msp1976
02-09 12:52 PM
With some irony, I spent a chunk of time searching last night for associations in the states that are from my nationality background (don't hate me, I'm English). All I could find are associations regarding livestock (cows) and golf.... Gotta dig deeper!
In fact there is http://www.britsintheus.com
I was looking for some information about H1 extension and I had found it there...that was long time back....before I found rajiv khanna's site...
In fact there is http://www.britsintheus.com
I was looking for some information about H1 extension and I had found it there...that was long time back....before I found rajiv khanna's site...
wallpaper the Charlotte Observer and
sreeanne
02-07 07:51 PM
i never filed EAD before but i filed 131 by myself 2 weeks back. its pretty straight forward and i even got receipt notice. make sure you attach all the required proofs along with new fees. thats it.
lj_rr
07-31 04:15 PM
Any inputs?
2011 The Charlotte Observer
sunofeast_gc
11-07 02:17 AM
I have same question......if for example as above someone changes to SAP....what should be done in terms of notification to USCIS..?
Do we just go ahead and join the new job / consulting firm and get a letter from them to match the O*NET code or description as above...?
if you don't inform in advance and incase your old employer inform them , who will get REF..... everthing seems unclear to me as far AC21 is concern...
any authentic document on AC21 releated to job change and promotion?
Do we just go ahead and join the new job / consulting firm and get a letter from them to match the O*NET code or description as above...?
if you don't inform in advance and incase your old employer inform them , who will get REF..... everthing seems unclear to me as far AC21 is concern...
any authentic document on AC21 releated to job change and promotion?
more...
ggc
10-19 12:56 PM
Yes, but the field office is National Benefits Center in Missouri.
santb1975
11-16 08:06 PM
This Holiday season .... Give a gift to IV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With Thanksgiving right around the corner lets take the time to thank IV for all the successes we have had so far and for all the hardwork that has been put into this cause. Let's make a Holiday contribution to IV. Please join me in this effort. Let's all contribute. Cheers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With Thanksgiving right around the corner lets take the time to thank IV for all the successes we have had so far and for all the hardwork that has been put into this cause. Let's make a Holiday contribution to IV. Please join me in this effort. Let's all contribute. Cheers
more...
akhilmahajan
08-27 10:00 AM
This depends ona lot of things.
But ppl with in USA applying for PR has been getting from 12 - 18 months.
If you are applying for Quebec, then its more faster.
The best thing to make sure that your applications moves faster is make sure that u submit all the paper work they request. Get the things in place when you apply. It is very easy to do it yourself.
Just follow the instructions and they tell you what all kind of paper work is needed.
But ppl with in USA applying for PR has been getting from 12 - 18 months.
If you are applying for Quebec, then its more faster.
The best thing to make sure that your applications moves faster is make sure that u submit all the paper work they request. Get the things in place when you apply. It is very easy to do it yourself.
Just follow the instructions and they tell you what all kind of paper work is needed.
2010 charlotte observer
little_willy
08-08 06:07 PM
Did you try getting this info from IV tracker?
more...
vikasw
07-17 07:10 PM
Thank you IV for your hardwork and dedication on this.
$ 50 from me.
Payee Amount Deliver By Confirmation
Number Action
Immigration Voice
Vikas wadhwani(vikasw) $ 50.00 07/24/07 6QZ0Q-0Z4V0 Edit
Pay From: MYACCESS CHECKING-6830
$ 50 from me.
Payee Amount Deliver By Confirmation
Number Action
Immigration Voice
Vikas wadhwani(vikasw) $ 50.00 07/24/07 6QZ0Q-0Z4V0 Edit
Pay From: MYACCESS CHECKING-6830
hair charlotte observer
geve
09-22 11:58 AM
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/sep2008/tc20080915_270731.htm
There's no place like the U.S. when it comes to creating a thriving tech sector. Or is there? The U.S. still has the world's most competitive information technology industry, but its lead is slipping, according to a new study conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) for the Business Software Alliance (BSA).
The study, released Sept. 16, ranks 66 countries in six areas, including the availability of skilled labor, the "innovation friendliness" of a nation's culture, and the strength of its legal protections for intellectual property. The U.S. scored highest overall, but its rating fell from last year, and it was No. 1 in only three of the categories. "America should be proud that it's No. 1, but Americans should also be aware that it can no longer take its leadership for granted," says Robert Holleyman, president and CEO of the BSA, a Washington (D.C.)-based organization that promotes the interests of the software industry.
The EIU's analysis also weighed the quality of a nation's technology infrastructure, measuring the number of PCs per 100 people, market spending on IT hardware per 100 people, the availability of secure Internet servers per 100,000 people, and the percentage of the population with high-speed Internet access. Switzerland, ranked 11th overall, outscored the U.S. on IT infrastructure, which accounted for 20% of a country's score. The study also assessed the openness of a country's economy and the quality of government leadership on technology issues.
No. 5 in R&D Support
In a finding that's likely to vex would-be entrepreneurs, the U.S. scores even further down the list�No. 5�in support for R&D. Taiwan led the category, followed by South Korea, Japan, and Sweden. Here, the EIU scored countries based on the number of new IT-related patents, receipts from royalty payments and licensing fees, and public and private spending on R&D. Holleyman says the BSA plans to share its findings with both major Presidential campaigns and with members of Congress.
The U.S. also lags countries including Canada, Singapore, Britain, and Norway in support for IT development, which accounted for 15% of the overall score. This category covers such things as e-government initiatives, government spending on IT hardware, and access to financing.
The findings of the study will likely renew calls among both IT industry executives and politicians for the country to develop a national innovation strategy as countries such as Finland have done. "America needs a wake-up call," says John Kao, a former professor at Harvard Business School and author of Innovation Nation, a book arguing that the U.S. is losing its edge. "We don't really have a national strategy," he says. "And while I'm not a fan of top-down technocratic approach, I think that at this point in our history, having no strategy is not satisfactory."
Sounding the Alarm
As concerned as he is about U.S. competitiveness, Kao is not a favor of indexes that compare competitiveness among nations, saying they can misrepresent a country's true climate. "They're really abstractions of reality, and they often paint too rosy a picture," he says.
Kao isn't alone in calling the country's competitiveness into question. Judy Estrin, a former Cisco Systems (CSCO) executive, is sounding the alarm as well in a new book, Closing the Innovation Gap, published by BusinessWeek's parent, The McGraw-Hill Cos. (MHP). Estrin says that the lead America enjoys now is the result of work done decades ago, and that the same commitment to innovation and research that existed before has evaporated. "Innovation builds on innovation. We're reaping the benefits now of seeds planted 10, 20, and 30 years ago, and the problem is that we're not planting any more seeds," she says.
The study shows the U.S. still leads the world in the "human capital" category, which measures the number of students attending universities, a country's capacity to train scientists and engineers, and employment in the tech sector as a percentage of the overall workforce. Here too, though, the U.S. lead is threatened. While students from other countries still flock to U.S. universities to get their MBAs and PhDs, tight immigration policies are causing more of those students to go home after graduation. "Our own education system is not producing the innovators we need," Estrin says. "And we're not opening our doors to the best people, and our immigration policy is such that we have been making it harder for them to stay, and so they are going home and innovating elsewhere."
By highlighting vulnerabilities, the study doesn't just trumpet U.S. weaknesses; it points to areas where improvements can be made. "A strong tech industry is crucial to America's ability to address almost every economic and social challenge," Holleyman says in a statement. "Despite our current economic difficulties, the tech sector remains one of the primary engines of the U.S. economy. This index provides a guide to how we can keep that engine moving forward to ensure competitiveness in the future."
There's no place like the U.S. when it comes to creating a thriving tech sector. Or is there? The U.S. still has the world's most competitive information technology industry, but its lead is slipping, according to a new study conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) for the Business Software Alliance (BSA).
The study, released Sept. 16, ranks 66 countries in six areas, including the availability of skilled labor, the "innovation friendliness" of a nation's culture, and the strength of its legal protections for intellectual property. The U.S. scored highest overall, but its rating fell from last year, and it was No. 1 in only three of the categories. "America should be proud that it's No. 1, but Americans should also be aware that it can no longer take its leadership for granted," says Robert Holleyman, president and CEO of the BSA, a Washington (D.C.)-based organization that promotes the interests of the software industry.
The EIU's analysis also weighed the quality of a nation's technology infrastructure, measuring the number of PCs per 100 people, market spending on IT hardware per 100 people, the availability of secure Internet servers per 100,000 people, and the percentage of the population with high-speed Internet access. Switzerland, ranked 11th overall, outscored the U.S. on IT infrastructure, which accounted for 20% of a country's score. The study also assessed the openness of a country's economy and the quality of government leadership on technology issues.
No. 5 in R&D Support
In a finding that's likely to vex would-be entrepreneurs, the U.S. scores even further down the list�No. 5�in support for R&D. Taiwan led the category, followed by South Korea, Japan, and Sweden. Here, the EIU scored countries based on the number of new IT-related patents, receipts from royalty payments and licensing fees, and public and private spending on R&D. Holleyman says the BSA plans to share its findings with both major Presidential campaigns and with members of Congress.
