skillet
06-18 01:06 PM
No.. They are not auditing..
wallpaper photography quotes pictures.
ronhira
03-06 08:38 PM
Heres the sliver lining of all this immigration mess. Its good for spiritual development. I came here 10 years ago in mid 20s. My understanding of Indian philosophy was rudimentary at best. Now I have found reading and meditating on the meaning of Gita is one of the best ways for me to deal with the GC mess, and life in general. So I wonder if GC had been a smooth process would I have still discovered the beauty of the Gita?
sounds like a case of mid life crisis..... if it were not gc then there would have been something else to discover u'r beauty of gita..... that's how we all r..... & what does gita tell u @ illegal immigrants.... just curious?
sounds like a case of mid life crisis..... if it were not gc then there would have been something else to discover u'r beauty of gita..... that's how we all r..... & what does gita tell u @ illegal immigrants.... just curious?
bobzibub
07-18 05:20 PM
For the ROW category, the manual seems to indicate that they have a general date (such as in the Visa Bulletin) but I would expect that they have many visa counts for each country..... Anyone have a quick synopsis of how they handle that?
I'm Canada btw....
I'm Canada btw....
2011 photography quotes about life.
natrajs
09-09 10:30 AM
Contributed $ 100 - Google
more...
santb1975
05-22 07:58 AM
Good suggestion
Come forward and contribute for your own cause.
Come forward and contribute for your own cause.
black_logs
01-06 02:31 PM
I thought they were doing jun'2002. If things goes this way. We're day dreaming of Green Card
more...
amitjoey
06-05 04:25 PM
Instead of giving like that why don't IV open a "IV Store" and sell T-shirts for 100 or 200$ ?
we can use
http://www.cafepress.com/ or other sites which provide this service.
Great Idea conchshell !!
That idea has already been implemented, please feel free to buy the apparel
at
http://www.cafepress.com/immivoice.
A lot of us bought shirts, sweat shirts for the rally in washington and Sanjose last year.
we can use
http://www.cafepress.com/ or other sites which provide this service.
Great Idea conchshell !!
That idea has already been implemented, please feel free to buy the apparel
at
http://www.cafepress.com/immivoice.
A lot of us bought shirts, sweat shirts for the rally in washington and Sanjose last year.
2010 Free AU Photography Quotes
pappu
08-12 10:55 AM
Senate Passage of Border Security Legislation
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
more...
mirage
03-13 06:02 PM
Guys there was a talk that since they are increasing the Fees for AP/ EAD these documents will be valid for more than 1 year as in old fee system, is it just a dream or is it true ???
What is the Validity duration of AP with New Fee
What is the Validity duration of AP with New Fee
hair Film, Photography, Quotes
pappu
03-13 10:03 AM
min contribution required is $25 per month
more...
watcher
09-09 02:32 PM
I could not attend the rally due to work schedule. However, here is my small contribution. Great work IV, and all the best.
$100
Google Order #529545486966288
$100
Google Order #529545486966288
hot photography, quotes
texcan
09-10 10:07 AM
Guys,
here is my humble contribution of 100.
keep up the great work.
A suggestion, lets keep a tally where we are for contribution goal,
this will encourage everyone to contribute more and round off any shortfalls
in overall contribution.
Thanks
On a side note,
This is my understanding, even if there are some harsh things said
on the forum, but in all everyone appreciates the great work being done
by this group.
here is my humble contribution of 100.
keep up the great work.
A suggestion, lets keep a tally where we are for contribution goal,
this will encourage everyone to contribute more and round off any shortfalls
in overall contribution.
Thanks
On a side note,
This is my understanding, even if there are some harsh things said
on the forum, but in all everyone appreciates the great work being done
by this group.
more...
house photography quotes
vnandster
03-12 05:07 PM
I too received RFE for 485 yesterday...let's see what they need now.
Last time they needed photos for AP (which I had already sent)
Last time they needed photos for AP (which I had already sent)
tattoo Photography Quote Challenge +
rbms
04-25 12:41 PM
How about something like,
If a person has stayed in US for 10+ (or 7+years) years and has filed taxes(verified thourgh 1040s), he should be given GC. No questions asked(other than the ones the affect security of USA)
If a person has stayed in US for 10+ (or 7+years) years and has filed taxes(verified thourgh 1040s), he should be given GC. No questions asked(other than the ones the affect security of USA)
more...
pictures photography quotes about love.
vkannan
02-23 06:22 PM
I just now talked to an IO and she said that last Friday the processing dates for NSC are all wrong and its a mistake. Those will be corrected soon in couple of days.
here we go again....looks like USCIS never learns by their mistakes.........anyways I feel Processing dates does not matter anyways for USCIS to process the applications..........
here we go again....looks like USCIS never learns by their mistakes.........anyways I feel Processing dates does not matter anyways for USCIS to process the applications..........
dresses photography quotes
rp0lol
07-11 11:59 AM
I read this in another thread... May be USCIS wants to collect more money for EAD renewals by moving eb2 date and issuing 1yr approval.
===========================
Will applicants get a two-year EAD when they file an I-765 with their I-485 adjustment of status application?
Generally no. Initial EAD filings will generally receive an EAD that is valid for one- year because they are usually submitted with the Form I-485 that can only be filed when there is an immigrant visa number immediately available to the individual. Applicants are only eligible for a two-year EAD if their immigrant visa availability date retrogresses (i.e., when actual demand for visa numbers exceeds forecasted supply) after the Form I-485 is filed. If an immigrant visa number is available, USCIS will grant the one-year EAD.
How will USCIS decide whether to issue an EAD valid for one or two years?
USCIS will decide whether to renew an EAD for either a one or two-year validity period based on the most recent Department of State Visa Bulletin. If an applicant�s visa number has retrogressed and is unavailable, USCIS may issue a renewal EAD valid for two years. USCIS will continue to issue the EAD in one-year increments when the Department of State Visa Bulletin shows an employment-based preference category is current as a whole or the applicant�s priority date is current.
==================
===========================
Will applicants get a two-year EAD when they file an I-765 with their I-485 adjustment of status application?
Generally no. Initial EAD filings will generally receive an EAD that is valid for one- year because they are usually submitted with the Form I-485 that can only be filed when there is an immigrant visa number immediately available to the individual. Applicants are only eligible for a two-year EAD if their immigrant visa availability date retrogresses (i.e., when actual demand for visa numbers exceeds forecasted supply) after the Form I-485 is filed. If an immigrant visa number is available, USCIS will grant the one-year EAD.
How will USCIS decide whether to issue an EAD valid for one or two years?
USCIS will decide whether to renew an EAD for either a one or two-year validity period based on the most recent Department of State Visa Bulletin. If an applicant�s visa number has retrogressed and is unavailable, USCIS may issue a renewal EAD valid for two years. USCIS will continue to issue the EAD in one-year increments when the Department of State Visa Bulletin shows an employment-based preference category is current as a whole or the applicant�s priority date is current.
==================
more...
makeup tumblr photography quotes.
continuedProgress
12-28 10:40 AM
Canceled flight tix and continuing wait for AP filed on 8/2. (receipted on 8/24, if that matters)
shi120,
In case you have not seen it, I have sent you a PM.
Thanks
shi120,
In case you have not seen it, I have sent you a PM.
Thanks
girlfriend titlequot;Photography Quotesquot;
eb3_2004
07-23 04:09 PM
Thanks for the reply and encouragement. This is what makes this Immigration Voice community different from others...
hairstyles photography quotes love. love
ItIsNotFunny
11-10 03:42 PM
Nice to read. How much you trust USCIS and Ron Gotcher is a different issue to discuss :)
MDix
08-22 09:32 PM
Simple English : EB2 will be more tough. They do have same strict guideline for EB1 also. If implemented then it will be tough to get EB2.
E21(EB2):
5. Paragraph (2)(A) of Chapter 22.2(j) of the AFM is revised to read as follows:
(A) Evaluation of Evidence Submitted in Support of a Petition for an Alien of Exceptional Ability. 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) provides that, in order to show the requisite exceptional ability, the petition must be accompanied by at least three of six criteria (set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii)). ISOs should use a two-part analysis where the evidence is first counted and then considered in the context of a final merits determination.
Part One: Evaluate Whether the Evidence Provided Meets at Least Three E21 Alien of Exceptional Ability Criteria. You must make a determination regarding whether the evidence submitted in the petition meets at least three criteria at 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii). Note: While ISOs must consider the quality and caliber of the evidence to determine whether a particular regulatory criterion has been met, the ISO should not make a determination relative to the alien�s claimed exceptional ability in Part One of the case analysis.
(i) An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability;
(ii) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being sought;
(iii) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation;
(iv) Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability;
Note: To satisfy this criterion, the evidence must show that the alien has commanded a salary or remuneration for services that is indicative of his or her claimed exceptional ability relative to others working in the field.
(v) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or
(vi) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations.
Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions (AFM Update AD 10-41)
Page 16
(vii) If the above standards do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility.
8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(iii) provides that petitioners may submit �comparable evidence� to establish an alien�s eligibility in cases where the standards set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) do not apply. In cases where such comparable evidence is submitted, it is reasonable to require the petitioner to explain why 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) does not apply.
Part One: Evaluative Determination. The determination in Part One of the analysis is limited whether the evidence submitted satisfies at least three of the criteria at 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) or the comparable evidence criterion in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(iii). After determining that, by a preponderance of the evidence, those criteria have been met, the ISO should move on to Part Two of the analysis to make a separate merits-based determination of eligibility based on the totality of evidence presented.
Part Two: Final Merits Determination. Meeting the minimum requirement by providing evidence three of the regulatory criteria does not, in itself, establish that the alien in fact meets the requirements for classification as an alien of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2) of the INA. In Part Two of the analysis, you must consider all of the evidence to make a final merit determination of whether or not the petitioner has, by a preponderance of the evidence, shown that the beneficiary is at a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered. Therefore, evidence submitted to establish exceptional ability must somehow place the alien above others in the field in order to fulfill the criteria; qualifications possessed by most members of a given field cannot demonstrate a degree of expertise "significantly above that ordinarily encountered." Note that section 203(b)(2)(C) of INA provides that mere possession of a degree, diploma, certificate or similar award from a college, university school or other institution of learning shall not by itself be considered sufficient evidence of exceptional ability. To meet the criterion set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), formal recognition in the form of certificates and other documentation that are contemporaneous with the alien�s claimed contributions and achievements may have more weight than letters prepared for the petition "recognizing" the alien's achievements.
6. The existing text of paragraph (2)(B) of Chapter 22.2(j) of the AFM is removed and the paragraph is reserved.
7. Technical Correction: The thirteenth paragraph in Chapter 22.2(b)(5)(B) of the AFM is revised to read as follows:
For successor-in-interest purposes, the transfer of ownership may occur at any time after the filing of the original labor certification with DOL.
Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions (AFM Update AD 10-41)
Page 17
8. Technical Correction: The DOL email address to use to request duplicate approved labor certifications from DOL in paragraphs (9) and (10) of Chapter 22.2(b) of the AFM is revised (in both paragraphs) to read as follows:
The duplicate
E21(EB2):
5. Paragraph (2)(A) of Chapter 22.2(j) of the AFM is revised to read as follows:
(A) Evaluation of Evidence Submitted in Support of a Petition for an Alien of Exceptional Ability. 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) provides that, in order to show the requisite exceptional ability, the petition must be accompanied by at least three of six criteria (set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii)). ISOs should use a two-part analysis where the evidence is first counted and then considered in the context of a final merits determination.
Part One: Evaluate Whether the Evidence Provided Meets at Least Three E21 Alien of Exceptional Ability Criteria. You must make a determination regarding whether the evidence submitted in the petition meets at least three criteria at 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii). Note: While ISOs must consider the quality and caliber of the evidence to determine whether a particular regulatory criterion has been met, the ISO should not make a determination relative to the alien�s claimed exceptional ability in Part One of the case analysis.
(i) An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability;
(ii) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being sought;
(iii) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation;
(iv) Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability;
Note: To satisfy this criterion, the evidence must show that the alien has commanded a salary or remuneration for services that is indicative of his or her claimed exceptional ability relative to others working in the field.
(v) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or
(vi) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations.
Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions (AFM Update AD 10-41)
Page 16
(vii) If the above standards do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility.
8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(iii) provides that petitioners may submit �comparable evidence� to establish an alien�s eligibility in cases where the standards set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) do not apply. In cases where such comparable evidence is submitted, it is reasonable to require the petitioner to explain why 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) does not apply.
Part One: Evaluative Determination. The determination in Part One of the analysis is limited whether the evidence submitted satisfies at least three of the criteria at 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) or the comparable evidence criterion in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(iii). After determining that, by a preponderance of the evidence, those criteria have been met, the ISO should move on to Part Two of the analysis to make a separate merits-based determination of eligibility based on the totality of evidence presented.
Part Two: Final Merits Determination. Meeting the minimum requirement by providing evidence three of the regulatory criteria does not, in itself, establish that the alien in fact meets the requirements for classification as an alien of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2) of the INA. In Part Two of the analysis, you must consider all of the evidence to make a final merit determination of whether or not the petitioner has, by a preponderance of the evidence, shown that the beneficiary is at a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered. Therefore, evidence submitted to establish exceptional ability must somehow place the alien above others in the field in order to fulfill the criteria; qualifications possessed by most members of a given field cannot demonstrate a degree of expertise "significantly above that ordinarily encountered." Note that section 203(b)(2)(C) of INA provides that mere possession of a degree, diploma, certificate or similar award from a college, university school or other institution of learning shall not by itself be considered sufficient evidence of exceptional ability. To meet the criterion set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), formal recognition in the form of certificates and other documentation that are contemporaneous with the alien�s claimed contributions and achievements may have more weight than letters prepared for the petition "recognizing" the alien's achievements.
6. The existing text of paragraph (2)(B) of Chapter 22.2(j) of the AFM is removed and the paragraph is reserved.
7. Technical Correction: The thirteenth paragraph in Chapter 22.2(b)(5)(B) of the AFM is revised to read as follows:
For successor-in-interest purposes, the transfer of ownership may occur at any time after the filing of the original labor certification with DOL.
Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions (AFM Update AD 10-41)
Page 17
8. Technical Correction: The DOL email address to use to request duplicate approved labor certifications from DOL in paragraphs (9) and (10) of Chapter 22.2(b) of the AFM is revised (in both paragraphs) to read as follows:
The duplicate
Blessing&Lifeisbeautiful
07-24 04:59 PM
Even if you are RN licenes and educated in the USA. You still need a visa screen. I had to apply for visa screen. In my case it took only 1 week to get it. you can apply on line and send your documents. I'm not sure about the EAD though. YOu may wwant to post your question on the free Consultaion thread.
www.cgfns.org
I have applied for my visascreen, but the lawyer is saying that EAD and probably the application may be denied! I thought that it is required at the later stages of the GC process.
Now please share the secret of HOW you got a visascreen in 1 week! I'm flabbergasted. This is the first I heard. Please share
www.cgfns.org
I have applied for my visascreen, but the lawyer is saying that EAD and probably the application may be denied! I thought that it is required at the later stages of the GC process.
Now please share the secret of HOW you got a visascreen in 1 week! I'm flabbergasted. This is the first I heard. Please share
No comments:
Post a Comment