vicky007
05-10 12:16 PM
Sorry, the link is not working anymore.
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
wallpaper Veins+and+arteries+diagram
reddymjm
01-31 01:35 AM
Check your meter reading, report it. Call your Landlord to see if the whole building or apartment complex is connected to your meter.
mdcowboy
10-23 12:56 PM
Hi,
I have a question and would really appreciate if some one can provide guidance.
My brother (currently in USA) got his H1B approved and he plans to go to US embassy in Ottawa to get the visa. We know that the H1B visa can take days to get approved due to administrative processing; therefore, he plans to give the interview to the US embassy and then leave for Pakistan.
My question is that in how many days my bro has to go back again to US embassy in Ottawa to collect his visa after the embassy informs him that his visa is back from administrative processing and is ready for stamping.
For example lets say my BRO gives the interview to US embassy on 2nd Dec. and then leaves for Pakistan on 4th Dec (since the actual time of administrative processing is unknown) and now lets say on 15 Dec. the US embassy informs him that his visa is ready and he can come for stamping (collect). So now in how many days my brother has to report to the embassy to get his visa stamp on his passport?
Does any have any idea about it !!!!
Thanks
I thought if you were a first time H1-B filer, you need to go to your country of origin for stamping...correct me if I am wrong.
I have a question and would really appreciate if some one can provide guidance.
My brother (currently in USA) got his H1B approved and he plans to go to US embassy in Ottawa to get the visa. We know that the H1B visa can take days to get approved due to administrative processing; therefore, he plans to give the interview to the US embassy and then leave for Pakistan.
My question is that in how many days my bro has to go back again to US embassy in Ottawa to collect his visa after the embassy informs him that his visa is back from administrative processing and is ready for stamping.
For example lets say my BRO gives the interview to US embassy on 2nd Dec. and then leaves for Pakistan on 4th Dec (since the actual time of administrative processing is unknown) and now lets say on 15 Dec. the US embassy informs him that his visa is ready and he can come for stamping (collect). So now in how many days my brother has to report to the embassy to get his visa stamp on his passport?
Does any have any idea about it !!!!
Thanks
I thought if you were a first time H1-B filer, you need to go to your country of origin for stamping...correct me if I am wrong.
2011 Cerebral+arteries+diagram
Hinglish
03-03 11:24 AM
AGI = American Greencard for Indians
more...
sabbygirl99
03-28 04:45 PM
You can't have an F1 AND an H1. So if she was on an F1, then that means she did not have an H1....which means she was not working....but employer still did this for her? It's all moot anyways - b/c no way would my employer do anything like this for me. They barely understand my situation.
A member posted that s/he did labor certification and I-140 on F1. I don't remember the name of the thread.
You can do labor certification without H1 as long as employer is willing.
A member posted that s/he did labor certification and I-140 on F1. I don't remember the name of the thread.
You can do labor certification without H1 as long as employer is willing.
Winner
01-22 07:24 PM
I used Clinton Bush Haiti Fund**|**Home (http://www.clintonbushhaitifund.org) to make my small contribution, it took less than 2 minutes, no account creation required, this site accepts paypal too.
https://re.clintonbushhaitifund.org/SSLPage.aspx?pid=3884
https://re.clintonbushhaitifund.org/SSLPage.aspx?pid=3884
more...
hopefulgc
09-16 10:22 PM
Please don't lose heart.. hang in there.
What you are experiencing has happened to a couple of people. But it sounds pretty counter-intuitive as to why they would deny substitution with for Eb2 labor?
Whatever the case, it sucks if it jeopardizes the primary Eb3 petition.
Are you able to locate any precedents to this?
Keep us updated here on this thread.
Hi,
Here is my case specifics:
--------------------------
1. Filed PERM EB3 LC - PD:01/2006 - Approved.
2. Filed EB3 I-140 using LC Sub from my company(company's policy..) - 06/2006 - was pending
3. Filed I-485 using pending LC Sub I-140 - 07/2007
4. Second I-140 Filed - 01/2008 based on my original PERM LC.
5. Second I-140 - Approved - 02/2008
6. Attorney sent AILA Request last month on my pending I-140. Got AILA Response as below
"Talked with the I-140 senior officer this afternoon about this case. We both reviewed the I-140 and the issue with the substitution of the labor cert. It appears that the individual that had the labor cert originally, adjusted off of it. Therefore, we can not substitute it again for the individual listed below. I believe that he has one I-140 already approved and will have to stay with that priority date. Have a good weekend."
7. Based on this, my attorney told me that my first I-140 will be denied soon; but she said that my AOS will continue to be active based on my approved I-140.
8. As my attorney said, Today, I got an CRIS email saying that my LC Sub I-140 is denied.
I have couple of questions now:
1. I am worried about my I-485 since my wofe is working on EAD. My understanding is that if your I-140 is denied, then your I-485 is denied too. But, my lawyer says that since I have an approved I140, they will use that and she is quoting the AILA Response email also. Is it true? or she is just convincing me with her lies.
2. I can continue to check the status of my I-485. But, how can I verify my AOS is now tied with my approved I-140? Interestingly, my AP Renewal is approved yesterday and notice mailed (a day before my I-140 denial)
Please let me know guys. Your help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
What you are experiencing has happened to a couple of people. But it sounds pretty counter-intuitive as to why they would deny substitution with for Eb2 labor?
Whatever the case, it sucks if it jeopardizes the primary Eb3 petition.
Are you able to locate any precedents to this?
Keep us updated here on this thread.
Hi,
Here is my case specifics:
--------------------------
1. Filed PERM EB3 LC - PD:01/2006 - Approved.
2. Filed EB3 I-140 using LC Sub from my company(company's policy..) - 06/2006 - was pending
3. Filed I-485 using pending LC Sub I-140 - 07/2007
4. Second I-140 Filed - 01/2008 based on my original PERM LC.
5. Second I-140 - Approved - 02/2008
6. Attorney sent AILA Request last month on my pending I-140. Got AILA Response as below
"Talked with the I-140 senior officer this afternoon about this case. We both reviewed the I-140 and the issue with the substitution of the labor cert. It appears that the individual that had the labor cert originally, adjusted off of it. Therefore, we can not substitute it again for the individual listed below. I believe that he has one I-140 already approved and will have to stay with that priority date. Have a good weekend."
7. Based on this, my attorney told me that my first I-140 will be denied soon; but she said that my AOS will continue to be active based on my approved I-140.
8. As my attorney said, Today, I got an CRIS email saying that my LC Sub I-140 is denied.
I have couple of questions now:
1. I am worried about my I-485 since my wofe is working on EAD. My understanding is that if your I-140 is denied, then your I-485 is denied too. But, my lawyer says that since I have an approved I140, they will use that and she is quoting the AILA Response email also. Is it true? or she is just convincing me with her lies.
2. I can continue to check the status of my I-485. But, how can I verify my AOS is now tied with my approved I-140? Interestingly, my AP Renewal is approved yesterday and notice mailed (a day before my I-140 denial)
Please let me know guys. Your help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
2010 Major+arteries+of+the+body
gconmymind
10-31 01:46 PM
Some of my friends have already received EADs without the FP.
I am still waiting for receipts - filed 13th August
I am still waiting for receipts - filed 13th August
more...
nj_03_2004
07-26 02:36 PM
I think if it is voted then it will pass. It also has Senator Chuck Schumer�s (D-NY) amendment (2448) provision.
It should get more Democrat votes this time.
It should get more Democrat votes this time.
hair in neck artery diagram,
tikka
06-25 12:49 PM
IV members have saved all of us a lot of money on attorney phone calls, getting answers to medical test questions and other general questions. Please contribute to IV so that we can keep this effort going. While everybody is busy collecting documents and paperwork for 485, core IV again is doing their personal paperwork and + lobbying.
Please contribute, especially if you are new and never contributed. Please do not be a freeloader and get your questions answered and run away.
Thank you
Please contribute, especially if you are new and never contributed. Please do not be a freeloader and get your questions answered and run away.
Thank you
more...
cram
06-14 07:43 PM
I have the same question. Help.... somebody. Thanks.
hot Three major alltosystemic
rvendra
05-18 02:11 PM
My case is EB 2 Dec 15th 2003 is priority date. I have filed my I 485 in August 2007. Still my case is pending more than 3 1/2 years. I have tried all possable options. Nothing is wokring out. Just simply telling background check is pending. Can you somebdoy helpme out other than WOM.
