Arvin_H1
08-19 02:33 PM
If you reappeal I think until the decision comes you are okay. But I'm
not sure if you can work. Need to check with an attorney.
If your job description need to match the degree you should be fine.
Did you submit a credential evaluation? I think if both of the above
things are okay, you should be through.
If I were you I will contact an attorney, like Sheela or Rajiv who
knows what they are doing.
babu
Thank you all for your advices.
As this is my H1 extension, my credential evaluation done with first H1 process itself. and, my I-94 also expired in Sept'07.
Does anyone know any good attorney that i can contact and take more suggestions on my issue..?
not sure if you can work. Need to check with an attorney.
If your job description need to match the degree you should be fine.
Did you submit a credential evaluation? I think if both of the above
things are okay, you should be through.
If I were you I will contact an attorney, like Sheela or Rajiv who
knows what they are doing.
babu
Thank you all for your advices.
As this is my H1 extension, my credential evaluation done with first H1 process itself. and, my I-94 also expired in Sept'07.
Does anyone know any good attorney that i can contact and take more suggestions on my issue..?
wallpaper wallpaper kaligrafi islam.
purgan
09-14 08:26 PM
Its coming around to that time of the year again... an article on the (ultimately unsuccessful) effort to raise the H-1B/EB cap last year. This refers to the infamous S. 1932 bill
Immigration restrictionists argument at the time, was "we should not be doing immigration in this bill". So when should it be done- in the CIR Bill. Well, CIR has come and gone by, and still there is no relief to the H-1B/EB blackout. Will these people support the SKIL Bill after Nov? I don't think so. So what will be their excuse this time? Let's wait till next year for comprehensive reform again:)
What these airheads don't realize is that they're only strengthening momentum for CIR by opposing SKIL, Bill Gates and the big tech lobbies, healthcare lobbies, universities, Chamber of Comemrce, and other business groups such as NAM are going to add tremendouly to the strength of the H-1B/EB reform version of CIR.
Sometimes i just feel that CIR should pass big time and 15-20 million illegals be legalized, so these folks are 'immigration-desensitized". It will happen under a Democratic House, an even more Democratic Leaning Senate and a President determined to do something in his penultimate year in office. Watch out for 07!
========
Budget bill would boost green cards
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 31, 2005
The Senate's budget package includes provisions that would make available hundreds of thousands of green cards for new permanent legal immigrants, in what is shaping up as the next congressional fight over immigration.
The bill's measures would "recapture" 90,000 unused employment-based immigration visas and would exempt family members from counting toward the cap, which is set at 140,000 per year.
Based on past trends, exempting family members would mean an additional 150,000 permanent legal immigrants annually. About 1 million people become legal immigrants each year.
The change is part of the deficit-reducing budget reconciliation bill, which is on the Senate floor today and includes billions of dollars in cuts in Medicaid and other social spending and allows for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
"We should never be doing immigration policy inside this kind of bill," said Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, adding that he will vote against the bill if it makes it to the House.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, which was faced with a deficit-reduction target, chose to meet it in part by selling to employers the 90,000 unused immigration visas and by raising the fee on employment-based visas by $500 each.
The panel also voted to allow 30,000 more workers per year under the H-1B temporary-visa program.
The measure is supported by universities, hospitals, technology companies and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which say there is a shortage of qualified workers.
"These are workers who already have been certified by the Department of Labor for positions U.S. workers could not be found, or who are internationally recognized for research and other achievements," the Chamber of Commerce said in a letter of support.
The chamber also said many of these workers are in the country and that the Senate bill just streamlines their pursuit of green cards.
Deborah Meyers, senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, said the changes make sense because the current system doesn't accommodate the need for high-skilled workers and would help reduce a backlog in applications from India and China, where those now being accepted applied at least four years ago.
But critics say the money raised -- about $120 million a year -- does not compensate for the damage to Americans seeking jobs.
The Coalition for the Future American Worker, made up of groups that back stricter immigration limits, will begin running a newspaper ad lobbying Congress this week to oppose the changes.
The bill first must clear the Senate and then go to a House-Senate conference committee, and some House members said they will try to ensure the provision isn't included in any final bill.
"We don't expect there to be any immigration provisions in reconciliation. This is not the time or place for controversial immigration provisions," said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican.
Mr. Smith said party leaders will have a difficult enough time passing the budget bill without adding immigration to the list of issues covered.
"We're going to need every Republican we can get to pass it," he said.
The House budget bill does not raise immigration levels. Instead, the House Judiciary Committee met its budget-cutting goal by increasing the fee for L-1 visas, another temporary-worker program, by $1,500.
The Senate debate on legal immigration comes even as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, announced last week that the Senate would take up broad immigration reform early next year.
The overall bill is expected to tackle legal and illegal immigration, border security and interior immigration enforcement.
Amy Call, a spokeswoman for Mr. Frist, said he supports the legal immigration increases but considers them "a temporary stopgap measure."
"Recapturing old, unused visas will only help satisfy some of the current excess demand for highly skilled workers, but at some point even this pool of recaptured visas will be exhausted," Mrs. Call said.
The bill also increases H-1B visas from 65,000 to 95,000 in fiscal 2006 and raises the fee employers pay by $500.
Immigration restrictionists argument at the time, was "we should not be doing immigration in this bill". So when should it be done- in the CIR Bill. Well, CIR has come and gone by, and still there is no relief to the H-1B/EB blackout. Will these people support the SKIL Bill after Nov? I don't think so. So what will be their excuse this time? Let's wait till next year for comprehensive reform again:)
What these airheads don't realize is that they're only strengthening momentum for CIR by opposing SKIL, Bill Gates and the big tech lobbies, healthcare lobbies, universities, Chamber of Comemrce, and other business groups such as NAM are going to add tremendouly to the strength of the H-1B/EB reform version of CIR.
Sometimes i just feel that CIR should pass big time and 15-20 million illegals be legalized, so these folks are 'immigration-desensitized". It will happen under a Democratic House, an even more Democratic Leaning Senate and a President determined to do something in his penultimate year in office. Watch out for 07!
========
Budget bill would boost green cards
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 31, 2005
The Senate's budget package includes provisions that would make available hundreds of thousands of green cards for new permanent legal immigrants, in what is shaping up as the next congressional fight over immigration.
The bill's measures would "recapture" 90,000 unused employment-based immigration visas and would exempt family members from counting toward the cap, which is set at 140,000 per year.
Based on past trends, exempting family members would mean an additional 150,000 permanent legal immigrants annually. About 1 million people become legal immigrants each year.
The change is part of the deficit-reducing budget reconciliation bill, which is on the Senate floor today and includes billions of dollars in cuts in Medicaid and other social spending and allows for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
"We should never be doing immigration policy inside this kind of bill," said Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, adding that he will vote against the bill if it makes it to the House.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, which was faced with a deficit-reduction target, chose to meet it in part by selling to employers the 90,000 unused immigration visas and by raising the fee on employment-based visas by $500 each.
The panel also voted to allow 30,000 more workers per year under the H-1B temporary-visa program.
The measure is supported by universities, hospitals, technology companies and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which say there is a shortage of qualified workers.
"These are workers who already have been certified by the Department of Labor for positions U.S. workers could not be found, or who are internationally recognized for research and other achievements," the Chamber of Commerce said in a letter of support.
The chamber also said many of these workers are in the country and that the Senate bill just streamlines their pursuit of green cards.
Deborah Meyers, senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, said the changes make sense because the current system doesn't accommodate the need for high-skilled workers and would help reduce a backlog in applications from India and China, where those now being accepted applied at least four years ago.
But critics say the money raised -- about $120 million a year -- does not compensate for the damage to Americans seeking jobs.
The Coalition for the Future American Worker, made up of groups that back stricter immigration limits, will begin running a newspaper ad lobbying Congress this week to oppose the changes.
The bill first must clear the Senate and then go to a House-Senate conference committee, and some House members said they will try to ensure the provision isn't included in any final bill.
"We don't expect there to be any immigration provisions in reconciliation. This is not the time or place for controversial immigration provisions," said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican.
Mr. Smith said party leaders will have a difficult enough time passing the budget bill without adding immigration to the list of issues covered.
"We're going to need every Republican we can get to pass it," he said.
The House budget bill does not raise immigration levels. Instead, the House Judiciary Committee met its budget-cutting goal by increasing the fee for L-1 visas, another temporary-worker program, by $1,500.
The Senate debate on legal immigration comes even as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, announced last week that the Senate would take up broad immigration reform early next year.
The overall bill is expected to tackle legal and illegal immigration, border security and interior immigration enforcement.
Amy Call, a spokeswoman for Mr. Frist, said he supports the legal immigration increases but considers them "a temporary stopgap measure."
"Recapturing old, unused visas will only help satisfy some of the current excess demand for highly skilled workers, but at some point even this pool of recaptured visas will be exhausted," Mrs. Call said.
The bill also increases H-1B visas from 65,000 to 95,000 in fiscal 2006 and raises the fee employers pay by $500.
akred
10-08 12:40 AM
Here's another article on the same issue: http://www.financialexpress.com/news/expats-will-have-to-make-pf-payments-in-india/358603/1
To sum it up:
Everyone working in India for any length of time will have to contribute 24% towards EPF. This contribution cannot be withdrawn or tranferred to another country unless a totalization agreement exists between that country and India. Previously non-resident Indians and foreigners were either not required to make this contribution or allowed to withdraw it upon leaving India.
My reading is that this has no impact on people who do not work in India. It will reduce net pay for citizens of countries without totalization agreements with India, specially because the EPF contribution in India applies to total gross pay without any upper limit.
To sum it up:
Everyone working in India for any length of time will have to contribute 24% towards EPF. This contribution cannot be withdrawn or tranferred to another country unless a totalization agreement exists between that country and India. Previously non-resident Indians and foreigners were either not required to make this contribution or allowed to withdraw it upon leaving India.
My reading is that this has no impact on people who do not work in India. It will reduce net pay for citizens of countries without totalization agreements with India, specially because the EPF contribution in India applies to total gross pay without any upper limit.
2011 mata wallpaper, kaligrafi
fatjoe
09-05 01:02 PM
I guess, if you attorney represented you thru' form G-28, then it goes your attr. If you have not sent G28, then you will get it directly. Guys, correct me if I'm wrong.
more...
vvpandya
05-21 01:48 PM
Immigrating to Canada: Skilled workers and professionals (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/index.asp)
jlt007us
09-14 12:08 PM
I came to US on H1B in 2000. I have an engineering degree (10+2+4) from a premier institute in India in Information Systems. Before coming to US I worked for an MNC for 4+ years. I am with the current employer since 2003. Following are my case details.
Case 1:
EB2 Labor filed: April 2005
Labor Approved: December 2005
I-140 Filed: January 2006
RFE for Ability 2 pay and RFE replied.
I-140 Denied: August 2007
Never recieved the denial notice as per the lawyer
Case 2:
EB2 Labor filed: August 2005
Labor Approved: January 2006
I-140 Filed: August 2007 (I checked the status online and informed the lawyer who immediately filed for this I-140 basing on the approved labor)
I-485 Filed: August 2007
RFE for W2/wages company tax information etc that were replied on time.
I-140 Denied Sep 2009
EAD valid till October: 2010
AP Valid till Feb 2010
H1 B 8th year extension filed: July 2008 (There was a mistake during the filing as the reference was made to denied I-140 instead of the pending one)
Extension Denied based on Case 1 I-140: October 2008
I-290B Appeal to commissioner filed and pending as of date
Case 3:
Pending EB2 labor since October 2008.
I am paid more than the prevailing wages. Now the question is:
1. Should I file for MTR/Appeal (we still haven't recieved the denial notice).
2. I believe it is just a matter of time before I-485 status changes to denied. Will the EAD/AP become invalid as well?
3. If MTR/Appeal is filed for I-140, can I still continue working?
Any thoughts or suggestions will be appreciated.
Case 1:
EB2 Labor filed: April 2005
Labor Approved: December 2005
I-140 Filed: January 2006
RFE for Ability 2 pay and RFE replied.
I-140 Denied: August 2007
Never recieved the denial notice as per the lawyer
Case 2:
EB2 Labor filed: August 2005
Labor Approved: January 2006
I-140 Filed: August 2007 (I checked the status online and informed the lawyer who immediately filed for this I-140 basing on the approved labor)
I-485 Filed: August 2007
RFE for W2/wages company tax information etc that were replied on time.
I-140 Denied Sep 2009
EAD valid till October: 2010
AP Valid till Feb 2010
H1 B 8th year extension filed: July 2008 (There was a mistake during the filing as the reference was made to denied I-140 instead of the pending one)
Extension Denied based on Case 1 I-140: October 2008
I-290B Appeal to commissioner filed and pending as of date
Case 3:
Pending EB2 labor since October 2008.
I am paid more than the prevailing wages. Now the question is:
1. Should I file for MTR/Appeal (we still haven't recieved the denial notice).
2. I believe it is just a matter of time before I-485 status changes to denied. Will the EAD/AP become invalid as well?
3. If MTR/Appeal is filed for I-140, can I still continue working?
Any thoughts or suggestions will be appreciated.
more...
%252B.JPG "mata wallpaper, kaligrafi")
Blog Feeds
10-15 06:30 PM
[Federal Register: October 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 192)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
2010 home,wallpaper kaligrafi
go_getter007
12-20 12:23 PM
Given her passport is stamped, she can re-enter the US with her H4. No need for AP. It doesn't matter if her visa expires in early Jan.
GG_007
Yes. she has a valid H4 Visa stamping till Jan 10. and she is landing in Dec last week.
Thanks in advance
GG_007
Yes. she has a valid H4 Visa stamping till Jan 10. and she is landing in Dec last week.
Thanks in advance
more...
greenmonster
11-23 11:10 AM
Vishwak,
Thanks for the quick reply. For your answer to Question2.. my employer and some suggests not to file Ac21. just for the record sake i would send them a note that i would come back to the sponsoring company.
Do you think it is an option not to file Ac21 and still manage ? or will there be any issues for not filing ? any way i have to go back to the sponsor when its time...
Thanks for the quick reply. For your answer to Question2.. my employer and some suggests not to file Ac21. just for the record sake i would send them a note that i would come back to the sponsoring company.
Do you think it is an option not to file Ac21 and still manage ? or will there be any issues for not filing ? any way i have to go back to the sponsor when its time...
hair mata wallpaper, kaligrafi
tdasara
06-12 07:06 PM
Investing in a company -> Yes (shareholder)
Own a company -> No
On H1b, you are not even supposed to make money via Google Adsense. Even if the money is diverted to your home country you have to quote these earnings on your taxes. H1b visa holder has to quote his/her worldwide income and its unclear if your income in your home country is taxed here be it Adsense income or a business.
No wonder many entrepreneurial ideas either die or are taking roots in Korea, India or China!
This has been my research on the internet and is not from a legal advisor.
Own a company -> No
On H1b, you are not even supposed to make money via Google Adsense. Even if the money is diverted to your home country you have to quote these earnings on your taxes. H1b visa holder has to quote his/her worldwide income and its unclear if your income in your home country is taxed here be it Adsense income or a business.
No wonder many entrepreneurial ideas either die or are taking roots in Korea, India or China!
This has been my research on the internet and is not from a legal advisor.
more...
tdasara
08-21 04:08 PM
Also does anyone have any information on revenue thru 'Google Adsense' when on H1b?
hot art online counter mobpartnerkaligrafi wallpaper Handicraft is an indonetwork supplier that manufactures kaligrafi ve tasarmclar, sevgi Kaligrafi
LostInGCProcess
10-24 12:58 PM
I also have notarized passport, etc, but one of the tax consultants told me that the ITIN cannot be filed now, and when I file my 2008 returns in 2009, I need to apply for the ITIN along with the taxreturn and paperfile. Has anybody else applied ITIN before filing tax return ?
This is true...and this is what my tax guy told me and I did the same, last year..you file the ITIN along with the Tax returns...got some relief from the tax. :)
This is true...and this is what my tax guy told me and I did the same, last year..you file the ITIN along with the Tax returns...got some relief from the tax. :)
more...
house wallpaper frombegotohero
abhijitp
08-01 07:42 PM
hi:
I am filing my I140 and i485 togther this week. I have had 2 previous employers to the current one.
I wporked for my first employer for nearly 3 years ( some months less) and then other employer for some 4 months and finally switching to the current employer..where I have been working for 6.5 years.
I am getting experience letter from first employer but second employer where I worked for 4 months has no record.
Is it ok to file I140 with just experienced letters from my first and the present employer and let go the one with just 4 months? Please let me now..I did call the former employer who worked there..but she also does not remmeber because it was 7 years back and that too for short time.
Please let me know..is that is risky or will come back with RFE?
DB
Do you mean Progressive Experience Letters for the EB-2? If so, you probably do not qualify as before joining this current employer you did not have 5 years of experience (unless you have a Masters, in which case you don't care for Prog. Exp. letters).
If EB-3 why care, unless you mean just plain old "service certificate".. not sure if that makes a difference at all.
I am filing my I140 and i485 togther this week. I have had 2 previous employers to the current one.
I wporked for my first employer for nearly 3 years ( some months less) and then other employer for some 4 months and finally switching to the current employer..where I have been working for 6.5 years.
I am getting experience letter from first employer but second employer where I worked for 4 months has no record.
Is it ok to file I140 with just experienced letters from my first and the present employer and let go the one with just 4 months? Please let me now..I did call the former employer who worked there..but she also does not remmeber because it was 7 years back and that too for short time.
Please let me know..is that is risky or will come back with RFE?
DB
Do you mean Progressive Experience Letters for the EB-2? If so, you probably do not qualify as before joining this current employer you did not have 5 years of experience (unless you have a Masters, in which case you don't care for Prog. Exp. letters).
If EB-3 why care, unless you mean just plain old "service certificate".. not sure if that makes a difference at all.
tattoo mata wallpaper, kaligrafi
h1-b forever
07-23 09:18 AM
What is the confusion?
more...
pictures mata wallpaper, kaligrafi
perujames
01-12 10:32 PM
I browsed the site gtrr.net you mentioned. I applied and also tried to contact the numbers few times but not getting any response.
I am currently in US on H4. I am qualified teacher and also worked in India. Regarding my qualifications I completed B.Ed and MSc from India. I am looking for applying for H1 this year. I really appreciate if you can give some details regarding any companies that can file for H1B for teachers.
I am currently in US on H4. I am qualified teacher and also worked in India. Regarding my qualifications I completed B.Ed and MSc from India. I am looking for applying for H1 this year. I really appreciate if you can give some details regarding any companies that can file for H1B for teachers.
dresses Green Day Arabic Wallpaper
greenguru
01-30 06:11 PM
An EB2 labor applied in March got approved in Sep.
Labor it is taking min 8 months as of today.
I-140 : Please check immigration-law.com first post today. he gave some stats...
Labor it is taking min 8 months as of today.
I-140 : Please check immigration-law.com first post today. he gave some stats...
more...
makeup mata wallpaper, kaligrafi
kiru_99
10-30 02:25 PM
I called the USCIS they told me that it is rejected b'couse of Filing Fee. I left a message to my lawyer & my employer they didn't get back to me yet. Waiting for there reply
girlfriend `background kaligrafi` related
bsbawa10
08-14 10:50 PM
The spreadsheet is totally sorted now according to the PD. I had to make one change though. The day of the month of PD was not mentioned and I had to write something to sort it out. I made it 1st of the month for everybody to be able to so sorting. You can change the day if you want to. Also please do not sort the data yourself. I will do it periodically. Just enter your info at the end.
Bawa
Bawa
hairstyles wallpaper / kaligrafi / allahu
vjone
04-09 05:19 PM
OP has asked a simple question, If you can answer it in simple manner do it. If not do not even respond to it.
If you think you are real smart then act like one instead posting you irrelavant comments here.
If you think you are real smart then act like one instead posting you irrelavant comments here.
lostinbeta
09-07 01:11 PM
Haha, thanks Hojo:)
som_yad
08-14 07:30 PM
I was also in limbo whether to apply AP now or no. My current AP is valid till Mid Jan 2009 And I am travelling india in Oct and will be back on 1st week on Nov. I decided not to apply AP now and will be applying renewal in mid Nov. Applied only EAD renewal.
But my H1 extension approval is still pending. Not sure it will get approved by 1st week of Oct. If I happen to use the current AP do they give i-94 only till Jan 09 ( i.e my AP validity) or for 1 year ?
But my H1 extension approval is still pending. Not sure it will get approved by 1st week of Oct. If I happen to use the current AP do they give i-94 only till Jan 09 ( i.e my AP validity) or for 1 year ?
No comments:
Post a Comment