I thought it would be in the same format as the USCIS Pending Inventory. Without a yearwise breakup, this report serves limited purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Printable View
I thought it would be in the same format as the USCIS Pending Inventory. Without a yearwise breakup, this report serves limited purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
I140 rule submitted by USCIS to OMB
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAg...&RIN=1615-AC05
Q, Spec , Kanmani .... Your insights please.. Thank you in advance
Where are the specifics of the proposed rules? Sorry I am being dense in the morning!Quote:
Originally Posted by mesan123
I don't think it adds anything that wasn't already known. It's a very generic summary.Quote:
Originally Posted by mesan123
The devil will be in the detail of the actual rule published for comment.
As of now i couldnot find more specifics.. This was submitted by USCIS yesterday.. I have no more information yet.. Might be guessing full rule will be published by OMB once he finalizes it... But thought you guys might know the more on the sections mentioned in the current infoQuote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Thank you Spec :) hopefully they do it in way to give EAD, AP .. I know i m asking for more :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
To fellow forum members
The link that mesan provided above was unavaialble for a while this afternoon but is up again.I feel that the content now has changed compared to the link yesterday.I distinctly remember that there was language towards the end of the rule that suggested that the USCIS might merge this rule with another rule which when searched seemed to include phrases like work authrization etc. The current rule (RIN: 1615-AC05 ) although largely similar to yesterday now now says that
1615-AB97 (another AC21 regulation if you search the database) will be the regulation merged with it. Maybe I am mistaken and there is probably no change.
Also certain sections mentioned in the current rule especially section 274A(h)(3)(B) of the INA and 8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)(B) relate to unlawful employment of aliens and I am not sure how they fit in the current context
Time will tell
The good thing is that this rule has been deemed "Economically Significant". So, OMB has to complete their review within 30 days. Note that the NPRM date is now changed to 12/00/2015. Considering 30 days for review, USCIS expects to publish this proposed rule in the FR for comments late December. As Spec mentioned, the devil is in the details when we get to read the full text of the rule. We have to wait till then.
eQuote:
Originally Posted by EB3Iwaiting
Where does it says that "Economically Significant" rules has to be reviewed in 30 days? I couldn't find that anywhere.
Go to the OMB dashboard and select DHS. You will see RIN1615-AC05 in "Pending Review" status. It also says "Yes" to Economically Significant.Quote:
Originally Posted by delguy
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/EO/eoDashboard.jsp
I have been working with a journalism student working on a story on backlogged EB immigrants. I mentioned my estimated wait time for the green card to him and he asked about the source of the estimate. I pointed him to this forum and the experts here. He was wondering if any of the experts here would be willing to talk to him. will be happy to provide his contact details and introductions.
That I saw, but where does it say "30 days" period for "Economically Significant" rules?Quote:
Originally Posted by EB3Iwaiting
sorry if this post does not belong here, please move as appropriate.
Has anyone applied for EAD renewal recently and seeing any delays? My wife (dependent) and I (primary) sent the paperwork in that was received on Sep 11, 2015. It has been 86 days, online status still says "Case Received". Tried to make an infopass appointment (We are in NJ) for EAD inquiry and it says that at this time there is no information available for appointments. Is infopass still the process to follow or there is some other process now? thanks.
Contact local Senator / Congressman's office.Quote:
Originally Posted by AC_1980
thanks for the tip, I will do that. One question, is there a specific something I have to do/say when there (try to meet the senator himself/herself, mention about inquiry form #XXYY, process to contact USCIS etc), or should just walk in with a sad face, talk to them, explain the situation, ask if there's anything they can do to help, and they will know the rest?
Typically you go to their website and download and fill out the form (explaining what kind of help you need /which dept, provide receipt numbers etc) and fax it to them. The office staff is well aware of issues like EAD delays and know the next steps to help you out. IMO -No need to present yourself with a sad face. Just let them know the facts and urgency of the matter (e.g. financial loss if you did not get EAD on time).Quote:
Originally Posted by AC_1980
USCIS finally updated the figures (having failed to do so when all others were updated).
Period Petitions by Case Status
Special Immigrant Juvenile
-------Received - Approved - Denied - Pending
Fiscal Year - Total
2010 ---- 1,646 -----1,590 ----- 97 ------ 35
2011 ---- 2,226 -----1,869 ----- 84 ------ 47
2012 ---- 2,968 -----2,726 ---- 119 ----- 220
2013 ---- 3,994 -----3,431 ---- 190 ----- 702
2014 ---- 5,776 -----4,606 ---- 247 --- 1,826
2015 --- 11,500 -----8,739 ---- 412 --- 4,357
I've checked once again that SIJ are actually included in EB4.
From the INA (203(b)(4)) which describes EB4:
SIJ are shown as special immigrants under INA 101(a)(27)(J) and are not excluded above.Quote:
(4) Certain special immigrants. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified special immigrants described in section 101(a)(27) (other than those described in subparagraph (A) or (B) thereof), of which not more than 5,000 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants described in subclause (II) or (III) of section 101(a)(27)(C)(ii) , 2/ and not more than 100 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants, excluding spouses and children, who are described in section 101(a)(27)(M) .
See if this helps - http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartan...ed-immigrants/Quote:
Originally Posted by Positive
Too, refer to this document that was reference in the article - http://nfap.com/wp-content/uploads/2....Sept-2015.pdf
I applied for EAD renewal early this year and it took me longer than 2013. I think it took nearly 100 days. If it goes over 90 days, it can be escalated. Call USCIS on the 91st day.Quote:
Originally Posted by AC_1980
Very unpredictable. I applied for H4EAD and took more than 100 days, was about to raise a SR when I got the card. The letter informing / confirming that EAD card will be sent came two weeks later. Where as I saw some who applied later than me got cards earlier. Especially if things are going Vermont, expect 90 days response time I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by nbk1976
VB updated..
EB2 -India.. February 2008.
http://www.travel.state.gov/content/...uary-2016.html
Notice EB3-ROW Filing Date. It is 1st Jan 2016. Why not make it "C"? That will probably anger the rogue elements at USCIS. The filing dates for EB3ROW has moved 4 months. Does this mean there is low EB3ROW demand? They are the only chance for EB3I movement.
DOS data released. However, section V for EB is not there.
http://travel.state.gov/content/visa...fice-2015.html
That's quite sadist to specifically omit EB information.Quote:
Originally Posted by EB3Iwaiting
What do you mean "rogue elements"? Are there bureaucrats within USCIS who are working counter to the rest?Quote:
Originally Posted by EB3Iwaiting
CO is the one moves the dates. The reason he may not be making it current is he wants to wait a few months at least to ensure all of EB3-ROW is taken care of. Towards the last quarter he can make it current and let fall across come to EB3-I. As EB3-I applications are mostly pre-adjudicated, it is just a matter of getting medicals done( which can take a max of 1 month).Quote:
Originally Posted by EB3Iwaiting
As per USCIS visa bulletin - http://www.uscis.gov/visabulletininfo
For Family-Sponsored Filings:
You may use the Dates for Filing Visa Applications chart for January 2016.
For Employment-Based Filings:
You must use the Application Final Action Dates chart in the Department of State Visa Bulletin for January 2016 .
Spec/Gurus - since family shows 208k, does it imply an 18k spillover to EB ?Quote:
Originally Posted by EB3Iwaiting
Edit: 208k looks like CP only
Immigo,Quote:
Originally Posted by Immigo
As you have already surmised, the 208k represents CP cases only.
To put that into context, in FY2014, FB had 198k CP cases out of a total 221k FB approvals.
Unfortunately, it does appear that the preliminary EB allocation figure of just 300 extra in FY2016 will be fairly close to the mark.
Just wanted to follow up on my original query here. I raised a service request (http://www.uscis.gov/forms/tip-sheet...g-more-75-days) on the 88th day, and the online status showed case approved on 91st day. Thanks for everyone's advice, I appreciate it.
So, H1B fee has been hiked to $4000 if the employers has more than 50% of its employees on H1B.
http://www.murthy.com/2015/12/18/omn...on-provisions/
Is there still a chance of the EAD rule for pending I485s being passed in 2016? Not sure what happened to that. All talk about that seemed to die out after 'visagate'.
Does it ($4000) apply to H1B extensions too or just the first time applicants subjected to cap?
What would be the bill effective date? shouldn't it go to fed register and then the effective date?
Here is the final Bill Text: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-...4hr2029enr.pdf
‘‘SEC. 411. 9-11 RESPONSE AND BIOMETRIC ENTRY-EXIT FEE.
‘‘(a) TEMPORARY L-1 VISA FEE INCREASE.—Notwithstanding section
281 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1351)
or any other provision of law, during the period beginning on
the date of the enactment of this section and ending on September
30, 2025, the combined filing fee and fraud prevention and detection
fee required to be submitted with an application for admission
as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(L)), including an application
for an extension of such status shall be increased by $4,500
for applicants that employ 50 or more employees in the United
States if more than 50 percent of the applicant’s employees are
nonimmigrants admitted pursuant to subparagraph (H)(i)(b) or (L)
of section 101(a)(15) of such Act.
‘‘(b) TEMPORARY H-1B VISA FEE INCREASE.—Notwithstanding
section 281 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1351)
or any other provision of law, during the period beginning on
the date of the enactment of this section and ending on September
30, 2025, the combined filing fee and fraud prevention and detection
fee required to be submitted with an application for admission
as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)), including
an application for an extension of such status, shall be increased
by $4,000 for applicants that employ 50 or more employees in
the United States if more than 50 percent of the applicant’s
employees are such nonimmigrants or nonimmigrants described
in section 101(a)(15)(L) of such Act.
‘‘(c) 9-11 RESPONSE AND BIOMETRIC EXIT ACCOUNT.—
‘‘(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in the general
fund of the Treasury a separate account, which shall be known
as the ‘9–11 Response and Biometric Exit Account’.
‘‘(2) DEPOSITS.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph (B), of the
amounts collected pursuant to the fee increases authorized
under subsections (a) and (b)—
‘‘(i) 50 percent shall be deposited in the general
fund of the Treasury; and
‘‘(ii) 50 percent shall be deposited as offsetting
receipts into the 9–11 Response and Biometric Exit
Account, and shall remain available until expended.
‘‘(B) TERMINATION OF DEPOSITS IN ACCOUNT.—After a
total of $1,000,000,000 is deposited into the 9–11 Response
and Biometric Exit Account under subparagraph (A)(ii),
all amounts collected pursuant to the fee increases authorized
under subsections (a) and (b) shall be deposited in
the general fund of the Treasury.
‘‘(3) USE OF FUNDS.—For fiscal year 2017, and each fiscal
year thereafter, amounts in the 9–11 Response and Biometric
Exit Account shall be available to the Secretary of Homeland
H. R. 2029—766
Security without further appropriation for implementing the
biometric entry and exit data system described in section 7208
of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004 (8 U.S.C. 1365b).’’.
(h) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—Section 1347 of the Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note) is
amended—
(1) by inserting ‘‘and (2)’’ after ‘‘(d)(1)’’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘Costs for payments
for compensation for claims in Group A, as described in section
405(a)(3)(C)(ii) of such Act, shall be paid from amounts made
available under section 406 of such Act. Costs for payments
for compensation for claims in Group B, as described in section
405(a)(3)(C)(iii) of such Act, shall be paid from amounts in
the Victims Compensation Fund established under section 410
of such Act.’’.
Thanks na_dev.
OMB has approved proposed rule RIN 1615-AC05. It will soon be published in the FR and opened for comments. That's when we will get to see the actual text of the rule. It will be interesting:
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDetails?rrid=125729
This is good news. Now it crossed the first huddle. It's in Rule making stage . Let's wait to see the texts of the rule.
It looks like that we will still have to show "compelling reasons" to get EAD for limited period and that granting of EAD even on those compelling reasons would be solely at the discretion of DHS. Now we will have to wait to see what does "compelling reasons" mean and what is included in this.Quote:
Originally Posted by na_dev
Also, for EAD extensions, the gap between PD and VB cut-off date should be less than 1 year.
So lets assume that if I somehow qualify to get EAD showing "compelling reasons" and end up getting and EAD for 1 or 2 years, I wouldn't be able to get the extension at the end of those 1 or 2 years unless my PD and VB cut-off date is less than 1 year apart, which in short means that I have to still maintain my H1B status regardless of being on EAD or not.
I don't know how many people would benefit ultimately at the end of this rule making. It seems like they are doing something just for the sake of doing it and in the end only couple thousands may qualify at the most.
H-1B and L-1 application fee increase will fuel EB1-C surge. Top Indian consulting companies will seek a quick way to bring their H-1/L-1 employees down to < 50%. The easiest(only) way to quickly achieve is to file as many as EB1-C and bring the L-1/H-1 numbers down. EB1C in the coming years may have a cut off for Indian applicants. Every action by Dos and/or USCIS on targeting Indian consulting companies will only end up as a nightmare for EB2-I/EB3-I applicants in the form of increased EB1-C usage. This won't be different either.
Recently my team made an offer to a fresh grad from Taiwan. The guy insisted that we start the GC process while he was on OPT (so that he no longer depends on H1B lottery). The company lawyers balked at the idea. But it looked like the guy felt it was doable and he rejected our offer.
So the larger question is whether the above is possible? If so, why are more companies like FB, GOOG etc not doing it? If it is indeed doable, woudn't it shutdown one possibility of spillover for GCs (assuming H1B limit is currently a gating factor for ROW applicants)