The U.S. also lags countries including Canada, Singapore, Britain, and Norway in support for IT development, which accounted for 15% of the overall score. This category covers such things as e-government initiatives, government spending on IT hardware, and access to financing.
The findings of the study will likely renew calls among both IT industry executives and politicians for the country to develop a national innovation strategy as countries such as Finland have done. "America needs a wake-up call," says John Kao, a former professor at Harvard Business School and author of Innovation Nation, a book arguing that the U.S. is losing its edge. "We don't really have a national strategy," he says. "And while I'm not a fan of top-down technocratic approach, I think that at this point in our history, having no strategy is not satisfactory."
Sounding the Alarm
As concerned as he is about U.S. competitiveness, Kao is not a favor of indexes that compare competitiveness among nations, saying they can misrepresent a country's true climate. "They're really abstractions of reality, and they often paint too rosy a picture," he says.
Kao isn't alone in calling the country's competitiveness into question. Judy Estrin, a former Cisco Systems (CSCO) executive, is sounding the alarm as well in a new book, Closing the Innovation Gap, published by BusinessWeek's parent, The McGraw-Hill Cos. (MHP). Estrin says that the lead America enjoys now is the result of work done decades ago, and that the same commitment to innovation and research that existed before has evaporated. "Innovation builds on innovation. We're reaping the benefits now of seeds planted 10, 20, and 30 years ago, and the problem is that we're not planting any more seeds," she says.
The study shows the U.S. still leads the world in the "human capital" category, which measures the number of students attending universities, a country's capacity to train scientists and engineers, and employment in the tech sector as a percentage of the overall workforce. Here too, though, the U.S. lead is threatened. While students from other countries still flock to U.S. universities to get their MBAs and PhDs, tight immigration policies are causing more of those students to go home after graduation. "Our own education system is not producing the innovators we need," Estrin says. "And we're not opening our doors to the best people, and our immigration policy is such that we have been making it harder for them to stay, and so they are going home and innovating elsewhere."
By highlighting vulnerabilities, the study doesn't just trumpet U.S. weaknesses; it points to areas where improvements can be made. "A strong tech industry is crucial to America's ability to address almost every economic and social challenge," Holleyman says in a statement. "Despite our current economic difficulties, the tech sector remains one of the primary engines of the U.S. economy. This index provides a guide to how we can keep that engine moving forward to ensure competitiveness in the future."
more...
vactorboy29
02-24 03:24 PM
I agree with you that IV needs money for the good cause and it has to come from donations. All I am saying is if someone like me who is on H1B and can't fill the profile wants to reply to someone's query then IV should not be charging me for that because I have no dates in my profile. Money has to be generated but not at the cost of popularity of IV and defeating the purpose of IV as a common platform for all legal immigrants.
With all due respect, why don�t you want to update your information? As others said that this info will help us to know where we stand as a group. All of us knows we need this forum to bring new people on board with us and only way is to get them here is help them when they have difficulty but other side of coin is we need ways fund our movement to move forward .If you have better idea or thoughts just toss it here our seniors will look in that.
With all due respect, why don�t you want to update your information? As others said that this info will help us to know where we stand as a group. All of us knows we need this forum to bring new people on board with us and only way is to get them here is help them when they have difficulty but other side of coin is we need ways fund our movement to move forward .If you have better idea or thoughts just toss it here our seniors will look in that.
hot charlotte observer newspaper. lynn.bonner@newsobserver.com.
add78
05-30 09:54 AM
1. If you are still with university and the H1 is valid, you are not out of status.
2. If you are out of university and if company A's H1 is valid, you can start work with company A.
If you are out of university and company A's H1 is valid, but you are not getting job or salary - you are out of status
If you are out of university and company A's H1 is not valid, you are out of stats.
Please check with attorney asap.
What Snathan said above is absolutely 100% correct.
However as someone else said about stamping and getting over the out of status period issues is not correct, if at any point you were out of status (no salary or no valid i-94 (white card or the 797)), it may come back to haunt you during GC process.
Without getting into the risk/debate of whether you were counted for cap when "A" filed for your H1, in order to file with another employer "C", it is advisable to work for "A" if they have a valid H1 filed for you and if you have just left the University employer without any delay and consult with an attorney to remedy the out of status issue for the period since you left the Univ. employer. And as always, if you think you were helped by the senior members here, please consider helping IV by donating to your own cause as soon as you get a project / back on track. Thank You.
2. If you are out of university and if company A's H1 is valid, you can start work with company A.
If you are out of university and company A's H1 is valid, but you are not getting job or salary - you are out of status
If you are out of university and company A's H1 is not valid, you are out of stats.
