ananthd
09-17 10:25 PM
Hi Guys,
My wife was on a H1B visa with a company until June 2010. She is no longer working and her Her H1B visa is now expired.
I am in the final stage of my green card process and we have both EAD and Advance parole. Since we have valid EADs and Advance Parole documents, we didn�t bother to pursue a H4 dependent visa for her. We are planning to go to Thailand next week for a 10 day vacation. I just want to confirm that she will be able to come back into the US with her Advance Parole document which is valid until June 2011.
I would really appreciate your quick response since we are looking to purchase tickets in the next couple hours.
Thanks and have a great weekend,
My wife was on a H1B visa with a company until June 2010. She is no longer working and her Her H1B visa is now expired.
I am in the final stage of my green card process and we have both EAD and Advance parole. Since we have valid EADs and Advance Parole documents, we didn�t bother to pursue a H4 dependent visa for her. We are planning to go to Thailand next week for a 10 day vacation. I just want to confirm that she will be able to come back into the US with her Advance Parole document which is valid until June 2011.
I would really appreciate your quick response since we are looking to purchase tickets in the next couple hours.
Thanks and have a great weekend,
wallpaper selena gomez who says
bishwas123
03-14 05:34 PM
Hello everyone,
My LC was filed in Perm process and even got approved but the hard copy got lost in mail handling. Can I have another LC filed from the same company? Furthermore, can I reuse my first LC's postings-advertisements that the company does before filing the LC?
Please any suggestions would be greatly appreciated
Thank you.
My LC was filed in Perm process and even got approved but the hard copy got lost in mail handling. Can I have another LC filed from the same company? Furthermore, can I reuse my first LC's postings-advertisements that the company does before filing the LC?
Please any suggestions would be greatly appreciated
Thank you.
petersebastian
04-01 01:59 PM
Really? Nobody? Nothing? :( Please, any advice will do, I'm desperate, I don't want to leave in 2 weeks, I need some more time with my partner...
2011 selena gomez new photoshoot
ndbhatt
12-21 02:14 PM
The visa bulletin reads "..Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. "
Does this mean 7 % limit per country is set to combined total of FB and EB category and not just EB? Also, does this mean 25,620 annual visa can be allotted for either one of these preferences, EB or FB?:confused:
I have heard earlier that EB preference limit per country is ~9,800. How true does it stand by sections in INA?
Does this mean 7 % limit per country is set to combined total of FB and EB category and not just EB? Also, does this mean 25,620 annual visa can be allotted for either one of these preferences, EB or FB?:confused:
I have heard earlier that EB preference limit per country is ~9,800. How true does it stand by sections in INA?
more...
r_mistry
01-18 02:41 PM
Thanks for responding !!!
Humhongekamyab
08-20 03:17 PM
I am glad they have started enforcing this. This will let them work on the cases rather than answer the calls.
more...
BPforGC
05-12 04:29 PM
Had they not wasted all those VISAs in the past due to their inefficiency, there wouldn't be this much backlog. If they have reallocated all the unused VISAs at the end of each fiscal year to the over subscribed countries, there wouldn't be this big problem.
This backlog was created by incompetent leadership at USCIS and lack of vision in the congress. Politics and bureaucracy rule the immigration, not logic or the interests of the country.
God help us. Given the poor economy since last year and lots of RFEs and strict PERM audits, in coming years, the demand for GCs will go away. Things should stabilize and we should see some significant movement to the EB2 by end of this year. EB3 is more tricky since many countries are over subscribed compare to EB2, where India and china are the primary over subscribers.
Recapture bill should put an end to this retrogression and if the CIR and strict criteria goes into effect, this will make EB1 and EB2 qualification all the more difficult in future. Not bright days ahead for immigrants in this country.
This backlog was created by incompetent leadership at USCIS and lack of vision in the congress. Politics and bureaucracy rule the immigration, not logic or the interests of the country.
God help us. Given the poor economy since last year and lots of RFEs and strict PERM audits, in coming years, the demand for GCs will go away. Things should stabilize and we should see some significant movement to the EB2 by end of this year. EB3 is more tricky since many countries are over subscribed compare to EB2, where India and china are the primary over subscribers.
Recapture bill should put an end to this retrogression and if the CIR and strict criteria goes into effect, this will make EB1 and EB2 qualification all the more difficult in future. Not bright days ahead for immigrants in this country.
2010 selena gomez new photoshoot.
maveric979
09-08 10:38 AM
Good atleast we can have jobs, fr..ing last couple of years tired of loosing jobs because of Outsourcing companies. Waiting for GC from 9 years and now struggling to keep the job because of Outsourcing. Big F for OS
more...
madaram
08-09 11:25 AM
pls read what sensenbrenner has to say.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/08/09/EDGOBIQ0KA1.DTL
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/08/09/EDGOBIQ0KA1.DTL
hair selena gomez new photoshoot
irock
08-09 02:30 PM
From posts here, it seems they used to give 3 year based on approval date rather than date of filing. But USCIS recent faq says that they will look for date of filing. May be all the IOs don't yet know the latest rule/FAQ.
btw, I applied my H1 extension on July 11th and approved on Aug 3rd. Got three year extension. Go figure.
btw, I applied my H1 extension on July 11th and approved on Aug 3rd. Got three year extension. Go figure.
more...
Riakapoor
09-16 05:17 PM
If you are genuine: Don�t do it. It will affect your GC.
If you are losers guild member using Indian name to post: Leave this forum immediately. I am tired of fake posts. I personally believe Riakapoor and ar7165 are fake.
Thanks for the advice. Excuse me how could you say that riakapoor is a fake? I am not active in IV but that doesn't mean I am fake.
If you are losers guild member using Indian name to post: Leave this forum immediately. I am tired of fake posts. I personally believe Riakapoor and ar7165 are fake.
Thanks for the advice. Excuse me how could you say that riakapoor is a fake? I am not active in IV but that doesn't mean I am fake.
hot 2011 selena gomez new
looivy
08-15 11:24 AM
The answer to the FAQ clearly states that you should be fine and expect some processing delays. I am not sure what else you would like to know.
What I am looking for is how do they physically transfer the application? I am afraid of dealing with another incompetent organization such as USPS. Also, what type of processing delays should I expect?
How recent were the guidelines that I-485 be sent to the same center as I-140? Were these guidelines applicable on July 2nd.
What I am looking for is how do they physically transfer the application? I am afraid of dealing with another incompetent organization such as USPS. Also, what type of processing delays should I expect?
How recent were the guidelines that I-485 be sent to the same center as I-140? Were these guidelines applicable on July 2nd.
more...
house selena gomez new pics 2011.
sandy_anand
01-24 09:38 AM
Annual Report of the Visa Office for 2010 has been released here...
Report of the Visa Office 2010 Table of Contents (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/statistics/statistics_5240.html)
Table V Part 2
India Received
EB1 6741
EB2 19961
EB3 3036
ROW EB2 Received 19261 (Total EB2 Minus India China Mexico and Philippines)
Other Info
EB1 received a total of 41026 which means there was no spillover from EB1.
Report of the Visa Office 2010 Table of Contents (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/statistics/statistics_5240.html)
Table V Part 2
India Received
EB1 6741
EB2 19961
EB3 3036
ROW EB2 Received 19261 (Total EB2 Minus India China Mexico and Philippines)
Other Info
EB1 received a total of 41026 which means there was no spillover from EB1.
tattoo selena gomez new photoshoot
gcpool
07-08 09:19 AM
My friends lawyer screwed up the application and it was returned. Later on it was filed and got accepted without their help. Now they are billing him and threatening him. What can he do?
more...
pictures selena gomez new photoshoot
LOL123
02-13 03:41 PM
Folks,
Need a little advice. We (my husband and I) filed our 485 on July 2 under EB-3and have received AP, EAD, FP etc. Our PD date (July 7, 2001) got current in the March bulletin:). I wanted to check if there is way to find out if our cases have been adjudicated and are ready for approval as and when a visa # is allocated in March.
Thanks
Need a little advice. We (my husband and I) filed our 485 on July 2 under EB-3and have received AP, EAD, FP etc. Our PD date (July 7, 2001) got current in the March bulletin:). I wanted to check if there is way to find out if our cases have been adjudicated and are ready for approval as and when a visa # is allocated in March.
Thanks
dresses selena gomez photoshoot 2011.
GcInLimbo
12-01 12:28 PM
Thank You for your reply. Here are the more specifics of the case in short and understandable manner.
1) My H1B expired in Dec 2006 and an extension was filed in Oct 2006.
2) In February 2007 my company got an RFE on my H1B extension.
3) In Mar/Apr 2007 my company replied to the extension with the requested information
4) In Apr 2007, my case was transferred to Seattle Local office
5) In June 2007, my I-140 got approved
6) I-485 became current in July 2007, and we applied
7) I started working for another employer in August and the H1B was approved in September.
7) In September/October we received receipts for the 485 filing and the EAD/AP applications were approved in October 2007.
8) My new employer didn't apply for her H4 as she had a pending H1 application for Year 2008 ( Starting October 2007) that later was approved without I-94. Her employer filed amendments for missing I-94 and an RFE was issued on her H1B filing requesting more information.
9) We later withdrew the application as she got her EAD approved and I-485 receipt
10) Now I got the Notice of Intent to deny requesting evidence of my legality from Dec 2006 to July 2007.
Since my H1B was pending for this period, doesn't this put me in legal status. I hope this information helps. Please let me know if you have any specific questions to answer my query.
Once again thanks for your input.
1) My H1B expired in Dec 2006 and an extension was filed in Oct 2006.
2) In February 2007 my company got an RFE on my H1B extension.
3) In Mar/Apr 2007 my company replied to the extension with the requested information
4) In Apr 2007, my case was transferred to Seattle Local office
5) In June 2007, my I-140 got approved
6) I-485 became current in July 2007, and we applied
7) I started working for another employer in August and the H1B was approved in September.
7) In September/October we received receipts for the 485 filing and the EAD/AP applications were approved in October 2007.
8) My new employer didn't apply for her H4 as she had a pending H1 application for Year 2008 ( Starting October 2007) that later was approved without I-94. Her employer filed amendments for missing I-94 and an RFE was issued on her H1B filing requesting more information.
9) We later withdrew the application as she got her EAD approved and I-485 receipt
10) Now I got the Notice of Intent to deny requesting evidence of my legality from Dec 2006 to July 2007.
Since my H1B was pending for this period, doesn't this put me in legal status. I hope this information helps. Please let me know if you have any specific questions to answer my query.
Once again thanks for your input.
more...
makeup Selena Gomez - New Photoshoot
glus
07-18 07:30 PM
Hi Gurus,
I filed my 485 application on July 2nd. But my employer/lawyer did not attach the employment verification letter in the package. Is USCIS going to reject my application because of that or they will send an RFE. Please advise..
OK, not to scare anyone, but per recent uscis update, all applications must be submitted with initial evidence in it. This announcement was effective starting on Jun18t. In I485, the employment letter is part of initial evidence. As per new rules, an IO can deny any application without RFE if the initial evidence is missing.
See this document, and read part "initial evidence requirements" paragraph 2 which sates an application can be denied withou RFE if initial evidence is missing.
File direct from the USCIS site
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/RFEFinalRule060107.pdf
My attorney was very thorough and prepared the initial evidence well.
I filed my 485 application on July 2nd. But my employer/lawyer did not attach the employment verification letter in the package. Is USCIS going to reject my application because of that or they will send an RFE. Please advise..
OK, not to scare anyone, but per recent uscis update, all applications must be submitted with initial evidence in it. This announcement was effective starting on Jun18t. In I485, the employment letter is part of initial evidence. As per new rules, an IO can deny any application without RFE if the initial evidence is missing.
See this document, and read part "initial evidence requirements" paragraph 2 which sates an application can be denied withou RFE if initial evidence is missing.
File direct from the USCIS site
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/RFEFinalRule060107.pdf
My attorney was very thorough and prepared the initial evidence well.
girlfriend selena gomez 2011 photoshoot.
amsgc
06-16 01:45 AM
I haven't had to get that fixed - sorry can't say.
hairstyles selena gomez 2011 photoshoot.
Mohit_Malkani
10-08 11:13 AM
Sorry to hear about your situation.
Take a look at www.immigtation-law.com. Go to the nreaking news swction. They have a great piece on I140/I485 portability.
I have also pasted it here in case you dont get to the website
All the best.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer�s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physically location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensure. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
Take a look at www.immigtation-law.com. Go to the nreaking news swction. They have a great piece on I140/I485 portability.
I have also pasted it here in case you dont get to the website
All the best.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer�s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physically location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensure. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
sanz
03-31 12:07 PM
Sen. Grassley calls for new L-1 visa probe
Raises concern that a 2006 report on L-1 visa was ignored
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa) has asked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) inspector general to investigate the L-1 visa program, saying he is increasingly concerned about loopholes in it.
Grassley on Tuesday released a letter to Charles Edwards, the DHS inspector general, asking him to dust off a 2006 inspector general report about the visa program and find out why the report's recommendations "were never implemented."
Grassley, who has been pressing for reforms of the H-1B visa, said he wants to find out the number of L-1 visa holders now living in the U.S.
The L-1 is used for multinational companies to bring employees into the U.S. and doesn't have has many restrictions as the H-1B visa, such as a prevailing wage requirement.
In his letter, Grassley wrote that "there's growing concern by many experts that companies are turning to L visas when the supply of H-1B visas are low. There is also a general consensus that L visas are being used to bring in 'rank and file' employees rather than top-level professionals with truly 'specialized knowledge.'" Specialized knowledge usually means advanced knowledge or expertise in a field.
In the 2006 study, the DHS's inspector general report referred to the L-1 visa as "the computer visa." It reported that from 1999 to 2004, nine of the 10 firms that petitioned for the most L-1 workers were computer and IT-related outsourcing service firms that specialized in labor from India. The number of L-1 petitions approved from 1995 to 2005, in most years, was just over 40,000. In 2001, nearly 60,000 were approved.
The report also found that the visa program was vulnerable to abuse and made several recommendations, including requiring immigration enforcement officers to assist in "checking the bona fides" of L visa petitions; putting in place a process for overseas verification of a petition; and clarifying what was meant by specialized knowledge, a requirement for the visa similar to what is asked for in H-1B visas.
Grassley said he wanted another look at the program because, "I have grown increasingly concerned that loopholes within the L-1 visa program have led to manipulation and broad overreach by those who use the program and have resulted in a great deal of fraud and abuse within the program
Raises concern that a 2006 report on L-1 visa was ignored
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa) has asked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) inspector general to investigate the L-1 visa program, saying he is increasingly concerned about loopholes in it.
Grassley on Tuesday released a letter to Charles Edwards, the DHS inspector general, asking him to dust off a 2006 inspector general report about the visa program and find out why the report's recommendations "were never implemented."
Grassley, who has been pressing for reforms of the H-1B visa, said he wants to find out the number of L-1 visa holders now living in the U.S.
The L-1 is used for multinational companies to bring employees into the U.S. and doesn't have has many restrictions as the H-1B visa, such as a prevailing wage requirement.
In his letter, Grassley wrote that "there's growing concern by many experts that companies are turning to L visas when the supply of H-1B visas are low. There is also a general consensus that L visas are being used to bring in 'rank and file' employees rather than top-level professionals with truly 'specialized knowledge.'" Specialized knowledge usually means advanced knowledge or expertise in a field.
In the 2006 study, the DHS's inspector general report referred to the L-1 visa as "the computer visa." It reported that from 1999 to 2004, nine of the 10 firms that petitioned for the most L-1 workers were computer and IT-related outsourcing service firms that specialized in labor from India. The number of L-1 petitions approved from 1995 to 2005, in most years, was just over 40,000. In 2001, nearly 60,000 were approved.
The report also found that the visa program was vulnerable to abuse and made several recommendations, including requiring immigration enforcement officers to assist in "checking the bona fides" of L visa petitions; putting in place a process for overseas verification of a petition; and clarifying what was meant by specialized knowledge, a requirement for the visa similar to what is asked for in H-1B visas.
Grassley said he wanted another look at the program because, "I have grown increasingly concerned that loopholes within the L-1 visa program have led to manipulation and broad overreach by those who use the program and have resulted in a great deal of fraud and abuse within the program
frostrated
06-21 01:55 PM
By law: If you take Unemployment benefits => you have become public charge. If you become public charge => you broke AOS condition. Which requires you to be never be public charge. On top of that if you were still on H1b then that would have expired with you loosing your job. So that makes it a good case for removal proceedings if your case gets an audit (which is very likely).
Lookup a similar thread(removal proceedings) in IV.
Get legal help before making a decision like that.
taking unemployment benefit is not public charge. while working, you pay into the unemployment. everytime you work, you and your employer pay for umemployment insurance which is managed by the US government. But to be eligible for umeployment insurance benefit, you have to be a legal permanent resident or a citizen.
Lookup a similar thread(removal proceedings) in IV.
Get legal help before making a decision like that.
taking unemployment benefit is not public charge. while working, you pay into the unemployment. everytime you work, you and your employer pay for umemployment insurance which is managed by the US government. But to be eligible for umeployment insurance benefit, you have to be a legal permanent resident or a citizen.