eb3_nepa
02-03 12:36 PM
Hi guys,
Got an email from Sen Specter's office today out of the blue. I must have emailed him during S1932.
Subject: Re: Help to resolve retrogression affected employment based immigrant visa categ
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 13:31:03 -0500
Dear Mr. XXXX :
Thank you for contacting my office regarding immigration reform. I appreciate your concern regarding this important matter.
Reforming our current immigration laws has become increasingly necessary in light of the growing number of illegal immigrants entering the country. On a daily basis, there are a number of press reports highlighting the problem that our borders are largely unprotected. However, we also have a great need for labor in this country, both skilled and unskilled, which adds to the complexity of the situation. We also see a certain apathy and resentment toward immigrants; notwithstanding the fact that this country was built by immigrants and that we need immigrants in order to sustain our economic vitality. At present, there are several bills pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee aimed at correcting various aspects of the problem. As Chairman, I circulated a Chairman's Mark to address the complex issues that we will face as we being to reform immigration laws. My proposal is a discussion draft intend! ed to move the debate forward with the anticipation that the Senate will address the issue early this year.
I sincerely appreciate your taking the time to bring your views on this important matter to my attention. As your United States Senator, it is essential that I be kept fully informed on the issues of concern to my constituents. Be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind on this issue and related issues during the 109 th Congress. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at www.specter.senate.gov .
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter
Got an email from Sen Specter's office today out of the blue. I must have emailed him during S1932.
Subject: Re: Help to resolve retrogression affected employment based immigrant visa categ
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 13:31:03 -0500
Dear Mr. XXXX :
Thank you for contacting my office regarding immigration reform. I appreciate your concern regarding this important matter.
Reforming our current immigration laws has become increasingly necessary in light of the growing number of illegal immigrants entering the country. On a daily basis, there are a number of press reports highlighting the problem that our borders are largely unprotected. However, we also have a great need for labor in this country, both skilled and unskilled, which adds to the complexity of the situation. We also see a certain apathy and resentment toward immigrants; notwithstanding the fact that this country was built by immigrants and that we need immigrants in order to sustain our economic vitality. At present, there are several bills pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee aimed at correcting various aspects of the problem. As Chairman, I circulated a Chairman's Mark to address the complex issues that we will face as we being to reform immigration laws. My proposal is a discussion draft intend! ed to move the debate forward with the anticipation that the Senate will address the issue early this year.
I sincerely appreciate your taking the time to bring your views on this important matter to my attention. As your United States Senator, it is essential that I be kept fully informed on the issues of concern to my constituents. Be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind on this issue and related issues during the 109 th Congress. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at www.specter.senate.gov .
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter
ajm
05-04 08:18 PM
My thoughts exactly! Here is a thread I opened on the subject a couple of weeks ago:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=600
The idea makes such good economic sense (the government would be price discriminating to increase its revenue) that if USCIS were a private entity they would have implemented something like this a long time ago. But unfortunately it is not and we have to suffer under a "one size fits all" system.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=600
The idea makes such good economic sense (the government would be price discriminating to increase its revenue) that if USCIS were a private entity they would have implemented something like this a long time ago. But unfortunately it is not and we have to suffer under a "one size fits all" system.
meet_rayhan
08-10 06:43 PM
Hi,
I have fallen through the same situation. Does any one has any estimate or any contact # to contact DOL for this kind of case? I do not have much time as my current Visa is expiring pretty soon.
My lawyer has already sent all the information to DOL and we are waiting for response. I am in a real panic mode at this time.
Thanks,
Rayhan Khan
I have fallen through the same situation. Does any one has any estimate or any contact # to contact DOL for this kind of case? I do not have much time as my current Visa is expiring pretty soon.
My lawyer has already sent all the information to DOL and we are waiting for response. I am in a real panic mode at this time.
Thanks,
Rayhan Khan
amsgc
03-11 09:33 PM
I have an NRE account and I get a 1099-INT every year from my bank for that account. It clearly states that the interest has been reported to the IRS and therefore must be shown on the 1040.
We were talking about taxes at work and someone mentioned that all bank accounts in home country should be reported to IRS. I opened a bank account(NRE) in India before I came to US and get minimal interest income from it. Should I be declaring the income to IRS? The income is so low that I don't have to declare it in India so I didn't bother. I do not have a green card (am on H1B). Can you confirm if I am supposed to provide this info in tax returns. I did do some research on this and from news articles it seems like what my colleague mentioned is true. How do I go about providing all the info now? Is this going to impact my GC process?
We were talking about taxes at work and someone mentioned that all bank accounts in home country should be reported to IRS. I opened a bank account(NRE) in India before I came to US and get minimal interest income from it. Should I be declaring the income to IRS? The income is so low that I don't have to declare it in India so I didn't bother. I do not have a green card (am on H1B). Can you confirm if I am supposed to provide this info in tax returns. I did do some research on this and from news articles it seems like what my colleague mentioned is true. How do I go about providing all the info now? Is this going to impact my GC process?
more...
gouridighade
04-29 04:09 PM
The Travisa website doesnt say that they require notarised copies of anything.
seetheavatar
09-03 10:39 AM
My I485 application was approved aug 2nd and I got the card on aug 15th.
In the mean time my spouse application was also approved on aug 2nd but last week we got an email saying the card is returned undeliverable on aug 23rd.and aug 24th we got another email saying a notice was sent to the same address and that was also undelivered and there would be serious effects if the address is not updated.
We got our finger prints and everything in the same address and I am not sure why it was returned undeliverable.
Also I called the customer service on Aug23rd and 24th and updated the address.
any one in the same situation?
Does anyone know how long it would take for them to resend the card?
Thanks
In the mean time my spouse application was also approved on aug 2nd but last week we got an email saying the card is returned undeliverable on aug 23rd.and aug 24th we got another email saying a notice was sent to the same address and that was also undelivered and there would be serious effects if the address is not updated.
We got our finger prints and everything in the same address and I am not sure why it was returned undeliverable.
Also I called the customer service on Aug23rd and 24th and updated the address.
any one in the same situation?
Does anyone know how long it would take for them to resend the card?
Thanks
more...
DareYouFireMe
03-12 11:35 AM
If you look closely its for the I-484 stage. I have also been told that the first stage has to be apporved. So the first I-140 has to be approved (earlier priority date). The word 'subsequent' is throwing the confusion around.
I think this is not fair since lot of people have their earlier petition being approved after their second petitions (due to perm and premium I-140).
example i guess clears the statement.
I think this is not fair since lot of people have their earlier petition being approved after their second petitions (due to perm and premium I-140).
example i guess clears the statement.
nomi
04-18 04:59 PM
How many people will be able to file their I-485 because of May Visa Bulletin 2007 since EB3 for world move Aug. 2002 to Aug. 2003 ?
How many people will be able to file their I-485 if EB3 for world move Aug. 2003 to Aug. 2004 ?
How many people from India and China can file their 1-485 if EB3 for India and china move to Aug. 2003 ?
How many people from India and China can file their 1-485 if EB3 for India and china move to Aug. 2004 ?
How many people will be able to file their I-485 if EB3 for world move Aug. 2003 to Aug. 2004 ?
How many people from India and China can file their 1-485 if EB3 for India and china move to Aug. 2003 ?
How many people from India and China can file their 1-485 if EB3 for India and china move to Aug. 2004 ?
more...
klpd4dc
08-20 01:44 PM
All,
I'm trying to understand if it is a general practice of USCIS to specify an A# on the FP notice. My FP notice has an A# that starts with USCIS A# A08xxxxxxx. I wonder if this means that a visa number has been assigned to my case. If not, is it merely another case or alien number? I found the following at http://www.kkeane.com/general-faq.shtml and am not sure what the A# stands for. Also, any idea why the priority date field is empty on my FP notice?
<QUOTE>
There actually are four separate types of A#. You can tell them apart by the number of digits and the first digit. The first kind is an eight-digit A#. These are manually assigned at local offices. If you have one of these numbers, simply treated it as if it was "0" plus the number. Nine-digit A#'s that start with the digit 1 are used for employment authorization cards, usually related to students. Nine-digit A#'s that start with the digit 3 are used for fingerprint tracking of V visa applicants. All other nine-digit A#'s (these actually always start with a 0) are permanent A#'s and remain permanently with you for life.
Therefore, the rule is: if you are asked for an A# and have one, always give this A#, regardless of whether it starts with a 0, 1 or 3. If you have both a 0-A# and a 1-A# or a 3-A#, then use the one that starts with a 0.
</QUOTE>
My PD for EB3 was current in the June 2007 bulletin and I applied for AOS on 06/28.
