, American Immigration Lawyers Association, and American Bar Association have been documenting this exploitation for many years.
hot Japanese Sleeve Tattoo
johnggberg
08-03 07:34 PM
if your pd is not current and your i-140 is approved at the time you apply h1b you will get 3 years extention.
more...
house a Japanese half sleeve.
salai007
07-17 06:09 PM
Thanks to Rep Lofgren.
I will be sending a Thank card to her soon.
I will be sending a Thank card to her soon.
tattoo tribal half sleeve tattoos.
nvmurali
06-02 07:06 PM
Sorry Murali, I wasn't clear in my earlier post.
1. Your new "extended for 3-yrs" H1B can be trasferred to your new employer. Your new employer files for the transfer of this approved H1B and you can work for the new employer legally with no hassles.
2. Now regarding your green card, since your PD is not current and you haven't been able to apply for AOS yet (and thus, "AOS pending for 180 days" isn't relevant either), you will have to restart your GC process - PERM and then I-140 followed by I-485 (when PD is current). At the last stage, when you apply for I-485 (AOS), you can recapture your older PD (Feb 2008), but not before that.
3. If you wait till you are able to file your AOS and then 180 days after you do file it, and THEN move to a similar job, then you won't have to restart your GC process. Now, given the current visa bulletin, this is hard to predict and there are no guarantees your job offer will still be available at that time.
Hope this clarifies my earlier post - sorry for the confusion.
This does clarify my confusion. Thankyou very much! Appreciate it. This makes me feel so much better:)
1. Your new "extended for 3-yrs" H1B can be trasferred to your new employer. Your new employer files for the transfer of this approved H1B and you can work for the new employer legally with no hassles.
2. Now regarding your green card, since your PD is not current and you haven't been able to apply for AOS yet (and thus, "AOS pending for 180 days" isn't relevant either), you will have to restart your GC process - PERM and then I-140 followed by I-485 (when PD is current). At the last stage, when you apply for I-485 (AOS), you can recapture your older PD (Feb 2008), but not before that.
3. If you wait till you are able to file your AOS and then 180 days after you do file it, and THEN move to a similar job, then you won't have to restart your GC process. Now, given the current visa bulletin, this is hard to predict and there are no guarantees your job offer will still be available at that time.
Hope this clarifies my earlier post - sorry for the confusion.
This does clarify my confusion. Thankyou very much! Appreciate it. This makes me feel so much better:)
more...
pictures Half Sleeve Japanese Koi and
wenxue
10-08 10:38 AM
Totally agree.
Another night my wife was worried. I told her that I am still young :). When the worst happens, I can still work in a Chinese restaurant, and put the food on the table for the kids.
Another night my wife was worried. I told her that I am still young :). When the worst happens, I can still work in a Chinese restaurant, and put the food on the table for the kids.
dresses Japanese Half Sleeve
crystal
08-16 05:00 PM
I think u need EAD to apply for SSN. But once you apply for SSN , you dont need actual card to start wroking,
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10181.html#need
Howdy fellow Aliens,
My wife's EAD just got approved. Now I have to get her a SSN so she can start working part time. Firstly I should ask can she get a SSN provided her I-485 application is filed and she has a valid EAD ? Any idea how long it takes to get the dang SSN ? I appreciate your help as always.
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10181.html#need
Howdy fellow Aliens,
My wife's EAD just got approved. Now I have to get her a SSN so she can start working part time. Firstly I should ask can she get a SSN provided her I-485 application is filed and she has a valid EAD ? Any idea how long it takes to get the dang SSN ? I appreciate your help as always.
more...
makeup Japanese tattoos Tattoos?
vin13
09-30 03:25 PM
I gave my 3rd FP for pending 485 last week. Haven't seen any LUD change since. My NC was cleared last year as per USCIS. My question is after every FP, does FBI initiate a new name check? is this a vicious circle ?
how would you know if you have to get your FP done again...would you get an RFE or something like that?
how would you know if you have to get your FP done again...would you get an RFE or something like that?
girlfriend Japanese Half Sleeve Tattoo
cherupally
09-10 10:51 PM
EB2 - India - July 2005
RD - 7/26/2007
ND - 09/27/2007
Hard LUD on I-485 on 9/3/08 saying that RFE was sent on 9/2. RFE recvd on 9/8. Last date to reply RFE by 10/6.
Hope this helps
RD - 7/26/2007
ND - 09/27/2007
Hard LUD on I-485 on 9/3/08 saying that RFE was sent on 9/2. RFE recvd on 9/8. Last date to reply RFE by 10/6.
Hope this helps
hairstyles Japanese Half Sleeve
kisana
09-02 10:52 AM
There is place in the I-9 , Alien Authorized to work unitll, you need to provide the H1 information instead of the EAD information. Also instead of Alien#, you need to provide Admissible # which is on I-94 of new H1B. When some one submit I-9 form you need to show the Passport and you H1B copy. That way you are sure that you are using H1B.
gcdreamer05
08-05 04:44 PM
I know this is not a good question as there is no time frame for GC process?
But please share your experience;
How many years it could take to get GC if it is started with in Aug. 2008 for
-EB2 category
-EB3 category
I am trying to understand the time (years) difference between two process.
Thanks,
Sanjeev.
Instead of asking such questions, go ahead first and file something as soon as you can, because there are other people who are filing in EB1, 2,3, family based etc etc etc... while you are just posting....
Always eb2 better than eb3, some of my friends who filed in 2002 eb3 have still not got GC, if you file in 2008 may be you will get it in 2015-2016... wow a long time.......
But please share your experience;
How many years it could take to get GC if it is started with in Aug. 2008 for
-EB2 category
-EB3 category
I am trying to understand the time (years) difference between two process.
Thanks,
Sanjeev.
Instead of asking such questions, go ahead first and file something as soon as you can, because there are other people who are filing in EB1, 2,3, family based etc etc etc... while you are just posting....
Always eb2 better than eb3, some of my friends who filed in 2002 eb3 have still not got GC, if you file in 2008 may be you will get it in 2015-2016... wow a long time.......
GIDOC
07-13 10:53 PM
I would recommend sending a letter of thanks for support on this issue. I do not know if flowers a great idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment