rama_mvs
07-18 03:45 PM
Hi,
I have worked for the same employer who filed my 485 as future employment for more than 6 years. He filed for H1 extension in last November'2006. It got denied in June'2007. But he send this denial as Motion to Reopen Case . For my safety I filed another H1 with another employer during this time and I am working for the new employer.
My 140 got approved when I am with my old employer itself. Now he is filing 485 for me as Future employment.
My question is after I receive AC21 and also after six months of receiving the receipt for 485 . Can I jump to another company or is it advisable to work for the company who filed my I-485 until I get my Green card or for how many months ?
Thanks,
Ram :mad:
I have worked for the same employer who filed my 485 as future employment for more than 6 years. He filed for H1 extension in last November'2006. It got denied in June'2007. But he send this denial as Motion to Reopen Case . For my safety I filed another H1 with another employer during this time and I am working for the new employer.
My 140 got approved when I am with my old employer itself. Now he is filing 485 for me as Future employment.
My question is after I receive AC21 and also after six months of receiving the receipt for 485 . Can I jump to another company or is it advisable to work for the company who filed my I-485 until I get my Green card or for how many months ?
Thanks,
Ram :mad:
sundeep14
03-04 11:55 AM
Ok..is there a way to check if your name check has been cleared...i tried callin USCIS and the customer rep doesnt seem to have a clue..
rvr_jcop
02-17 12:34 AM
Hi,
I have completed 6 years on my H1 and then got a 3 year extension as my 140 was approved when I applied for H1 renewal. This is all with my current company where I am working on H1 and they have applied for my GC also. I also have a valid EAD till 2010 which I am not using currently.
If I get a new job, can I transfer my H1 and still keep my GC process going on or do I have to switch to using EAD at the new job instead of H1 ?
Basically, am wondering if we can transfer H1 and that way have a backup just in case of any issues with EAD.
Thanks for your advice !
Yes, you can do that by invoking AC-21. You dont have to be on EAD to join another company. You are perfectly OK if they are willing to tranfer your H-1 from the old employer.
I have completed 6 years on my H1 and then got a 3 year extension as my 140 was approved when I applied for H1 renewal. This is all with my current company where I am working on H1 and they have applied for my GC also. I also have a valid EAD till 2010 which I am not using currently.
If I get a new job, can I transfer my H1 and still keep my GC process going on or do I have to switch to using EAD at the new job instead of H1 ?
Basically, am wondering if we can transfer H1 and that way have a backup just in case of any issues with EAD.
Thanks for your advice !
Yes, you can do that by invoking AC-21. You dont have to be on EAD to join another company. You are perfectly OK if they are willing to tranfer your H-1 from the old employer.
nk2006
05-02 12:03 PM
a. If I move now, can I take my 3 yr extension filed by company A with me or
I think you can get the extension with new company too. While applying for the transfer request extension upto Feb 2010. You might have to provide the I140 approval again to prove that you are eligible for 3-year extension.
b. should I join company B in September 2007( when I complete 6 yrs) during the 3 yr H1B extension period ?
I think you can join the company immediately. To be in safe side you can apply for transfer in premium.
As you might be aware there is no such thing as H1B transfer - every h1b application is a new one for that company and you as beneficeiry. So when applying for H1B with new company - you have to provide evidence that you are eligible for the H1B. The evidence is to show you are already on H1B (so that you are not subject to annual cap); and that you have enough time on H1B if you already completed 6 years then evidence to prove that you are eligible for further extension of h1b. So in short yes you can get 3 years with new employer. (NOTE: I am not lawyer this is my understanding based on various sources; I am also considering moving after my i140 is approved).
I think you can get the extension with new company too. While applying for the transfer request extension upto Feb 2010. You might have to provide the I140 approval again to prove that you are eligible for 3-year extension.
b. should I join company B in September 2007( when I complete 6 yrs) during the 3 yr H1B extension period ?
I think you can join the company immediately. To be in safe side you can apply for transfer in premium.
As you might be aware there is no such thing as H1B transfer - every h1b application is a new one for that company and you as beneficeiry. So when applying for H1B with new company - you have to provide evidence that you are eligible for the H1B. The evidence is to show you are already on H1B (so that you are not subject to annual cap); and that you have enough time on H1B if you already completed 6 years then evidence to prove that you are eligible for further extension of h1b. So in short yes you can get 3 years with new employer. (NOTE: I am not lawyer this is my understanding based on various sources; I am also considering moving after my i140 is approved).
more...
vinabath
07-02 03:18 PM
USCIS taught me a lesson about life.
Never go by rules. Find shortcuts.
Never go by rules. Find shortcuts.
cbadari99
05-12 05:51 PM
Though a little off-topic, this is an interesting read
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090513/jsp/frontpage/story_10956610.jsp
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090513/jsp/frontpage/story_10956610.jsp
more...
jackisback
05-04 12:08 PM
Should this not come from USCIS rather than coming from AILA? I would think this should be a press release or "news" on the USCIS website if they are starting this pilot.
Are we supposed to be worried about sending this email since someone has got access to the AILA letter and posted it here in IV?
This should be coming from USCIS or the attorney's offices...
Are we supposed to be worried about sending this email since someone has got access to the AILA letter and posted it here in IV?
This should be coming from USCIS or the attorney's offices...
gcseeker2002
11-04 02:09 PM
This is weird. I thought a lot of people have got EAD but did not get AP. Of course some people have got both. Can anyone shed some light on how they approve AP? In what order? I believe quite some people have travel plan during the coming months.
Is this something to be concerned about, getting AP before EAD , both are of course 124 days since receipt date.
Is this something to be concerned about, getting AP before EAD , both are of course 124 days since receipt date.
more...
BECsufferer
07-01 07:07 PM
Hi!
My mom's a Gynecologist. She got her MBBS and MS from India in 1978. She has been working in India since then.
How can she start practicing in the United States? I have absolutely NO idea. I have heard about the USMLE Exam, but is it necessary for a person with 25+ years of experience? Will she have to do her medical-residency AGAIN?
Please advise.
OBGyn is generally 4 yr residency and knid of competitive these days. And yes u have to clear Step 1 and 2 definitly.
Had u been from middle eastern country, Hurley Medical Center in Flint would have been easy to go program. And if you are from certain part of India ( I'll give Satyam as hint ;)) , Synergy in Saginaw, MI would have been #1 choice.
No offense to anyone, so lets keep peace. :cool:
My mom's a Gynecologist. She got her MBBS and MS from India in 1978. She has been working in India since then.
How can she start practicing in the United States? I have absolutely NO idea. I have heard about the USMLE Exam, but is it necessary for a person with 25+ years of experience? Will she have to do her medical-residency AGAIN?
Please advise.
OBGyn is generally 4 yr residency and knid of competitive these days. And yes u have to clear Step 1 and 2 definitly.
Had u been from middle eastern country, Hurley Medical Center in Flint would have been easy to go program. And if you are from certain part of India ( I'll give Satyam as hint ;)) , Synergy in Saginaw, MI would have been #1 choice.
No offense to anyone, so lets keep peace. :cool:
kanshul
02-01 10:40 AM
Client forcing you is very typical.
Here is an option to consider: can your employer (who I am assuming is a small desi firm) file your GC though another sister firm (not unusual) in EB2. Assuming that you get it, and retain your PD, you should be able to get your GC within a year if there is no audit in labor / 140. Remember in EB2 the date for Indian is Jan 05 and your PD is before that.
Assuming that you can't keep PD if employer withdraws 140; I would recommed going that route even if you have to find another client.
Also, check with an attorney to find out about PD as you may be able to keep it even if 140 is withdrawn. In that case you can join any company (even your client ) and start GC through EB2.
Here is an option to consider: can your employer (who I am assuming is a small desi firm) file your GC though another sister firm (not unusual) in EB2. Assuming that you get it, and retain your PD, you should be able to get your GC within a year if there is no audit in labor / 140. Remember in EB2 the date for Indian is Jan 05 and your PD is before that.
Assuming that you can't keep PD if employer withdraws 140; I would recommed going that route even if you have to find another client.
Also, check with an attorney to find out about PD as you may be able to keep it even if 140 is withdrawn. In that case you can join any company (even your client ) and start GC through EB2.
more...
grupak
09-09 11:38 AM
Numbersusa claims it is being voted tomorrow. They are making calls against it.
Let us all call for it, and push the bill forward.
Pick up the phone. Will take just 20 mins of your time.
Let us all call for it, and push the bill forward.
Pick up the phone. Will take just 20 mins of your time.
jediknight
04-06 08:34 AM
I was worried about the Immigration status with the FHA loan processing. Glad it's not an issue.
Still debating whether to refinance via FHA or wait for a few months till the house prices are better and do a conventional loan. The FHA MIs are quite steep in my case ($20K upfront + $350 per month)
- JK
Still debating whether to refinance via FHA or wait for a few months till the house prices are better and do a conventional loan. The FHA MIs are quite steep in my case ($20K upfront + $350 per month)
- JK
more...
Sandeep
03-07 05:43 PM
The Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) was developed to assess and improve program performance so that the Federal government can achieve better results. A PART review helps identify a program’s strengths and weaknesses to inform funding and management decisions aimed at making the program more effective. This is what the DOL's review (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pma/labor.pdf) shows. It is very informative as we come to know that they themselves are admitting serious flaws
Page 211
Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or
efficiency?
Answer: NO
Summary
The DOL admits that these are the problems:
- "current process is paper- intensive, duplicative in places, and inefficient"
- "vulnerability to fraud and abuse"
- The whole process is meaningless because "it could be years between the recruitment efforts described in an application to DOL and the time a labor certification issues or the alien adjusts to permanent resident status"
-"the certification itself lacks critical safeguards"
Page 213
Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?
Answer: NO
"Program goals lack specific, ambitious annual targets. For example, the published backlog reduction targets would not result in elimination of the backlog in two years, as the program currently plans. And the goal to reduce processing time to six months for 90% of applications (currently 32 months) may not be either sufficiently tailored or ambitious for the new automated review process, if processing rates hold true to plan."
Summary
The DOL says that they have promised somethings but it is not doable !!!
Page 213
Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long- term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?
Answer: NO
Like the rest of DOL, ETA does not have an integrated accounting and performance management system to identify the full cost of achieving this program's performance goals and support day- to- day operations.
Summary
The DOL says that they have no idea of how much it will cost. So how are they planning to go ahead and get the resources to clear off all the cases in the BECS?
Page 218
Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?
Answer: SMALL EXTENT
Ongoing stakeholder concerns and findings from program evaluations or OIG audits conducted in years past raise serious questions about the design,management, and accountability of the current program.
Summary
There are a lot of audits saying that there is something seriously wrong
Page 219
"The goal of eliminating the backlog by the end of FY 2006 is a result of an external evaluation conducted in 2002. Lengthy processing times are a majorconcern for program stakeholders. Though the goal is ambitious, there is a disconnect with the published targets, which cover only the state- level backlog of 270,000 cases (not the additional cases pending at the federal level) and would not accomplish the goal within two years."
Summary
Though they have stated that their goal is 2006 there is no way that is going to be true
And inspite of all this the program rates "ADEQUATE" ?
Page 211
Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or
efficiency?
Answer: NO
Summary
The DOL admits that these are the problems:
- "current process is paper- intensive, duplicative in places, and inefficient"
- "vulnerability to fraud and abuse"
- The whole process is meaningless because "it could be years between the recruitment efforts described in an application to DOL and the time a labor certification issues or the alien adjusts to permanent resident status"
-"the certification itself lacks critical safeguards"
Page 213
Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?
Answer: NO
"Program goals lack specific, ambitious annual targets. For example, the published backlog reduction targets would not result in elimination of the backlog in two years, as the program currently plans. And the goal to reduce processing time to six months for 90% of applications (currently 32 months) may not be either sufficiently tailored or ambitious for the new automated review process, if processing rates hold true to plan."
Summary
The DOL says that they have promised somethings but it is not doable !!!
Page 213
Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long- term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?
Answer: NO
Like the rest of DOL, ETA does not have an integrated accounting and performance management system to identify the full cost of achieving this program's performance goals and support day- to- day operations.
Summary
The DOL says that they have no idea of how much it will cost. So how are they planning to go ahead and get the resources to clear off all the cases in the BECS?
Page 218
Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?
Answer: SMALL EXTENT
Ongoing stakeholder concerns and findings from program evaluations or OIG audits conducted in years past raise serious questions about the design,management, and accountability of the current program.
