ab2k7
07-07 03:34 PM
Thanks map boiler for your pointer which led me to a random job ad having the same language
www.careerbuilder.com/JobSeeker/Jobs/JobDetails.aspx?job_did=J3F5MH5VP06PTJ168PR
"Job is in Jackson, MS. May work at one or more unanticipated locations."
I guess you are referring to the same.
I'll check with my attorney. Is it possible to know about the original job ad used for LC or is it also mentioned in the approved LC?
It intrigues me that there are not many members here in a similar situation i.e consultants moving to new city/state while continuing GC process. Or may be the response is not much as this part of the forum is not accessed much by many members.
Thanks in advance for any one else facing/know a similar situation first hand that chimes in. :)
www.careerbuilder.com/JobSeeker/Jobs/JobDetails.aspx?job_did=J3F5MH5VP06PTJ168PR
"Job is in Jackson, MS. May work at one or more unanticipated locations."
I guess you are referring to the same.
I'll check with my attorney. Is it possible to know about the original job ad used for LC or is it also mentioned in the approved LC?
It intrigues me that there are not many members here in a similar situation i.e consultants moving to new city/state while continuing GC process. Or may be the response is not much as this part of the forum is not accessed much by many members.
Thanks in advance for any one else facing/know a similar situation first hand that chimes in. :)
Nikith77
10-05 03:32 PM
I did that today and they also call the same number from there.
The caller clearly told me that Citizens or CG only
The caller clearly told me that Citizens or CG only
gc_dream07
08-05 06:30 AM
I am in similar situation.
I have AP valid till Oct 3rd, 2010. My new AP application is with USCIS and have not received the approval. I will be traveling to Canada on August 15th for one week. I am planning to return on current AP. My question is: if my new AP gets approved when I am in Canada, will that cause any issue in my I-485 or re-entry to US.
i was in same situation. couldn't get new AP in time. went for stamping in India.
my attorney's advise was, u can't use the new AP, if u weren't here in US when it was approved. but after u come back using old valid AP or H stamp, u can use the new AP, for travel next time.
if u read 131 instructions, it talks about abandoning app.
basically, if u have no other status like H status, if u are using EAD for work and AP for travel,
and if u leave US before approval of AP, ur 485 considered abandoned.
Ref:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-131instr.pdf
Page 4, Section E.
I have AP valid till Oct 3rd, 2010. My new AP application is with USCIS and have not received the approval. I will be traveling to Canada on August 15th for one week. I am planning to return on current AP. My question is: if my new AP gets approved when I am in Canada, will that cause any issue in my I-485 or re-entry to US.
i was in same situation. couldn't get new AP in time. went for stamping in India.
my attorney's advise was, u can't use the new AP, if u weren't here in US when it was approved. but after u come back using old valid AP or H stamp, u can use the new AP, for travel next time.
if u read 131 instructions, it talks about abandoning app.
basically, if u have no other status like H status, if u are using EAD for work and AP for travel,
and if u leave US before approval of AP, ur 485 considered abandoned.
Ref:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-131instr.pdf
Page 4, Section E.
dingudi
06-08 11:16 PM
Hi Dingudi,
The problem is not the hours I worked as I've always worked legally and within the laws of the University and visa status.
The problem is proving that I filed my taxes, which I did but I can't produce evidence and neither can the IRS.
I understand your problem. All I was saying is to make sure any response you provide includes that your work during 1999-2000 was legal as per F1 on-campus regulations. And I hope the attorney you hire should be able to do that. If you do not have Tax returns , then you don't. Like someone said earlier , your W2 along with IRS letter that they do not keep records older than 7 years maybe enough but again your attorney should make this decision wisely.
The problem is not the hours I worked as I've always worked legally and within the laws of the University and visa status.
The problem is proving that I filed my taxes, which I did but I can't produce evidence and neither can the IRS.
I understand your problem. All I was saying is to make sure any response you provide includes that your work during 1999-2000 was legal as per F1 on-campus regulations. And I hope the attorney you hire should be able to do that. If you do not have Tax returns , then you don't. Like someone said earlier , your W2 along with IRS letter that they do not keep records older than 7 years maybe enough but again your attorney should make this decision wisely.
more...
yanj
12-15 10:13 AM
1 genius said "kaplan doesnt issue I-20's anymore."
so Does anybody know anywhere else can issue I-20 ?
2 Good question : Are you sure than ,while the H1B is being processed ,you can live here legally?
looking for answer ,too. Thanks a lot !
so Does anybody know anywhere else can issue I-20 ?
2 Good question : Are you sure than ,while the H1B is being processed ,you can live here legally?
looking for answer ,too. Thanks a lot !
logiclife
01-25 04:56 PM
TOI makes it sound as if Bush is dispatching Air Force 1 to India for a planeload of skilled desis and will issue them US passports at the port of entry.
:D :D :D
That's hilarious.
But fun aside, you're right. Times of India makes it sound as if H1Bs pretty much run everything and create everything and that H1Bs are like rockstars or something.
One reason I never read Times of India is that they somehow have figured out to beat pop-up blockers and my screen fills up with pop ups for airlines agents and phone cards and its really irritating.
Secondly, their content is becoming like a tabloid's content would be.
:D :D :D
That's hilarious.
But fun aside, you're right. Times of India makes it sound as if H1Bs pretty much run everything and create everything and that H1Bs are like rockstars or something.
One reason I never read Times of India is that they somehow have figured out to beat pop-up blockers and my screen fills up with pop ups for airlines agents and phone cards and its really irritating.
Secondly, their content is becoming like a tabloid's content would be.
more...
immi2006
05-04 09:48 AM
Yesterday AC 360 interviewed Senator Corny, and others including Laura Bush, all of them mentioned how upset they were to see Mex Flags, Spanish version of national anthem, and more importantly, disrespecting US laws and waving foreign flag.
THey mentioned that it may not before September any decsion on CIR is made, one of them said he is doubtful anything will pass this year at all on Immi reforms. Laura was highly sympatheitc for legal immigrants and their wait in line and she said legal immigrants will be the first preference.
I guess, the Immi Debate is basically divert people attention on IRAQ, Rising GAS Prices, Low Bush Ratings... and Democrats want to churn it to their advantage.
I am not sure if any of you are watching AC 360 at all... it was there last night around 9.30 Pacific time.
THey mentioned that it may not before September any decsion on CIR is made, one of them said he is doubtful anything will pass this year at all on Immi reforms. Laura was highly sympatheitc for legal immigrants and their wait in line and she said legal immigrants will be the first preference.
I guess, the Immi Debate is basically divert people attention on IRAQ, Rising GAS Prices, Low Bush Ratings... and Democrats want to churn it to their advantage.
I am not sure if any of you are watching AC 360 at all... it was there last night around 9.30 Pacific time.
bekugc
03-18 12:41 PM
while we use Ead to chg to a different company during ac21, is it possible to first chg the company using ead and then later apply for h1 transfer ?
more...
chintals
09-03 11:43 AM
I have got an LUD on 09/01/2009 for both the cases, but the status is still pending.
I am worried, did any have similar experience?
I am in the same boat as you.. See SLUD on both bases on 09/01/09 with EAC08** pending at TSC. Waiting.
I am worried, did any have similar experience?
I am in the same boat as you.. See SLUD on both bases on 09/01/09 with EAC08** pending at TSC. Waiting.
gccovet
09-05 04:53 PM
I have GC for about a month now. I plan on taking up Corp-to-Corp, Independent, 1099 and W2 contracts. For corp-to-corp contracts I would like to incorporate a company if I can save on taxes over the 1099 contracts. I am also
in the process of engaging a CPA. Do you advise incorpating a LLC or S-Corp or a C-corp ?
Thanks,
theOne
LLC is the best way to go, just one drawback , per current market situation (financial situation), banks might be reluctant to provide a loan etc. but if you have a VC or capital, go for LLC. the best way to go.
Good luck.
GCCovet
in the process of engaging a CPA. Do you advise incorpating a LLC or S-Corp or a C-corp ?