I'm trying to understand if it is a general practice of USCIS to specify an A# on the FP notice. My FP notice has an A# that starts with USCIS A# A08xxxxxxx. I wonder if this means that a visa number has been assigned to my case. If not, is it merely another case or alien number? I found the following at http://www.kkeane.com/general-faq.shtml and am not sure what the A# stands for. Also, any idea why the priority date field is empty on my FP notice?
<QUOTE>
There actually are four separate types of A#. You can tell them apart by the number of digits and the first digit. The first kind is an eight-digit A#. These are manually assigned at local offices. If you have one of these numbers, simply treated it as if it was "0" plus the number. Nine-digit A#'s that start with the digit 1 are used for employment authorization cards, usually related to students. Nine-digit A#'s that start with the digit 3 are used for fingerprint tracking of V visa applicants. All other nine-digit A#'s (these actually always start with a 0) are permanent A#'s and remain permanently with you for life.
Therefore, the rule is: if you are asked for an A# and have one, always give this A#, regardless of whether it starts with a 0, 1 or 3. If you have both a 0-A# and a 1-A# or a 3-A#, then use the one that starts with a 0.
</QUOTE>
My PD for EB3 was current in the June 2007 bulletin and I applied for AOS on 06/28.
tinuverma
10-23 07:37 PM
yeah.....Tuscon...sorry
I live in OKC...so Tulsa comes by default.
I live in OKC...so Tulsa comes by default.
more...
smartboy75
07-17 07:30 PM
Kindly reply to this thread so that it is always visible under RECENT POSTS just as a reminder to everyone ..
psaxena
06-25 06:44 PM
......................
more...
theoyilma
09-10 01:01 PM
Thanks sbmallik
If I was already on H1B right now, I know I would be able to extend my H1B visa until I get my green card. But, right now, I am on TN visa. And also I have finished the 6 years quota on H1B. So, I was just wondering if I can apply again for H1B. I have been on TN visa for about a year and half. I was just wondering, the fact that I haven't been on H1B visa for more than a year, would qualify me again to apply for H1B.
Thanks again!!
Theo
If I was already on H1B right now, I know I would be able to extend my H1B visa until I get my green card. But, right now, I am on TN visa. And also I have finished the 6 years quota on H1B. So, I was just wondering if I can apply again for H1B. I have been on TN visa for about a year and half. I was just wondering, the fact that I haven't been on H1B visa for more than a year, would qualify me again to apply for H1B.
Thanks again!!
Theo
gcformeornot
08-09 11:08 AM
People filed on July 2nd are still not getting check cashed. July 19th is like a light year ahead man.
more...
redcard
03-03 01:42 PM
USCIS has withdrawn the 180 name check pending policy for name check.
http://www.immigration-law.com/
http://www.immigration-law.com/
yabadaba
05-25 08:21 AM
SA 4114. Mr. GREGG (for himself, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. ALEXANDER, and Mr. BOND) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 2611, to provide comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 345, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
(e) Worldwide Level of Immigrants With Advanced Degrees.--Section 201 (8 U.S.C. 1151) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(3), by inserting ``and immigrants with advanced degrees'' after ``diversity immigrants''; and
(2) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
``(e) Worldwide Level of Diversity Immigrants and Immigrants With Advanced Degrees.--
``(1) DIVERSITY IMMIGRANTS.--The worldwide level of diversity immigrants described in section 203(c)(1) is equal to 18,333 for each fiscal year.
``(2) IMMIGRANTS WITH ADVANCED DEGREES.--The worldwide level of immigrants with advanced degrees described in section 203(c)(2) is equal to 36,667 for each fiscal year.''.
(f) Immigrants With Advanced Degrees.--Section 203 (8 U.S.C. 1153(c)) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2), aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 201(e)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (3), aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 201(e)(1)'';
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively;
(C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) ALIENS WHO HOLD AN ADVANCED DEGREE IN SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, TECHNOLOGY, OR ENGINEERING.--
``(A) IN GENERAL.--Qualified immigrants who hold a master's or doctorate degree in the life sciences, the physical sciences, mathematics, technology, or engineering from an accredited university in the United States, or an equivalent foreign degree, shall be allotted visas each fiscal year in a number not to exceed the worldwide level specified in section 201(e)(2).
``(B) ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS.--Beginning on the date which is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Labor, and after notice and public hearing, shall determine which of the degrees described in subparagraph (A) will provide immigrants with the knowledge and skills that are most needed to meet anticipated workforce needs and protect the economic security of the United States.'';
(D) in paragraph (3), as redesignated, by striking ``this subsection'' each place it appears and inserting ``paragraph (1)''; and
(E) by amending paragraph (4), as redesignated, to read as follows:
``(4) MAINTENANCE OF INFORMATION.--
``(A) DIVERSITY IMMIGRANTS.--The Secretary of State shall maintain information on the age, occupation, education level, and other relevant characteristics of immigrants issued visas under paragraph (1).
``(B) IMMIGRANTS WITH ADVANCED DEGREES.--The Secretary of State shall maintain information on the age, degree (including field of study), occupation, work experience, and other relevant characteristics of immigrants issued visas under paragraph (2).''; and
(2) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(c)'' and inserting ``(c)(1)'';
(B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) Immigrant visas made available under subsection (c)(2) shall be issued as follows:
``(A) If the Secretary of State has not made a determination under subsection (c)(2)(B), immigrant visas shall be issued in a strictly random order established by the Secretary for the fiscal year involved.
``(B) If the Secretary of State has made a determination under subsection (c)(2)(B) and the number of eligible qualified immigrants who have a degree selected under such subsection and apply for an immigrant visa described in subsection (c)(2) is greater than the worldwide level specified in section 201(e)(2), the Secretary shall issue immigrant visas only to such immigrants and in a strictly random order established by the Secretary for the fiscal year involved.
``(C) If the Secretary of State has made a determination under subsection (c)(2)(B) and the number of eligible qualified immigrants who have degrees selected under such subsection and apply for an immigrant visa described in subsection (c)(2) is not greater than the worldwide level specified in section 201(e)(2), the Secretary shall--
``(i) issue immigrant visas to eligible qualified immigrants with degrees selected in subsection (c)(2)(B); and
``(ii) issue any immigrant visas remaining thereafter to other eligible qualified immigrants with degrees described in subsection
[Page: S4975](c)(2)(A) in a strictly random order established by the Secretary for the fiscal year involved.''.
(g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (e) and (f) shall take effect on October 1, 2006.
On page 345, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
(e) Worldwide Level of Immigrants With Advanced Degrees.--Section 201 (8 U.S.C. 1151) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(3), by inserting ``and immigrants with advanced degrees'' after ``diversity immigrants''; and
(2) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
``(e) Worldwide Level of Diversity Immigrants and Immigrants With Advanced Degrees.--
``(1) DIVERSITY IMMIGRANTS.--The worldwide level of diversity immigrants described in section 203(c)(1) is equal to 18,333 for each fiscal year.
``(2) IMMIGRANTS WITH ADVANCED DEGREES.--The worldwide level of immigrants with advanced degrees described in section 203(c)(2) is equal to 36,667 for each fiscal year.''.
(f) Immigrants With Advanced Degrees.--Section 203 (8 U.S.C. 1153(c)) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2), aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 201(e)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (3), aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 201(e)(1)'';
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively;
(C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) ALIENS WHO HOLD AN ADVANCED DEGREE IN SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, TECHNOLOGY, OR ENGINEERING.--
``(A) IN GENERAL.--Qualified immigrants who hold a master's or doctorate degree in the life sciences, the physical sciences, mathematics, technology, or engineering from an accredited university in the United States, or an equivalent foreign degree, shall be allotted visas each fiscal year in a number not to exceed the worldwide level specified in section 201(e)(2).
``(B) ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS.--Beginning on the date which is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Labor, and after notice and public hearing, shall determine which of the degrees described in subparagraph (A) will provide immigrants with the knowledge and skills that are most needed to meet anticipated workforce needs and protect the economic security of the United States.'';
(D) in paragraph (3), as redesignated, by striking ``this subsection'' each place it appears and inserting ``paragraph (1)''; and
(E) by amending paragraph (4), as redesignated, to read as follows:
``(4) MAINTENANCE OF INFORMATION.--
``(A) DIVERSITY IMMIGRANTS.--The Secretary of State shall maintain information on the age, occupation, education level, and other relevant characteristics of immigrants issued visas under paragraph (1).
``(B) IMMIGRANTS WITH ADVANCED DEGREES.--The Secretary of State shall maintain information on the age, degree (including field of study), occupation, work experience, and other relevant characteristics of immigrants issued visas under paragraph (2).''; and
(2) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(c)'' and inserting ``(c)(1)'';
(B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) Immigrant visas made available under subsection (c)(2) shall be issued as follows:
``(A) If the Secretary of State has not made a determination under subsection (c)(2)(B), immigrant visas shall be issued in a strictly random order established by the Secretary for the fiscal year involved.
``(B) If the Secretary of State has made a determination under subsection (c)(2)(B) and the number of eligible qualified immigrants who have a degree selected under such subsection and apply for an immigrant visa described in subsection (c)(2) is greater than the worldwide level specified in section 201(e)(2), the Secretary shall issue immigrant visas only to such immigrants and in a strictly random order established by the Secretary for the fiscal year involved.
``(C) If the Secretary of State has made a determination under subsection (c)(2)(B) and the number of eligible qualified immigrants who have degrees selected under such subsection and apply for an immigrant visa described in subsection (c)(2) is not greater than the worldwide level specified in section 201(e)(2), the Secretary shall--
``(i) issue immigrant visas to eligible qualified immigrants with degrees selected in subsection (c)(2)(B); and
``(ii) issue any immigrant visas remaining thereafter to other eligible qualified immigrants with degrees described in subsection
[Page: S4975](c)(2)(A) in a strictly random order established by the Secretary for the fiscal year involved.''.
(g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (e) and (f) shall take effect on October 1, 2006.
more...
bsbawa10
09-06 09:48 AM
Hey,
Can you explain what do you mean by holding visa for EB3 India?
Thanks -
Sorry, I meant EB2 India. Corrected it.
Can you explain what do you mean by holding visa for EB3 India?
Thanks -
Sorry, I meant EB2 India. Corrected it.
morchu
05-02 08:56 PM
It looks like I replied you sometime back.
Your best bet is to file another premium H1B showing all the background and your second I-140. Also attach a clear letter quoting the specific sections of immigration act. Time is critical here, and I am not sure how long the MTR for an H1 will take.
Hi Attorney,Senior People, Gurus,
Iam really need of advice. Please
give me your valuable Suggestions/Advice.
Thanks in Advance.
Wish_Good
Your best bet is to file another premium H1B showing all the background and your second I-140. Also attach a clear letter quoting the specific sections of immigration act. Time is critical here, and I am not sure how long the MTR for an H1 will take.
Hi Attorney,Senior People, Gurus,
Iam really need of advice. Please
give me your valuable Suggestions/Advice.
Thanks in Advance.
Wish_Good
webm
11-11 09:57 PM
Same with here EB3-I 2001..(waiting continues)
So close and yet so far...really they are creating nightmare ..
So close and yet so far...really they are creating nightmare ..
YesWeWillGet
09-09 10:55 AM
Hello All,
I was in H4 status but currently in AOS Pending Status. Is it possible to request for filing F1 thru my current school while the candidate is in AOS Pending / I-485 Pending Status. I would like to obtain the F1 thru school even though my I-485 is in pending status. Firstly, Is it possible to change the status from AOS Pending to F1. Secondly, what would be the process to obtiant the same.
I would really appreciate your feedback / inputs on this regard.
Thank you,
I was in H4 status but currently in AOS Pending Status. Is it possible to request for filing F1 thru my current school while the candidate is in AOS Pending / I-485 Pending Status. I would like to obtain the F1 thru school even though my I-485 is in pending status. Firstly, Is it possible to change the status from AOS Pending to F1. Secondly, what would be the process to obtiant the same.
I would really appreciate your feedback / inputs on this regard.
Thank you,
immm
07-07 01:45 PM
(Admins, please delete this thread if already covered)
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/opinion/story/13765761p-14347307c.html
Our View: Feds play games with immigrants
They said they had an abundance of green cards and then rescinded the offer in a matter of weeks.
Last Updated: July 7, 2007, 03:16:02 AM PDT
If you want to know what's really wrong with our immigration system, consider the July debacle at the Citizen and Immigration Service.
Individuals and businesses typically have to wait years to apply for "green cards" for permanent residency based on job skills. The backlogs have been so severe that an engineer from India or China has had to wait six years to apply for a green card. In other employment categories, the wait can be nine to 11 years. For people from the Philippines, the wait in some work categories is 22 years.
But then in the monthly Visa Bulletin issued June 13, the State Department said that employment-based visas would be available.
This set off a rush among sponsoring businesses and individuals who have waited in line for years to apply for green cards. Thousands prepared applications and mailed them in time for the immigration service to receive them by July 2, the first day of the application window.
Then on that very day, the State Department issued a "never mind" update, announcing that the 60,000 green cards it had expected to offer would no longer be available. The thousands who submitted applications will have their applications sent back to them. As Los Angeles immigration attorney Carl Shusterman said Tuesday, "We're right back to square one, with scientists, engineers, teachers and health care workers having to wait in endless lines for employment-based visas." Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, chairwoman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law sent irate letters to the Secretary of State and Secretary of Homeland Security. She said that changing course midmonth is contrary to years of practice, would result in the loss of thousands of dollars already expended by sponsoring businesses and individuals to prepare applications and, more important, would "threaten the integrity and predictability of our immigration system." This is no way to treat people who try to play by the rules.
The Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman notes in his 2007 annual report to Congress that the nation has a "perpetual backlog" of employment-based green card applications. This backlog means that even green cards that should be available aren't used. This contributes to the backlog; if green cards are not issued in the year they are authorized, they are lost. In 2006, more than 10,000 employment-based green cards were lost, even though the immigration service had 100,000 to 150,000 applications waiting to be processed. Since 1994, nearly 219,000 employment-based green cards have been lost because the immigration service isn't processing enough applications in a timely manner.
It gets worse. The funds appropriated by Congress to jumpstart a backlog elimination project expired Sept. 30. The backlog will continue.
In the long term, this country needs to increase the number of employment-based green cards to meet demand. But if the immigration service cannot even process applications in a timely fashion for the current numbers of employment-based green cards that are supposed to be available, what's the point? In the short term, if Congress and the president do nothing else regarding immigration reform, they should at least make sure that the immigration service processes green card applications in timely fashion. The backlog is inexcusable and contributes to the nation's illegal immigration problem. If we want people to play by the rules, we have to make it possible for them to do so.
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/opinion/story/13765761p-14347307c.html
Our View: Feds play games with immigrants
They said they had an abundance of green cards and then rescinded the offer in a matter of weeks.
Last Updated: July 7, 2007, 03:16:02 AM PDT
If you want to know what's really wrong with our immigration system, consider the July debacle at the Citizen and Immigration Service.
Individuals and businesses typically have to wait years to apply for "green cards" for permanent residency based on job skills. The backlogs have been so severe that an engineer from India or China has had to wait six years to apply for a green card. In other employment categories, the wait can be nine to 11 years. For people from the Philippines, the wait in some work categories is 22 years.
But then in the monthly Visa Bulletin issued June 13, the State Department said that employment-based visas would be available.
This set off a rush among sponsoring businesses and individuals who have waited in line for years to apply for green cards. Thousands prepared applications and mailed them in time for the immigration service to receive them by July 2, the first day of the application window.
Then on that very day, the State Department issued a "never mind" update, announcing that the 60,000 green cards it had expected to offer would no longer be available. The thousands who submitted applications will have their applications sent back to them. As Los Angeles immigration attorney Carl Shusterman said Tuesday, "We're right back to square one, with scientists, engineers, teachers and health care workers having to wait in endless lines for employment-based visas." Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, chairwoman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law sent irate letters to the Secretary of State and Secretary of Homeland Security. She said that changing course midmonth is contrary to years of practice, would result in the loss of thousands of dollars already expended by sponsoring businesses and individuals to prepare applications and, more important, would "threaten the integrity and predictability of our immigration system." This is no way to treat people who try to play by the rules.
The Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman notes in his 2007 annual report to Congress that the nation has a "perpetual backlog" of employment-based green card applications. This backlog means that even green cards that should be available aren't used. This contributes to the backlog; if green cards are not issued in the year they are authorized, they are lost. In 2006, more than 10,000 employment-based green cards were lost, even though the immigration service had 100,000 to 150,000 applications waiting to be processed. Since 1994, nearly 219,000 employment-based green cards have been lost because the immigration service isn't processing enough applications in a timely manner.
It gets worse. The funds appropriated by Congress to jumpstart a backlog elimination project expired Sept. 30. The backlog will continue.
In the long term, this country needs to increase the number of employment-based green cards to meet demand. But if the immigration service cannot even process applications in a timely fashion for the current numbers of employment-based green cards that are supposed to be available, what's the point? In the short term, if Congress and the president do nothing else regarding immigration reform, they should at least make sure that the immigration service processes green card applications in timely fashion. The backlog is inexcusable and contributes to the nation's illegal immigration problem. If we want people to play by the rules, we have to make it possible for them to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment