paskal
02-14 10:20 PM
guys,
i do not know how to make this clearer
if you want to join ANY iv chapter, your name and other info i listed below is mandatory. we do not admit anonymous members. if you cannot reveal yourself to your own community then you are frankly no good to us....
please DO NOT send blank requests for membership.
having to write back and ask for it is a real waste of my time.
please cooperate the first time round !!
Thanks :)
i do not know how to make this clearer
if you want to join ANY iv chapter, your name and other info i listed below is mandatory. we do not admit anonymous members. if you cannot reveal yourself to your own community then you are frankly no good to us....
please DO NOT send blank requests for membership.
having to write back and ask for it is a real waste of my time.
please cooperate the first time round !!
Thanks :)
wallpaper musical tattoo designs.
Coppertop
10-07 04:27 PM
Thanks! *insert extra large grin here*
can a mod please edit the poll as asked by Phat7
can a mod please edit the poll as asked by Phat7
drirshad
03-13 04:31 PM
03/13/2009: Senate Bill, S. 577 to Punish Immigration Sharks Defrauding and Victimizing Immigrants and Related Parties
Senate Dianne Feinstine from California, cosponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy, introduced this bill in the Senate yesterday. The full text of the bill is as follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Immigration Fraud Prevention Act of 2009''.
SEC. 2. SCHEMES TO DEFRAUD ALIENS.
(a) Amendments to Title 18.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:``�1041. Schemes to defraud aliens
``(a) In General.--Any person who willfully and knowingly executes a scheme or artifice, in connection with any matter that is authorized by or arises under Federal immigration laws or any matter the offender willfully and knowingly claims or represents is authorized by or arises under Federal immigration laws, to--
``(1) defraud any person; or
``(2) obtain or receive money or anything else of value from any person by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
Here is the background for this bill: The Immigration Fraud Prevention Act would prevent and punish fraud and misrepresentation in the context of immigration proceedings. The act would create a new Federal crime to penalize those who engage in schemes to defraud aliens in connection with Federal immigration laws. Specifically, the act would make it a Federal crime to wilfully and knowingly defraud or obtain or receive money or anything else of value from any person by false or fraudulent pretences, representations, or promises; and to wilfully, knowingly, and falsely represent that an individual is an attorney or accredited representative in any matter arising under Federal immigration law. Violations of these crimes would result in a fine, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to use task forces currently in existence to detect and investigate individuals who are in violation of the immigration fraud crimes as created by the bill. The act would also work to prevent immigration fraud by requiring that Immigration Judges issue warnings about unauthorized practice of immigration law to immigrants in removal proceedings, similar to the current law that requires notification of pro bono legal services to these immigrants; requiring the Attorney General to provide outreach to the immigrant community to help prevent fraud; providing that any materials used to carry out notification on immigration law fraud is done in the appropriate language for that community; and requiring the distribution of the disciplinary list of individuals not authorized to appear before the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, BIA, currently maintained by the Executive Office of Immigration Review, EOIR. Unfortunately, the need for Federal action to prevent and prosecute immigration fraud has escalated in recent years as citizens and non-citizens attempt to navigate the immigration legal system. Thus far, only States have sought to regulate the unauthorized practice of immigration law. Since immigration law is a federal matter, I believe the solution to such misrepresentation and fraud should be addressed by Congress. By enacting this bill, Congress would help prevent more victims like Vincent Smith, a Mexican national who has resided in California since 1975. His wife is an American citizen, and they live with their 6 U.S. citizen children in Palmdale, CA. Mr. Smith would likely have received a green card at least two different times during his stay in California. However, in attempting to get legal counsel, Mr. Smith hired someone whom he thought was an attorney, but was not. As a result, Mr. Smith was charged more than $10,000 for processing his immigration paperwork, which was never filed. Mr. Smith now has no legal status and faces removal proceedings. Another victim of immigration fraud is Raul, a Mexican national, who came to the United States in 2000. He also married a U.S. citizen, Loraina, making him eligible to apply for a green card. Raul and his wife went to Jose for legal help. Jose's business card said he had a ``law office'' and that he was an ``immigration specialist.'' But Jose was not a specialist and charged Raul $4,000 to file a frivolous asylum petition. While Raul thought he was going to receive a green card, he was instead placed into removal proceedings. From California to New York, there are hundreds of stories like these. Many immigrants are preyed on because of their fears--others on their hope of realizing the American dream. They are charged exorbitant fees for the filing of frivolous paperwork that clog our immigration courts and keep families and businesses waiting in limbo for years. Law enforcement officials say that many fraudulent ``immigration specialists'' close their businesses or move on to another part of the state or country before they can be held accountable. They can make $100,000 to $200,000 a year and the few who have been caught rarely serve more than a few months in jail. Often victims of such crimes are deported, sending them back to their home countries without accountability for the perpetrator of the fraud. Most recently, hundreds of immigrants were exploited by Victor M. Espinal, who was arrested for allegedly posing as an immigration attorney. Nearly 125 of Mr. Espinal's clients attended the New York City Bar Association's free clinic to address their legal and immigration options. According to prosecutors, Mr. Espinal falsely claimed on his business cards that he was licensed and admitted to the California bar as well as the bar in the Dominican Republic. Organizations such as the Los Angeles Country Bar Association, National Immigration Forum, American Immigration Lawyers Association, and American Bar Association have been documenting this exploitation for many years.
Senate Dianne Feinstine from California, cosponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy, introduced this bill in the Senate yesterday. The full text of the bill is as follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Immigration Fraud Prevention Act of 2009''.
SEC. 2. SCHEMES TO DEFRAUD ALIENS.
(a) Amendments to Title 18.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:``�1041. Schemes to defraud aliens
``(a) In General.--Any person who willfully and knowingly executes a scheme or artifice, in connection with any matter that is authorized by or arises under Federal immigration laws or any matter the offender willfully and knowingly claims or represents is authorized by or arises under Federal immigration laws, to--
``(1) defraud any person; or
``(2) obtain or receive money or anything else of value from any person by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
Here is the background for this bill: The Immigration Fraud Prevention Act would prevent and punish fraud and misrepresentation in the context of immigration proceedings. The act would create a new Federal crime to penalize those who engage in schemes to defraud aliens in connection with Federal immigration laws. Specifically, the act would make it a Federal crime to wilfully and knowingly defraud or obtain or receive money or anything else of value from any person by false or fraudulent pretences, representations, or promises; and to wilfully, knowingly, and falsely represent that an individual is an attorney or accredited representative in any matter arising under Federal immigration law. Violations of these crimes would result in a fine, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to use task forces currently in existence to detect and investigate individuals who are in violation of the immigration fraud crimes as created by the bill. The act would also work to prevent immigration fraud by requiring that Immigration Judges issue warnings about unauthorized practice of immigration law to immigrants in removal proceedings, similar to the current law that requires notification of pro bono legal services to these immigrants; requiring the Attorney General to provide outreach to the immigrant community to help prevent fraud; providing that any materials used to carry out notification on immigration law fraud is done in the appropriate language for that community; and requiring the distribution of the disciplinary list of individuals not authorized to appear before the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, BIA, currently maintained by the Executive Office of Immigration Review, EOIR. Unfortunately, the need for Federal action to prevent and prosecute immigration fraud has escalated in recent years as citizens and non-citizens attempt to navigate the immigration legal system. Thus far, only States have sought to regulate the unauthorized practice of immigration law. Since immigration law is a federal matter, I believe the solution to such misrepresentation and fraud should be addressed by Congress. By enacting this bill, Congress would help prevent more victims like Vincent Smith, a Mexican national who has resided in California since 1975. His wife is an American citizen, and they live with their 6 U.S. citizen children in Palmdale, CA. Mr. Smith would likely have received a green card at least two different times during his stay in California. However, in attempting to get legal counsel, Mr. Smith hired someone whom he thought was an attorney, but was not. As a result, Mr. Smith was charged more than $10,000 for processing his immigration paperwork, which was never filed. Mr. Smith now has no legal status and faces removal proceedings. Another victim of immigration fraud is Raul, a Mexican national, who came to the United States in 2000. He also married a U.S. citizen, Loraina, making him eligible to apply for a green card. Raul and his wife went to Jose for legal help. Jose's business card said he had a ``law office'' and that he was an ``immigration specialist.'' But Jose was not a specialist and charged Raul $4,000 to file a frivolous asylum petition. While Raul thought he was going to receive a green card, he was instead placed into removal proceedings. From California to New York, there are hundreds of stories like these. Many immigrants are preyed on because of their fears--others on their hope of realizing the American dream. They are charged exorbitant fees for the filing of frivolous paperwork that clog our immigration courts and keep families and businesses waiting in limbo for years. Law enforcement officials say that many fraudulent ``immigration specialists'' close their businesses or move on to another part of the state or country before they can be held accountable. They can make $100,000 to $200,000 a year and the few who have been caught rarely serve more than a few months in jail. Often victims of such crimes are deported, sending them back to their home countries without accountability for the perpetrator of the fraud. Most recently, hundreds of immigrants were exploited by Victor M. Espinal, who was arrested for allegedly posing as an immigration attorney. Nearly 125 of Mr. Espinal's clients attended the New York City Bar Association's free clinic to address their legal and immigration options. According to prosecutors, Mr. Espinal falsely claimed on his business cards that he was licensed and admitted to the California bar as well as the bar in the Dominican Republic. Organizations such as the Los Angeles Country Bar Association, National Immigration Forum, American Immigration Lawyers Association, and American Bar Association have been documenting this exploitation for many years.
2011 tattoo star designs, popular
vxg
07-17 10:11 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
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
more...
eadguru
11-02 09:29 PM
See Signature...
----------------------------------------------------
I-1485/131/765 Sent to TSC on 08/03/07
(TSC -> VSC -> TSC). ND=10/17/07.
I-485 transferred to TSC on 10/17/07
EAD card ordered on 10/24 from VSC. Received 11/01
AP - RFE for clear copies of PP 10/31
No Finger Prints
----------------------------------------------------
I-1485/131/765 Sent to TSC on 08/03/07
(TSC -> VSC -> TSC). ND=10/17/07.
I-485 transferred to TSC on 10/17/07
EAD card ordered on 10/24 from VSC. Received 11/01
AP - RFE for clear copies of PP 10/31
No Finger Prints
dionysus
03-17 01:59 PM
Hi, continuing the same line of discussion, I have a slightly different question. Assuming the insurance company does not reimburse us for 485 medical exams, then can we atleast seek tax rebate on this expenditure? In other words, are the medical expenses incurred for 485 filing deductible at the time of tax filing?
more...
helpfriends
04-16 01:22 PM
they entered on a green form and no, it is not attached to the L1A Petition approval. So, they can just leave and then get stamped coming back in?
2010 Women Rose Flower Foot Tattoo
Lisap
09-12 05:27 PM
same situation...
sent to USCIS Texas on June 29, received on JUly 2nd at 10:25 AM. no receipts and no checks cashed yet. the USCIS receipting notice Texas said that they have finished receipting July 2 appl. what happened to our appl then?
pls anyone who filed july 2 at texas and with the same info who got their cks cashed and receipts rec, kindly share here. tnx!
Just hang in there you will have your receipts soon!!
sent to USCIS Texas on June 29, received on JUly 2nd at 10:25 AM. no receipts and no checks cashed yet. the USCIS receipting notice Texas said that they have finished receipting July 2 appl. what happened to our appl then?
pls anyone who filed july 2 at texas and with the same info who got their cks cashed and receipts rec, kindly share here. tnx!
Just hang in there you will have your receipts soon!!
more...
140jibjab
01-11 12:24 PM
You wil need to Update your Biographic information(there is a form # for it) for your I485 application. It is not mandatory. But is adviced to do so. Why are you hesitating to update your I485 to drop your spouse?
US consulate in India will not have the information regarding I485.
Thanks So much for the Answers.
Can you please answer one more Question?
I m not updating the INS regarding the Divorce, when my new wife attaends the H4, she would show the Divorce and Remarried certficate to the Consulate is that good enough so that they would take care of evrything?
Thank you again
US consulate in India will not have the information regarding I485.
Thanks So much for the Answers.
Can you please answer one more Question?
I m not updating the INS regarding the Divorce, when my new wife attaends the H4, she would show the Divorce and Remarried certficate to the Consulate is that good enough so that they would take care of evrything?
Thank you again
hair Foot tattoo designs for women
snram4
12-28 11:51 AM
Of course Grassley Bill will give more restrictions. But it needs to be analysed whether it is right or wrong. The question is if you want to bring foreigners even if skilled persons are available for that job in USA. If answer is yes then the labor test and layoff provision is wrong. But if you really want to bring foreigners only if skilled persons are not available then the provision does not have any impact on the H1b program. And another provision 50% H1b rule will have only impact on bodyshoppers and Indian consulting companies. But not the H1b aspirants and in longterm that will encourage permanent job hiring in reputed companies.
And if you oppose CIR just for H1b conditions you are going to lose many benefits. Just one provision exclude dependents from EB cap will double or triple GC numbers. And many other provisions will make most or all categories current. I think this time Compete america will not oppose the CIR blindly just because of one provision as they realize what happened on 2007. Smart thing will be negotiate and get a compromise than getting nothing. This is going to be comprehensive bill and everyone will get benefit including anti immigrants. Otherwise nothing.
These are the kind of poison pills that derailed previous CIRs.
Amnesty for illegals and as a pacifier to "antis" more conditions/rules for H1B/L1.
The business community as well as skilled immigrants start opposing the CIR and it
comes crashing.
And if you oppose CIR just for H1b conditions you are going to lose many benefits. Just one provision exclude dependents from EB cap will double or triple GC numbers. And many other provisions will make most or all categories current. I think this time Compete america will not oppose the CIR blindly just because of one provision as they realize what happened on 2007. Smart thing will be negotiate and get a compromise than getting nothing. This is going to be comprehensive bill and everyone will get benefit including anti immigrants. Otherwise nothing.
These are the kind of poison pills that derailed previous CIRs.
Amnesty for illegals and as a pacifier to "antis" more conditions/rules for H1B/L1.
The business community as well as skilled immigrants start opposing the CIR and it
comes crashing.
more...
setpit_gc
08-13 04:15 PM
643 people viewed this so far but only 2 responded.
Please I need more views before I make decision
Please I need more views before I make decision
hot Tattoo designs for women
ras
05-28 01:57 PM
If the fee is reduced then it will have impact on the number of personnel that USCIS can employ which inturn delays the whole application process. So rather with the fee let the USCIS have enough personnel to dispose of the cases.
And of course as mentioned above it is good idea that the attorneys take less fee so the burden is less on the applicant. And may be USCIS could simplify and come up with application procedures such that there is not much of an attorney intervention to comply with the law.
And of course as mentioned above it is good idea that the attorneys take less fee so the burden is less on the applicant. And may be USCIS could simplify and come up with application procedures such that there is not much of an attorney intervention to comply with the law.
more...
house Foot Tattoo Designs Women
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)
tattoo Tattoos Girls With Women Tattoo Designs Typically Best Lower Back Tattoo
raysaikat
05-04 11:02 PM
Hi All,
Recently I received an RFE on my Wife's 485 application asking to prove that we both are still married. My lawyer is asking for around $400 to respond to this RFE, We have already paid the lawyer about $7500 until now for our GC process and she is no longer the preferred lawyer for the company that I am working for, but I had to keep my case with her as she has processed all of my applications until now. My questions are:
1. Can we ourselves respond to the RFE and save the $400.00,
2. If so, What's the process and what documents that we need to send to prove that we are still married.
Appreciate all of your help in this regard.
Thanks
Other than the copy of your marriage certificate, pictures, children's birth certificate, etc., you can send an affidavit signed by a notary public, perhaps someone who works at the local municipality/city hall, etc. In addition, you should submit proof of joint financial holdings such as copy of this year's 1040 and state tax forms filled as "married filing jointly" (if you did so), a joint bank account, joint property ownership such as house and car, joint car insurance, home insurance, other bills (to show both of you are living at the same address), etc.
However, I would recommend using a lawyer (if not your lawyer whom you seem not to like) for preparing the RFE; I guess you do not want to suffer setbacks in your GC processing merely for saving $400!
Recently I received an RFE on my Wife's 485 application asking to prove that we both are still married. My lawyer is asking for around $400 to respond to this RFE, We have already paid the lawyer about $7500 until now for our GC process and she is no longer the preferred lawyer for the company that I am working for, but I had to keep my case with her as she has processed all of my applications until now. My questions are:
1. Can we ourselves respond to the RFE and save the $400.00,
2. If so, What's the process and what documents that we need to send to prove that we are still married.
Appreciate all of your help in this regard.
Thanks
Other than the copy of your marriage certificate, pictures, children's birth certificate, etc., you can send an affidavit signed by a notary public, perhaps someone who works at the local municipality/city hall, etc. In addition, you should submit proof of joint financial holdings such as copy of this year's 1040 and state tax forms filled as "married filing jointly" (if you did so), a joint bank account, joint property ownership such as house and car, joint car insurance, home insurance, other bills (to show both of you are living at the same address), etc.
However, I would recommend using a lawyer (if not your lawyer whom you seem not to like) for preparing the RFE; I guess you do not want to suffer setbacks in your GC processing merely for saving $400!
more...
pictures Sleeve Tattoo Designs 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?
dresses Women Star Tattoos Designs
latbsol
02-25 11:19 AM
Hey, thanks for the feedback and clarifications. Good to know that my EB2 will not affect the existing EB3. Yeah, I agree things are kind of grey when it comes to using the on-the-job work experience. I guess it depends on individual circumstances and there is no certainity about what will apply where.
It would be really nice if the USCIS publishes some clear written material on these rules and regulations, like a FAQs that answers the most nagging questions someone has about Employment Based immigration. Does something like that exist? Does anyone know?
Thanks
It would be really nice if the USCIS publishes some clear written material on these rules and regulations, like a FAQs that answers the most nagging questions someone has about Employment Based immigration. Does something like that exist? Does anyone know?
Thanks
more...
makeup Top Women Angel Tattoo Design
illusions
08-31 11:57 AM
well I wouldn't classify any company as good or bad, i've only gone to one company and have been with them since 05 and have no issues so far. They have provided me with everything that i needed and have so far been very professional.
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to write company specific information on the forum, so I'll refrain from that. But if you like any specifics you can drop me a PM. Heres what my company offers:
* NO Contracts / Bond what-so-ever.
* I get to choose my own rates (if i get my own contract that is, and i have so far)
* There is a 60:40 ratio. 60 i keep and 40 they keep. - Before taxes of course.(You might think this is high, but it's worthwhile cos i get no headaches)
* I get PPO Blue Cross Blue Shield Medical coverage for me and my wife.
* Upto $1000 in dental coverage in a year, reimbursed.
* Direct contact with the lawyer and i can pay him directly any immigration related fees, or opt to take a fraction off my paycheck. (Hence i know the actual cost and i know they are not charging any overhead costs)
* Direct deposit guaranteed at the end of the month even though they haven't received the payment as yet.
* I can leave them when ever i want, no questions asked nothing.
* If you are with them and you get your spouse in, they will offer up to 80:20 ratio and same benefits.
CONS:
====
* No training, in any related fields.
* You have to find your own contract (although they have affiliations with head hunters who would help in getting u a contract)
* Haven't ever spoken about on-bench pay... but i figure they will pay min for a month if need be.
At first i thought the ratio was too high and was looking to switch, and at the same time my wife was getting her H1B. A company NJ offered her a ratio of 70:30 and min benefits, plus a 1 year contract of which if breached would cost us 20K.
After she got her H1B and $2,500 in legal fees, they changed their minds, and was willing to pay only a fixed pay of 55K. I waited till she finished her training, and said screw you, gave em the finger.
She's now working with my company, and making 97K with a 80:20 ratio. Almost 20K more than me! lol.:eek:
In a nutshell i would watch out for the following no matter which company you choose.
* Make sure you cover all grounds with them 1st.
* Get everything in writing before anything. (In my case the first time it worked out fine, cos 60:40 was a high ratio but they offered all the benefits and no hassle.)
* Make sure you have access to the lawyer directly.
* Always go for a ratio basis, the more you are billed the more you earn, and it motivates you.
Good Luck.
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to write company specific information on the forum, so I'll refrain from that. But if you like any specifics you can drop me a PM. Heres what my company offers:
* NO Contracts / Bond what-so-ever.
* I get to choose my own rates (if i get my own contract that is, and i have so far)
* There is a 60:40 ratio. 60 i keep and 40 they keep. - Before taxes of course.(You might think this is high, but it's worthwhile cos i get no headaches)
* I get PPO Blue Cross Blue Shield Medical coverage for me and my wife.
* Upto $1000 in dental coverage in a year, reimbursed.
* Direct contact with the lawyer and i can pay him directly any immigration related fees, or opt to take a fraction off my paycheck. (Hence i know the actual cost and i know they are not charging any overhead costs)
* Direct deposit guaranteed at the end of the month even though they haven't received the payment as yet.
* I can leave them when ever i want, no questions asked nothing.
* If you are with them and you get your spouse in, they will offer up to 80:20 ratio and same benefits.
CONS:
====
* No training, in any related fields.
* You have to find your own contract (although they have affiliations with head hunters who would help in getting u a contract)
* Haven't ever spoken about on-bench pay... but i figure they will pay min for a month if need be.
At first i thought the ratio was too high and was looking to switch, and at the same time my wife was getting her H1B. A company NJ offered her a ratio of 70:30 and min benefits, plus a 1 year contract of which if breached would cost us 20K.
After she got her H1B and $2,500 in legal fees, they changed their minds, and was willing to pay only a fixed pay of 55K. I waited till she finished her training, and said screw you, gave em the finger.
She's now working with my company, and making 97K with a 80:20 ratio. Almost 20K more than me! lol.:eek:
In a nutshell i would watch out for the following no matter which company you choose.
* Make sure you cover all grounds with them 1st.
* Get everything in writing before anything. (In my case the first time it worked out fine, cos 60:40 was a high ratio but they offered all the benefits and no hassle.)
* Make sure you have access to the lawyer directly.
* Always go for a ratio basis, the more you are billed the more you earn, and it motivates you.
Good Luck.
girlfriend Cool+Tattoo+Designs 7 Tattoo
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.
hairstyles -tattoos-designs-for-women
morchu
07-24 12:02 PM
You do not loose your priority date even if the old employer revokes the 140.
As long as there aren't be any provable fraud intentions involved, in the whole GC process with the old employer, the priority date remains with you.
-Morchu
Recommend brining wide on H4 considering you have H1B once she is here you apply for her 485 along with yours.
1- Yes
2- Yes (but the job duties have to be relatively the same)
3- tricky, if your employer revokes your i-140 before you file a change then you lose the date. its tricky waters
As long as there aren't be any provable fraud intentions involved, in the whole GC process with the old employer, the priority date remains with you.
-Morchu
Recommend brining wide on H4 considering you have H1B once she is here you apply for her 485 along with yours.
1- Yes
2- Yes (but the job duties have to be relatively the same)
3- tricky, if your employer revokes your i-140 before you file a change then you lose the date. its tricky waters
nk2
06-06 10:53 AM
If you are at office and can not call from your desk do the following
Please call in suppoirt of Cantwell Amendment
1. Print the phone numbers
2. Print the talking points
3. Take your cell phone and call from your Car in the parking lot
Make as many calls as you can squeeze in. No number is too small or too large
This is the do or die time for all of us.
Please call in suppoirt of Cantwell Amendment
1. Print the phone numbers
2. Print the talking points
3. Take your cell phone and call from your Car in the parking lot
Make as many calls as you can squeeze in. No number is too small or too large
This is the do or die time for all of us.
sam_hoosier
09-15 12:40 PM
Were there some problems with the case ? RFEs ??:confused:
No comments:
Post a Comment