vishwak
03-09 12:41 PM
Hi All,
Please advise me on status below.
My wife currently working on EAD, previusly she is on H1B and here employer cancelled H1B when she took permanent.
Before coming to EAD, she travelled abrod and got I-94 till Sep-2010.
My Question is: Does she needs to get new I-94 after Sep-2010. I believe if she goes out of country she gets I-94 when travelling with AP...is this correct?? Can someone please tell me necessary steps to take care to maintain status when on EAD.
Thanks,
Vishwa.
Please advise me on status below.
My wife currently working on EAD, previusly she is on H1B and here employer cancelled H1B when she took permanent.
Before coming to EAD, she travelled abrod and got I-94 till Sep-2010.
My Question is: Does she needs to get new I-94 after Sep-2010. I believe if she goes out of country she gets I-94 when travelling with AP...is this correct?? Can someone please tell me necessary steps to take care to maintain status when on EAD.
Thanks,
Vishwa.
wallpaper prom updo hairstyles 2011 for
Rajwaitingon140
07-16 10:49 PM
Mine is Dec'20'2006 and still waiting for I-140 approval.
I am waiting on service center processing dates; still yet to annouce..hopefully we should get quickly.
Thanks
so we r in same boat. Mine recd date Oct 2nd 2006.
I am waiting on service center processing dates; still yet to annouce..hopefully we should get quickly.
Thanks
so we r in same boat. Mine recd date Oct 2nd 2006.
vin13
09-30 03:37 PM
If your last FP was more than 15 months ago, then write to local congressman, that usually works.
But would you get a notice or RFE or something like that....I am asking because i am my spouse both have recieved RFE's today....so wanted to assume something till we get the actual mail.
But would you get a notice or RFE or something like that....I am asking because i am my spouse both have recieved RFE's today....so wanted to assume something till we get the actual mail.
2011 prom updo hairstyles 2011 for
sbabunle
09-14 06:28 PM
Who will help us? Dems or Reps?
SKILL is introduced by Reps in both houses. Anybody has any
idea what Dems think about SKILL? Its all confusing to me.
If Dems take congress, I think they may not worry about SKILL
since there is no bipartisan support for the moment. What you guys
think of it?
SKILL is introduced by Reps in both houses. Anybody has any
idea what Dems think about SKILL? Its all confusing to me.
If Dems take congress, I think they may not worry about SKILL
since there is no bipartisan support for the moment. What you guys
think of it?
more...
TUnlimited
11-03 09:23 PM
requested attorney's view he said he would prefer normal way as its better and i can see checks cashing and make that a proof of receipt in case of reciept notice lost
Sounds like that attorney is complete idiot and never went through eFile things him(her)self...
Because you paying with CC on eFile and they give you receipt for payment, receipt for filing right away and this is your evidence of reception. In other words, you know your case number from the moment you push the button and with eFile you wil not have such question - where to file. They will deal with that on their own. All other stuff, reception notice, FP appointment notice will come a bit later to address you wil put with forms.
Sounds like that attorney is complete idiot and never went through eFile things him(her)self...
Because you paying with CC on eFile and they give you receipt for payment, receipt for filing right away and this is your evidence of reception. In other words, you know your case number from the moment you push the button and with eFile you wil not have such question - where to file. They will deal with that on their own. All other stuff, reception notice, FP appointment notice will come a bit later to address you wil put with forms.
kaisersose
07-17 10:22 AM
Folks,
Last month I called TSC and got a really nice IO. I was checking on my FBI name check status and he told me that he can get more details by A# instead of receipt NO. He in fact found my A# as i only had receipt number handy. He than told me that the FBI checks are cleared and my case is assigned to an IO.
Does case assigned to an IO means that when Visa nos are available i have chance to get GC? Does it mean it is adjudicated and waiting for visa NO?
EB2-I
PD: Jul 2004
I-140 approved
I-485: RD 02 Aug, 2007
You can answer this question for yourself if you read . The quick answer is, it does not mean anything. The system is totally random and trying to discern a pattern out of their actions is a futile exercise.
Last month I called TSC and got a really nice IO. I was checking on my FBI name check status and he told me that he can get more details by A# instead of receipt NO. He in fact found my A# as i only had receipt number handy. He than told me that the FBI checks are cleared and my case is assigned to an IO.
Does case assigned to an IO means that when Visa nos are available i have chance to get GC? Does it mean it is adjudicated and waiting for visa NO?
EB2-I
PD: Jul 2004
I-140 approved
I-485: RD 02 Aug, 2007
You can answer this question for yourself if you read . The quick answer is, it does not mean anything. The system is totally random and trying to discern a pattern out of their actions is a futile exercise.
more...
chanduv23
12-24 09:50 PM
There won't be chat on Thursday, 25th, December 2008 as it is Christmas.
2010 prom updo hairstyles 2011 for
skynet2500
07-09 12:35 PM
DOS issued one more bulletine today on 9th July 2007 !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please post the link. What is new anyways in this?
Please post the link. What is new anyways in this?
more...
vegasbaby
10-04 12:14 AM
Would greatly appreciate some advice regarding my fiancee.
She is currently in the US on a B1-B2 Tourist/Business visa. This is her fifth visa and has visited the US a total of 10 times over the past 5 years, spending 1-5 months each time. She has NEVER had a problem on arrival at the airport, never been called into the room for questioning, etc.
We are planning on getting married, but we need to make a trip to her home country for my work in the next few weeks for about a month. We were planning on waiting till 30 days after our return to marry and then to apply for her I-130/I-485 after that.
We just had a consultation with an immigration lawyer who recommended that she does NOT leave the country, and that we should get married ASAP and apply for the I-130/I-485 now, wait 2-3 months and make our trip then. The lawyer thought that there was a possibility that she might not be admitted the next time she comes in if the border agent has even the tiniest suspicion that she is entering to get married.
Although her previous B1-B2 visas were renewed each year without an interview, this year she was called in and they asked her some questions. She mentioned that she was doing some work for me in China, and that she would be staying with me in the US. She also put me down as her financial guarantee in the US.
I understand the basics of dual intent, and would not want to compromise her ability to enter the country.
Of course no one can know for sure, but would be grateful for some experienced advice about this. What are her chances of being refused entry when she returns? (Her visa is valid for one year, so it would be on the same visa she arrived here on this summer.) Would it be better if she arrived on a different flight than me? Or even better if she arrived on a flight to another city rather than the one where we live?
Any suggestions or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
I have to agree with the attorney here...B1/B2s visa are not much of a gain to USCIS. The beneficiary is not paying any taxes while in US. So there is every possibility of rejection/denial at POE. Best would be getting married while in US..The attorney's would have much more control if COS was done from US. Most attorney's would not be of much help when consular processing is involved.
She is currently in the US on a B1-B2 Tourist/Business visa. This is her fifth visa and has visited the US a total of 10 times over the past 5 years, spending 1-5 months each time. She has NEVER had a problem on arrival at the airport, never been called into the room for questioning, etc.
We are planning on getting married, but we need to make a trip to her home country for my work in the next few weeks for about a month. We were planning on waiting till 30 days after our return to marry and then to apply for her I-130/I-485 after that.
We just had a consultation with an immigration lawyer who recommended that she does NOT leave the country, and that we should get married ASAP and apply for the I-130/I-485 now, wait 2-3 months and make our trip then. The lawyer thought that there was a possibility that she might not be admitted the next time she comes in if the border agent has even the tiniest suspicion that she is entering to get married.
Although her previous B1-B2 visas were renewed each year without an interview, this year she was called in and they asked her some questions. She mentioned that she was doing some work for me in China, and that she would be staying with me in the US. She also put me down as her financial guarantee in the US.
I understand the basics of dual intent, and would not want to compromise her ability to enter the country.
Of course no one can know for sure, but would be grateful for some experienced advice about this. What are her chances of being refused entry when she returns? (Her visa is valid for one year, so it would be on the same visa she arrived here on this summer.) Would it be better if she arrived on a different flight than me? Or even better if she arrived on a flight to another city rather than the one where we live?
Any suggestions or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
I have to agree with the attorney here...B1/B2s visa are not much of a gain to USCIS. The beneficiary is not paying any taxes while in US. So there is every possibility of rejection/denial at POE. Best would be getting married while in US..The attorney's would have much more control if COS was done from US. Most attorney's would not be of much help when consular processing is involved.
hair prom updo hairstyles 2011 for
shri22
11-12 04:18 PM
Can you please tell me, when was this announced? Is this a new rule ?
I think people converting from F1 to H1 go to mexico.
I think people converting from F1 to H1 go to mexico.
more...
kshitijnt
11-12 08:49 PM
Just a thought.... Don't waste your time with dishonest employers. I have wasted 2 years on my previous employer. I would have my PD 2001. My friend wasted 3 years. Now and me and my friend work for different companies, with very good relationship, having no problem interacting with lawyers or having our employers sign any paper CIS might ask. I had victim mentality until I realized that it's a market economy. You sell, your employer buys. If you don't like to deal with him, start looking for another "buyer". Don't rush. Find a good job, transfer your H1, and start everything afresh - I know it's hard, but that's a way to go. Don't be stuck to your employer for 5 years and later cry "my employer didn't want to apply for I-140, didn't give me latter for I-485", "my lawyer didn't respond to RFE, now I'm in trouble", etc. etc. CIS/DOL will give you enough headache even without employer's "assistance".
And, btw, I have waited 9 months for my PERM to be approved. No RFE, no nothing - just 9 freaking months.
I fully agree. Its a market economy. Everything depends on demand and supply, your SKILLS and value to the employer.
And, btw, I have waited 9 months for my PERM to be approved. No RFE, no nothing - just 9 freaking months.
I fully agree. Its a market economy. Everything depends on demand and supply, your SKILLS and value to the employer.
hot prom updo hairstyles 2011 for
Prashanthi
08-21 01:54 PM
I received an RFE from USCIS 10 days after the date on the letter and need to respond in 33 days.
I came to US through Company A in June 2007 and was with them until Dec 2006. This Company A had applied for my labor and I140 and both of them were approved through them. I joined Company B in Jan of 2007(change of H1) and was with them until April of 2007. I joined Company C in April 2007(change of H1) and been with them since. Company C would not do my GC.
During the July 2007 fiasco, Company A agreed to give me an offer letter that I submitted with my 485 application and my attorney (a good reputed one) mentioned in the application that I was working for company C.
I got an RFE now stating that I did not send my sealed medical exam which I had done and we have a scan of what was sent. They also want �a current letter of employment attesting to your offer of proposed employment. This letter should be written on the company�s official letterhead and cite the date you will begin working, whether the position is temporary or permanent , a description of the position, a description of the position that you currently hold for the company (if any), and offered salary�
Is this RFE bad? What might have triggered this RFW? Now my attorney suggests that since I had filed 485 through company A and I did not really invoke AC21 that I should give a new offer letter from Company A (they are willing to give one). My question is if I do that will there be further questions? The company I work for is a bigger one and Company A is really a body shopper, so I want to go with the letter from the current company. Also since it more than 2 years since I applied for 485 can I say I invoked AC 21? When can I disassociate myself from company A as I do not want to lose my current job.
I would like the attorneys or the members valuable help. Please do offer your opinions. Thank you all in advance.
__________________
The RFE is not unusual, they are sending RFE's on all pending I-485 applications in an attempt to pre-process the applications and have them ready before the priority date becomes available.
Even though the beneficiary does not have to be working for the GC sponsoring company and the offer of employment can be a future offer, i always advice my clients to work for the sponsoring employer, if possible, otherwise the USCIS might raise the issue of the validity of the job offer, they have done this in the past. I also always advice clients to do AC-21 whenever they can, rather than depend on future employment.
It is difficult to predict what the Officers decision will be and what factors he will look at, and your attorney is not wrong in his response, however if you were my client i would advice you to use AC-21. The USCIS has not indicated that AC-21 has to be invoked as soon as you join the new employer, no deadline for invoking AC-21. However, you should have a GC sponsor at all times to keep your GC alive. In your case, company A was your sponsor until the time that company C has agreed to be your sponsor and invoke AC-21.
It is also good to invoke AC-21 because at the time of filing for citizenship they will see if you worked for your sponsoring employer for at least 6 months after getting the GC and if you did not, they will ask why dint you.
I came to US through Company A in June 2007 and was with them until Dec 2006. This Company A had applied for my labor and I140 and both of them were approved through them. I joined Company B in Jan of 2007(change of H1) and was with them until April of 2007. I joined Company C in April 2007(change of H1) and been with them since. Company C would not do my GC.
During the July 2007 fiasco, Company A agreed to give me an offer letter that I submitted with my 485 application and my attorney (a good reputed one) mentioned in the application that I was working for company C.
I got an RFE now stating that I did not send my sealed medical exam which I had done and we have a scan of what was sent. They also want �a current letter of employment attesting to your offer of proposed employment. This letter should be written on the company�s official letterhead and cite the date you will begin working, whether the position is temporary or permanent , a description of the position, a description of the position that you currently hold for the company (if any), and offered salary�
Is this RFE bad? What might have triggered this RFW? Now my attorney suggests that since I had filed 485 through company A and I did not really invoke AC21 that I should give a new offer letter from Company A (they are willing to give one). My question is if I do that will there be further questions? The company I work for is a bigger one and Company A is really a body shopper, so I want to go with the letter from the current company. Also since it more than 2 years since I applied for 485 can I say I invoked AC 21? When can I disassociate myself from company A as I do not want to lose my current job.
I would like the attorneys or the members valuable help. Please do offer your opinions. Thank you all in advance.
__________________
The RFE is not unusual, they are sending RFE's on all pending I-485 applications in an attempt to pre-process the applications and have them ready before the priority date becomes available.
Even though the beneficiary does not have to be working for the GC sponsoring company and the offer of employment can be a future offer, i always advice my clients to work for the sponsoring employer, if possible, otherwise the USCIS might raise the issue of the validity of the job offer, they have done this in the past. I also always advice clients to do AC-21 whenever they can, rather than depend on future employment.
It is difficult to predict what the Officers decision will be and what factors he will look at, and your attorney is not wrong in his response, however if you were my client i would advice you to use AC-21. The USCIS has not indicated that AC-21 has to be invoked as soon as you join the new employer, no deadline for invoking AC-21. However, you should have a GC sponsor at all times to keep your GC alive. In your case, company A was your sponsor until the time that company C has agreed to be your sponsor and invoke AC-21.
It is also good to invoke AC-21 because at the time of filing for citizenship they will see if you worked for your sponsoring employer for at least 6 months after getting the GC and if you did not, they will ask why dint you.
more...
house 2011 letter tattoos for girls.
goel_ar
05-01 09:29 AM
I just got my Labor approved (PD - 2/22/2008) . Attorneys are working on filing I-140.
1. Shall I wait for I-140 PP to re-instate or go ahead with normal processing?
2. Is there 'ANY' chance that my PD will be current before I get I-140 approval when filed through normal processing?
Thanks,
Ag
1. Shall I wait for I-140 PP to re-instate or go ahead with normal processing?
2. Is there 'ANY' chance that my PD will be current before I get I-140 approval when filed through normal processing?
Thanks,
Ag
tattoo prom updo hairstyles 2011 for
sdrblr
06-29 05:57 PM
Thank you all for your quick response. It was very helpful.
more...
pictures prom updo hairstyles 2011 for
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)
dresses prom updo hairstyles 2011 for
hoolahoous
10-30 05:28 PM
Cash payments that have been earned, such as Title II Social Security benefits, government pensions, and veterans' benefits, among other forms of earned benefits, do not support a public charge determination.
Unemployment compensation is also not considered for public charge purposes.
that settles it. Receiving Unemployment benefits is okay on AOS.
Unemployment compensation is also not considered for public charge purposes.
that settles it. Receiving Unemployment benefits is okay on AOS.
more...
makeup prom updo hairstyles 2011 for
delhis_007
06-05 11:32 AM
Sasan,
My PD is Jan 04. EB2 India. 140/485 filed in July 04. 140 approved Mar 05. Any comments?
What is your PD and category?
My PD is Jan 04. EB2 India. 140/485 filed in July 04. 140 approved Mar 05. Any comments?
What is your PD and category?
girlfriend zac efron 2011 fat. zac efron
sk.aggarwal
02-16 08:29 AM
Thank you very much for your reply.
hairstyles prom updo hairstyles 2011 for
pitha
01-21 12:12 AM
IV in good faith shared there plan about 485 provision with everybody. And it backfired spectacularly, though for no fault of IV. There were (and still are) a lot of bad apples who made a lot of noise not just here but also went on to other sites to carry there agenda. There agenda is to oppose 485. I am not against idea of opposite point of view but look at the extent these people went to push there agenda. They are calling IV all sorts of names and casting aspirations on IV team.
I personally support the filing of 485 provision. But whatever decision IV has about 485 issues may be it is better of that they not disclose it. Hind sight is 20-20 but it might have been better if IV pushed this idea without informing everybody.
I am not second guessing or doing Monday night quarterbacking but just saying with the lessons learned going forward not to disclose information. Democracy does not mean leadership has to run by each decision or explain each decision to everybody. IV is stuck between the devil and deep sea. Damned if the disclose damned if they do not disclose. Bottom line of what I am trying to say is we should get used to information blackouts. We are not getting any information but the important thing is our opposition is also not getting information about IV plans. It might be better that way. Now the difficult part is explaining that to people who want updates.
I personally support the filing of 485 provision. But whatever decision IV has about 485 issues may be it is better of that they not disclose it. Hind sight is 20-20 but it might have been better if IV pushed this idea without informing everybody.
I am not second guessing or doing Monday night quarterbacking but just saying with the lessons learned going forward not to disclose information. Democracy does not mean leadership has to run by each decision or explain each decision to everybody. IV is stuck between the devil and deep sea. Damned if the disclose damned if they do not disclose. Bottom line of what I am trying to say is we should get used to information blackouts. We are not getting any information but the important thing is our opposition is also not getting information about IV plans. It might be better that way. Now the difficult part is explaining that to people who want updates.
lrindy
09-19 11:48 AM
Ras, looking at the photo at the rally, I think you got the point. Not much attended and I don't see any other nationals there.
Not everyone could attend the rally! I for one, was not there for my own reasons. IV is for everyone; all nationalities. We should all be contributing in our own way. Mine was making sure congressmen, senators and Americans are aware that immigration isn't just about illegals. I've been calling, writing and maintaining contact with them for 5 years. Senator Lugars office "know me" now. Governor Daniels is one of the 12 that signed the last letter headed by the "terminator" Arnie!!! So, I may not have contributed by attending a rally or monetary donation, but our state leaders here in Indiana, are now more aware of the plight of EB immigrants; maybe, just maybe, with a little help from me...
If IV majority is made up of folks from certain countries, then does that not prove those are the countries with the majority of EB immigrants to the USA? I don't care where you come from, who you are; we are all here for the same exact reason. We are sick of being held to ransom by a broken immigration system. We are sick of whenever you say "immigration" the first thought that pops into peoples minds, US born that is, is illegals. I am sick of it and take the time to try and explain it.
Keep up the good work IV!!!!!!!!!
I have learnt a great deal from this site and will continue, in my own small way, to help the cause.
Cheers,
LRIndy. Crossroads of America!!!
Not everyone could attend the rally! I for one, was not there for my own reasons. IV is for everyone; all nationalities. We should all be contributing in our own way. Mine was making sure congressmen, senators and Americans are aware that immigration isn't just about illegals. I've been calling, writing and maintaining contact with them for 5 years. Senator Lugars office "know me" now. Governor Daniels is one of the 12 that signed the last letter headed by the "terminator" Arnie!!! So, I may not have contributed by attending a rally or monetary donation, but our state leaders here in Indiana, are now more aware of the plight of EB immigrants; maybe, just maybe, with a little help from me...
If IV majority is made up of folks from certain countries, then does that not prove those are the countries with the majority of EB immigrants to the USA? I don't care where you come from, who you are; we are all here for the same exact reason. We are sick of being held to ransom by a broken immigration system. We are sick of whenever you say "immigration" the first thought that pops into peoples minds, US born that is, is illegals. I am sick of it and take the time to try and explain it.
Keep up the good work IV!!!!!!!!!
I have learnt a great deal from this site and will continue, in my own small way, to help the cause.
Cheers,
LRIndy. Crossroads of America!!!
desibechara
08-02 11:21 AM
Well few comments:
- For LC you cannot use your current work exp...it has to be relevant prior one
- Your first one (if its relevant is the one you can use) and if second one is not relevant to your LC at current position then you can ignore it. If its relevant then every month will count and you should get one work exp from second one as well.
- Now if there is nobody at second place (in the company who can give this work exp letter) then hunt or locate any colleague and tell him to give work exp letter in his or her current letter head. This has to be done.
- For clarity sake , make one work exp letter with the set of responsibilities and send it everywhere so that all have same set of duties that are in LC.
Thanks and take care
Best Regards,
So I guess I will have to really hunt someone who worked there. But I do remember that one of my friends who had worked abroad and showed experience abraod for LC was asked about the letter as RFE but in his reply he said he could not..and some time in march he got the approval..I guess he was lucky! That was the reason I thought I could..
Anyway for not to waste time in RFEs I might as well get the letter!
DB
- For LC you cannot use your current work exp...it has to be relevant prior one
- Your first one (if its relevant is the one you can use) and if second one is not relevant to your LC at current position then you can ignore it. If its relevant then every month will count and you should get one work exp from second one as well.
- Now if there is nobody at second place (in the company who can give this work exp letter) then hunt or locate any colleague and tell him to give work exp letter in his or her current letter head. This has to be done.
- For clarity sake , make one work exp letter with the set of responsibilities and send it everywhere so that all have same set of duties that are in LC.
Thanks and take care
Best Regards,
So I guess I will have to really hunt someone who worked there. But I do remember that one of my friends who had worked abroad and showed experience abraod for LC was asked about the letter as RFE but in his reply he said he could not..and some time in march he got the approval..I guess he was lucky! That was the reason I thought I could..
Anyway for not to waste time in RFEs I might as well get the letter!
DB
No comments:
Post a Comment