Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Form I-485 Application for Wife and Son


Q: I recently received my Green Card based on the NIW I-140 approval. My wife and son arrived U.S. from a third country recently. Can they file Form I-485 based on my NIW I-140 approval also? Is there a expiration date to file I-485 application for my wife or son?

Answer:

Commonly, individuals want to file the I-485 as soon as they are eligible to do so. This would be the first date of the month in which one's priority date becomes current. Eligibility as a derivative continues as long as the individual is still a spouse or child. It does not expire. As the derivative beneficiaries, your wife and son can proceed with their I-485 filings if they are in the United States. There is no set expiration date for eligibility to process a derivative I-485 adjustment filing. http://www.greencardapply.com/question/question10/question10_1130.htm


www.greencardapply.com
www.greencardfamily.com

L-1B visa with specialized knowledge


Q: I am in L-1B visa three years already. After my employer sent out the L-1B visa renew application last month, we got an notice of Request For Evidence (RFE), asking for evidence of my "specialized knowledge". How to I reply the RFE for the question of L-1B visa with specialized knowledge?

Answer:

To prove a specialized knowledge capacity for the RFE response, the foreign national's knowledge must be different from or surpass the ordinary or usual knowledge of an employee in the particular field, and must have been gained through significant prior experience with the petitioning organization.

A specialized knowledge employee must have an advanced level of expertise in his or her organization's processes and procedures or special knowledge of the organization which is not readily available in the United States labor market. Some characteristics of an employee who has specialized knowledge are that he or she:

Possesses knowledge that is valuable to the employer's competitiveness in the market place;

1) Is uniquely qualified to contribute to the U.S. employer's knowledge of foreign operating conditions;

2) Has been utilized as a key employee abroad and has been given significant assignments which have enhanced the employer's productivity, competitiveness, image, or financial position.
http://www.greencardapply.com/question/question10/question10_1119.htm


www.greencardapply.com
www.greencardfamily.com

"Cap-Gap" Relief for a F-1 student changing to H-1B Status


Q: What is the "Cap-Gap" Relief for a F-1 student changing to H-1B Status?

Answer:

Status change from F-1 to H-1B status often requires planning and the ability to navigate somewhat complex immigration laws and regulations. The timing and logistics are determined in large part by the H-1B cap and the cap-gap rule for F-1 students.

A F-1 students seeking to change status to H-1B within the United States must maintain a valid nonimmigrant status until the requested start date of employment in the H-1B petition. The exception to this is for certain F-1 students eligible for, what is referred to as, "cap-gap" relief. Such a student is allowed to remain in the United States pending the decision in the H-1B case, even if her/his status expires before the requested H-1B start date. In some instances, a student with Optional Practical Training (OPT) is able to continue to work while the H-1B petition is pending at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
http://www.greencardapply.com/question/question10/question10_1105.htm



www.greencardapply.com
www.greencardfamily.com

L1A visa to open a new office in U.S.


Q: As a manager, I need to apply for a L1A visa to open a new office in U.S. What king of evidence or documents I need to prepare to apply for the L1A visa?

Answer:

For a manager or executive to come to the U.S. to open a new office, you should provide the following evidence: 1) sufficient real estate space has been secured to operate a new office; 2) you have been employed for one continuous year in the three year period preceding the filing of the petition in an executive or managerial capacity and that the proposed employment involves executive or managerial authority over the new operation; 3) the intended United States operation will support an executive or managerial position.

You may also provide the following information regarding: the proposed nature of the office describing the scope of the entity, its organizational structure, and its financial goals; the size of the United States investment; the financial ability of the foreign entity to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business in the United States; and the organizational structure of the foreign entity.
http://www.greencardapply.com/question/question10/question10_0627.htm



www.greencardapply.com
www.greencardfamily.com

O-1 holder for EB1-Extraordinary Ability Application


Q: I am currently in O-1 status and doing research in Physics. Do I automatically qualify for the EB1-Extraordinary Ability Green Card category, or I still need to prove my qualification for the EB1-Extraordinary Ability category with an I-140 petition and many documents?

Answer:

As a fact, many people who qualify for temporary O-1 visas as persons of extraordinary ability do not automatically qualify for the permanent EB1-Extraordinary Ability (EB1-A) Green Card category, even though the standards are close. It is therefore important to prepare an I-140 petition for a person of extraordinary ability according to the statutory and regulatory guidelines in order to avoid a Request for Evidence:

1) Ensure that all forms are completely filled out;

2) Clearly document in a letter from the petitioner, or from the alien if it is a self petition, how the individual is qualified for this eminent category;

3) Ensure that the alien meets at least three of the required criteria as listed below. Although meeting three of the ten criteria of EB1-A would not guarantee that the alien will qualify as an individual of extraordinary ability in the arts, sciences, education, business or athletics, if he or can not satisfy at least three of these items, it may be wise to consider another category.

http://www.greencardapply.com/question/question10/question10_0707.htm



www.greencardapply.com
www.greencardfamily.com

I-485 application if my NIW I-140 is rejected after the RFE?


Q: I filed a concurrent I-140/I-485 application in National Interest Waiver several months ago. Now, I get a RFE letter for my I-140 application, asking for more supporting materials and evidences. Please let me now what will happen for my I-485 application if my NIW I-140 is rejected after the RFE?

Answer:

The concurrent I-140/I-485 filing is supposed to permit the applicant a number of benefits, including availability of work permit card, advance parole for international travel, and similar benefits to the accompanying family members.

Under the law, I-485 remains intact unless it is denied as separate from the denial of I-140. To prevent the abuse of concurrent I-140/I-485 filing, the USCIS instructed the service centers to deny all the accompanying applications including I-485, I-485A, I-765, and I-131 simultaneously when the service centers deny the underlying I-140 application.
http://www.greencardapply.com/question/question10/question10_0720.htm



www.greencardapply.com
www.greencardfamily.com

Sunday, September 12, 2010

L-1 and H-1B Filing Fee Increase - H.R. 6080 Presented to President


As soon as the Senate passed the bill, the Congress quickly cleared for White House and has already been presented to the President. Since it passed during the special session, everything had to be cleared out of the Congress quickly.

The House passed the Emergency Border Security Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010, which the Senate passed it yesterday with amendments. One of the amendments includes the following fee increase for H-1B and L-1. This amendment was sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. The amendment provides:

L-1 Filing Fee and Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee Will be Increased by $2,250 for Petitioners Employing 50 or More Employees in the United States and More Than 50% of the employees are H-1B or L-1 Employees.

H-1B Filing Fee and Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee Will be Increased by $2,000 for Petitioners Employing 50 or More Employees in the United States and More Than 50% of the employees are H-1B or L-1 Employees.

The total filing fees after this legislation will be much higher than these figures in that these employers will also have to pay $1,500 American Worker Training Fees for H-1B petition plus current fraud prevention fee of $500 and I-129 filing fee of $320.

The Increased Fee will take effect on the date this bill is enacted into a law by the President's signature and remain in effect until September 30, 2014.

Summary of the impact to Indian Software companies :
Nasscom reports, the increase will cost Indian Companies by $200 to $250 Million per year.
As most of the Indian outsourcing companies have 70% to 80% of temporary workers on H1B and L1 visa, the H1B fee increase will heavily impact all these companies and especially like TCS, Infosys, and Wipro because they send around 10,000 professionals every year
Indian IT Companies are not happy to pay for the border protection of US and say that it is not compliant with World Trade Organization fair practices.
The biggest burden is companies have to deal with the cost for new applications, renewals and transfers. If you think of it, it is a huge cost. http://www.greencardapply.com/news/news10/news10_0817.htm


http://www.greencardapply.com
http://www.greencardfamily.com

Substantially Increased Fees for Certain H-1B and L-1


President Barak Obama signed a law on August 13, 2010, that increases funding for U.S. border security by $600 million. The funding for this increase in security will be paid for, in part, by substantially increasing the fees that some employers must pay when filing H1B and L-1 petitions. The increases, $2,000 for each H1B filing and $2,250 for each L-1 filing, apply to employers with 50 or more employees if more than 50 percent of the company workforce is comprised of H1B and/or L-1s workers.

The bill, formally known as the Emergency Border Security Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010, will provide funding for retention of current border security staff, as well as the hiring of 1,000 federal officers and agents for the U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and additional U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel.

The funding will also provide $196 million to the U.S. Department of Justice to pay for U.S. marshals, Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agents to be stationed along U.S. borders. Another $10 million is allocated to the Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and related services to meet the increased workload created by additional immigration enforcement.

The bill increases the fees for filing and for fraud prevention and detection required with petitions for nonimmigrants in the H1B ($2,000) and L-1 ($2,250) categories. These increases only apply to companies that employ 50 or more employees in the United States and whose U.S. workforce is made up of more than 50 percent L-1 and H1B workers.

Several different media outlets have reported that employees of the U.S. Senate have stated that these increased fees would primarily affect four Indian-based companies: Tata Consultancy, Wipro Ltd., Infosys Technologies Ltd., and Mahindra Satyam.

Based on the criteria set forth in this bill, it is expected to also affect large and medium-sized IT consulting companies and other firms in the United States, with a primary focus on technology companies. It should be noted that the impact on these companies will not occur in a vacuum.

The services of these companies, and the workers they provide, are utilized by major U.S. companies in most industry segments, as well as federal, state, and local governments. Thus, the increased financial burden is likely to send deep reverberations well beyond a handful of large non-U.S. based companies.

The wording in the bill regarding the fee increase is unclear. It references both the filing fee and fraud prevention and detection fee. However, there is not a specification as to the amount that either or both would be raised. That is, the language requires an increase of $2,000 in these fees for H1B petitions and $2,250 for L-1 petitions, but is not specific regarding how the increase will be allocated between the two types of fees at issue. Typically, standard filing fees are increased by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by regulation.

http://www.greencardapply.com/news/news10/news10_0824.htm


http://www.greencardapply.com
http://www.greencardfamily.com

New I-140 Form and EB3 Professional vs. EB3 Skilled Worker


The recent version of the I-140 form contains nine choices of category in part 2 of the form. The form I-140 has one important difference for EB3 cases. The new version requires the petitioner to distinguish between an EB3 filing for a professional versus an EB3 filing for a skilled worker. Older versions of the form had only one box for both of these two subcategories.

Since the new version of the form requires a distinction between an EB3 professional and an EB3 skilled worker, it is important to understand the definition of professional. This term is defined in the applicable regulations as a foreign national who holds at least a U.S. baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree, and who is a member of the professions.

There have been reports of denials if the EB3 professional category is selected, but the beneficiary does not have a "United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree." The term "foreign equivalent degree" means a degree which, by itself, without considering experience, is the equivalent of at least a U.S. baccalaureate degree.

It is not sufficient for the individual to have a combination of education and experience that is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. The skilled worker category, as explained below, only requires an individual to have at least two (2) years of prior work experience or training and the job must require the two years of work experience or training.

The solution for those cases that do not meet the EB3 professional category is to select the EB3 skilled worker category. As explained above, a skilled worker is defined as appropriate for a job that requires at least two years of work experience or training. Since there is no difference in visa number availability or backlogs between the two subcategories of EB3 for a professional or an EB3 skilled worker, the use of this category should not create any disadvantage.

This is not to be confused with the EB3 "other worker" category for workers with less than two years of experience or training. The other worker category is treated differently with respect to visa number allocations. The waiting period for the other worker category is far more backlogged than the EB3 category for a professional or a skilled worker. http://www.greencardapply.com/news/news10/news10_0825.htm


http://www.greencardapply.com
http://www.greencardfamily.com

USCIS' New Policy for "Two-Step Approach" of Form I-140 Petitions Evaluation


On August 18, 2010, USCIS issued a Policy Memorandum for "Two-Step Approach" Form I-140 Petitions Evaluation. This Policy Memorandum (PM) provides guidance regarding the analysis that Immigration Service Officers (ISOs) must use in adjudicating Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, filed for:

EB1 - Extraordinary Ability petitions;
EB1 - Outstanding Professor or Researcher petitions;
Aliens of Exceptional Ability, including EB2 NIW petitions.
The purpose of this PM is to ensure that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) processes Form I-140 petitions filed under these employment-based immigrant classifications with a consistent standard.

In addition, this PM revises Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2 to clarify that USCIS will make successor-in-interest (SII) determinations in Form I-140 petitions supported by an approved labor certification application if the transfer of ownership took place while such application for labor certification was still pending with the Department of Labor (DOL).

The ISO is reminded that the standard of proof applied for petitions filed for Aliens of Extraordinary Ability, for Outstanding Professors or Researchers, or for Aliens of Exceptional Ability is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Thus, if the petitioner submits relevant, probative, and credible evidence that leads USCIS to believe that the claim is true “more likely than not,” the applicant or petitioner has satisfied the standard of proof. See U.S. v. Cardozo-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) (defining “more likely than not” as a greater than 50 percent probability of something occurring).

If a petitioner provides supporting documentation that satisfies the regulatory prongs, and such documentation is legitimate (i.e. not forged, issued in error, inaccurate, etc.), Kazarian prohibits USCIS from “unilaterally imposing novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth at 8 C.F.R. section 204.5.” Kazarian requires that an adjudicator first determine whether the petitioner has provided evidence to satisfy the requisite number of evidentiary prongs under the particular EB-1 classification.

The adjudicator must look at each prong for which evidence has been provided (“the proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided”) to determine how many evidentiary prongs have been satisfied. If the documentation (including but not limited to articles, publications, memos, reference letters, expert testimony, support letters, etc.) is relevant to the category, is substantive (does not merely recite the regulations) and is credible.

Once USCIS determines that the petitioner has provided satisfactory evidence for the requisite number of prongs, the second phase of review requires the adjudicator to weigh the evidence against the required high level of expertise for the visa category. It is in the second phase of the review where the evidence can be evaluated to see if, cumulatively, it proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant or beneficiary is at the very top of his or her field of endeavor.

http://www.greencardapply.com/news/news10/news10_0903.htm



http://www.greencardapply.com
http://www.greencardfamily.com

USCIS' Executive Summary for H-1B & L-1 Fee Increase Provisions


The USCIS has released its executive summary of implementing this new law. The involved agencies are still coordinating the specific policies to interpret and implement specific language of the new law, but pending the release of a final interpretation of every detailed issues, the involved employers should review and follow the executive summary as preliminary guidance.

On August 13, 2010, President Obama signed into law Public Law 111-230. The new law contains provisions that require petitioners to pay an additional $2,000 for certain H-1B petitions and an additional $2,250 for certain L-1 petitions.

To begin public outreach on this legislation, USCIS held a teleconference on August 19, 2010 to share how USCIS will implement it.

Since the enactment of this law, USCIS received various public inquiries as well as requests for clarification. During the teleconference, USCIS provided the public with responses to some of the most commonly asked questions followed by an open forum to answer additional questions.

During the teleconference, among other answers provided, USCIS informed the public that:

The additional fee is required for certain H-1B or L-1 petitions postmarked on or after August 14, 2010;

The law will remain in effect through September 30, 2014;

This law is applicable to petitioners who employ 50 or more employees in the U.S. and more than 50% of the petitioner’s employees are in H-1B or L nonimmigrant status;

Until the Form I-129 is updated, if a petitioner believes she or he is exempt from the requirement to pay the additional fee, the petitioners should include a cover letter, with their filings, that explains why the added fee does not apply. At the top of the cover letter, petitioners should include a notation of whether or not the fee is required in bold capital letters;

If a petitioner does not include the added fee and USCIS determines the fee is required or if USCIS cannot determine if the fee is required, USCIS will issue a Request for Evidence (RFE) for the additional fee or for further explanation; and

If the petitioner includes the increased fee, the fee should be paid by a separate check. The check should be made payable to the Department of Homeland Security. By paying the increased fee separately, USCIS will be able to more quickly issue a refund, if it is later determined that the increased fee was not required. http://www.greencardapply.com/news/news10/news10_0904.htm


http://www.greencardapply.com
http://www.greencardfamily.com

Growing Tension of Obama Policy Within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement


One of the big changes that the country has witnessed since the Obama Administration took over the government was to switch the immigration enforcement focus from the undocumented aliens to the employers hiring undocumented aliens. Obviously, underlying this policy was the efforts of the Obama government to appease its strongest constituency, the Hispanic community, pending the enactment of CIR.

Under the policy, the law enforcement against the undocumented aliens has been substantially reduced, while the law enforcement against the U.S. employers has gradually intensified. This created some tension in the immigration enforcement community.

Under the leaked policy, detention and treatment of detained undocumented aliens would receive some leniency. Report indicates that such swift of policy at the top level of the Obama administration has ignited discontent and resistance within the ICE, which culminated in no confidence vote by the ICE (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement) officers union against the head of the agency.

As it poises for further immigration initiatives, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is struggling with festering internal divisions between political appointees and career officials over how to enforce laws and handle detainees facing deportation.

Under the Obama administration, the Department of Homeland Security has shifted its focus away from the worksite raids and sweeps employed during George W. Bush's presidency to deporting more criminals and creating less prison like detention settings. But ICE, a branch of DHS, is facing intensified resistance from agency middle managers and attorneys, and the union that represents immigration officers.

The internal conflict has grown increasingly public over ICE's plans, among them to expand a risk assessment tool to guide agents on detention decisions, cut down on transfers of detained immigrants, and open more "civil" detention facilities -- what field directors call "soft" detention.

Immigration officers say the new measures limit their enforcement efforts and the revamped lockups will compromise their safety. In June, their union took the unprecedented step of issuing a vote of no confidence in the agency's director, John Morton, and the official overseeing detention reform, Phyllis Coven.

Months before that, the 24 field managers who oversee detention and deportation sent a memorandum to Morton that challenged a number of recommended changes. Current and former ICE attorneys in New York, Houston and other offices nationwide say they are angry that they have been instructed to drop efforts to deport some immigrants. http://www.greencardapply.com/news/news10/news10_0912.htm

http://www.greencardapply.com
http://www.greencardfamily.com

It Is Very Important to Request EAD Extensions in a Timely Fashion


It is very important to request EAD (work permit) extensions in a timely fashion. A gap in employment authorization generates a number of practical and legal complications. The USCIS is working to improve the processing times for EADs. Hopefully, many who are waiting anxiously for their EAD renewals will have the approvals in time or without much of a gap in authorization. However, there is rarely a valid reason for not filing as early as possible. This should serve as a warning to individuals whose EADs will need to be renewed in the future.

Aliens should renew their expiring EADs and file most cases around 120 days prior to the expiration. Following this practice avoids gaps in employment authorization.

An alien is permitted to request the renewal of an expiring EAD up to 120 days in advance of the expiration. It is advisable to take advantage of the full filing window, if the ability to work legally in the United States is based solely on the EAD. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is permitted to take up to 90 days to process EAD applications. Filing 120 days in advance allows enough time to accommodate additional minor delays or problems with the EAD request.

The USCIS is taking the full 90 days, or close to 90 days, to adjudicate EADs. There have been times in the past when the USCIS processed EADs more quickly. As a result, some EAD holders file their extension requests expecting processing times in keeping with those they may have previously experienced. Around 60 days, and sometimes less, was typical. Our current experiences, however, are echoed by our colleagues, as the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) has posted similar reports.

The urgent problem faced by many who have delayed their EAD extension filings is the prospect of not being permitted to work between the expiration of the current EAD and the approval and issuance of the new EAD extension. Unlike an H1B-type of petition, there is no employment authorization granted based upon a "pending" EAD, even if it is an extension request.

Those waiting for EAD renewals often ask about interim EADs. The USCIS local offices, unfortunately, no longer issue interim EADs, as they did before. Even when interim EADs were issued, it was required by the USCIS that the EAD filing had been pending for at least 90 days.
http://www.greencardapply.com/news/news10/news10_0913.htm


http://www.greencardapply.com
http://www.greencardfamily.com

Friday, August 13, 2010

The Major Differences between EB1A and EB1B Green Card Application


The Major Differences between EB1A and EB1B:

1) The "Extraordinary Ability" category generally requires higher
achievement and ability;

2) The "Extraordinary Ability'' category can apply to many different fields in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics, while the "Outstanding Researcher or Professor" category generally applies to scientific or scholarly fields;

3) The "Extraordinary Ability" category requires no specific employment or job offer, while the "Outstanding Researcher or Professor" category requires a job offer for a permanent research position or a tenured/tenure track teaching position;

4) One can self-petition in the "Extraordinary Ability" category without a U.S. employer's sponsorship, while the "Outstanding Researcher or Professor" category requires a sponsorship from the alien's employer or prospective employer;

5) The "Outstanding Researcher or Professor" category requires at least three years experience in the field, while the "Extraordinary Ability" category has no specified minimum experience requirement for any particular field. http://www.greencardapply.com/or/or_faq.htm


http://www.greencardapply.com
http://www.greencardfamily.com

The Different Requirements in EB-1 and NIW Green Card Application


The requirements in EB-1 and NIW are different, and the application preparation is significantly different between these two classifications. For example, it may be likely that one could qualify for EB-1, but not NIW. But once your I-140 is approved, there is no major difference between these two classifications for the I-485 application later.

It is possible to file two petitions such as an EB-1 and a NIW at the same time. Some applicants file two I-140 petitions simultaneously in EB-1 and NIW. There is nothing stated in the law that prohibits multiple filings. Actually, multiple filings increase your chances.

The EB1-EA and NIW can be a self-petitioned application and does not need to be sponsored by your current employer. But EB1-OR is an employer-sponsored application, it needs to be sponsored by your current employer. If you are currently employed, your employer’s sponsorship may help your application, including the letters of recommendation, and other evidences. http://www.greencardapply.com/ea/ea_faq.htm



http://www.greencardapply.com
http://www.greencardfamily.com

FBI Name Check for I-485 Application



All applicants for a U.S. immigration benefit are subject to criminal and national security background checks to ensure they are eligible for that benefit. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Federal agency that oversees immigration benefits, performs checks on every applicant, regardless of ethnicity, national origin or religion.

FBI name checks are also required for many applications. The FBI name check is totally different from the FBI fingerprint check. The records maintained in the FBI name check process consist of administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel and other files compiled by law enforcement. Initial responses to this check generally take about two weeks.

In about 80 percent of the cases, no match is found. Of the remaining 20 percent, most are resolved within six months. Less than one percent of cases subject to an FBI name check remain pending longer than six months. Some of these cases involve complex, highly sensitive information and cannot be resolved quickly.

Even after FBI has provided an initial response to USCIS concerning a match, the name check is not complete until full information is obtained and eligibility issues arising from it are resolved.
http://www.greencardapply.com/news/news06/news06_0927.htm


http://www.greencardapply.com
http://www.greencardfamily.com

A# and Form I-485 Green Card Application


An alien applicant should have a A# after your I-140 approval. The A Number is the Alien Registration Number. The “A” number is used by the Department of Homeland Security system for the purpose of identifying aliens.

It alone does not serve as employment authorization nor is it evidence of legal status or permanent residency. After your I-140 approval, you will be given an A number by USCIS.

Aliens are also often confused Social Security Numbers (SSN) with alien registration numbers (or “A” number) issued by the Department of Homeland Security. An alien is issued an “A” number when he is applying for immigration, is put under removal proceedings, or under other special registration programs.

The formal “A” number contains eight digits and will occasionally begin with a “0” and have a total of 10 digits. In general, one may only have one formal “A” number. In multiple applications cases, however, an alien may receive multiple “A” numbers.
http://www.greencardapply.com/question/question09/question09_0911.htm


http://www.greencardapply.com
http://www.greencardfamily.com

Can TN Visa Holder Apply for U.S. Labor Certification


加拿大公民拥有TN 签证可以申请美国绿卡(Labor Certification)吗?

TN-1 is a temporary visa that needs intent to return to Canada upon completion of the one-year temporary work. Unlike the H-1B, TN does not enjoy dual intent.

But filing of labor certification application does not in itself constitute such an intent not to return to Canada. In your case, you are in a very early stage of the immigration process, waiting for the labor certification application. Accordingly, you are not likely to face a serious problem either at the border or at the USCIS Service Center, in obtaining extension of TN status for another year.

Canadians can often gain entry to the US with greater ease than others; this preferential treatment for Canadians is linked to treaty provisions within the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). While there are many NAFTA related visas, the most useful one is the TN1. The TN1 visa was modeled on the H1B; it may only be used where the employer is based in the US, and the candidate is a professional in one of the categories listed on below. Where a candidate, by their profession and nationality, qualifies for the TN1 visa, it has the following advantages over the H1B:

http://www.greencardapply.com/question/question07/question07_0605.htm

http://www.greencardapply.com
http://www.greencardfamily.com

Restrictions for EB1 Outstanding Researcher or Professor petition


There are some restrictions for EB1 Outstanding Researcher or Professor petition.

The first restriction is the "academic field". The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulations define the term of academic field as "a body of specialized knowledge offered for study at an accredited United States university or institution of higher education."

The second restriction is the "permanent job offer". The term "permanent" in reference to a position means "either tenured, tenure-track, or for a term of indefinite or unlimited duration, and in which the employee will ordinarily have an expectation of continued employment unless there is good cause for termination."
http://www.greencardapply.com/or/or_qualify.htm


http://www.greencardapply.com
http://www.greencardfamily.com

Can I Apply for 2 NIW Petitions?


Generally, No. Because, in the Form I-140, you need to answer the question that why you need to file 2 NIW? and what is the status of another NIW?

But, it is possible to file two petitions such as an EB-1 and a NIW at the same time. Some applicants file two I-140 petitions simultaneously in EB-1 and NIW.

The requirements in EB-1 and NIW are different, and the application preparation is significantly different between these two classifications. For example, it may be likely that one could qualify for EB-1, but not NIW. But once your I-140 is approved, there is no major difference between these two classifications for the I-485 application later.

It is possible to file two petitions such as an EB-1 and a NIW at the same time. Some applicants file two I-140 petitions simultaneously in EB-1 and NIW. There is nothing stated in the law that prohibits multiple filings. Actually, multiple filings increase your chances. http://www.greencardapply.com/ea/ea_faq.htm


http://www.greencardapply.com
http://www.greencardfamily.com

Premium Processing for Form I-140 Application


USCIS accepts Form I-907 Premium Processing Service Requests for I-140 petitions for all categories, except the following two classifications:

1) EB-1C Multinational Corporate Executive/Manager; and

2) EB-2 National Interest Waiver.

The Form I-907 Premium Processing Service does not include I-485 application.

The Premium Processing Services (PPS) will be available not only for the new I-140 filings but also the pending I-140 cases. When PPS request is filed for the pending cases, the petitioners may make it sure to enclose a copy of the Receipt Notice of pending I-140 petitions to assist the agency. http://www.greencardapply.com/news/news09/news09_0702.htm

http://www.greencardapply.com
http://www.greencardfamily.com

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

The EB2 Backlog Analysis for India and China in the Visa Bulletin


The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has updated charts of pending employment-based (EB) adjustment of status (I-485) cases. These charts provide precise details of the numbers of I-485 cases currently filed and pending with the USCIS by year and month of priority date, and country of chargeability. They provide a helpful picture of the pending demand for the limited immigrant visa numbers in each EB category.

In the EB2 category, historically, only India and China regularly experience cutoff dates in the Visa Bulletin. This is reflected in the volume of pending cases in EB2 for all countries other than India and China. There are enough visa numbers available to meet demand and, thus, there is not a large volume of pending cases.

These cases can be routinely processed without delays due to visa number issues. Thus, there are only slightly more than 3,300 EB2 I-485s from countries other than India, China, Mexico, and the Philippines. Most of these cases have priority dates between 2005 to 2010.

This contrasts sharply with the volume of cases pending in EB2 for nationals of India and China. China has 16,630 pending EB2 cases, most having priority dates between 2005 and 2007. India has more than twice as many as China, with slightly more than 39,000 cases pending. Of these, most have priority dates that fall between 2005 and 2007.

When the current pending cases for EB2 India are compared to the chart provided in our October 2009 article, there is a noticeable change. The older charts show more than 6,000 pending EB2 India cases with priority dates in 2004. The newer charts reflect only about 300 such cases, and fewer than 300 with priority dates of earlier than 2004.


http://www.greencardapply.com/news/news10/news10_0627.htm

www.greencardapply.com
www.greencardfamily.com

The Standards for Prevailing Wage Determination and the Employment-Based Immigration



The Standards for Prevailing Wage Determination and the Employment-Based Immigration

In employment-based nonimmigrant visas and immigration processes, the standards for prevailing wage determination are critically important in that the identical prevailing wage which is required for certain foreign workers applies to all the cities, villages, and counties or other local entities, for a given metropolitan area.

The change of work site for the same employer as affected by the employer's relocation within the metropolitan statistical area is not a 'material' change under the immigration regulation and does not affect the non-immigrant's current employment-based nonimmigrant status, and approved labor certification or immigrant petitions, even though the rules require either report of the change of address for the employer when extension of their nonimmigrant status is filed with the same employer or amendment of the approved I-140 petition.

Additionally, some outlying areas can be included or excluded in the metropolitan statistical area depending on the standard and definition of the metropolitan area or metropolitan statistical area. In 2009, a committee published in the federal register its recommendation for the new standards of metropolitan area and metropolitan statistical area of 2010 to change the decade-old standards of 2000.

After a careful study and consideration of the comments which had been received, the White House OMB has finally decided to accept the recommendation as the new standards for determination of metropolitan statistical areas. This determination will be published on Monday, 06/28/2010.

Considering its impact on the employment-based immigration practices, practitioners, employers, and foreign workers may review this new standards which are incorporated in the 2009 federal register notice. Readers may revisit our report in 2009 to review the 2009 recommendation.

http://www.greencardapply.com/news/news10/news10_0628.htm

www.greencardapply.com
www.greencardfamily.com

Issue of I-485 Applicants Returning from Overseas Trips


Issue of I-485 Applicants Returning from Overseas Trips in Unlawful H/L Visa Status Without a Valid Advance Parole: When H-1B and /L-1 professionals and dependant family members in H-4 or L-2 make an overseas trip and return on such nonimmigrant visa status when they are no long in lawful H/L visa status, they are subject to potential denial of I-485 applications on two different grounds unlike those who use and return to the U.S. on a valid Advance Parole.

When it comes to the impact of unlawful H/L nonimmigrant status at the time of returning from the overseas trip on the pending EB-485 applications, the key issue remains denial of EB-485 applications on the ground of the unlawful H/L visa status or unauthorized employment when they return using a valid Advance Parole.

Meanwhile, those who return to the country in H/L visa status without a valid Advance Parole can be subject to denial of the pending EB-485 applications on one another ground, to wit, abandonment of his/her 485 application because under the immigration rule, the returning of 485 applicant can keep his/her 485 application only when they entered in "a lawful H/L status if they enter on H/L visa status without an Advance Parole that had been issued prior to his/her departure from the U.S.

The most bright-line situation can involve layoff or termination of H or L employment and withdrawal of the H-1B or L-1 petition by the employer. Since the rule requires that the alien was returning to resume the H/L employment to keep the pending I-485 application, return of such alien in H/L status presents a potential risk of denial of I-485 application not only on the violation of the nonimmigrant status but also on the ground of abandonment of pending I-485 application.

When it comes to the first ground for denial, since the alien will be eligible for 245(k) benefit if the violation did not last longer than 180 days, the first ground can be overcome. Second ground of abandonment of application is a different story. Had the alien returned on an Advance Parole in an identical factual situation, he/she would be required to deal only with the first issue and not the second issue.

http://www.greencardapply.com/news/news10/news10_0707.htm


www.greencardapply.com
www.greencardfamily.com

President Obama CIR Speech and Prospect for CIR Legislation


The President and Hispanic leaders have apparently been under tremendous pressure from the Hispanic community and Mexico on the Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) legislation.

The Obama speech appeared to be a by-product of such political pressure and a political statement. As for the legislative agenda for the 111th Congress, there is practically no room for the Congress to accommodate and complete this legislation before the end of December 31, 2010.

The practical question on success of this legislation within this calendar year lies not with introduction of such CIR bill within the year but successful passage of the bill within the year. Implicitly, this has been admitted both by the Democrats and the Hispanic leaders. However, it does not translate into the conclusion that the Obama speech was meaningless and purely a political gimmick.

There were numerous reports in the Washington political circles that the Democratic leaders were accepting early CIR legislative agenda for 112th Congress that will open in January 2011. In order to achieve such agenda, the CIR legislation momentum will have to be continuously built this year. In this regard, other than calculation of November election, the Democrats appear to be moving into a right direction. Question then remains: Whether this strategy can survive the November election. It thus translate into a more substantive question of whether the Democrats will be able to keep majority seats in both the Senate and the House after the election.

http://www.greencardapply.com/news/news10/news10_0708.htm


www.greencardapply.com
www.greencardfamily.com

Green Card application in EB2


Question:

I am consider the Green Card application in EB2. What are the advantages of EB2 - National Interest Waiver over the regular EB-2 based on the PERM Labor certification?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answer:

To get a Green Card under EB2 - National Interest Waiver category, there are two independent steps. The first step is to file form I-140 along with a petition to verify that your employment has enough national interest to waive the otherwise required Labor Certification (PERM). After your I-140 is approved, you may file for Green Card using form I-485.

Many people prefer NIW for several reasons. First, you can self-petition. This means that you can file for Green Card
by yourself, without the consent or knowledge of your employer. Second, the NIW requirement is easier than EB-1 Alien of Extraordinary Ability. Third, with NIW, you can skip the Labor Certification process (PERM). Filing a Labor Certification is a burdensome and time consuming process.

http://www.greencardapply.com/question/question10/question10_0503.htm


www.greencardapply.com
www.greencardfamily.com

President Barack Obama has voiced his support for a comprehensive immigration reform


President Barack Obama has voiced his support for a comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) proposal announced on April 29, 2010. The proposal, known as Real Enforcement with Practical Answers for Immigration Reform (REPAIR), is a framework of ideas for immigration reform. This proposal has not yet been introduced in the form of a proposed bill, but is potentially a significant step toward, establishing a framework and consensus for CIR.

The President's statement emphasized the responsibility of the federal government for immigration law enforcement and border security. He referred to the continued failure of federal efforts to fix the immigration system as leaving the door open to inconsistent state and local laws, referring to these measures as "often misguided" - a clear reference to Arizona's recent controversial immigration enforcement measures.

The President praised the REPAIR proposal, characterizing it as bipartisan and grounded in principles of responsibility and accountability. The President's statement focused primarily on problems of illegal immigration, rather than legal immigration, in supporting tougher penalties for employers of unauthorized workers.

The twenty-six page REPAIR proposal contains an eight-year timeframe for addressing matters related to undocumented foreign nationals in the United States. It involves a registration process for undocumented foreign nationals, an interim legal status, followed by potential eligibility for adjustment of status to permanent residence. The eligibility of undocumented foreign nationals to obtain permanent residence is intended to occur after current family and employment permanent residence backlogs are cleared. The proposal contains provisions to facilitate clearing the existing backlogs within eight years.

The proposal sets benchmarks for securing the border during the eight-year period following enactment of CIR. The measures include increased Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) officers and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel. In addition to personnel increases, the proposal supports additional technology, weapons, training, vehicles, and equipment.

The proposal provides for the creation of a commission to monitor border security and issue recommendations for additional legal changes. At some point, when border control has been more fully addressed by the federal government, state and local governments would not be permitted to enact immigration laws.

The enforcement provisions include expanded entry / exit systems to monitor those who overstay their permitted admission to the United States. It creates new crimes for certain immigration-related document fraud and increases immigration consequences for fraud and misrepresentation. Other measures target human smuggling and trafficking in humans and provide for additional biometric screening at ports of entry.

As part of the immigration enforcement efforts aimed at employers, the proposal includes biometrics in the employment verification system requirements. The changes involve a fraud and tamper resistant social security card containing a photograph and biometric data. Employers will have to verify employment eligibility for all newly hired employees using the electronic employment verification system.

As mentioned, the eligibility of undocumented foreign nationals to normalize their status would occur after clearing existing family and employment backlogs. As most of our readers know, these backlogs exist due to strict annual limits on the numbers of foreign nationals who can obtain permanent residence. This is not simply a delay in processing cases or paperwork.

Under the proposal, there would be new, stricter requirements for H1Bs. These provisions include limiting the number of H1B and L-1 employees permitted for a single employer.

As part of the effort to clear out the long backlogs in employment-based permanent immigration, the proposal would eliminate per-country limits. These quotas cause significantly greater waiting times for applicants from countries with high rates of immigration, such as India and China.

Another significant change is the authorization of the recapture of unused immigrant visa numbers from prior years. This would add to the available visa numbers and allow for clearing backlogged cases. Separately, there are revised provisions for temporary lower-skilled and agricultural workers.

The proposal intends to resolve the family-based case backlogs over the eight-year period. To accomplish this goal, spouses and children of lawful permanent residents will be reclassified, and the per-country caps will be raised. After the eight years, the limits will return to their current levels.

http://www.greencardfamily.com/news/news2010/news2010_0608.htm


www.greencardapply.com
www.greencardfamily.com

USICE Policy Guidance on OPT, 17-Month STEM Extension


USICE Policy Guidance on OPT, 17-Month STEM Extension, and H-1B Cap-Gap Rules, as Revised 04/23/2010: The USICE has been implementing its revised policy guidance since 04/23/2010 for OPT students without much publicity and controversy.

Following are the changes which they made to the Policy Guidance which was released earlier years:

Provides current dates related to H-1B petitioning for 2010 (and removes information related to previous years)

Amends the text to past tense, as applicable.

Replaces the term OPT STEM extension with 17-month extension.

Deletes reference to the public comment period for the IFR, which has closed (section 1.2). Adds text related to school filing of courses of study for CIPs, for

STEM designation of CIPS and for DHS approval of STEM CIPS for the 17-month
extension of OPT (section 1.3). Adds text on other resources available related to the IFR (section 1.4)

Refines procedures for filing for OPT after the program end date (section 5.2)

Deletes 10 day exceptions to the time that counts for unemployment during OPT at the EAD start date and between jobs. SEVP will need approval for such exceptions through another proposed rulemaking. (sections 7.1.6 and 7.1.7)

Removed restriction that employment during the 17-month extension must be paid employment. SEVP will need approval for such a restriction through another proposed rulemaking. (sections 7.2.2 and 7.2.3)

Deletes dates for wait-listing for this year. SEVP has been notified by USCIS that there will not be a waitlist utilized as a part of the FY 2011 H1B Cap filing process (section 9.1.1).

www.greencardapply.com/news/news10/news10_0606.htm


www.greencardapply.com
www.greencardfamily.com

The fiscal year 2011 (FY11) H1B cap season continues to be open


The fiscal year 2011 (FY11) H1B cap season continues to be open as of the end of May 2010, with a low rate of case filings.

FY10 was unusual when compared to the two years prior, as the cap was not reached in the first days of filing. The FY10 cap season ended December 21, 2009, when all the cap numbers were used.

The FY11 filings are even lighter than in FY10. As of the most recent count, dated May 21, 2010, only 19,600 cases have been filed against the regular cap. The advanced-degree cap count as of the same date is 8,200. The FY10 count, in approximately the same timeframe, included more than twice as many filings against both caps. This decrease is believed to be tied to the economy as well as to the chilling effect of the current USCIS adjudication trends and standards.

The bad news, for some, is that it has become more difficult to obtain H1B approvals. However, it is possible to obtain H1B approvals for well-documented cases. It is necessary to provide clear evidence regarding the position to be performed, the employer-employee relationship, and, in some cases, general, overall compliance with the H1B requirements on the part of the employer.

Thus, the good news is that the difficulty in obtaining approvals, combined with the current economy, translates into ample cap number availability, as of this writing. Of course, getting an approval will require a complete and detailed H1B petition filing on behalf of a qualified candidate. www.greencardapply.com/news/news10/news10_0605.htm


www.greencardapply.com
www.greencardfamily.com

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

USCIS Site Visiting and Its Efforts to Ensure Employers' H1B Compliant


Employer may Request Identification from Site Inspector: Site inspectors should have proper identification and USCIS credentials, and show these to the employer. Employers should always ask for the identification of any persons claiming to be acting on behalf of the government. The site inspectors will want to speak with the H1B petitioner (the individual who signed the H1B petition). If s/he is not available, the site inspectors will seek out an appropriate alternative who has authority within the company.

Employers should discuss the possibility of such visits with their human resources (HR) or other appropriate personnel. If an employer wishes to have an attorney present, the inspector should be informed and additional time requested, if needed.

Inspector's Observations on Employer's Bona Fides and Operation: The inspector will look at the public aspects of the employer's premises to determine if the address on the petition appears to be that of the petitioning organization. The signage will be examined for the name of the business. Neighboring businesses or residents may be asked to verify the location and existence of the business. The type of premises will be noted, and photographs may be taken.

With permission from an organizational representative, the site inspectors will tour the facilities. The purpose is to determine if the business appears to be legitimate and engaged in appropriate business activities.

Employer Questioned on H1B Employee, Job Duties, and Other Details: The site inspectors will ask the selected company representative general questions about an H1B foreign national. These questions will cover information taken from the H1B petition and will cover the position, duties, and terms of employment.

The site inspectors will attempt to verify whether the beneficiary is currently employed by the H1B sponsor. If the individual is employed with the company, the USCIS will ask for proof. If the individual is not employed by the company, the USCIS may inquire as to whether the employer has information about the foreign national's location and current employment. This is one of several reasons it is important for H1B employers to properly document employment terminations. However, employers are not responsible under the law for tracking their former employees.

Questions to H1B Employee Often Include H1B Work and H1B Filing Fees: The site inspectors will want to speak to the H1B beneficiary, who will be asked to show his/her identification. The purpose of this discussion is to determine if the H1B beneficiary's employment is consistent with the terms and conditions in the H1B petition. The H1B beneficiary will be expected to speak knowledgeably about her/his position and employment. There may be questions regarding the foreign national's educational background. The site inspectors also may inquire into payments made by the employee in connection with the filing of the H1B petition. http://www.greencardapply.com/news/news10/news10_0415.htm

USCIS New Q&A on Extension of Post-Completion OPT and F-1 Status


USCIS New Q&A on Extension of Post-Completion OPT and F-1 Status for Eligible Students Under the H-1B Cap-Gap Regulations - Extension of Post-Completion Optional Practical Training (OPT) and F-1 Status for Eligible Students under the H-1B Cap-Gap Regulations

Introduction

These Questions & Answers address the automatic extension of F-1 student status in the United States for certain students with pending or approved H-1B petitions (indicating a request for change of status from F-1 to H-1B) for an employment start date of Oct. 1, 2010 under the Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 H-1B cap.

Questions & Answers

Q: What is the H-1B cap?

A: The cap is the congressionally-mandated limit on the number of individuals who may be granted initial H-1B status or visas during each fiscal year. For FY 2011, the cap is 65,000.

Not all H-1B beneficiaries are subject to the cap. Congress has provided that the first 20,000 H-1B petitions filed on behalf of aliens who have earned a U.S. master’s degree or higher are exempt from the fiscal year cap. H-1B petitions filed on behalf of beneficiaries who will work at institutions of higher education or related or affiliated nonprofit entities, or at nonprofit research organizations or governmental research organizations are exempt from the fiscal year cap. Additionally, petitions filed on behalf of beneficiaries who will be performing work or services solely in Guam and/or the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI) are exempt from the cap until Dec. 31, 2014. Generally, H-1B beneficiaries seeking to extend status and/or add employers are not subject to the cap.

Q: What do Current F-1/H-1B Extension Regulations Allow?

A: Current regulations allow certain students with pending or approved H-1B petitions to remain in F-1 status during the period of time when an F-1 student’s status and work authorization would otherwise expire, and up to the start of their approved H-1B employment period. This is referred to as filling the “cap-gap,” meaning the regulations provide a way of filling the “gap” between F-1 and H-1B status that might otherwise occur if F-1 status was not extended for qualifying students.

Q: How does “Cap-Gap” Occur?

A: An employer may not file and USCIS may not accept, an H-1B petition submitted earlier than six months in advance of the date of actual need for the beneficiary’s services or training. As a result, the earliest date that an employer can file an H-1B petition is April 1, for the following fiscal year, starting October 1. If USCIS approves the H-1B petition and the accompanying change of status request, the earliest date that the student may start the approved H-1B employment is Oct. 1. Consequently, F-1 students who do not qualify for a cap-gap extension, and whose periods of authorized stay expire before October 1, are required to leave the United States, apply for an H-1B visa at a consular post abroad, and then seek readmission to the United States in H-1B status, for the dates reflected on the approved H-1B petition.

Q: Which petitions and beneficiaries qualify for a cap-gap extension?

A: H-1B petitions must be timely filed on behalf of an eligible F-1 student. Timely filed means that the H-1B petition (indicating change of status rather than consular processing) was filed during the H-1B acceptance period, while the student's authorized duration of status (D/S) admission was still in effect (including any period of time during the academic course of study, any authorized periods of post-completion OPT, and the 60-day departure preparation period, commonly known as the “grace period”).

Once a timely filing has been made, the automatic cap-gap extension will begin and will continue until the H-1B petition adjudication process has been completed. If the student’s H-1B petition is selected and approved the student’s extension will continue through September 30th unless the petition is denied, withdrawn, or revoked. If the student’s H-1B petition is not selected and approved, the student will have the standard 60-day grace period from the date of the rejection notice or their program or OPT end date, whichever is later, to prepare for and depart the United States.

Students are strongly encouraged to stay in close communication with their petitioning employer during the cap-gap extension period for status updates on the H-1B petition processing.

Q: How does a student covered under the cap-gap extension obtain proof of continuing status?

A: A student will need to obtain an updated Form I-20 from his or her designated school official (DSO). The Form I-20 is the only document a student will have to show proof of continuing status and OPT, if applicable. The student should go to their DSO with evidence of a timely filed H-1B petition (indicating a request for change of status rather than for consular processing), such as a copy of the petition and a FedEx, UPS, or USPS Express/certified mail receipt. The student’s DSO will issue an interim cap-gap I-20 showing an extension until June 1st. Students whose approved period of OPT already extends beyond June 1st do not need an interim extension.

In some cases, a student’s SEVIS record will not be automatically updated with the cap-gap extension, in error. In this situation, the student’s DSO may need to add an interim cap-gap extension to the student’s SEVIS record or contact the SEVIS Help Desk to have the full cap-gap extension applied to the record. For additional information on the interim cap-gap extension, refer to SEVP’s Supplementary Cap-Gap Guidance.

Q: If a student was not in an authorized period of OPT on the eligibility date for the cap-gap extension; can the student work during the cap-gap extension?

A: No. For a student to have employment authorization during the cap-gap extension, he or she must be in an approved period of post-completion OPT on the eligibility date.

Q: If, after being granted the automatic cap-gap extension, a student’s H-1B petition is subsequently rejected, denied, or revoked is the student allowed the 60-day grace period?

A: Yes. The student will have the standard 60-day grace period before he or she is required to depart the United States. In such cases, the 60-day grace period will commence on the date that the rejection, denial, or revocation letter is post marked.

Please note that in cases where the H-1B petition is denied or revoked based on fraud, misrepresentation, or a status violation, the student is ineligible for the 60-day grace period and is required to leave the United States immediately.

Q: May students travel outside the United States during a cap-gap extension period and return in F-1 status?

A: No. The regulations at 8 CFR 214.2(f)(13) state that a student who has an unexpired Employment Authorization Document (EAD) issued for post-completion OPT and who is otherwise admissible may return to the United States to resume employment after a temporary absence. However, by definition, the EAD of an F-1 student covered under a cap-gap extension is necessarily expired. Consequently, if a student granted a cap-gap extension elects to travel outside the United States during the cap-gap extension period, he or she will not be able to return in F-1 status. The student will need to apply for an H-1B visa at a consular post abroad prior to returning. As the H-1B petition is presumably for an October 1 or later start date, the student should be prepared to adjust his or her travel plans, accordingly.

Q: Do the limits on unemployment time apply to students who have been granted an automatic cap-gap extension for F-1 status and post-completion OPT?

A: Yes. The 90-day limitation on unemployment during the initial post-completion OPT authorization continues during the cap-gap extension.

Q: What is a STEM OPT extension?

A: F-1 students who receive science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees included on the STEM Designated Degree Program List, are employed by employers enrolled in E-Verify, and who have received an initial grant of post-completion OPT employment authorization related to such a degree, may apply for a 17-month extension of such authorization. F-1 students may obtain additional information about STEM OPT extensions on the Student and Exchange Visitor Program website at www.ice.gov/sevis.

Q: If the student is granted the automatic cap-gap extension of F-1 status and post-completion OPT, and his or her H-1B petition is denied or withdrawn, may the student apply for a STEM OPT extension?

A: Yes. However, such an application must be made within 10 days of the denial or withdrawal. See section 9 of SEVP’s OPT Policy Guidance.

Q: For Fiscal Year 2010, due to the availability of H-1Bs, not all employers requested an October 1 start date. However, some students’ OPT end dates were nevertheless shortened to September 30, even though their H-1B employment would not begin until a later date. What should the student do to correct this?

A. The student should contact their DSO. The DSO may request a data fix in SEVIS by contacting the SEVIS helpdesk. A student may continue to work past October 1st on their OPT (their EAD card will still show the original end date) if the request to change the end date back is pending with the SEVIS Desk.

Q. An F-1 student whose period of post-completion OPT will extend beyond the effective date of his or her change of status to H-1B does not need the automatic cap-gap extension of his or her period of F-1 status and OPT. If the H-1B employer of such a student withdraws the H-1B petition before the change of status to H-1B becomes effective, can the student continue to use any remaining period of post-completion OPT?

A. Yes, but only if USCIS receives the withdrawal request from the H-1B petitioner before the change of status to H-1B becomes effective. Once the petition has been withdrawn, the student must provide his or her DSO with a copy of the USCIS acknowledgement of withdrawal (or notice of revocation). The DSO may then make a request to the SEVIS Help Desk for a data fix to the student’s record in SEVIS. Such students may continue to work pursuant to their unused period of OPT while the data fix remains pending because the student will still be in valid F-1 status.

If, however, USCIS does not receive the withdrawal request before the change of status to H-1B becomes effective, the student must file a Form I-539 to request reinstatement and may not work or attend classes until the reinstatement is approved.

Q. Are students considered to be in valid F-1 status after revocation of the H1B petition has occurred, but while the request to change the OPT end date remains pending?

A. Possibly. If the H-1B employer revokes the H-1B petition prior to October 1 and the student’s original OPT end date extends beyond the date of revocation, the student remains in valid F-1 status and may continue to work pursuant to the EAD received for OPT.

If the student’s original OPT end date expires before revocation of the H-1B petition has occurred, the student retains work authorization for a 10-day period following the date of revocation and enters the 60-day grace period on the date of revocation.

A student who was granted an automatic cap-gap extension that does not include an extension of OPT remains in valid F-1 status and enters into the 60-day grace period on the date of revocation.

Each of the scenarios above are based on the assumption that the student has maintained F-1 status up until the date of revocation.

If the H-1B revocation occurs after the H-1B change of status effective date, the student will not be in valid F-1 status and will therefore either need to apply for reinstatement or depart the United States. http://www.greencardapply.com/news/news10/news10_0416.htm

The Social Security Benefits and U.S. Permanent Resident


Once a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. resident leaves the country, then their social security benefits are subject to change. U.S. citizens abroad will still receive regular benefits as long as they are eligible for them. There are a couple of countries that the United States cannot send payments to like North Korea and Cuba, but will commence payment once that citizen relocates to another country.

For permanent residents, only those who are citizens of select countries will continue to receive benefits as long as that resident lived/worked in the United States for at least 10 years or earned 40 credits. Some of these countries include but are not limited to China, India, Taiwan, etc. All others will stop receiving benefits 6 months after departure from the United States, excluding those who meet certain exceptions.

Family members of permanent residents who lived and worked in the United States for at least 10 years and earned a minimum of 40 credits will also continue to receive benefits if they are citizens of select countries. For family members that leave the United States and survive the person whom benefits were based on, payments will continue so long as the family members lived in the United States for at least five years. In order to determine if you or your family members qualify for continued benefits upon departing the United States, please refer to this page.

As a permanent resident, up to 85% of your benefits are subject to taxation. If you are not a permanent resident or citizen and work in the United States, your benefits will also be taxed. If you work for an employer, 6.2% of your earnings are withheld. Your employer will deposit the withholdings, along with a matching contribution of 6.2% to the government for social security programs.

In 2009, once your earnings reach $106,800, the employee tax and employer matching contribution stop. In addition, 1.45% of your earnings are withheld for Medicare. Your employer will match this amount with a 1.45% contribution; all of your earnings are subject to Medicare tax, regardless of how much you make. If you are self-employed, you pay 12.4% of your taxable income to social security until your earnings reach $106,800. You also pay 2.9% of your taxable income to Medicare on all of your earnings.

If you leave the U. S. in the future, you may be reimbursed for all of your paid social security taxes and Medicare taxes by following certain procedures. However, bear in mind, that there are also exceptions to social security taxation; certain foreign countries do not tax benefits earned through work in the United States or charge a reduced rate. For example, Indian nationals do not have to pay this tax so long as they receive benefits based on their work with the U.S. government at a local, state, or national level.

For both U.S. citizens and permanent residents, the future of social security is uncertain. It has been estimated that by the year 2016, the amount of benefits owed to the public will surpass taxation. At this current rate, all social security funds will be exhausted by 2037. In order to maintain this system, as it provides valuable benefits to both non-citizens and citizens alike, social security will have to undergo further reform to meet the needs of the ever-changing American demographic.

Additional information about social security can be found on the official website. Please refer to this page if you have further questions or concerns. http://www.greencardapply.com/news/news10/news10_0424.htm

USCBP Questions for H-1Bs Entering the U.S.


1. CBP Questions Focus on H1B Work Location and Wage Computations:

Based upon the cases that we have seen, and reports of the incidents in Newark, NJ, the CBP's (U.S. Customs and Border Protection) questions were primarily aimed at determining the nature and location of the foreign national's work, and the manner of wage payment calculations.

The CBP asked about the location of the work. In the instances of expedited removal that came to our attention, the CBP asked questions about whether there was a contract between the H1B petitioner and the end client. Where there was not a direct contract, they appeared, at least in some cases, to misinterpret the concepts in the recent employer-employee relationship memo to arbitrarily determine that there was not valid H1B employment.

Other questions related to the manner of payment of the employee. The questions included whether anyone takes a cut or portion of the individual's pay. This can be a confusing question for some IT consultants who may think in terms of their billing rates and related bonus structures, rather than the required salary set forth in their H1B petitions.

2. Respond to CBP Questions Accurately and Based on Personal Knowledge:

It is necessary that any answers provided to a government official are correct. Individuals who are questioned at the POE should only give information based on direct, personal knowledge. Most employees do not have this type of information about the contracts entered into by their employers. These contracts are usually private, proprietary matters that are not freely divulged to employees. One should never guess or make assumptions when giving answers to any government official.

If an individual is being asked for information that s/he does not have, then it would be more appropriate for the CBP to contact the H1B employer. These concerns might be better addressed through a deferred inspection. This would allow for submission of proof that the worker is acting consistently with the H1B petition approval.

3. Difference between Wage Rate and Billing Rate for Consulting Companies:

The USCIS previously approved many H1B petitions based on employment arrangements that were questioned at the Newark POE. That is, the cases have clearly reflected employment at third-party worksites, and have included proof of the existence of mid vendors between the petitioner and the end client. The USCIS has uniformly insisted upon detailed proof of the nature of the position, including end client letters and related contracts in H1B petitions in recent years. The consulates that issue most H1B visas have been applying similar standards.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

More Options for Conditional Permanent Residents with Marital Problems - PART 2


1. Waiver Requests Filed Prior to Marriage Termination

The recent memo, issued by Donald Neufeld, Acting Associate Director, and dated April 3, 2009 (released in July 2009), addresses the lack of a category for those who married in good faith, but are separated or in the process of divorce. The memo instructs USCIS officers who review these cases to issue requests for evidence (RFEs) if they encounter I-751s requesting waiver of the joint requirement, if the couple was still legally married at the time of the filing. The RFE has an 87-day period for response and requests proof of termination of the marriage.

If the foreign national can respond to the RFE within the allowed timeframe, providing proof of the termination of the marriage in the form of a divorce decree or annulment, then the case can be approved. This is a significant variation from the general immigration requirements that an individual must be eligible for the benefit requested at the time of filing. This is one situation in which a slow processing time may work to the advantage of the foreign national, as it may provide enough time to finalize a divorce.

2. Joint Filings with Troubled Marriages :

Another variation with I-751 filings involves couples who file jointly, but are legally separated or in the process of divorce. The USCIS reviews these cases carefully, as they view this as a potential indication that the marriage may not have been bona fide at its inception. In these cases, the USCIS will issue RFEs with 87-days for response.

This RFE will request a copy of documentation proving termination of the marriage, and a request to have the joint petition treated as a request for a waiver of the joint filing. This allows the foreign national to obtain the waiver, if the marriage has been terminated, without having to re-file the I-751. Previously, a new filing would have been required.

If there is no response to the RFE, or the response does not establish that the marriage is terminated, the USCIS will adjudicate it as a joint petition. The result will depend on the evidence of bona fide marriage. The case may be forwarded to a USCIS field office for an in-person interview to determine if it was bona fide at the time when the parties entered into the marriage.

http://www.greencardfamily.com/news/news2009/news2009_1210.htm


www.greencardapply.com
www.greencardfamily.com

Options for Conditional Permanent Residents with Marital Problems - Part 1


The USCIS recently issued a memorandum providing more options for the filing of the required I-751 form requesting removal of the conditions on residency. Conditional permanent resident status is given to individuals who receive permanent residence (green card) status via a recent marriage to a U.S. citizen. The change in procedures involves situations in which a divorce is in process or in which a divorce is finalized after the I-751 filing. The change addresses some long-standing problems and provides more options for conditional permanent residents who are in troubled marriages.

If a marriage has been less than two years in duration at the time permanent residence is granted, the status of the foreign national spouse then is "conditional." The condition is that it expires within two years, unless the Form I-751 is filed, at the appropriate time, to request that the conditions be removed. If the I-751 is granted, the foreign national spouse becomes a permanent resident without any conditions.

The conditional status is an anti-fraud measure and is necessary to provide updated proof of a bona fide marriage in support of the I-751 form. This form can be filed jointly, with both husband and wife signing. Alternatively, it is possible to request a waiver of the joint filing requirement, if the marriage was entered into in good faith, but was subsequently terminated. It is also possible to obtain a waiver if the marriage was entered into in good faith, but there was abuse and, separately, it is possible to request a waiver if removal of the foreign national spouse would result in extreme hardship.

For many years, to satisfy conditions for filing the I-751, it was necessary to either file jointly OR to qualify for a waiver request at the time of filing. This created a serious problem for individuals whose marriages were troubled. If the U.S. citizen spouse was unwilling to sign the I-751, but the couple was still legally married, there often was no way to properly file the I-751 when needed. Absent the joint filing, it was necessary to have a basis for a waiver request. As explained above, waivers require marriage termination (divorce), abuse, or extreme hardship.

This is a common problem since the I-751 must be filed before the two years of conditional residency expires. Generally, it can be filed up to 90 days in advance of that point. If a marriage encounters problems, it is often not possible to divorce without the couple first being separated for an extended period. (Legal requirements for separation prior to being granted a divorce vary from state to state, with common timeframes ranging from six months to two years.)

Couples sometimes separate and go through a period of months when they decide whether they can resolve their problems, or if divorce is to be pursued. Thus, many individuals find themselves in marital limbo when the I-751 is due to be filed. In the past, unless the couple was still amicable, so that the U.S. citizen spouse would sign the form, the foreign national could not file, and then the conditional status would terminate.


http://www.greencardfamily.com/news/news2009/news2009_1112.htm



www.greencardapply.com
www.greencardfamily.com