Britsabroad
February 27th, 2004, 09:36 AM
Sounds like traffic jams might be a good place to 'trap' (Another Royal Navy term)
wallpaper disegni-di-pasqua-da-colorare-
enthu999
07-17 12:50 PM
your comments are very helpful.
DirCls
07-12 10:16 PM
I can't sleep all night.. cmon atleast give us few options.
My take on the permanent solution:
1. Recapture lost visa numbers
2. Medical tests are going to be valid indefinitely
3. Ppl who've worked for X years automatically can apply for I-485
5. All can apply as per the old bulletin
6. ????
cmon guys help me with this.i'm running out of ideas..:D
just have a couple of beers..you will be ok..like me :)
My take on the permanent solution:
1. Recapture lost visa numbers
2. Medical tests are going to be valid indefinitely
3. Ppl who've worked for X years automatically can apply for I-485
5. All can apply as per the old bulletin
6. ????
cmon guys help me with this.i'm running out of ideas..:D
just have a couple of beers..you will be ok..like me :)
2011 DISEGNI DA COLORARE PER
inskrish
09-06 02:27 AM
Inskrish,
Do I need to take separate appointments for my wife....I mean can I take one appointment on one Receipt # and check the status of hers too at infopass? On telephone call they always ask for the applicant when checking the status.
I'll take an infopass then...did u call us the customer service before the infopass...I am sure they'd have told you that your dependents are approved...I am sure infopass agent see the same screen as the customer reps at the Nat serv centers.
Thanks,
SoP
Hi SeekerOfPeace,
It is a general rule that the each adult applicant should be physically present at the USCIS office for the Infopass appointments, but the the IO that I had appointment with was very informative and cooperative. So, I was able to get the case details for my wife and dependant, but this may not be the case with other locations and IOs. No, The Infopass IOs can get more information about our cases than the NSC Level 1 customer reps.
Do I need to take separate appointments for my wife....I mean can I take one appointment on one Receipt # and check the status of hers too at infopass? On telephone call they always ask for the applicant when checking the status.
I'll take an infopass then...did u call us the customer service before the infopass...I am sure they'd have told you that your dependents are approved...I am sure infopass agent see the same screen as the customer reps at the Nat serv centers.
Thanks,
SoP
Hi SeekerOfPeace,
It is a general rule that the each adult applicant should be physically present at the USCIS office for the Infopass appointments, but the the IO that I had appointment with was very informative and cooperative. So, I was able to get the case details for my wife and dependant, but this may not be the case with other locations and IOs. No, The Infopass IOs can get more information about our cases than the NSC Level 1 customer reps.
more...
nfinity
07-17 09:46 AM
Its I-485 which indicates immigration intent. Its right there in the conference call. Someone asked the same question in relevance to filing for F1.
gc_nebraska
01-08 11:53 AM
Hi Guys this is my first post and my problem is kind of weird , I entered in the US in 2001 on B1 visa and immediately converted it F1 while I was on F1 I got a job offer and
I then converted to H1 didn't graduate and now am on EAD/AP (never traveled since I entered the country i.e. almost close 8 yrs ) and never out of status, my question Gurus :
1) Can I travel on AP ? Will I have problems at port of entry ( currently I just have my B1 visa stamp and nothing else).
2) Or do you'll think I'll hold on until I get my 1-485 is approved ?
3) recently we were blessed with a baby who was born in the US , do you'll think that would carry some weight when I talk to an IO?(port of entry)
Gurus ! Please suggest I know my story is kind of weird but I have a wedding in March. Your humble opinion is needed please.
I then converted to H1 didn't graduate and now am on EAD/AP (never traveled since I entered the country i.e. almost close 8 yrs ) and never out of status, my question Gurus :
1) Can I travel on AP ? Will I have problems at port of entry ( currently I just have my B1 visa stamp and nothing else).
2) Or do you'll think I'll hold on until I get my 1-485 is approved ?
3) recently we were blessed with a baby who was born in the US , do you'll think that would carry some weight when I talk to an IO?(port of entry)
Gurus ! Please suggest I know my story is kind of weird but I have a wedding in March. Your humble opinion is needed please.
more...
glus
05-13 08:26 AM
Dont worry. With proper documentation you can prove that you dont have an immigration intent NOW. What matters is the immigration intent NOW.
Logically NOT filing 485 and LEAVING US for a lengthier period of time itself is a hint towards non-immigration intent. (I agree that USCIS might not always follow the logic).
Obviously you need to show about your strong ties in home country and why you might want to come back.
But the consulate can come-up with their own decision, since "intent" is something which can never be proved 100% . And the officers at consulate are instructed to consider every visa applicant as a possible immigrant.
Morchu,
Logic does not always apply in the States. INA states that "immigrant intent" is proven/shown when and if one files "immigrant petition" or when "immigrant petition" is filed on behalf of a person. Immigrant petition, is "I-130, I-140 or I485" petition. I understand your logic, but INA specifically states what "immigrant intent" is. Thanx.
Logically NOT filing 485 and LEAVING US for a lengthier period of time itself is a hint towards non-immigration intent. (I agree that USCIS might not always follow the logic).
Obviously you need to show about your strong ties in home country and why you might want to come back.
But the consulate can come-up with their own decision, since "intent" is something which can never be proved 100% . And the officers at consulate are instructed to consider every visa applicant as a possible immigrant.
Morchu,
Logic does not always apply in the States. INA states that "immigrant intent" is proven/shown when and if one files "immigrant petition" or when "immigrant petition" is filed on behalf of a person. Immigrant petition, is "I-130, I-140 or I485" petition. I understand your logic, but INA specifically states what "immigrant intent" is. Thanx.
2010 disegno da colorare
chapper
07-23 06:59 PM
Others can correct me, if I'm interpreting it wrong. A try...
An individual is eligible for AC21 only if he/she has approved I-140 but is not granted GC because of per country cap.
It means that when a petitioner applies for H1B extension - they (beneficiary and petitioner) must at the time of filing H1B establish/prove that the alien is not eligible for GC at the time of filing of H1B due to per country visa cap (not many visas available for the country the individual belongs or is claiming GC under).
Q17: How will USCIS interpret the language of AC21 Sec 104(c) (for three-year H-1B extensions) during a period in which AOS applications could be filed?
A17. USCIS interprets AC21 �104(c) as only applicable when an alien, who is the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, is eligible to be granted lawful permanent resident status but for application of the per country limitations. Any petitioner seeking an H-1B extension on behalf of a beneficiary pursuant to AC21 �104(c) must thus establish that at the time of filing for such extension, the alien is not eligible to be granted lawful permanent resident status on account of the per country immigrant visa limitations
An individual is eligible for AC21 only if he/she has approved I-140 but is not granted GC because of per country cap.
It means that when a petitioner applies for H1B extension - they (beneficiary and petitioner) must at the time of filing H1B establish/prove that the alien is not eligible for GC at the time of filing of H1B due to per country visa cap (not many visas available for the country the individual belongs or is claiming GC under).
Q17: How will USCIS interpret the language of AC21 Sec 104(c) (for three-year H-1B extensions) during a period in which AOS applications could be filed?
A17. USCIS interprets AC21 �104(c) as only applicable when an alien, who is the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, is eligible to be granted lawful permanent resident status but for application of the per country limitations. Any petitioner seeking an H-1B extension on behalf of a beneficiary pursuant to AC21 �104(c) must thus establish that at the time of filing for such extension, the alien is not eligible to be granted lawful permanent resident status on account of the per country immigrant visa limitations
more...
pd_recapturing
06-21 02:29 PM
Did somebody do research on getting the correct/valid photos for I 485 in the cheapest possible way ?
hair disegni gratis da colorare e
truthinspector
12-18 09:22 AM
I entered in Atlanta GA, with 45 days of validity remaining on my AP. No questions asked.
My wife will be coming back in April 2nd week through Denver. CO POE. Her AP is valid until June 3rd week.
My question is that is 2 months of AP validity / cushion enough or safe to enter the US.
My wife will be coming back in April 2nd week through Denver. CO POE. Her AP is valid until June 3rd week.
My question is that is 2 months of AP validity / cushion enough or safe to enter the US.
more...
abhay
01-20 09:16 AM
Thanks Ann for responding.
RFE was for I-485, Priority date is Aug 2006. I-140 is approved.
RFE was asking to show that I was in valid visa status between 1997 and 2000, but surprisingly, I came to US only in 2000 that too on 2 business VISAs so I never worked in US until 2001. My Lawyer sent an affdavit stating that I was not in US between 1997 and 2000 and I was on business VISA on two occasions in 2000, also letter said that if they wanted we could send them the copies of stampings on the passport.
Thanks again.
RFE was for I-485, Priority date is Aug 2006. I-140 is approved.
RFE was asking to show that I was in valid visa status between 1997 and 2000, but surprisingly, I came to US only in 2000 that too on 2 business VISAs so I never worked in US until 2001. My Lawyer sent an affdavit stating that I was not in US between 1997 and 2000 and I was on business VISA on two occasions in 2000, also letter said that if they wanted we could send them the copies of stampings on the passport.
Thanks again.
hot immagine da colorare per i
DSLStart
09-23 08:48 PM
see this latest approval:
http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?t=286510
http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?t=286510
more...
house Disegni da colorare:
chandrajp
08-08 10:42 AM
Hi guys My I140 filed in TEXAS case status online says request for additional information was mailed, I haven't received mail yet, I want to go ahead and collect all the documents required so i can reply immediately as soon as we receive RFE mail,
can you guys tell usually what kind of information is requested in EB3 cases.
I got an RFE about my company's latest Tax statement for the current year. When my attorney sent one, I got I140 approved immediately.
What I heard from my friends nowadays, usually it's company's ability to pay. If the company does not show sufficient income even to pay the employees, then there could be an issue. But just wait for the notice. I think your attorney gets the notice
can you guys tell usually what kind of information is requested in EB3 cases.
I got an RFE about my company's latest Tax statement for the current year. When my attorney sent one, I got I140 approved immediately.
What I heard from my friends nowadays, usually it's company's ability to pay. If the company does not show sufficient income even to pay the employees, then there could be an issue. But just wait for the notice. I think your attorney gets the notice
tattoo Estate: disegni da colorare
indianabacklog
10-29 02:58 PM
Source: NumbersUSA.com
A new immigration enforcement bill that would remove the jobs magnet for illegal immigration is expected to be introduced in the House very soon. The SAVE Act (Secure America with Verification Enforcement) will be sponsored by Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) and is expected to have bi-partisan support. NumbersUSA believes this bill originating on the Democratic side of the House is just the vehicle to give us a chance to actually pass immigration legislation through a Democratic-controlled Congress that would significantly improve the lives of most Americans. Specifically, The SAVE Act would eventually require every employee in America to go through the E-Verify system, identifying all illegal aliens and removing any "glitches" that once allowed them to pass through the system and into the workforce undetected.
--------------------
I don't see anything wrong with this act, infact I was wondering if there was any possibility that we can ride this bill and add EB reforms to it.
Not sure if anything could be attached but at least if this bill were to be approved and enforced maybe the possibility of immigration reform might follow.
In all instances we keep hearing that we have to close the border first from dozens of lawmakers then we can consider dealing with immigration laws.
It remains to be seen if they are true to their word.
A new immigration enforcement bill that would remove the jobs magnet for illegal immigration is expected to be introduced in the House very soon. The SAVE Act (Secure America with Verification Enforcement) will be sponsored by Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) and is expected to have bi-partisan support. NumbersUSA believes this bill originating on the Democratic side of the House is just the vehicle to give us a chance to actually pass immigration legislation through a Democratic-controlled Congress that would significantly improve the lives of most Americans. Specifically, The SAVE Act would eventually require every employee in America to go through the E-Verify system, identifying all illegal aliens and removing any "glitches" that once allowed them to pass through the system and into the workforce undetected.
--------------------
I don't see anything wrong with this act, infact I was wondering if there was any possibility that we can ride this bill and add EB reforms to it.
Not sure if anything could be attached but at least if this bill were to be approved and enforced maybe the possibility of immigration reform might follow.
In all instances we keep hearing that we have to close the border first from dozens of lawmakers then we can consider dealing with immigration laws.
It remains to be seen if they are true to their word.
more...
pictures Disegni da colorare: Walt
anda007
07-11 12:22 PM
Kindly send me a template of letter to the senator and address of them
I am going to send cards and letter.
If you do not agree with this idea, I apologise.
I did not send the flowers, bcos IV told me. I sent it, bcos I felt it right !!!
I am going to send cards and letter.
If you do not agree with this idea, I apologise.
I did not send the flowers, bcos IV told me. I sent it, bcos I felt it right !!!
dresses cartoni da colorare
mwin
06-11 08:57 PM
I E-filed my EAD application and sent the supporting documentation to the location on the confirmation page. To day I see the following notice:
"We attempted to deliver your item at 1:51 PM on June 11, 2008 in MESQUITE, TX 75185 and a notice was left. It can be redelivered or picked up at the Post Office. If the item is unclaimed, it will be returned to the sender. Information, if available, is updated every evening. Please check again later."
Is there something I can do to resolve this?
I sent the application to the following address:
USCIS TEXAS SERVICE CENTER
Atten: E-File I-765 PO BOX: 852401
MESQUITE, TX 75185
"We attempted to deliver your item at 1:51 PM on June 11, 2008 in MESQUITE, TX 75185 and a notice was left. It can be redelivered or picked up at the Post Office. If the item is unclaimed, it will be returned to the sender. Information, if available, is updated every evening. Please check again later."
Is there something I can do to resolve this?
I sent the application to the following address:
USCIS TEXAS SERVICE CENTER
Atten: E-File I-765 PO BOX: 852401
MESQUITE, TX 75185
more...
makeup disegni da colorare
learning01
04-10 05:19 PM
The email address you refer to could be above or below, based on how users set their preferences to threads (if logged in) - Newest first or Oldest first. Just a note to readers.
Thanks
Thanks
girlfriend Disegni da Colorare - Hello
abhay
01-20 01:18 PM
Abhay,
It is certainly possible that the response was based only on the information available online, but there is no way to know for sure. That is why it is important to get written confirmation that USCIS rec'd your RFE response.
Ann
Thank You Ann.
It is certainly possible that the response was based only on the information available online, but there is no way to know for sure. That is why it is important to get written confirmation that USCIS rec'd your RFE response.
Ann
Thank You Ann.
hairstyles Pokemon da colorare
vasa
07-13 11:55 PM
done, it shows 2038 signatures now...
keep doing this folks.. we need a multi-pronged approach...
let there be "shock and awe"
keep doing this folks.. we need a multi-pronged approach...
let there be "shock and awe"
Googler
08-26 10:44 AM
Asking for the WOM to be dismissed on the grounds that it is discretionary is a standard tactic -- both for citizenship and I-485. The courts aren't buying it. Depending on your district and the particular judge, your chances of getting the motion to dismiss thrown out are very good.
Yingli there is no shortage of excellent advice and templates on this thread on Immigration Portal.
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=194681&page=811
For an overview see:
http://www.ailf.org/lac/clearinghouse_mandamus.shtml
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FBI_name_check
Good luck!
Yingli there is no shortage of excellent advice and templates on this thread on Immigration Portal.
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=194681&page=811
For an overview see:
http://www.ailf.org/lac/clearinghouse_mandamus.shtml
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FBI_name_check
Good luck!
sku
02-25 01:53 PM
This is the News Letter That I got from my attorney.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TARP Restricts H-1B Hiring for Funds Recipients
The Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) recently signed into law by President Obama places strict limits on recipients of funds or certain Federal Reserve loans that want to hire high-skilled workers under the H-1B visa program for a period of two years. TARP fund recipients include certain financial institutions as well as infrastructure, energy, and automobile companies. The bill subjects recipients of TARP funds to the same rules that an "H-1B dependent" employer must follow when it sponsors a new H-1B worker. (An H-1B dependent employer is one that has 15% or more H-1B workers in the employer's total full-time workforce.) These rules include:
� The employer cannot displace any similarly-employed U.S. worker with an H-1B worker within 90 days before or after applying for H-1B status for a new employee.
� The employer cannot place any H-1B worker at an outside worksite unless that employer first makes a "bona fide" inquiry as to whether the other employer has displaced or will displace a U.S. worker within 90 days before or after the placement of the H-1B worker.
� The employer has to take good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers for the job opening, at wages at least equal to those offered to the H-1B worker. The employer must offer the job to any U.S. worker who applies and is equally or better qualified than the H-1B worker.
TARP contains provisions that may effectively limit recipients of TARP funds and Federal Reserve loans from sponsoring new H-1B workers. While H-1B dependency rules do not normally apply to H-1B workers earning at least $60,000 annually or possessing a Master's degree, these exemptions are not available to the TARP/Federal Reserve loan recipients.
The exact language of the bill states that the above requirements apply to "new employees" sponsored for H-1B status. While additional guidance may be issued from the Department of Labor, the plain language of the bill suggests that a company filing an H-1B petition on behalf of a current employee who is working with the company under F-1 Optional Practical Training, TN status, or some other work visa, should not be subject to the "H-1B dependent" rules. Similarly, the additional restrictions should not apply to petitions for extension of H-1B status for a current employee. However, an employer filing an H-1B change of employer petition for a new employee likely would be subject to these requirements.
