roseball
02-28 04:33 PM
Can anybody please help in answering below questions on my case? I really appreciate your help. This is urgent for me.
#1: I am working for Company A (current company). My GC processing details (with current company):
1. Labor Approved.
2. I-140 Approved with priority date of Aug 2006 (Category -EB2)
3. I-485 - NOT filed
#2: I am on 6th year of H1-B. My current H1-B is valid till Jan 29, 2011 (less than 365 days from today).
I want to change job and join Company B (new company) for excellent offer and life long stability.
As per my understanding, for continuous H1-B extension & GC approval on existing priority date, I must stay with existing company(A). But attorney of new company(B) is saying he will be able to handle my H1-B extension and may be able to save my priority date also by filing new PERM & I-140. I am not sure whether attorney of new company(B) is correct or not. Can anybody please help in answering below questions?
Ques : If new company(B) transfers H1-B and USCIS will grant H1-B for 3 years based on approved I-140 with current company(A):
A. Can USCIS revokes extended period ( after Jan 29, 2011) if current company(A) revokes their approved I-140 before new company(B) gets approval of new PERM and I-140?
B. Can new company (B) start new PERM application during my extension period (after Jan 29, 2011)?
C. Can new company (B) transfer Priority date even if existing company(A) revokes their I-140?
A. Since the law is unclear, to be on the safe side, you can have the new company file H1 extension in premium processing and resign/leave the current employer only after extension is approved
B. Yes, new company can start a new PERM and port your earlier PD during I-140 process
C. PD can be ported even if old employer revokes I-140, provided the revocation was not due to fraud.
Also, I am sure all IV members would really appreciate if you could tell us the name of this company which is offering a life long stability..:-)
#1: I am working for Company A (current company). My GC processing details (with current company):
1. Labor Approved.
2. I-140 Approved with priority date of Aug 2006 (Category -EB2)
3. I-485 - NOT filed
#2: I am on 6th year of H1-B. My current H1-B is valid till Jan 29, 2011 (less than 365 days from today).
I want to change job and join Company B (new company) for excellent offer and life long stability.
As per my understanding, for continuous H1-B extension & GC approval on existing priority date, I must stay with existing company(A). But attorney of new company(B) is saying he will be able to handle my H1-B extension and may be able to save my priority date also by filing new PERM & I-140. I am not sure whether attorney of new company(B) is correct or not. Can anybody please help in answering below questions?
Ques : If new company(B) transfers H1-B and USCIS will grant H1-B for 3 years based on approved I-140 with current company(A):
A. Can USCIS revokes extended period ( after Jan 29, 2011) if current company(A) revokes their approved I-140 before new company(B) gets approval of new PERM and I-140?
B. Can new company (B) start new PERM application during my extension period (after Jan 29, 2011)?
C. Can new company (B) transfer Priority date even if existing company(A) revokes their I-140?
A. Since the law is unclear, to be on the safe side, you can have the new company file H1 extension in premium processing and resign/leave the current employer only after extension is approved
B. Yes, new company can start a new PERM and port your earlier PD during I-140 process
C. PD can be ported even if old employer revokes I-140, provided the revocation was not due to fraud.
Also, I am sure all IV members would really appreciate if you could tell us the name of this company which is offering a life long stability..:-)
wallpaper est anime wallpapers_21. Kate Winslet Wallpapers; Kate Winslet Wallpapers
krishnam70
08-14 04:13 PM
A woman who was traveling alone in the mountains found a precious stone in a stream.
The next day she met another traveler who was hungry, the woman opened her bag to share her food. The hungry traveler saw the precious stone and asked the woman to give it to him. She did so without hesitation. The traveler left, rejoicing in his great fortune. He knew the stone was worth enough to give him security for a lifetime.
But a few days later he came back to return the stone to the woman. "I've been thinking," he said, "I know how valuable the stone is, but I give it back in the hope that you can give me something even more precious. Give me what you have within you that enabled you to give me the stone."
The woman smiled, "The joy of giving!"
Agreed . Joy of giving is a great concept if its voluntary. If we place a condition that this is the minimum amount u can pay or no way we might lose a few members who might want to contribute lesser amounts..
cheers
The next day she met another traveler who was hungry, the woman opened her bag to share her food. The hungry traveler saw the precious stone and asked the woman to give it to him. She did so without hesitation. The traveler left, rejoicing in his great fortune. He knew the stone was worth enough to give him security for a lifetime.
But a few days later he came back to return the stone to the woman. "I've been thinking," he said, "I know how valuable the stone is, but I give it back in the hope that you can give me something even more precious. Give me what you have within you that enabled you to give me the stone."
The woman smiled, "The joy of giving!"
Agreed . Joy of giving is a great concept if its voluntary. If we place a condition that this is the minimum amount u can pay or no way we might lose a few members who might want to contribute lesser amounts..
cheers
for_gc
09-26 11:00 AM
ohhhh wow !! .. Man ...It not so easy as it looks on paper ...U will find tons of ppl in the stage of limbo after doing all this ... (including me though :(
My sincere advice, DO not even think about it ..
Hi pd_recapturing,
Can you please elaborate on your experience. This is an issue very close to my heart as well and possibly benefit lots of other folks on this forum.
I personally know a fried who in fact benefited from PD porting and got his GC sometime in 2007 beginning. He had a EB3 PD of 2001 which he used for his EB2 application with another employer.
My sincere advice, DO not even think about it ..
Hi pd_recapturing,
Can you please elaborate on your experience. This is an issue very close to my heart as well and possibly benefit lots of other folks on this forum.
I personally know a fried who in fact benefited from PD porting and got his GC sometime in 2007 beginning. He had a EB3 PD of 2001 which he used for his EB2 application with another employer.
2011 NASA Wallpapers21
Sammo
08-23 03:25 PM
Wow - thanks for all the votes on mine :)
more...
chanduv23
07-06 09:49 PM
with the lack of regulation on AC 21 law, each attorney's take different position when it comes to handling AC 21 cases, in my case the primary reason driven to file AC 21 is the small window of period available in getting I 485 adjudicated when the PD is current, so I don't want to loose time when the PD is current and get an RFE from USCIS and running back and forth to get the RFE responded before loosing PD, more over I took the 20 minute counselling with Murthy law firm and they advised to notify USCIS about employer change.Later I was fortunate that USCIS did not issue RFE(may be it helped USCIS by notifying them in advance and clear their doubt) and approve my I 485 when PD was current.
Cheers
Kris
Issuing RFE or not is an individual decision taken by the officer. In most cases, RFE is issued when 140 gets revoked because an underlying job offer is a necessity. Even if you sent AC21 letter, as long as your 140 is still intact, the officer may chose not to issue an RFE.
Some people have received RFEs in more than one ocassion. Once when 140 was revoked and once during preadjudication process. So if for some reason USCIS decides to do a second round of preadjudication just because they have not other work or any specific reason then we may expect RFEs (This is something I made up - I don't think there will be another round of preadjudication.
Informing USCIS in advance helps rarely but maybe useful at times if you know your 140 could potentially be revoked and in a lot of cases 485 gets deined as a result. The MTR filing process can include a communication trail about informing USCIS which could be of help.
Cheers
Kris
Issuing RFE or not is an individual decision taken by the officer. In most cases, RFE is issued when 140 gets revoked because an underlying job offer is a necessity. Even if you sent AC21 letter, as long as your 140 is still intact, the officer may chose not to issue an RFE.
Some people have received RFEs in more than one ocassion. Once when 140 was revoked and once during preadjudication process. So if for some reason USCIS decides to do a second round of preadjudication just because they have not other work or any specific reason then we may expect RFEs (This is something I made up - I don't think there will be another round of preadjudication.
Informing USCIS in advance helps rarely but maybe useful at times if you know your 140 could potentially be revoked and in a lot of cases 485 gets deined as a result. The MTR filing process can include a communication trail about informing USCIS which could be of help.
vinabath
05-15 01:03 PM
What a coincidence.....
1. EB3 I-140 ceritified - Feb2003. - Salary 60K (Soft Developer)
2. EB2 - Labor approved -Oct 2005 Waiting for PD to port - Salary 80k ( IS manager)
I do not know what to do, I am thinking couple of situations.
I. File 485 with EB3.
Advantages:
Low Salary Requirements,
Generic Job Duties,
Easy to use AC21,
Already approved I-140
Disadvantages:
Possible retrogression,
So more wait before realizing the dream of actual freedom.
II. File 485 with EB2 labor (concurrent filing)
Advantages:
Less chance of retrogression.
Quicker path to GC.
Disadvantages:
I-140 denial chances
Difficult to use AC21 - difficult to find managerial job with 80K salary in Midwest.
Someone please tell us that we can replace/upgrade the underlying I-140 tagged to 485 application.
1. EB3 I-140 ceritified - Feb2003. - Salary 60K (Soft Developer)
2. EB2 - Labor approved -Oct 2005 Waiting for PD to port - Salary 80k ( IS manager)
I do not know what to do, I am thinking couple of situations.
I. File 485 with EB3.
Advantages:
Low Salary Requirements,
Generic Job Duties,
Easy to use AC21,
Already approved I-140
Disadvantages:
Possible retrogression,
So more wait before realizing the dream of actual freedom.
II. File 485 with EB2 labor (concurrent filing)
Advantages:
Less chance of retrogression.
Quicker path to GC.
Disadvantages:
I-140 denial chances
Difficult to use AC21 - difficult to find managerial job with 80K salary in Midwest.
Someone please tell us that we can replace/upgrade the underlying I-140 tagged to 485 application.
more...
immi_seeker
07-12 11:57 PM
Hi,
Just wanted to know about your EAD: Which Center you have applied ? NSC/TSC. What date they have received. My EAD Renewal is pending, and I wish to change job. :confused:
Appreciate your reply. Anyways, You should not be worrying too much on EAD, as your PD is current now, and youshoudlget the Card in coming months. :)
Thanks.
Center is NSC. They recieved the Application on june 19th
Just wanted to know about your EAD: Which Center you have applied ? NSC/TSC. What date they have received. My EAD Renewal is pending, and I wish to change job. :confused:
Appreciate your reply. Anyways, You should not be worrying too much on EAD, as your PD is current now, and youshoudlget the Card in coming months. :)
Thanks.
Center is NSC. They recieved the Application on june 19th
2010 est anime wallpapers_21. Avril Lavigne Wallpapers; Avril Lavigne Wallpapers
leoindiano
08-03 12:23 PM
I have the notice of action for my I-140 approval. It doesn't mention an A# anywhere. Are you sure about this?
There should be a box for A number, is it blank?
There should be a box for A number, is it blank?
more...
kondur_007
09-17 09:38 PM
I dont want to duplicate, but I think following "cut and paste" from my previous post may be a fair thing to do; just for the information.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
hair est anime wallpapers_21. est anime wallpapers_21.
gccube
03-19 07:11 PM
gccube are you EB3 -I as well?
"
FBI Namecheck -- Cleared (02/01/2008)
FP -- Cleared "
How did you find out the status of your namecheck and FP?
I called up their customer service no and was able to reach an IO at TSC and asked about the FBI name check status. I did speak to an IO 3 to 4 times over a period of 6 months and initially it was pending but later on it got cleared. I did not ask for the exact date it was cleared but it was on feb1st 2008 that I found that it was cleared. But they did tell me the exact date on which the FBI name check was initiated. It was initiated on Aug 1st 2007 where are my 485 RD is June21st 2007.
"
FBI Namecheck -- Cleared (02/01/2008)
FP -- Cleared "
How did you find out the status of your namecheck and FP?
I called up their customer service no and was able to reach an IO at TSC and asked about the FBI name check status. I did speak to an IO 3 to 4 times over a period of 6 months and initially it was pending but later on it got cleared. I did not ask for the exact date it was cleared but it was on feb1st 2008 that I found that it was cleared. But they did tell me the exact date on which the FBI name check was initiated. It was initiated on Aug 1st 2007 where are my 485 RD is June21st 2007.
more...
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. :)
hot est anime wallpapers_21.
dalasengineer
10-04 04:38 PM
I was issued a license based on my EAD expiration date. Same for my wife. We went back to DMV to get license extended based on I 94 expiry date. My I94 expiry date was different than ED expiration date as the customs gave expiry date which is 1 year later than EAD expriation date. I asked the customs officer why the date was different than my EAD date. He told my stay was valid till my I94 expiry date.
Anyways, IOWA DMV extended our license based on I94 date and we came back happy to know that we shall not have to walk in -30F to fetch our grocery as we wait to get our renewed EAD..
regardss
Anyways, IOWA DMV extended our license based on I94 date and we came back happy to know that we shall not have to walk in -30F to fetch our grocery as we wait to get our renewed EAD..
regardss
more...
house est anime wallpapers_21. Best Wallpapers Of Republic
morpheus
04-06 11:06 AM
Does anyone know if the latest Frist amendment to the bill would still allow H1's etc to file for 218 as outlined above? I did some more reading and I am still confident the analysis above is an option for many H1's like myself.
Frankly I'd be happy to wait six years for a GC if it meant I could be out of this continual H1/LC/140/485 rat-race. Being able to be self employed would be a huge positive for me. I'm already on my second LC and I am involved in founding my second new company. For executives the H1/GC process is useless because you frequently get promoted or change titles, and by the time your LC is near processing it's likely that the original application is no longer supportable. Plus, if you own equity in the company that opens a whole can of worms that the USCIS will object to.
I don't care if 218D is supposed to be for 'illegal' immigrants. Hell, I'll learn Spanish! Via con dios! Obras son amores y no buenas razones!
Frankly I'd be happy to wait six years for a GC if it meant I could be out of this continual H1/LC/140/485 rat-race. Being able to be self employed would be a huge positive for me. I'm already on my second LC and I am involved in founding my second new company. For executives the H1/GC process is useless because you frequently get promoted or change titles, and by the time your LC is near processing it's likely that the original application is no longer supportable. Plus, if you own equity in the company that opens a whole can of worms that the USCIS will object to.
I don't care if 218D is supposed to be for 'illegal' immigrants. Hell, I'll learn Spanish! Via con dios! Obras son amores y no buenas razones!
tattoo est anime wallpapers_21. est anime wallpapers_21. 35+ Spooky Halloween;
maristella61
02-27 11:55 AM
LIN = nebraska service center, SRC = Texas service center
Thanks !
Thanks !
more...
pictures est anime wallpapers_21. Wallpapers: 21; Wallpapers: 21. Mac#39;nCheese
sandy_anand
11-09 03:27 PM
Filled out the form...
dresses est anime wallpapers_21. est
santb1975
04-15 04:36 PM
Team IV
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18387
Hi folks,
Just got back from UK on Friday after a month of family time, medicals and our embassy interview! Wanted to let you all know that we were approved and happily back in the US!!
Congrats on the latest admin wins and movements in campaigns/projects. I wanted to say a huge thank you but not farewell to the many kind folks who kept my spirits high in the short time I have been with IV:
abhijitp, needhelp, digital2k, paskal, gsc999, waiting4gc, pappu, chanduv23, santb1975, nolaindian32, walking dude, ja1hind, logiclife and many more. All of you rock and America is very lucky to have such genuine and brilliant people like you. I wish you the very best for your own journey.
I will be around for sure, just have to concentrate on securing some work and life for a bit, finally!
my best :)
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18387
Hi folks,
Just got back from UK on Friday after a month of family time, medicals and our embassy interview! Wanted to let you all know that we were approved and happily back in the US!!
Congrats on the latest admin wins and movements in campaigns/projects. I wanted to say a huge thank you but not farewell to the many kind folks who kept my spirits high in the short time I have been with IV:
abhijitp, needhelp, digital2k, paskal, gsc999, waiting4gc, pappu, chanduv23, santb1975, nolaindian32, walking dude, ja1hind, logiclife and many more. All of you rock and America is very lucky to have such genuine and brilliant people like you. I wish you the very best for your own journey.
I will be around for sure, just have to concentrate on securing some work and life for a bit, finally!
my best :)
more...
makeup est anime wallpapers_21. Beyonce Knowles Wallpapers
se_vnt3
02-24 03:41 PM
To whom it may concern, please, help us. Everything we ever learned from the U.S. about truth and justice is suddenly being deprived of any meaning by the U.S. itself. The hardest part for us is believing that everything we�ve based our lives on � the American way, has no merit.
I was deported from the United States of America on February 18, 2005. I lived there nearly 30 years since I was 20 months old, when my mother crossed the Rio Grande into the country with me illegally. I was given an opportunity to become legal under the NACARA law but was to afraid of being deported like Maricela Soza was under the same law and didn�t go through with the entire process. I have both a husband and a son who are U.S. citizens but I am permanently prohibited by Immigration law from immigrating to the United States, while at the same time I am allowed to visit. Due to my drug convictions amounting to possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. It�s Immigration law�s contradicting policies which I find disturbing.
U.S. Immigration is concerned with their citizens� welfare but it is denying my husband�s and my son�s requests to have me back by their side for good. Although Immigration law will value my wish to receive admission into the United States. Needless to say I prefer returning, immigrating and remaining in the country by my family�s side. That�s not taking into account the fact that I am still homesick and continue experiencing culture shock in Nicaragua. What the Department of Homeland Security is doing to my family and I is cruel, inhumane and unpatriotic. No free country�s government has any business deciding how families should be formed or whose personal choice is agreeable or not. Like that of my son�s and husband�s choice to overlook my shortcomings and begin our lives over together again.
The 212(d)(3) Waiver allows a visitor�s visa into the U.S. to be issued to an Alien like me if I show evidence of rehabilitation such as becoming a practicing professional with a U.S. job offer. Sometimes with lone proof of a bank savings account, school registration and satisfactory travel record. On the other hand there isn�t one waiver available for United States Citizens who wish to rebuild their lives with an Alien deported for any drug charge(s) of possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. Not only are Andrew�s(my son) and Thomas�(my husband) needs being ignored but my needs are being placed before their own. An act I dare name TREASON.
How much more is the United States citizens� welfare secured if an Alien with an undesirable drug history enters the United States merely to visit and not to immigrate? Shouldn�t all United States citizens� needs and rights within and from their country � such as my husband�s and my son�s, come before any Alien�s need or right to receive admission into the U.S., including my own? Also, shouldn�t Family-Based Immigration take first place over �Alien travel� for any reason?
I regret to say it�s these types of injustices with devastating consequences to the recipient�s and his/her immediate relatives� personal lives remaining raveled, much more unacknowledged that play a large role in the cause for conflict concerning disloyalty and unpopularity among U.S. citizens and foreign nationals inside and outside of the United States. I trust that once this oversight is brought to DHS�s attention they will not knowingly continue punishing my husband and my son for loving me, an Alien who once stumbled while attempting to survive in the U.S.. I�m afraid to imagine how many individuals involved in cases like my family�s and mine go on thinking that the U.S. is a bad country for having the audacity to pass judgment on them. I�ve had to believe there�s a glitch somewhere in immigration law caused by simple human error. I can�t accept that the U.S. I grew to know as a loving, Christian country with caring values is intentionally causing my loved ones and I grief. It goes without saying that as much as the United States has a duty to protect its citizens it also has a duty to be equally diplomatic toward foreigners and not continue persecuting the one or the other long after any condemning sentence has been exacted and executed. I know the United States of America will do right by my son, my husband, me, and the rest of its citizens and foreign nationals in our predicament.
We want the 212(d)(3) Non-Immigrant Visas Waiver made into an Immigrant Visas Waiver for Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens to make sure United States citizens receive competent protection from the Department of Homeland Security and adequate protection from the United States of America. I believe a Waiver should be available to me for my deportation charge including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana so my husband and son can claim me and I can immigrate to the U.S.. But immigration law only makes such a Waiver available to Foreign Nationals who wish to travel to the U.S.(and who also have the same charge as me: deportation including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana). My husband�s and my son�s Freedom Of Belief civil liberty is being violated because their belief is being discriminated against. I am not able to immigrate to the U.S. because immigration law doesn�t allow me a Waiver enabling my husband or son to claim me successfully. If I had a Waiver available to me they wouldn�t have to be at this crossroads making their case public in the courts, therefore their Right To Privacy is also being violated as a result of their belief being discriminated against. Please, help bring justice to these afflicted, we need your input. How should we proceed?
I was deported from the United States of America on February 18, 2005. I lived there nearly 30 years since I was 20 months old, when my mother crossed the Rio Grande into the country with me illegally. I was given an opportunity to become legal under the NACARA law but was to afraid of being deported like Maricela Soza was under the same law and didn�t go through with the entire process. I have both a husband and a son who are U.S. citizens but I am permanently prohibited by Immigration law from immigrating to the United States, while at the same time I am allowed to visit. Due to my drug convictions amounting to possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. It�s Immigration law�s contradicting policies which I find disturbing.
U.S. Immigration is concerned with their citizens� welfare but it is denying my husband�s and my son�s requests to have me back by their side for good. Although Immigration law will value my wish to receive admission into the United States. Needless to say I prefer returning, immigrating and remaining in the country by my family�s side. That�s not taking into account the fact that I am still homesick and continue experiencing culture shock in Nicaragua. What the Department of Homeland Security is doing to my family and I is cruel, inhumane and unpatriotic. No free country�s government has any business deciding how families should be formed or whose personal choice is agreeable or not. Like that of my son�s and husband�s choice to overlook my shortcomings and begin our lives over together again.
The 212(d)(3) Waiver allows a visitor�s visa into the U.S. to be issued to an Alien like me if I show evidence of rehabilitation such as becoming a practicing professional with a U.S. job offer. Sometimes with lone proof of a bank savings account, school registration and satisfactory travel record. On the other hand there isn�t one waiver available for United States Citizens who wish to rebuild their lives with an Alien deported for any drug charge(s) of possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. Not only are Andrew�s(my son) and Thomas�(my husband) needs being ignored but my needs are being placed before their own. An act I dare name TREASON.
How much more is the United States citizens� welfare secured if an Alien with an undesirable drug history enters the United States merely to visit and not to immigrate? Shouldn�t all United States citizens� needs and rights within and from their country � such as my husband�s and my son�s, come before any Alien�s need or right to receive admission into the U.S., including my own? Also, shouldn�t Family-Based Immigration take first place over �Alien travel� for any reason?
I regret to say it�s these types of injustices with devastating consequences to the recipient�s and his/her immediate relatives� personal lives remaining raveled, much more unacknowledged that play a large role in the cause for conflict concerning disloyalty and unpopularity among U.S. citizens and foreign nationals inside and outside of the United States. I trust that once this oversight is brought to DHS�s attention they will not knowingly continue punishing my husband and my son for loving me, an Alien who once stumbled while attempting to survive in the U.S.. I�m afraid to imagine how many individuals involved in cases like my family�s and mine go on thinking that the U.S. is a bad country for having the audacity to pass judgment on them. I�ve had to believe there�s a glitch somewhere in immigration law caused by simple human error. I can�t accept that the U.S. I grew to know as a loving, Christian country with caring values is intentionally causing my loved ones and I grief. It goes without saying that as much as the United States has a duty to protect its citizens it also has a duty to be equally diplomatic toward foreigners and not continue persecuting the one or the other long after any condemning sentence has been exacted and executed. I know the United States of America will do right by my son, my husband, me, and the rest of its citizens and foreign nationals in our predicament.
We want the 212(d)(3) Non-Immigrant Visas Waiver made into an Immigrant Visas Waiver for Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens to make sure United States citizens receive competent protection from the Department of Homeland Security and adequate protection from the United States of America. I believe a Waiver should be available to me for my deportation charge including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana so my husband and son can claim me and I can immigrate to the U.S.. But immigration law only makes such a Waiver available to Foreign Nationals who wish to travel to the U.S.(and who also have the same charge as me: deportation including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana). My husband�s and my son�s Freedom Of Belief civil liberty is being violated because their belief is being discriminated against. I am not able to immigrate to the U.S. because immigration law doesn�t allow me a Waiver enabling my husband or son to claim me successfully. If I had a Waiver available to me they wouldn�t have to be at this crossroads making their case public in the courts, therefore their Right To Privacy is also being violated as a result of their belief being discriminated against. Please, help bring justice to these afflicted, we need your input. How should we proceed?
girlfriend hot est anime wallpapers_21.
sangeethak31
07-16 08:49 PM
Thanks all the reponses.....:)
Sangeetha K
Sangeetha K
hairstyles est anime wallpapers_21. est anime wallpapers_21. 40 Beautiful Dual Screen
JeffDG
01-26 03:00 PM
Remember although this bill is only for PHD holders as it states now- It is too early to say if it will see the light of the day- if it will get through the committee and get on the calender and finally get on the floor.
It will go thru many rewrites and if it does have a chance on the floor, we can lobby and put our energy behind to make it better and try to get our provisions in it.
It is too early at this stage to comment on its chances and worse yet talk and fight about its contents.
True, it's for PhD's...but it exempts them from numerical limitations, so they no longer consume visa numbers, freeing those for everyone else.
Here's the bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.399.IH:
It will go thru many rewrites and if it does have a chance on the floor, we can lobby and put our energy behind to make it better and try to get our provisions in it.
It is too early at this stage to comment on its chances and worse yet talk and fight about its contents.
True, it's for PhD's...but it exempts them from numerical limitations, so they no longer consume visa numbers, freeing those for everyone else.
Here's the bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.399.IH:
priderock
05-15 10:35 AM
Wonder how many core group members benefited with this forward movement !!
anjans
04-29 06:21 PM
Nice article here. It also compares the experience on how folks did once they went back. The needle is surely moving away from USA.
America is bleeding competitiveness | VentureBeat (http://venturebeat.com/2011/04/28/brain-drain-or-brain-circulation-america-is-bleeding-competitiveness/)
America is bleeding competitiveness | VentureBeat (http://venturebeat.com/2011/04/28/brain-drain-or-brain-circulation-america-is-bleeding-competitiveness/)
No comments:
Post a Comment