Summary
There are a lot of audits saying that there is something seriously wrong
Page 219
"The goal of eliminating the backlog by the end of FY 2006 is a result of an external evaluation conducted in 2002. Lengthy processing times are a majorconcern for program stakeholders. Though the goal is ambitious, there is a disconnect with the published targets, which cover only the state- level backlog of 270,000 cases (not the additional cases pending at the federal level) and would not accomplish the goal within two years."
Summary
Though they have stated that their goal is 2006 there is no way that is going to be true
And inspite of all this the program rates "ADEQUATE" ?
ayaskant
01-31 11:08 PM
Hi,
I came to US on h1b in 2007.
I got my labor substituted in 2007 in EB3. My priority date is December 2004.
I got my 140 approved in january 2008. Its been 2 yrs since.
I dont have EAD.
I dont know when the date will be current. But the problem is,
My client wants me to join their company. Can I leave my current company and still maintain my priority date. Do h1b companies normally cancel the i140 if employees leave.
if i join the new company I am planning to start GC in EB2 again. Is it wise to do so. Can I port my Priority date. Or should I stick onto my existing employer.
How much time its taking now a days to get the Labor and 140 in EB2.
ANy help and advice in this regards will be very much appreciated
ak
I came to US on h1b in 2007.
I got my labor substituted in 2007 in EB3. My priority date is December 2004.
I got my 140 approved in january 2008. Its been 2 yrs since.
I dont have EAD.
I dont know when the date will be current. But the problem is,
My client wants me to join their company. Can I leave my current company and still maintain my priority date. Do h1b companies normally cancel the i140 if employees leave.
if i join the new company I am planning to start GC in EB2 again. Is it wise to do so. Can I port my Priority date. Or should I stick onto my existing employer.
How much time its taking now a days to get the Labor and 140 in EB2.
ANy help and advice in this regards will be very much appreciated
ak
more...
HawaldarNaik
11-20 01:13 AM
I filed for my EAD in August, got an approval for EAD (2 yrs) and AP for one yr but no FP notice. What should I do
I checked with my lawyer and she says previous FP is valid for 15 to 18 months
Kindly Advise what should i do...
I checked with my lawyer and she says previous FP is valid for 15 to 18 months
Kindly Advise what should i do...
smiledentist
06-21 12:37 AM
I am a dentist in state of CA,and filed for EB2 green card.In April
2006 applied for my
PERM from MD Dental, a dental group with 5 offices and about 30
employs and owned by 2
partners.Also in April 2006 they applied for my H1b visa.Further PERM and H1b
both were approved
and in may 2006 I filed for I-140 from the same company.I-140 had a
RFE but was approved
in Feb 2007.Meanwhile in Oct 2006 both partners had a misunderstanding
and they split the
company into 2 companies with one partner getting 2 offices and the
other partner getting
3 offices.Originally my perm was filed from the MD dental Van-Nuys
office, which was
given to partner A who then told me to file for a new H1b as tax ID
number for the
employer has changed but my job location would not change.I filed for
a new H1 visa from
partner A which was also approved and started to work for him till Feb
2007.In feb 2007 I
found a new job again as a dentist with a different company and moved
to that company.I
am still in good contact with both partner A and partner B of the old
company.
My question is if I could file for I485 from MD dental which is
already split with
approved I140, or I could file it from partner A or partner B`s new
company showing
either of them as succesor of interest.Also can I invoke AC21 in 6 months and move to my current employer..
Please advice.
2006 applied for my
PERM from MD Dental, a dental group with 5 offices and about 30
employs and owned by 2
partners.Also in April 2006 they applied for my H1b visa.Further PERM and H1b
both were approved
and in may 2006 I filed for I-140 from the same company.I-140 had a
RFE but was approved
in Feb 2007.Meanwhile in Oct 2006 both partners had a misunderstanding
and they split the
company into 2 companies with one partner getting 2 offices and the
other partner getting
3 offices.Originally my perm was filed from the MD dental Van-Nuys
office, which was
given to partner A who then told me to file for a new H1b as tax ID
number for the
employer has changed but my job location would not change.I filed for
a new H1 visa from
partner A which was also approved and started to work for him till Feb
2007.In feb 2007 I
found a new job again as a dentist with a different company and moved
to that company.I
am still in good contact with both partner A and partner B of the old
company.
My question is if I could file for I485 from MD dental which is
already split with
approved I140, or I could file it from partner A or partner B`s new
company showing
either of them as succesor of interest.Also can I invoke AC21 in 6 months and move to my current employer..
Please advice.
more...
bkarnik
04-04 10:36 PM
The AOS (485) is based on the I-140 approved for the beneficiary listed in the I-140 and not the labor. Besides, the DOL is not really concerned about EB2 or EB3 category. The DOL asks for the alien information just to verify that the job ad is not tailored to meet the alien's qualifications. EB2, EB3, etc are categories under the INA which become applicable only once the I0140 is filed. In a nutshell, your friend should have consulted another attorney before the I-140 was filed under EB3. It is not possible to change the 485 filing to EB2 based on the labor because the immediately preceding step to filing 485 is the I-140 which governs.
navkap
09-20 04:26 PM
From Yahoo News
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Immigration
WASHINGTON - The House voted Wednesday to require Americans to show proof of citizenship in order to vote, and the Senate moved to build a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border as Republicans sharpened attacks on illegal immigration before the midterm elections.
The 228-196 House vote on a new photo ID plan and the Senate's consideration of the fence were both part of a get-tough policy on illegal immigrants that Republicans have embraced after Congress' failure to agree on broader legislation that would set a path for undocumented workers to attain citizenship.
House GOP leaders have insisted that tighter borders and tougher laws must precede more comprehensive immigration changes. The House passed the fence bill last week and plans votes Thursday on other enforcement measures: to increase penalties for people building tunnels under the border, make it easier to detain and deport immigrant gang members and criminals and clarify the ability of state and local authorities to detain illegal immigrants.
Republican sponsors of the voter identification bill said it was a commonsense way to stop fraud at the polls. People need photo IDs to board planes, buy alcohol or cash checks, said Rep. Vernon Ehlers (news, bio, voting record), R-Mich., chairman of the House Administration Committee. "This is not a new concept."
"This is what Americans want," said Rep. John Mica (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., "They want safe borders and they want safe ballots."
But Democrats assailed the legislation, saying it could hurt minorities, the poor and the elderly � groups that tend to vote Democratic � who might have trouble producing a photo identification.
"This bill is tantamount to a 21st century poll tax," said Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "It will disenfranchise large number of legal voters."
Rep. Ike Skelton (news, bio, voting record), D-Mo., said he was initially denied a voter ID required under a Missouri state law because he doesn't have a driver's license and couldn't immediately produce a passport or birth certificate. His congressional ID card was not accepted.
A Missouri court earlier this month struck down the state law, and on Tuesday a state superior court judge in Georgia ruled that that state's law requiring a photo ID was an unconstitutional condition for voting.
The bill would require everyone to present a photo ID before voting in federal elections by 2008. By 2010 voters would have to have photo IDs that certified they were citizens. In response to criticism that this would be a burden for the poor, the bill stipulates that states must provide the identification cards free of charge to those who can't afford them.
The Senate, meanwhile, voted Wednesday to take up a bill to build a 700-mile fence along one-third of the U.S.-Mexico border.
Action on the fence, which could cost billions of dollars, comes four months after the Senate approved legislation that, along with tightening border security, created a guest worker program and outlined how people in the country illegally could work toward legal status and eventual citizenship.
President Bush has supported this broader approach, but it has met strong resistance in the House, where opponents have said it was tantamount to amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Bush, in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, said he would sign a fencebuilding bill as part of efforts to strengthen the border. But he added, "I would view this as an interim step. I don't view this as the final product. And I will keep urging people to have a comprehensive reform."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said, "While I've made it clear that I prefer a comprehensive solution, I have always said we need an enforcement-first approach to immigration reform."
Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada countered, "We can build the tallest fence in the world and it won't fix our broken immigration system." To do that, he said, "we need the kind of comprehensive reform that the Senate passed earlier this year."
The current bill wouldn't provide funding to cover costs of the fencing and other barriers aimed at preventing illegal entry. About $1 billion for the fencing is likely to be included in a bill for the Department of Homeland Security that Congress is expected to approve before its scheduled adjournment next week for the elections.
Also on Wednesday, a bipartisan task force recommended that Congress provide a path to legal status for immigrants who can demonstrate steady employment, knowledge of English and payment of taxes and who pass a background security check.
The panel, chaired by Spencer Abraham, former Republican senator from Michigan and energy secretary, and Lee Hamilton, former Democratic representative from Indiana and chair of the 9/11 Commission, also urged new verification mechanisms to assist employers in hiring only authorized workers.
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Immigration
WASHINGTON - The House voted Wednesday to require Americans to show proof of citizenship in order to vote, and the Senate moved to build a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border as Republicans sharpened attacks on illegal immigration before the midterm elections.
The 228-196 House vote on a new photo ID plan and the Senate's consideration of the fence were both part of a get-tough policy on illegal immigrants that Republicans have embraced after Congress' failure to agree on broader legislation that would set a path for undocumented workers to attain citizenship.
House GOP leaders have insisted that tighter borders and tougher laws must precede more comprehensive immigration changes. The House passed the fence bill last week and plans votes Thursday on other enforcement measures: to increase penalties for people building tunnels under the border, make it easier to detain and deport immigrant gang members and criminals and clarify the ability of state and local authorities to detain illegal immigrants.
Republican sponsors of the voter identification bill said it was a commonsense way to stop fraud at the polls. People need photo IDs to board planes, buy alcohol or cash checks, said Rep. Vernon Ehlers (news, bio, voting record), R-Mich., chairman of the House Administration Committee. "This is not a new concept."
"This is what Americans want," said Rep. John Mica (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., "They want safe borders and they want safe ballots."
But Democrats assailed the legislation, saying it could hurt minorities, the poor and the elderly � groups that tend to vote Democratic � who might have trouble producing a photo identification.
"This bill is tantamount to a 21st century poll tax," said Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "It will disenfranchise large number of legal voters."
Rep. Ike Skelton (news, bio, voting record), D-Mo., said he was initially denied a voter ID required under a Missouri state law because he doesn't have a driver's license and couldn't immediately produce a passport or birth certificate. His congressional ID card was not accepted.
A Missouri court earlier this month struck down the state law, and on Tuesday a state superior court judge in Georgia ruled that that state's law requiring a photo ID was an unconstitutional condition for voting.
The bill would require everyone to present a photo ID before voting in federal elections by 2008. By 2010 voters would have to have photo IDs that certified they were citizens. In response to criticism that this would be a burden for the poor, the bill stipulates that states must provide the identification cards free of charge to those who can't afford them.
The Senate, meanwhile, voted Wednesday to take up a bill to build a 700-mile fence along one-third of the U.S.-Mexico border.
Action on the fence, which could cost billions of dollars, comes four months after the Senate approved legislation that, along with tightening border security, created a guest worker program and outlined how people in the country illegally could work toward legal status and eventual citizenship.
President Bush has supported this broader approach, but it has met strong resistance in the House, where opponents have said it was tantamount to amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Bush, in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, said he would sign a fencebuilding bill as part of efforts to strengthen the border. But he added, "I would view this as an interim step. I don't view this as the final product. And I will keep urging people to have a comprehensive reform."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said, "While I've made it clear that I prefer a comprehensive solution, I have always said we need an enforcement-first approach to immigration reform."
Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada countered, "We can build the tallest fence in the world and it won't fix our broken immigration system." To do that, he said, "we need the kind of comprehensive reform that the Senate passed earlier this year."
The current bill wouldn't provide funding to cover costs of the fencing and other barriers aimed at preventing illegal entry. About $1 billion for the fencing is likely to be included in a bill for the Department of Homeland Security that Congress is expected to approve before its scheduled adjournment next week for the elections.
Also on Wednesday, a bipartisan task force recommended that Congress provide a path to legal status for immigrants who can demonstrate steady employment, knowledge of English and payment of taxes and who pass a background security check.
The panel, chaired by Spencer Abraham, former Republican senator from Michigan and energy secretary, and Lee Hamilton, former Democratic representative from Indiana and chair of the 9/11 Commission, also urged new verification mechanisms to assist employers in hiring only authorized workers.
yestogc
05-21 12:02 AM
This debate is very old one and no one talks about the refinement of EB GC process
arunoman
04-10 02:41 AM
Check with your attorney probably you can appeal to re open your case if you are sure that you have responded to the RFE "on time". Its very much possible.
uslegals
12-21 09:56 AM
Any advice is appreciated.!
thanks!
thanks!