Please check with attorney asap.
What Snathan said above is absolutely 100% correct.
However as someone else said about stamping and getting over the out of status period issues is not correct, if at any point you were out of status (no salary or no valid i-94 (white card or the 797)), it may come back to haunt you during GC process.
Without getting into the risk/debate of whether you were counted for cap when "A" filed for your H1, in order to file with another employer "C", it is advisable to work for "A" if they have a valid H1 filed for you and if you have just left the University employer without any delay and consult with an attorney to remedy the out of status issue for the period since you left the Univ. employer. And as always, if you think you were helped by the senior members here, please consider helping IV by donating to your own cause as soon as you get a project / back on track. Thank You.
more...
house charlotte observer
kirupa
11-11 01:07 PM
This is multi-week process ritwik. I wouldn't expect the public poll to go up any sooner than the 18th.
:)
:)
tattoo by the Charlotte Observer
newlife2
09-19 10:12 PM
Guys, I was just laid off and have efiled i539 3 days after the termination date for a status change to F2. Now working on the application letter. Do you think I should mention the layoff in the letter?
If I do mention it:
Con: The layoff might quickly catch the eyes of the immigration officer and if he want to check my status, he could find out the 3 days OOS.
Pro: My previous job was well paid. By mentioning it, I give the reason that why I want to stay at home as F2 instead of keeping the well paid job.
I guess I will mention it in the letter to explain the whole situation and hope everything will be all right. Let me know if anybody disagrees asap, I will mail out the stuff with in next two days.
If I do mention it:
Con: The layoff might quickly catch the eyes of the immigration officer and if he want to check my status, he could find out the 3 days OOS.
Pro: My previous job was well paid. By mentioning it, I give the reason that why I want to stay at home as F2 instead of keeping the well paid job.
I guess I will mention it in the letter to explain the whole situation and hope everything will be all right. Let me know if anybody disagrees asap, I will mail out the stuff with in next two days.
more...
pictures charlotte observer
casinoroyale
09-05 10:11 PM
Yeah, call customer service and ask them to send new copies with correct picture.
Now the funny part is, who is going to get your picture on their AP. :D
Now the funny part is, who is going to get your picture on their AP. :D
dresses fordonez@charlotteobserver.com
morchu
05-12 12:06 PM
Greg,
The Original poster mentioned that he filed 485 on 08/06/2007 (and I believe he is employment based). Please note that all employment based categories were unavailable as per bulletin#109 (for august 07). So any EB 485 filer filed in August of 2007 was eligible for that only because of the bulletin 107 & further "July Fiasco events". Which means even if they filed 485 after July 31st, they in fact used the old fee structure.
So ANY EB 485 filers between 08/01/2007 to 08/15/2007, still has to keep on paying fees for EAD (even though the rules change happened for filings after 07/31/2007). This is a special category of filers created by "July Fiasco".
With respect to your first question, anyone filing since the 2007 rules change you note would only pay a single I-485 filing fee which now has the EAD and advanced parole fees built in. Basically, you're paying for the EAD whether you actually apply for it or not.
The Original poster mentioned that he filed 485 on 08/06/2007 (and I believe he is employment based). Please note that all employment based categories were unavailable as per bulletin#109 (for august 07). So any EB 485 filer filed in August of 2007 was eligible for that only because of the bulletin 107 & further "July Fiasco events". Which means even if they filed 485 after July 31st, they in fact used the old fee structure.
So ANY EB 485 filers between 08/01/2007 to 08/15/2007, still has to keep on paying fees for EAD (even though the rules change happened for filings after 07/31/2007). This is a special category of filers created by "July Fiasco".
With respect to your first question, anyone filing since the 2007 rules change you note would only pay a single I-485 filing fee which now has the EAD and advanced parole fees built in. Basically, you're paying for the EAD whether you actually apply for it or not.
more...
makeup charlotte observer newspaper.
bombaysardar
07-16 09:08 AM
see Greg Siskind's blog :
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/
An alert reader sent me the following this morning. Miriam Jordan of the WSJ is reporting
Looking to resolve a messy immigration tangle, the U.S. government is close to announcing that it will accept at least some applications for work-based green cards that were filed by thousands of skilled workers in early July at the government's invitation and then abruptly rejected.
This would be hugely disappointing news if true and, according to a source, this was NOT the deal on the table over the weekend. It also will fail to address the three crises facing USCIS:
- fighting multiple lawsuits including at least two class action matters
- staving off congressional hearings and the release of embarrassing documents
- answering press inquiries over why USCIS skipped security clearances during a time when the US is under threat of a major terrorist attack
One would hope that common sense would outweigh USCIS' anti-immigrant instincts. Like an addict that's out of control, it's time for an intervention.
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/
An alert reader sent me the following this morning. Miriam Jordan of the WSJ is reporting
Looking to resolve a messy immigration tangle, the U.S. government is close to announcing that it will accept at least some applications for work-based green cards that were filed by thousands of skilled workers in early July at the government's invitation and then abruptly rejected.
This would be hugely disappointing news if true and, according to a source, this was NOT the deal on the table over the weekend. It also will fail to address the three crises facing USCIS:
- fighting multiple lawsuits including at least two class action matters
- staving off congressional hearings and the release of embarrassing documents
- answering press inquiries over why USCIS skipped security clearances during a time when the US is under threat of a major terrorist attack
One would hope that common sense would outweigh USCIS' anti-immigrant instincts. Like an addict that's out of control, it's time for an intervention.
girlfriend charlotte observer
Blog Feeds
06-25 01:20 AM
VIA USCIS
Introduction
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is seeking public comment on a proposed federal rule that would adjust fees for immigration benefit applications and petitions.* The proposal, posted to the*Federal Register (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-13991.htm)*on June 11, 2010 for public viewing, would increase overall fees by a weighted average of about 10 percent but would not increase the fee for the naturalization application.
Background
USCIS is a fee-based organization with about 90 percent of its budget coming from fees paid by applicants and petitioners to obtain immigration benefits.* The law requires USCIS to conduct fee reviews every two years to determine whether it is recovering its costs to administer the nation�s immigration laws, process applications, and provide the infrastructure needed to support those activities.* This proposed rule results from a comprehensive fee review begun in 2009.*********
USCIS�s fee revenue in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 was much lower than projected, and fee revenue in fiscal year 2010 remains low.* While USCIS did receive appropriations from Congress, budget cuts of approximately $160 million have not bridged the remaining gap between costs and anticipated revenue.* A fee adjustment, as detailed in the proposed rule, is necessary to ensure USCIS recovers the costs of its operations while also meeting the application processing goals identified in the 2007 fee rule.*
Highlights of 2010 Proposed Fee Rule
The proposed fee rule would increase the average application and petition fees by approximately 10 percent.
Understanding the unique importance of naturalization, USCIS is proposing that the naturalization application fee not be increased.
The proposed rule would establish three new fees for:
Regional center designation under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program (EB-5);
Individuals seeking civil surgeon designation; and
Recovery of the cost of processing immigrant visas granted by the Department of State.
The rule also proposes to adjust fees for the premium processing service.* This would ensure that USCIS can continue to modernize to become a more efficient and effective organization.
The proposed fee structure also reduces fees for five individual applications and petitions as a result of lower processing costs:
Petition for Alien Fianc� (Form I-129F);
Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status (Form I-539);
Application to Adjust Status From Temporary To Permanent Resident (Form I-698);
Application for Family Unity Benefits (Form I-817); and
Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document (Form N-565).*
Current and Proposed Immigration Fees
Application/Petition Description*
Current Fees*
Proposed Fees
I-90 Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card
$290
$365
I-102 Application for Replacement/Initial Nonimmigrant Arrival-Departure Document $320 $330 I-129 Petition for a Nonimmigrant worker $320 $325 I-129F Petition for Alien Fiance(e) $455 $340 I-130 Petition for Alien Relative $355 $420 I-131 Application for Travel Document $305 $360 I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker $475 $580 I-290B Notice of Appeal or Motion $585 $630 I-360 Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er) or Special Immigrant $375 $405 I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status $930 $985 I-526 Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur $1,435 $1,500 I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status $300 *$290 I-600/600A Orphan Petitions $670 $720 I-687 Application for Status as a Temporary Resident $710 $1,130 I-690 Application for Waiver on Grounds of Inadmissibility $185 $200 I-694 Notice of Appeal of Decision $545 $755 I-698 Application to Adjust Status From Temporary to Permanent Resident $1,370 $1,020 I-751 Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence $465 $505 I-765 Application for Employment Authorization $340 $380 I-817 Application for Family Unity Benefits $440 $435 I-824 Application for Action on an Approved Application or Petition $340 $405 I-829 Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions $2,850 $3,750 Civil Surgeon Designation* *$0** $615 I-924 Application for Regional Center Under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program *$0 $6,230 N-300 Application to File Declaration of Intention* $235 $250 N-336 Request for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings $605 $650 N-400 Application for Naturalization $595 $595 N-470 Application to Preserve Residence for Naturalization Purposes $305 $330 N-565 Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document $380 $345 N-600/N-600K Naturalization Certificate Applications $460 *$600 Waiver Forms (I-191, I-192, I-193, I-212, I-601, I-612) $545 $585 Immigrant Visa* $0 $165 Biometric Services $80 $85
Last updated:06/09/2010
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2010/06/24/uscis-seeks-public-comment-on-proposal-to-adjust-fees-for-immigration-benefits-fact-sheet.aspx?ref=rss)
Introduction
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is seeking public comment on a proposed federal rule that would adjust fees for immigration benefit applications and petitions.* The proposal, posted to the*Federal Register (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-13991.htm)*on June 11, 2010 for public viewing, would increase overall fees by a weighted average of about 10 percent but would not increase the fee for the naturalization application.
Background
USCIS is a fee-based organization with about 90 percent of its budget coming from fees paid by applicants and petitioners to obtain immigration benefits.* The law requires USCIS to conduct fee reviews every two years to determine whether it is recovering its costs to administer the nation�s immigration laws, process applications, and provide the infrastructure needed to support those activities.* This proposed rule results from a comprehensive fee review begun in 2009.*********
USCIS�s fee revenue in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 was much lower than projected, and fee revenue in fiscal year 2010 remains low.* While USCIS did receive appropriations from Congress, budget cuts of approximately $160 million have not bridged the remaining gap between costs and anticipated revenue.* A fee adjustment, as detailed in the proposed rule, is necessary to ensure USCIS recovers the costs of its operations while also meeting the application processing goals identified in the 2007 fee rule.*
Highlights of 2010 Proposed Fee Rule
The proposed fee rule would increase the average application and petition fees by approximately 10 percent.
Understanding the unique importance of naturalization, USCIS is proposing that the naturalization application fee not be increased.
The proposed rule would establish three new fees for:
Regional center designation under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program (EB-5);
Individuals seeking civil surgeon designation; and
Recovery of the cost of processing immigrant visas granted by the Department of State.
The rule also proposes to adjust fees for the premium processing service.* This would ensure that USCIS can continue to modernize to become a more efficient and effective organization.
The proposed fee structure also reduces fees for five individual applications and petitions as a result of lower processing costs:
Petition for Alien Fianc� (Form I-129F);
Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status (Form I-539);
Application to Adjust Status From Temporary To Permanent Resident (Form I-698);
Application for Family Unity Benefits (Form I-817); and
Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document (Form N-565).*
Current and Proposed Immigration Fees
Application/Petition Description*
Current Fees*
Proposed Fees
I-90 Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card
$290
$365
I-102 Application for Replacement/Initial Nonimmigrant Arrival-Departure Document $320 $330 I-129 Petition for a Nonimmigrant worker $320 $325 I-129F Petition for Alien Fiance(e) $455 $340 I-130 Petition for Alien Relative $355 $420 I-131 Application for Travel Document $305 $360 I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker $475 $580 I-290B Notice of Appeal or Motion $585 $630 I-360 Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er) or Special Immigrant $375 $405 I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status $930 $985 I-526 Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur $1,435 $1,500 I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status $300 *$290 I-600/600A Orphan Petitions $670 $720 I-687 Application for Status as a Temporary Resident $710 $1,130 I-690 Application for Waiver on Grounds of Inadmissibility $185 $200 I-694 Notice of Appeal of Decision $545 $755 I-698 Application to Adjust Status From Temporary to Permanent Resident $1,370 $1,020 I-751 Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence $465 $505 I-765 Application for Employment Authorization $340 $380 I-817 Application for Family Unity Benefits $440 $435 I-824 Application for Action on an Approved Application or Petition $340 $405 I-829 Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions $2,850 $3,750 Civil Surgeon Designation* *$0** $615 I-924 Application for Regional Center Under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program *$0 $6,230 N-300 Application to File Declaration of Intention* $235 $250 N-336 Request for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings $605 $650 N-400 Application for Naturalization $595 $595 N-470 Application to Preserve Residence for Naturalization Purposes $305 $330 N-565 Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document $380 $345 N-600/N-600K Naturalization Certificate Applications $460 *$600 Waiver Forms (I-191, I-192, I-193, I-212, I-601, I-612) $545 $585 Immigrant Visa* $0 $165 Biometric Services $80 $85
Last updated:06/09/2010
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2010/06/24/uscis-seeks-public-comment-on-proposal-to-adjust-fees-for-immigration-benefits-fact-sheet.aspx?ref=rss)
hairstyles charlotte observer
meridiani.planum
07-23 05:41 AM
All,
I feel that those who concurrently filed I-140/485 in July 2007 are very lucky!
Here is my situation -
Previous Employer -
EB3,PD-Jan'04,I-140 cleared. Switched in June 2007 and wasn't able to file I-485 in July 2007
New Employer -
EB2, PD-Dec'-07, I-140 (Feb'08 - pending)
Question -
Based on Jun'08 Visa bulletin the dates for EB2-India were at Apr'04. Filed for I-140/485 based on my old priority date for EB3 labor (Jan'04). Explaining USCIS for PD transfer.
Well, folks at NSC did not understand the PD transfer concept and send my application back. Unclear as to what do now. I guess need to wait until the dates for EB2-India reach Dec'07 such that I can file.
Any "Creative" thoughts on how to approach USCIS moving forward.
Thanks in advance for your replies.
Aamchimumbai
my understanding was that in this case you would not do a concurrent filing. You would file the I-140 requesting PD recapture. Once the I-140 was approved, and your PD-recapture also approved, at that point your new PD is confirmed and thats what allows you to file the I-485.
I feel that those who concurrently filed I-140/485 in July 2007 are very lucky!
Here is my situation -
Previous Employer -
EB3,PD-Jan'04,I-140 cleared. Switched in June 2007 and wasn't able to file I-485 in July 2007
New Employer -
EB2, PD-Dec'-07, I-140 (Feb'08 - pending)
Question -
Based on Jun'08 Visa bulletin the dates for EB2-India were at Apr'04. Filed for I-140/485 based on my old priority date for EB3 labor (Jan'04). Explaining USCIS for PD transfer.
Well, folks at NSC did not understand the PD transfer concept and send my application back. Unclear as to what do now. I guess need to wait until the dates for EB2-India reach Dec'07 such that I can file.
Any "Creative" thoughts on how to approach USCIS moving forward.
Thanks in advance for your replies.
Aamchimumbai
my understanding was that in this case you would not do a concurrent filing. You would file the I-140 requesting PD recapture. Once the I-140 was approved, and your PD-recapture also approved, at that point your new PD is confirmed and thats what allows you to file the I-485.
meridiani.planum
10-12 08:37 PM
Hi Friends/Gurus,
My attorney received an RFE on H1B extension last week.
The details of my case are
2004-Oct-01 -- My H1B started
2004-Nov-20 -- I entered the country on H1B for the first time
2008-Dec-25 -- Date till my current work authorization (I-797) is valid
2010-Sep-30 -- Date I complete 6 years under H1B. Since I entered only on 2004-Nov-20 my attorney said my 6 years is up to 2010 Nov 20th
2008-August-10th -- My attorney applied for my H1B extension under normal processing. He requested until 2011-Dec-25th (3 years from current I-797) expiration on the petition instead of 2010-Nov-20th
2008-Oct-8th -- Attorney received the RFE
When the petition for H1B extension was prepared on 2008 July, I asked the employer why the period of intended employment is put as 2011-Dec-25th instead of 2010 Nov 20th. The employer replied that its a usual practice to request 3 years of H1B extension and USCIS will only give the maximum possible
What's the RFE
Now we got the RFE and it says we have requested for an extension beyond 6 years and for getting that we should have a labor certification pending more than 365 days or an approved I-140.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a labor cert with priority date of 2006 August which was approved but the I-140 was denied on EB2 category for not meeting 5 years of progressive experience. Earlier this year in 2008 April we have filed another EB3 I-140 for the same 2006 Aug Labor
On the H1B extension petition attorney had requested until 2011-Nov 20th instead of 2010 Nov 20th. I saw the H1B extension application and it says Dates of Intended employment as 12/25/2008 till 12/25/2011
Do you think the attorney should have given the intended period only until 11/20/2010?
The attorney contacted me and said they are going to send a copy of my I-94 as of Nov 20th 2004 and a copy of my immigration port of entry stamp on my passport stamped on nov 20th 2004 and request to give the extension. The attorney mentioned that the I-94 and port of entry seal will help USCIS to determine the maximum period of H1B that can be granted
My worry
My worry is INS rejecting the petition saying these kinds of changes in dates (2010 nov instead of 2011 dec) cannot be done in the midde of the process and this will be rejected and we need to file again a new petition. I know that we can work until 240 days if we file for an extension on time. I want to get this extension obtained before 2008 dec 25th so that I don't have to go through a chance of denial after 2008 dec 25th which can put my status into illegal sometimes. I am thinking of premium processign also if the results of the RFE doesn't come by next month (November).
My questions
1) Do you think the attorney should have given the intended period of employment only until 11/20/2010 on the original petition?
2) Please advice me on how we should resopnd to the RFE and what date we should request for.
3) Should we ask USCIS to give extension until 2010 sep 30th if they don't agree for 2010 nov 20th? Does this has to be clearly mentioned in the RFE response letter?
Your help very much appreciated. Please reply to this as my legal stay is based on this.
based on what you have said you are only eligible for an H1 until 2010 for now (because your current PERM application is not old enough to give you the 7th year). To me it looks like your lawyer appears to have screwed up. Even if you had gotten an extension till 2011, it could potentially have landed you in trouble later if USCIS ever goes over these dates again (485 approval time).
In the RFE response ask him to explain that the date should actually be 2010, and see if USCIS is willing to accept the petition as-is (the new period is smaller than the old one in your LCA, so I assume it should be ok).
Ask your lawyer on what basis he expected them to approve it upto 2011? Also, if he accepts it was his fault, ask him if he can make it up to you by making it premium processing and paying the $1k. This is a screwup on his side which is making things needlessly messy for you, thats the least he can do.
My attorney received an RFE on H1B extension last week.
The details of my case are
2004-Oct-01 -- My H1B started
2004-Nov-20 -- I entered the country on H1B for the first time
2008-Dec-25 -- Date till my current work authorization (I-797) is valid
2010-Sep-30 -- Date I complete 6 years under H1B. Since I entered only on 2004-Nov-20 my attorney said my 6 years is up to 2010 Nov 20th
2008-August-10th -- My attorney applied for my H1B extension under normal processing. He requested until 2011-Dec-25th (3 years from current I-797) expiration on the petition instead of 2010-Nov-20th
2008-Oct-8th -- Attorney received the RFE
When the petition for H1B extension was prepared on 2008 July, I asked the employer why the period of intended employment is put as 2011-Dec-25th instead of 2010 Nov 20th. The employer replied that its a usual practice to request 3 years of H1B extension and USCIS will only give the maximum possible
What's the RFE
Now we got the RFE and it says we have requested for an extension beyond 6 years and for getting that we should have a labor certification pending more than 365 days or an approved I-140.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a labor cert with priority date of 2006 August which was approved but the I-140 was denied on EB2 category for not meeting 5 years of progressive experience. Earlier this year in 2008 April we have filed another EB3 I-140 for the same 2006 Aug Labor
On the H1B extension petition attorney had requested until 2011-Nov 20th instead of 2010 Nov 20th. I saw the H1B extension application and it says Dates of Intended employment as 12/25/2008 till 12/25/2011
Do you think the attorney should have given the intended period only until 11/20/2010?
The attorney contacted me and said they are going to send a copy of my I-94 as of Nov 20th 2004 and a copy of my immigration port of entry stamp on my passport stamped on nov 20th 2004 and request to give the extension. The attorney mentioned that the I-94 and port of entry seal will help USCIS to determine the maximum period of H1B that can be granted
My worry
My worry is INS rejecting the petition saying these kinds of changes in dates (2010 nov instead of 2011 dec) cannot be done in the midde of the process and this will be rejected and we need to file again a new petition. I know that we can work until 240 days if we file for an extension on time. I want to get this extension obtained before 2008 dec 25th so that I don't have to go through a chance of denial after 2008 dec 25th which can put my status into illegal sometimes. I am thinking of premium processign also if the results of the RFE doesn't come by next month (November).
My questions
1) Do you think the attorney should have given the intended period of employment only until 11/20/2010 on the original petition?
2) Please advice me on how we should resopnd to the RFE and what date we should request for.
3) Should we ask USCIS to give extension until 2010 sep 30th if they don't agree for 2010 nov 20th? Does this has to be clearly mentioned in the RFE response letter?
Your help very much appreciated. Please reply to this as my legal stay is based on this.
based on what you have said you are only eligible for an H1 until 2010 for now (because your current PERM application is not old enough to give you the 7th year). To me it looks like your lawyer appears to have screwed up. Even if you had gotten an extension till 2011, it could potentially have landed you in trouble later if USCIS ever goes over these dates again (485 approval time).
In the RFE response ask him to explain that the date should actually be 2010, and see if USCIS is willing to accept the petition as-is (the new period is smaller than the old one in your LCA, so I assume it should be ok).
Ask your lawyer on what basis he expected them to approve it upto 2011? Also, if he accepts it was his fault, ask him if he can make it up to you by making it premium processing and paying the $1k. This is a screwup on his side which is making things needlessly messy for you, thats the least he can do.
mp2007
07-31 02:36 PM
Hi Sportsguy,
Please consult a lawyer, you dont want her to land in trouble because you did not get the correct advice.
MP
Please consult a lawyer, you dont want her to land in trouble because you did not get the correct advice.
MP
No comments:
Post a Comment