Thanks,
theOne
LLC is the best way to go, just one drawback , per current market situation (financial situation), banks might be reluctant to provide a loan etc. but if you have a VC or capital, go for LLC. the best way to go.
Good luck.
GCCovet
more...
immi_2006
08-07 10:32 AM
You need to realize that 485 is a separate application when you file for yourself or your wife. So all the documents mentioned in 485 imply to your wife application too. Few changes need to be taken care
1.If 140 is pending or approved in texas your wife application should go to texas
2. If 140 pending attached the labor approved copy.
3. Employment copy instead of original.
Hope this helps
1.If 140 is pending or approved in texas your wife application should go to texas
2. If 140 pending attached the labor approved copy.
3. Employment copy instead of original.
Hope this helps
kumarc123
11-06 03:46 PM
sreedhar
Keep that GRIN for your later years, this web site is made to help people who are stuck in the immigration limbo.
There are lot of us out there who have their personal decisions at stake.
Keep that GRIN for your later years, this web site is made to help people who are stuck in the immigration limbo.
There are lot of us out there who have their personal decisions at stake.
more...
xbohdpukc
09-25 02:52 PM
Because there is little certainity about the Green card many people hesitating to buy houses. There is good chance that the housing market will definitly improve if the Green card waiting period decreases.
you are kidding, right? According to the latest figures the number of houses in the market is about 3.5 millions, which amount to 7 months of housing supply. Even if tomorrow DOL will process all its backlog of 180K applications and INS issue pending however-many-GC applications pending (I believe I heard a # of 500K including those 180K they are expecting to get from the DOL) it won't affect the housing market a bit.
you are kidding, right? According to the latest figures the number of houses in the market is about 3.5 millions, which amount to 7 months of housing supply. Even if tomorrow DOL will process all its backlog of 180K applications and INS issue pending however-many-GC applications pending (I believe I heard a # of 500K including those 180K they are expecting to get from the DOL) it won't affect the housing market a bit.
Googler
06-18 08:23 PM
Instead in CIR Section 531 (COMPLETION OF BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS) takes away the right for courts to rule on writs of mandamus filings:
"(k) Prohibition of Judicial Enforcement- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court may require any act described in subsection (i) or (j) to be completed by a certain time or award any relief for the failure to complete such acts."
please please stop reading the old bill
the new one is on the iv home page
or in thomas look at sa.1150 under the s.1358 bill
Thanks for pointing that out Paskal. I stand corrected.
S.A. 1150 Section 216 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:2:./temp/~r110MkRgxl:e138316:) says:
SEC. 216. STREAMLINED PROCESSING OF BACKGROUND CHECKS CONDUCTED FOR IMMIGRATION BENEFITS.
(a) INFORMATION SHARING; INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--Section 105 (8 U.S.C. 1105) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General shall establish an interagency task force to resolve cases in which an application or petition for an immigration benefit conferred under this Act has been delayed due to an outstanding background check investigation for more than 2 years after the date on which such application or petition was initially filed.
``(2) MEMBERSHIP.--The interagency task force established under paragraph (1) shall include representatives from Federal agencies with immigration, law enforcement, or national security responsibilities under this Act.''.
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation such sums as are necessary for each fiscal year, 2008 through 2012 for enhancements to existing systems for conducting background and security checks necessary to support immigration security and orderly processing of applications.
(c) REPORT ON BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the background and security checks conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on behalf of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(2) CONTENT.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) a description of the background and security check program;
(B) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays associated with different types of immigration applications;
(C) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays by applicant country of origin; and
(D) the steps that the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking to expedite background and security checks that have been pending for more than 180 days.
Doesn't promise any results and it is not clear if this extra appropriations will be used for the much ballyhooed transformation that Michael Cannon says might kick in in 2010, or for clearing the current backlog BUT is much better than trying to take away the right to file mandamus suits. Also leads us to believe that 180 days is the acceptable amount of time for a namecheck.
"(k) Prohibition of Judicial Enforcement- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court may require any act described in subsection (i) or (j) to be completed by a certain time or award any relief for the failure to complete such acts."
please please stop reading the old bill
the new one is on the iv home page
or in thomas look at sa.1150 under the s.1358 bill
Thanks for pointing that out Paskal. I stand corrected.
S.A. 1150 Section 216 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:2:./temp/~r110MkRgxl:e138316:) says:
SEC. 216. STREAMLINED PROCESSING OF BACKGROUND CHECKS CONDUCTED FOR IMMIGRATION BENEFITS.
(a) INFORMATION SHARING; INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--Section 105 (8 U.S.C. 1105) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General shall establish an interagency task force to resolve cases in which an application or petition for an immigration benefit conferred under this Act has been delayed due to an outstanding background check investigation for more than 2 years after the date on which such application or petition was initially filed.
``(2) MEMBERSHIP.--The interagency task force established under paragraph (1) shall include representatives from Federal agencies with immigration, law enforcement, or national security responsibilities under this Act.''.
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation such sums as are necessary for each fiscal year, 2008 through 2012 for enhancements to existing systems for conducting background and security checks necessary to support immigration security and orderly processing of applications.
(c) REPORT ON BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the background and security checks conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on behalf of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(2) CONTENT.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) a description of the background and security check program;
(B) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays associated with different types of immigration applications;
(C) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays by applicant country of origin; and
(D) the steps that the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking to expedite background and security checks that have been pending for more than 180 days.
Doesn't promise any results and it is not clear if this extra appropriations will be used for the much ballyhooed transformation that Michael Cannon says might kick in in 2010, or for clearing the current backlog BUT is much better than trying to take away the right to file mandamus suits. Also leads us to believe that 180 days is the acceptable amount of time for a namecheck.
more...
amsgc
12-11 12:50 AM
In a testimony to the House Judiciary Committee back in Apr/May 08, the USCIS clearly stated that it had changed its policy regarding which applications would be adjudicated first.
As I remember, USCIS stated that it was now following a policy where cases that had a possibility of getting a visa number in the near future were adjudicated first. It said that this change in policy was made in order to reduce waste of immigrant visas.
The problem with this approach is that:
- It is not FIFO
- EB2-I/C and EB3 not only continue to remain retrogressed, but retrogression worsens.
Here is how:
Since EB2-I/EB3-I categories are already retrogressed, the I-485 applications in this category will be shelved until it appears that a visa number may become available in the foreseeable future.
So, USCIS puts most of these cases in cold storage while it adjudicates and approves the EB2ROW applications as it receives them on a continuous basis.
When time comes to roll over excess EB2 ROW numbers, two things happen:
- Already substantial use of EB2ROW numbers make few numbers available for roll over
- Limited adjudication of Eb2-I/C and EB3 cases make a very small pool of pre-adjudicated applications. USCIS requests DOS to move dates so that it has access to a larger pool for cherry picking.
The result is that VB dates move forward by leaps and bounds and cases are approved haphazardly with PDs all over the map. When the excess numbers are used up, the dates for EB2-I/C and EB3 retrogress back to previous cutoff dates because there are still a lot of old cases that have not even been brought out of cold storage. The EB2ROW dates are again current because USCIS has adjudicated and approved EB2ROW cases throughout the year- so no backlog there.
If USCIS followed FIFO, then the following would happen:
- USCIS would be adjudicating old EB2I/C and EB3 cases right now, and not the recently received EB2ROW cases.
- This would reduce the number of pre-adjudicated EB2ROW cases and hence lower the demand in the EB2ROW category.
- When time would come to roll over numbers not used by EB2ROW:
- A large pool number of excess visas would be available
- A large pool of pre-adjudicated EB2-I/C and EB3 cases with old PDs would be available that could be readily assigned visa numbers.
As a result, old cases would be assigned visa numbers and backlog would be reduced.
Unfortunately, USCIS has confused its process of adjudicating cases (which is FIFO) with its effort to enforce the country quota. The country limits come into picture only when cases ready for adjudication are to be assigned visa numbers. The process of adjudication should still be FIFO, and not determined by the country quota.
I wonder how it is they justify over 70K visas to EB2ROW, keeping it current all year, when EB2 I was so retrogressed and got only 15K. FIFO my foot. This is the most mismanaged, subjective thing I have ever seen. Translated for us, luck of the draw.
As I remember, USCIS stated that it was now following a policy where cases that had a possibility of getting a visa number in the near future were adjudicated first. It said that this change in policy was made in order to reduce waste of immigrant visas.
The problem with this approach is that:
- It is not FIFO
- EB2-I/C and EB3 not only continue to remain retrogressed, but retrogression worsens.
Here is how:
Since EB2-I/EB3-I categories are already retrogressed, the I-485 applications in this category will be shelved until it appears that a visa number may become available in the foreseeable future.
So, USCIS puts most of these cases in cold storage while it adjudicates and approves the EB2ROW applications as it receives them on a continuous basis.
When time comes to roll over excess EB2 ROW numbers, two things happen:
- Already substantial use of EB2ROW numbers make few numbers available for roll over
- Limited adjudication of Eb2-I/C and EB3 cases make a very small pool of pre-adjudicated applications. USCIS requests DOS to move dates so that it has access to a larger pool for cherry picking.
The result is that VB dates move forward by leaps and bounds and cases are approved haphazardly with PDs all over the map. When the excess numbers are used up, the dates for EB2-I/C and EB3 retrogress back to previous cutoff dates because there are still a lot of old cases that have not even been brought out of cold storage. The EB2ROW dates are again current because USCIS has adjudicated and approved EB2ROW cases throughout the year- so no backlog there.
If USCIS followed FIFO, then the following would happen:
- USCIS would be adjudicating old EB2I/C and EB3 cases right now, and not the recently received EB2ROW cases.
- This would reduce the number of pre-adjudicated EB2ROW cases and hence lower the demand in the EB2ROW category.
- When time would come to roll over numbers not used by EB2ROW:
- A large pool number of excess visas would be available
- A large pool of pre-adjudicated EB2-I/C and EB3 cases with old PDs would be available that could be readily assigned visa numbers.
As a result, old cases would be assigned visa numbers and backlog would be reduced.
Unfortunately, USCIS has confused its process of adjudicating cases (which is FIFO) with its effort to enforce the country quota. The country limits come into picture only when cases ready for adjudication are to be assigned visa numbers. The process of adjudication should still be FIFO, and not determined by the country quota.
I wonder how it is they justify over 70K visas to EB2ROW, keeping it current all year, when EB2 I was so retrogressed and got only 15K. FIFO my foot. This is the most mismanaged, subjective thing I have ever seen. Translated for us, luck of the draw.
gc_dream07
08-05 06:30 AM
I am in similar situation.
I have AP valid till Oct 3rd, 2010. My new AP application is with USCIS and have not received the approval. I will be traveling to Canada on August 15th for one week. I am planning to return on current AP. My question is: if my new AP gets approved when I am in Canada, will that cause any issue in my I-485 or re-entry to US.
i was in same situation. couldn't get new AP in time. went for stamping in India.
my attorney's advise was, u can't use the new AP, if u weren't here in US when it was approved. but after u come back using old valid AP or H stamp, u can use the new AP, for travel next time.
if u read 131 instructions, it talks about abandoning app.
basically, if u have no other status like H status, if u are using EAD for work and AP for travel,
and if u leave US before approval of AP, ur 485 considered abandoned.
Ref:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-131instr.pdf
Page 4, Section E.
I have AP valid till Oct 3rd, 2010. My new AP application is with USCIS and have not received the approval. I will be traveling to Canada on August 15th for one week. I am planning to return on current AP. My question is: if my new AP gets approved when I am in Canada, will that cause any issue in my I-485 or re-entry to US.
i was in same situation. couldn't get new AP in time. went for stamping in India.
my attorney's advise was, u can't use the new AP, if u weren't here in US when it was approved. but after u come back using old valid AP or H stamp, u can use the new AP, for travel next time.
if u read 131 instructions, it talks about abandoning app.
basically, if u have no other status like H status, if u are using EAD for work and AP for travel,
and if u leave US before approval of AP, ur 485 considered abandoned.
Ref:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-131instr.pdf
Page 4, Section E.
more...
sledge_hammer
07-01 12:54 PM
The amended H-1B by itself will not be an issue when it comes to GC.
My question was more about why for "rajuseattle" there was going to be AC21 since his job location has not changed.
In your case, you have mentioned that you are going to accept more responsibility than that has been stated in PERM, so AC21 is inevitable. As long as you are in the same line of work, I think you should be okay.
Anyone else has inputs for "fuzzy logic"?
I think there will have to AC21 invoked as there is change in the job location. Secondly I will be going from Senior Assurance Associate to Assurance Manager. There will be additional responsibilities from what I already have.
I hope this H1B amendment will not impede in anyway the GC process. Would it? Thanks!
My question was more about why for "rajuseattle" there was going to be AC21 since his job location has not changed.
In your case, you have mentioned that you are going to accept more responsibility than that has been stated in PERM, so AC21 is inevitable. As long as you are in the same line of work, I think you should be okay.
Anyone else has inputs for "fuzzy logic"?
I think there will have to AC21 invoked as there is change in the job location. Secondly I will be going from Senior Assurance Associate to Assurance Manager. There will be additional responsibilities from what I already have.
I hope this H1B amendment will not impede in anyway the GC process. Would it? Thanks!
Madhuri
07-18 11:21 AM
I also think that now at least we should think of making IV a paid site. Doubtful people always used to ask for results. IV has given a big answer to all these people. Why not at least make it paid for posting in the forums/starting a new thread?
Can you IM a core and ask them to put a link on main page...
Can you IM a core and ask them to put a link on main page...
Green.Tech
06-19 12:32 PM
Bump.
aj1234567
10-22 08:11 PM
I got FP Appointmnet letter on 10/10/07 for the the date 10/30.
After i got this fp appointmnet letter i had changed my address on 10/10/07 with usics, i got card production mail from uscis on 10/11/07,they updated my new address and i did not got any mail from them saying that they send the EAD card,many of my frineds said that they recived mail from usics saying that EAD had sent my mail,But i did not
Is adress change impact on EAD time.
After i got this fp appointmnet letter i had changed my address on 10/10/07 with usics, i got card production mail from uscis on 10/11/07,they updated my new address and i did not got any mail from them saying that they send the EAD card,many of my frineds said that they recived mail from usics saying that EAD had sent my mail,But i did not
Is adress change impact on EAD time.
dixie
09-19 04:06 PM
We should just be asking for relief on waiting times, ability to travel freely, and change jobs.
Unfortunately, this requires a complete overhaul of the immigration system; not minor amendments. For instance, if we want the ability to change jobs freely that is really asking to de-couple the whole H1-B/GC system from our employers. You know very well how things work with current law: EVERYTHING related to our presence in the US; whether that is the work visa, LC or even the PD is OWNED by our employers.
I do agree that increasing visa numbers does not make good PR for our cause.
But the only quick and non-controversial fix (without increasing visa numbers) that I can think of is recapture and ability to file 485 without a visa number.
However, we cannot shy away from explaining how our problems can be solved .. after all average americans have no clue of how their country's immigration system works; if we dont do the explaining the anti-immigrant groups will do that for us with their own interpretation.
Unfortunately, this requires a complete overhaul of the immigration system; not minor amendments. For instance, if we want the ability to change jobs freely that is really asking to de-couple the whole H1-B/GC system from our employers. You know very well how things work with current law: EVERYTHING related to our presence in the US; whether that is the work visa, LC or even the PD is OWNED by our employers.
I do agree that increasing visa numbers does not make good PR for our cause.
But the only quick and non-controversial fix (without increasing visa numbers) that I can think of is recapture and ability to file 485 without a visa number.
However, we cannot shy away from explaining how our problems can be solved .. after all average americans have no clue of how their country's immigration system works; if we dont do the explaining the anti-immigrant groups will do that for us with their own interpretation.
No comments:
Post a Comment