Thank you for your help
Raj
Thank you for your help
Raj
more...
house Major+arteries+of+the+body
jchan
08-01 11:52 AM
I am pleasantly surprised and would like to thank Sen Mendez on behalf of all the IV members in his constituency for sponsoring visa recapture bill in Senate. Few days back when we called his office, his position was different. But because of we all calling and requesting for his support, he graciouly has agreed to take up our case. Speaking with his staff, I came to know that more than thousand calls were made to his office in support of the visa recapture bill.
Are you sure he just changed his side? I think he was on the sponsor's list at least a couple weeks ago.
Either way, it's great news.
And we have at least 4,5 co-sponsors from CHC. Hopefully they won't create a problem this time around.
Are you sure he just changed his side? I think he was on the sponsor's list at least a couple weeks ago.
Either way, it's great news.
And we have at least 4,5 co-sponsors from CHC. Hopefully they won't create a problem this time around.
tattoo Artery vein diagram shows the
mariner5555
02-08 09:05 AM
my first EAD expires on aug 16 2008. should I file for new one 180 days before or is it 120 before expiry.
is it better to efile for the above extension or by mail. I guess a lawyer is not needed for the above - am I right ? Thanks in advance !
is it better to efile for the above extension or by mail. I guess a lawyer is not needed for the above - am I right ? Thanks in advance !
more...
pictures The+major+arteries+of+the+
goel_ar
01-17 09:12 AM
Hi All,
My situation finally got resolved. Just wanted to share with everyone --
1. If you don't travel after Oct 1, 2008 & have I-94 with effective date of October Ist 2008 - your status is as per I-94 effective October Ist , 2008. Last Action rule does NOT apply here. We confirmed it with different attorneys, USCIS, Immigration officer, CBP officer. So "texcan" & "astral1977" are wrong in their interpretation.
System should have updated on OCtober Ist, 2008 with H1 status; DHS, USCIS, CBP departments told us that Vermont center didn't do something right in updating the system when issued you H1 notice.
Btw, CBP officer at airport (Department of corrections ) verified that my wife's H4, I-94 (received Sep 10, 2008) is active in system & it should have been de-activated on oct, ist 2008 with h1, I-94.
2. Regarding SSN - We reapplied for SSN & asked SSN office to send the G-845 form manually to DHS. Then after spending 40-50 hours with NSC on phone with multiple calls, we found that there is a phone number , which SSN office can call to check the status of G-845 request with DHS department.
Number is :- 1-888-464-4218.
Normally SSN office should call - but in my wife's case, my wife called herself & after being transferred to 2nd tier, officer was helpful & told that verification has been sent to SSN on Jan 2. Visited SSN office a week after that and got my wife's SSN #.
If you need any more assistance, please feel free to PM me or send me an email to goel_ar@no-spam.yahoo.com.
Thanks,
AG
My situation finally got resolved. Just wanted to share with everyone --
1. If you don't travel after Oct 1, 2008 & have I-94 with effective date of October Ist 2008 - your status is as per I-94 effective October Ist , 2008. Last Action rule does NOT apply here. We confirmed it with different attorneys, USCIS, Immigration officer, CBP officer. So "texcan" & "astral1977" are wrong in their interpretation.
System should have updated on OCtober Ist, 2008 with H1 status; DHS, USCIS, CBP departments told us that Vermont center didn't do something right in updating the system when issued you H1 notice.
Btw, CBP officer at airport (Department of corrections ) verified that my wife's H4, I-94 (received Sep 10, 2008) is active in system & it should have been de-activated on oct, ist 2008 with h1, I-94.
2. Regarding SSN - We reapplied for SSN & asked SSN office to send the G-845 form manually to DHS. Then after spending 40-50 hours with NSC on phone with multiple calls, we found that there is a phone number , which SSN office can call to check the status of G-845 request with DHS department.
Number is :- 1-888-464-4218.
Normally SSN office should call - but in my wife's case, my wife called herself & after being transferred to 2nd tier, officer was helpful & told that verification has been sent to SSN on Jan 2. Visited SSN office a week after that and got my wife's SSN #.
If you need any more assistance, please feel free to PM me or send me an email to goel_ar@no-spam.yahoo.com.
Thanks,
AG
dresses Major+arteries+of+the+leg
gdhiren
05-14 10:18 AM
Receipt Date: Feb 7, 2007
EB 2, Non-premium
Pending as of 05/14/2007
EB 2, Non-premium
Pending as of 05/14/2007
more...
makeup Abdominal+arteries+diagram
krishna_brc
05-05 08:54 AM
Yes, we don't need original I-485 receipt notice to travel.
I traveled without original I-485.
see below for USCIS note on this
----
[Federal Register: November 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 211)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61791-61793]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01no07-1]
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
__________________________________________________ ____________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
8 CFR Part 245
[CIS No. 2420-07; Docket No. USCIS-2007-0047]
RIN 1615-AB62
Removal of Receipt Requirement for Certain H and L Adjustment
Applicants Returning From a Trip Outside the United States
AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule removes the requirement that certain H and L
nonimmigrants returning to the United States following a trip abroad
must present a receipt notice for their adjustment of status
applications to avoid having such applications deemed abandoned. The
purpose of this narrow change is to remove an unnecessary documentation
requirement from the regulations that the Department of Homeland
Security has determined causes an undue burden on H and L
nonimmigrants.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective November 1, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Vernon, Regulations and Product
Management Division, Domestic Operations, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue, Room 2034, Washington, DC 20529, telephone (202) 272-8350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Travel outside the United States for an alien who has filed Form I-
485, ``Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status,''
to obtain lawful permanent resident status under section 245 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1255, may adversely
affect that application unless the alien takes certain steps before the
trip. Most applicants must obtain permission from U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) to travel prior to the trip, a process
referred to as ``advance parole.'' See 8 CFR 212.5 (c) and (f). For
these applicants, departing the United States without advance parole
while their adjustment of status applications are pending results in
automatic abandonment of the applications and constitutes grounds for
denial. 8 CFR 245.2(a)(4)(ii)(A) & (B).
III. Rulemaking Requirements
DHS finds that this rule relates to internal agency management,
procedure, and practice and therefore is exempt from the public comment
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(A). This rule does not alter substantive criteria by which USCIS
will approve or deny applications or determine eligibility for any
immigration benefit. Instead, this rule relieves a document
presentation requirement for certain applicants for immigration
benefits. Specifically, this rule removes the requirement that H-1/H-4
and L-1/L-2 nonimmigrants present a Form I-797 receipt notice for their
adjustment of status applications upon readmission to the United States
after a trip abroad in order to avoid having their applications
abandoned. This document presentation requirement is unnecessary since
it concerns information that is already available to DHS. This final
rule merely eliminates an unnecessary burden on these arriving aliens
and streamlines agency management of its processes. As a result, DHS is
not required to provide the public with an opportunity to submit
comments on the subject matter of this rule.
Moreover, DHS finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)
to make the rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register
without prior notice and public comment on the grounds that delaying
implementation of this rule to allow for public comment would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. As a result of
USCIS's July 17, 2007, announcement that it would accept employment-
based Forms I-485 filed by aliens whose priority dates are current
under Department of State Visa Bulletin No. 107, USCIS received an
unprecedented volume of employment-based applications for adjustment of
status, including those filed by H and L nonimmigrants. Because of the
recent surge in such filings, it will take several weeks for USCIS to
enter the necessary data and issue Form I-797 receipt notices for
employment-based adjustment of status applications. Therefore, it is
important for this rule to take effect as soon as possible to avoid
undue hardship on applicants who may need travel outside the United
States prior to receiving the receipt notice.
In addition, no substantive rights or obligations of the affected
public are changed by this rule. DHS believes the public will welcome
this change. The public needs no time to conform its conduct so as to
avoid violation of these regulations because the rule relieves a
requirement of the existing regulations. Further, this rule will have
no adverse impact on DHS' adjudicatory responsibilities or ability to
track the foreign travel of affected persons since DHS already records
the admission of all nonimigrants. For these reasons, this rule is
effective immediately under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (3).
This rule relates to internal agency management, and, therefore, is
exempt from the provisions of Executive Order Nos. 12630, 12988, 13045,
13132, 13175, 13211, and 13272. This rule is not considered by DHS to
be a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. Therefore, it has not
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, this
action is not a proposed rule requiring an initial or final regulatory
flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq. In addition, this rule is not subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. Ch. 17A, 25,
or the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3501, note.
Finally, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-
13, all Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), for review and approval, any reporting requirements
inherent in a rule. This rule does not affect any information
collections, reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 245
Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, part 245 of chapter 1 of title 8 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 245--ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR
PERMANENT RESIDENCE
1. The authority citation for part 245 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1182, 1255; sec. 202, Pub. L.
105-100, 111 Stat. 2160, 2193; sec. 902, Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat.
2681; 8 CFR part 2.
2. Section 245.2 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(C) as
follows:
Sec. 245.2 Application.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) The travel outside of the United States by an applicant for
adjustment of status who is not under exclusion, deportation, or
removal proceeding and who is in lawful H-1 or L-1 status shall not be
deemed an abandonment of the application if, upon returning to this
country, the alien remains eligible for H or L status, is coming to
resume employment with the same employer for whom he or she had
previously been authorized to work as an H-1 or L-1 nonimmigrant, and,
is in possession of a valid H or L visa (if required). The travel
outside of the United States by an applicant for adjustment of status
who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceeding and who
is in lawful H-4 or L-2 status shall not be deemed an abandonment of
the application if the spouse or parent of such alien through whom the
H-4 or L-2 status was obtained is maintaining H-1 or L-1 status and the
alien remains otherwise eligible for H-4 or L-2 status, and, the alien
is in possession of a valid H-4 or L-2 visa (if required). The travel
outside of the United States by an applicant for adjustment of status,
who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceeding and who
is in lawful K-3 or K-4 status shall not be deemed an abandonment of
the application if, upon returning to this country, the alien is in
possession of a valid K-3 or K-4 visa and remains eligible for K-3 or
K-4 status.
Dated: October 15, 2007.
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-21506 Filed 10-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P
I traveled without original I-485.
see below for USCIS note on this
----
[Federal Register: November 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 211)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61791-61793]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01no07-1]
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
__________________________________________________ ____________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
8 CFR Part 245
[CIS No. 2420-07; Docket No. USCIS-2007-0047]
RIN 1615-AB62
Removal of Receipt Requirement for Certain H and L Adjustment
Applicants Returning From a Trip Outside the United States
AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule removes the requirement that certain H and L
nonimmigrants returning to the United States following a trip abroad
must present a receipt notice for their adjustment of status
applications to avoid having such applications deemed abandoned. The
purpose of this narrow change is to remove an unnecessary documentation
requirement from the regulations that the Department of Homeland
Security has determined causes an undue burden on H and L
nonimmigrants.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective November 1, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Vernon, Regulations and Product
Management Division, Domestic Operations, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue, Room 2034, Washington, DC 20529, telephone (202) 272-8350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Travel outside the United States for an alien who has filed Form I-
485, ``Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status,''
to obtain lawful permanent resident status under section 245 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1255, may adversely
affect that application unless the alien takes certain steps before the
trip. Most applicants must obtain permission from U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) to travel prior to the trip, a process
referred to as ``advance parole.'' See 8 CFR 212.5 (c) and (f). For
these applicants, departing the United States without advance parole
while their adjustment of status applications are pending results in
automatic abandonment of the applications and constitutes grounds for
denial. 8 CFR 245.2(a)(4)(ii)(A) & (B).
III. Rulemaking Requirements
DHS finds that this rule relates to internal agency management,
procedure, and practice and therefore is exempt from the public comment
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(A). This rule does not alter substantive criteria by which USCIS
will approve or deny applications or determine eligibility for any
immigration benefit. Instead, this rule relieves a document
presentation requirement for certain applicants for immigration
benefits. Specifically, this rule removes the requirement that H-1/H-4
and L-1/L-2 nonimmigrants present a Form I-797 receipt notice for their
adjustment of status applications upon readmission to the United States
after a trip abroad in order to avoid having their applications
abandoned. This document presentation requirement is unnecessary since
it concerns information that is already available to DHS. This final
rule merely eliminates an unnecessary burden on these arriving aliens
and streamlines agency management of its processes. As a result, DHS is
not required to provide the public with an opportunity to submit
comments on the subject matter of this rule.
Moreover, DHS finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)
to make the rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register
without prior notice and public comment on the grounds that delaying
implementation of this rule to allow for public comment would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. As a result of
USCIS's July 17, 2007, announcement that it would accept employment-
based Forms I-485 filed by aliens whose priority dates are current
under Department of State Visa Bulletin No. 107, USCIS received an
unprecedented volume of employment-based applications for adjustment of
status, including those filed by H and L nonimmigrants. Because of the
recent surge in such filings, it will take several weeks for USCIS to
enter the necessary data and issue Form I-797 receipt notices for
employment-based adjustment of status applications. Therefore, it is
important for this rule to take effect as soon as possible to avoid
undue hardship on applicants who may need travel outside the United
States prior to receiving the receipt notice.
In addition, no substantive rights or obligations of the affected
public are changed by this rule. DHS believes the public will welcome
this change. The public needs no time to conform its conduct so as to
avoid violation of these regulations because the rule relieves a
requirement of the existing regulations. Further, this rule will have
no adverse impact on DHS' adjudicatory responsibilities or ability to
track the foreign travel of affected persons since DHS already records
the admission of all nonimigrants. For these reasons, this rule is
effective immediately under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (3).
This rule relates to internal agency management, and, therefore, is
exempt from the provisions of Executive Order Nos. 12630, 12988, 13045,
13132, 13175, 13211, and 13272. This rule is not considered by DHS to
be a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. Therefore, it has not
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, this
action is not a proposed rule requiring an initial or final regulatory
flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq. In addition, this rule is not subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. Ch. 17A, 25,
or the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3501, note.
Finally, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-
13, all Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), for review and approval, any reporting requirements
inherent in a rule. This rule does not affect any information
collections, reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 245
Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, part 245 of chapter 1 of title 8 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 245--ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR
PERMANENT RESIDENCE
1. The authority citation for part 245 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1182, 1255; sec. 202, Pub. L.
105-100, 111 Stat. 2160, 2193; sec. 902, Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat.
2681; 8 CFR part 2.
2. Section 245.2 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(C) as
follows:
Sec. 245.2 Application.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) The travel outside of the United States by an applicant for
adjustment of status who is not under exclusion, deportation, or
removal proceeding and who is in lawful H-1 or L-1 status shall not be
deemed an abandonment of the application if, upon returning to this
country, the alien remains eligible for H or L status, is coming to
resume employment with the same employer for whom he or she had
previously been authorized to work as an H-1 or L-1 nonimmigrant, and,
is in possession of a valid H or L visa (if required). The travel
outside of the United States by an applicant for adjustment of status
who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceeding and who
is in lawful H-4 or L-2 status shall not be deemed an abandonment of
the application if the spouse or parent of such alien through whom the
H-4 or L-2 status was obtained is maintaining H-1 or L-1 status and the
alien remains otherwise eligible for H-4 or L-2 status, and, the alien
is in possession of a valid H-4 or L-2 visa (if required). The travel
outside of the United States by an applicant for adjustment of status,
who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceeding and who
is in lawful K-3 or K-4 status shall not be deemed an abandonment of
the application if, upon returning to this country, the alien is in
possession of a valid K-3 or K-4 visa and remains eligible for K-3 or
K-4 status.
Dated: October 15, 2007.
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-21506 Filed 10-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P
girlfriend major arteries and veins
reddy77
01-13 06:11 PM
Thanks Guys for taking time and replying to my questions, was able to get answers for all my queries. Thanks ...
hairstyles three major arteries can
pandu_hawaldar
10-05 12:47 PM
I applied for AP for primary and secondary applicants on 09/17 at TSC (RD 09/24). Online update showed that AP for Primary applicant has been approved, but the secondary still shows under review. Today I received approved AP for the Primary applicant in mail, but nothing for secondary applicant yet. Why TSC is not approving both the APs at the same time? Last time, I got the both at the same time. Any idea or guidance please.....
Robert Kumar
01-02 11:25 AM
Hi,
Here is a question.
Can somebody join an MBA program full time at one's own expense, while on H1B and with 485 pending.
I can see more scope in my company if I have an MBA. Also company is not doing very well.
So, can I join a school till I get my MBA.
How does this reflect on my H1B and pending GC, if company is not paying my salary. I plan to take leave and come back again after the program, but be on payroll.
Thank You,
Bobby.
Here is a question.
Can somebody join an MBA program full time at one's own expense, while on H1B and with 485 pending.
I can see more scope in my company if I have an MBA. Also company is not doing very well.
So, can I join a school till I get my MBA.
How does this reflect on my H1B and pending GC, if company is not paying my salary. I plan to take leave and come back again after the program, but be on payroll.
Thank You,
Bobby.
paskal
11-09 12:23 PM
calling on your high skills...iv is you and me...remember!!
No comments:
Post a Comment