The House-Senate Conference Committee removed a provision from the stimulus proposal that would have required recipients of TARP funds to enroll and participate in the E-Verify online employment eligibility verification program, as well as a provision that would have renewed the currently voluntary E-Verify program for an additional five years. E-Verify is currently set to expire in March 2009.
Effective Date of New Form I-9 Delayed Until April 3, 2009
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is extending the effective date of its new Form I-9 from February 2, 2009 to April 3, 2009. The new Form I-9 updates the list of documents acceptable for employment eligibility verification. The temporary extension will provide DHS with an opportunity for further consideration of this rule. DHS also is extending the comment period for this rule for 30 days.
Rising Unemployment May Affect PERM Processing
In a recent meeting between the Department of Labor (DOL) and representatives of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, DOL stated that rising unemployment may affect the processing of certain PERM labor certification applications. DOL is trying to integrate labor market information from various sources, such as WARN Act notices, to determine the availability of U.S. workers in areas affected by significant layoffs. DOL cited the position of Financial Analyst located in New York City as an example of a particular occupation and location where there might be qualified U.S. workers available due to recent financial industry layoffs. DOL may require employers sponsoring PERM applications for such positions to undergo "supervised recruitment" in cases where the available data indicates that there may be available U.S. workers.
Supervised recruitment is a variation of the standard PERM procedure by which applicants for a position that is the subject of a PERM application submit their resumes directly to the DOL for initial review by DOL staff. The DOL forwards to employers the resumes of applicants that it deems qualified for the position. Employers are required to interview the applicants forwarded by DOL to determine whether the applicants are in fact qualified. To date, when DOL has issued supervised recruitment notices, more than half the cases have been withdrawn by the employer.
E-Verify Start Date for Federal Contractors Extended
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that Federal contractors and subcontractors can delay implementation of the use of the Department of Homeland Security's ("DHS") E-Verify system. E-Verify is a government run on-line system that combines DHS data with records from the Social Security Administration to determine whether a new hire is eligible to work in the U.S. The final rule was to have become effective on January 15, 2009, but now will not take effect until May 21, 2009. Once effective, E-Verify will become mandatory for federal contractors with projects exceeding $100,000 and for sub-contractors with projects exceeding $3,000. Contracts for less than $100,000 or for commercially available off-the-shelf items are exempt from this rule. Once E-Verify becomes effective on May 21, 2009, companies awarded a contract with the federal government will be required to enroll in E-Verify within 30 days of the contract award date. They will also need to begin using the E-Verify system to confirm that all of their new hires and their employees directly working on federal contracts are authorized to legally work in the United States
US VISIT Expanded to Include Lawful Permanent Residents
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently published a rule expanding the population of foreign nationals subject to the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program ("US-VISIT") to include U.S. permanent residents. US-VISIT will apply to all permanent residents entering or exiting from an air or seaport. Permanent residents entering through land ports of entry, however, will be required to provide fingerprints only if they are referred to secondary inspection.
Under US-VISIT, foreign nationals entering the United States provide "biometrics" (fingerprints scan and digital photograph) when passing through U.S. immigration. The biometric information collected upon entry is compared to the information collected at the time that the foreign national was originally issued a visa or Permanent Resident Card ("Green Card"). The biometric information is also compared to a criminal records database to confirm that a person is admissible to the United States. Permanent residents with criminal convictions traveling outside of the U.S. should be reminded that they are likely to be detected at entry and they should be prepared to present evidence regarding their admissibility.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TARP Restricts H-1B Hiring for Funds Recipients
The Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) recently signed into law by President Obama places strict limits on recipients of funds or certain Federal Reserve loans that want to hire high-skilled workers under the H-1B visa program for a period of two years. TARP fund recipients include certain financial institutions as well as infrastructure, energy, and automobile companies. The bill subjects recipients of TARP funds to the same rules that an "H-1B dependent" employer must follow when it sponsors a new H-1B worker. (An H-1B dependent employer is one that has 15% or more H-1B workers in the employer's total full-time workforce.) These rules include:
� The employer cannot displace any similarly-employed U.S. worker with an H-1B worker within 90 days before or after applying for H-1B status for a new employee.
� The employer cannot place any H-1B worker at an outside worksite unless that employer first makes a "bona fide" inquiry as to whether the other employer has displaced or will displace a U.S. worker within 90 days before or after the placement of the H-1B worker.
� The employer has to take good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers for the job opening, at wages at least equal to those offered to the H-1B worker. The employer must offer the job to any U.S. worker who applies and is equally or better qualified than the H-1B worker.
TARP contains provisions that may effectively limit recipients of TARP funds and Federal Reserve loans from sponsoring new H-1B workers. While H-1B dependency rules do not normally apply to H-1B workers earning at least $60,000 annually or possessing a Master's degree, these exemptions are not available to the TARP/Federal Reserve loan recipients.
The exact language of the bill states that the above requirements apply to "new employees" sponsored for H-1B status. While additional guidance may be issued from the Department of Labor, the plain language of the bill suggests that a company filing an H-1B petition on behalf of a current employee who is working with the company under F-1 Optional Practical Training, TN status, or some other work visa, should not be subject to the "H-1B dependent" rules. Similarly, the additional restrictions should not apply to petitions for extension of H-1B status for a current employee. However, an employer filing an H-1B change of employer petition for a new employee likely would be subject to these requirements.
The House-Senate Conference Committee removed a provision from the stimulus proposal that would have required recipients of TARP funds to enroll and participate in the E-Verify online employment eligibility verification program, as well as a provision that would have renewed the currently voluntary E-Verify program for an additional five years. E-Verify is currently set to expire in March 2009.
Effective Date of New Form I-9 Delayed Until April 3, 2009
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is extending the effective date of its new Form I-9 from February 2, 2009 to April 3, 2009. The new Form I-9 updates the list of documents acceptable for employment eligibility verification. The temporary extension will provide DHS with an opportunity for further consideration of this rule. DHS also is extending the comment period for this rule for 30 days.
Rising Unemployment May Affect PERM Processing
In a recent meeting between the Department of Labor (DOL) and representatives of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, DOL stated that rising unemployment may affect the processing of certain PERM labor certification applications. DOL is trying to integrate labor market information from various sources, such as WARN Act notices, to determine the availability of U.S. workers in areas affected by significant layoffs. DOL cited the position of Financial Analyst located in New York City as an example of a particular occupation and location where there might be qualified U.S. workers available due to recent financial industry layoffs. DOL may require employers sponsoring PERM applications for such positions to undergo "supervised recruitment" in cases where the available data indicates that there may be available U.S. workers.
Supervised recruitment is a variation of the standard PERM procedure by which applicants for a position that is the subject of a PERM application submit their resumes directly to the DOL for initial review by DOL staff. The DOL forwards to employers the resumes of applicants that it deems qualified for the position. Employers are required to interview the applicants forwarded by DOL to determine whether the applicants are in fact qualified. To date, when DOL has issued supervised recruitment notices, more than half the cases have been withdrawn by the employer.
E-Verify Start Date for Federal Contractors Extended
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that Federal contractors and subcontractors can delay implementation of the use of the Department of Homeland Security's ("DHS") E-Verify system. E-Verify is a government run on-line system that combines DHS data with records from the Social Security Administration to determine whether a new hire is eligible to work in the U.S. The final rule was to have become effective on January 15, 2009, but now will not take effect until May 21, 2009. Once effective, E-Verify will become mandatory for federal contractors with projects exceeding $100,000 and for sub-contractors with projects exceeding $3,000. Contracts for less than $100,000 or for commercially available off-the-shelf items are exempt from this rule. Once E-Verify becomes effective on May 21, 2009, companies awarded a contract with the federal government will be required to enroll in E-Verify within 30 days of the contract award date. They will also need to begin using the E-Verify system to confirm that all of their new hires and their employees directly working on federal contracts are authorized to legally work in the United States
US VISIT Expanded to Include Lawful Permanent Residents
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently published a rule expanding the population of foreign nationals subject to the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program ("US-VISIT") to include U.S. permanent residents. US-VISIT will apply to all permanent residents entering or exiting from an air or seaport. Permanent residents entering through land ports of entry, however, will be required to provide fingerprints only if they are referred to secondary inspection.
Under US-VISIT, foreign nationals entering the United States provide "biometrics" (fingerprints scan and digital photograph) when passing through U.S. immigration. The biometric information collected upon entry is compared to the information collected at the time that the foreign national was originally issued a visa or Permanent Resident Card ("Green Card"). The biometric information is also compared to a criminal records database to confirm that a person is admissible to the United States. Permanent residents with criminal convictions traveling outside of the U.S. should be reminded that they are likely to be detected at entry and they should be prepared to present evidence regarding their admissibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment