desi485
12-02 07:46 PM
Thanks for sharing this news. Here is the link (http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?p=25832).
This news is very encouraging and thanks to Ron Gotcher for publishing it on his web site. Guys, please continue sending the letters, if you have not done it so far.
We are working on 2nd phase of our campaign.
pd_recapturing, this is encouraging indeed. People should not fear using EAD, specifically in this economy EAD gives you much better chance to survive than an H1B.
Regarding campaign, please share some updates, news with IV community.
This news is very encouraging and thanks to Ron Gotcher for publishing it on his web site. Guys, please continue sending the letters, if you have not done it so far.
We are working on 2nd phase of our campaign.
pd_recapturing, this is encouraging indeed. People should not fear using EAD, specifically in this economy EAD gives you much better chance to survive than an H1B.
Regarding campaign, please share some updates, news with IV community.
wallpaper Vanessa Hudgens: Scandal-prone
dagu1234
06-08 03:02 AM
did you provide social security number? temporary license can be issued only if you do not provide social security number.
H1B2GC
09-30 07:24 PM
Option 1:
You could write a letter to USCIS to let them know that this attorney who filed your I-485 does not represent you anymore and future correspondence be addressed to you directly and also to revoke the G-28. You will not get any letter from USCIS confirming that your request was processed.
Option 2:
You could hire a new attorney to represent you. In that case he would file a new G-28, the USCIS does send a letter confirming that they accepted your new attorney representation. Meanwhile, until this happens, all the correspondence will go to the old attorney who could potentially screw up your case.
If you are lucky enough and don't get a RFE till the new G-28 is accepted, You are SAFE. Also, any attorney you hire will charge you the FULL fees for I-485 filing that will be at least $3000.00 plus additional $5000.00 (If your case gets complicated). My best bet for you is to use option 1 and save your hard earned $. As you'll be taking your chances anyways.
You should urge LIVE to start up an emergency rescue service (similar to what AAA does), i.e., to get an attorney who would help taking up cases for members only who suffer from unscrupulous attorneys for free and charge a low monthly membership fees till one gets the green card. I hope someone from LIVE is reading this post?
You could write a letter to USCIS to let them know that this attorney who filed your I-485 does not represent you anymore and future correspondence be addressed to you directly and also to revoke the G-28. You will not get any letter from USCIS confirming that your request was processed.
Option 2:
You could hire a new attorney to represent you. In that case he would file a new G-28, the USCIS does send a letter confirming that they accepted your new attorney representation. Meanwhile, until this happens, all the correspondence will go to the old attorney who could potentially screw up your case.
If you are lucky enough and don't get a RFE till the new G-28 is accepted, You are SAFE. Also, any attorney you hire will charge you the FULL fees for I-485 filing that will be at least $3000.00 plus additional $5000.00 (If your case gets complicated). My best bet for you is to use option 1 and save your hard earned $. As you'll be taking your chances anyways.
You should urge LIVE to start up an emergency rescue service (similar to what AAA does), i.e., to get an attorney who would help taking up cases for members only who suffer from unscrupulous attorneys for free and charge a low monthly membership fees till one gets the green card. I hope someone from LIVE is reading this post?
2011 vanessa hudgens 2011 scandal.
bpadala
05-18 01:37 PM
I had the same question and I went with Joseph Kallabhat who was very diigent in answering the query for me. Please email him at joe@insvisa.com and he should respond back in couple of hrs
Thanks alot
Thanks alot
more...
gg_ny
07-17 06:00 PM
http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3269.html
As I feared, the questions about lost, returned, missed, mislaid and vanished visa numbers went unanswered in this bulletin. There is a vague reference to the returned visas while in truth 1) visa numbers have been returned to DOS
2) there is no real proof that even majority of claimed visas had been used by CIS. It is left to Ombudsman in 2008 to cry over the numbers that would be lost by sept 2007. Basically, the relief from fiasco benefits those who are filing 485 and CIS (in terms of hiked EAD/AP fees for next 4-5 years for each 485 applicant).
I believe that in a master move CIS (and maybe DOS) has buried the skeletons for good now. This has become almost like a game of chess. With each bulletin, CIS is becoming stronger and nastier like Voldemart!
As I feared, the questions about lost, returned, missed, mislaid and vanished visa numbers went unanswered in this bulletin. There is a vague reference to the returned visas while in truth 1) visa numbers have been returned to DOS
2) there is no real proof that even majority of claimed visas had been used by CIS. It is left to Ombudsman in 2008 to cry over the numbers that would be lost by sept 2007. Basically, the relief from fiasco benefits those who are filing 485 and CIS (in terms of hiked EAD/AP fees for next 4-5 years for each 485 applicant).
I believe that in a master move CIS (and maybe DOS) has buried the skeletons for good now. This has become almost like a game of chess. With each bulletin, CIS is becoming stronger and nastier like Voldemart!
ubetman
08-07 10:00 PM
Thanks milind for your information...But mine is concurrent filing of both 140/485 application. when concurrent is says in USCIS, the application to be sent where the permanent job is offered which is mentioned in labor and I-140Thatswhy I am little confused...
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=c31c5cdc2c463110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=fe529c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
current location state or permanent job offered state for concurrent filing of forms 140/485.. Any suggestions...thanks in advance
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=c31c5cdc2c463110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=fe529c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
current location state or permanent job offered state for concurrent filing of forms 140/485.. Any suggestions...thanks in advance
more...
forgerator
08-20 02:07 PM
https://www.nvars.com/Production/userhome.aspx
Seems like NVARS has introduced a new process which is supposed to be more streamlined for getting appointment online but I am not sure of some of it's verbage.
We want to ensure that applicants already in the scheduling process are not negatively impacted by the change. In order to ensure you receive the visa services you have paid for, please review the guidance below regarding transition timetables.
* Applicants who have already scheduled an appointment at a U.S. consulate on or after September 1, 2010 through NVARS:
If you have already scheduled to attend an appointment through NVARS, please pay your MRV fee prior to September 1, 2010 and bring your Scotiabank receipt with you to your appointment. If you have not already scheduled an appointment, we recommend that you wait until September 1, 2010 or later to pay the MRV fee and register through the new service.
I highlighted the text in bold. My appointment is scheduled for Vancouver on Sept 8. What does this mean to me? Will I need to be physically in Canada prior to September 1, to be able to go to a Scotia bank and make payment there? This is insane. I still haven't gotten my canadian visa stamped on my passport so I can enter Canada.
Anyone aware of this or impacted by this?
Seems like NVARS has introduced a new process which is supposed to be more streamlined for getting appointment online but I am not sure of some of it's verbage.
We want to ensure that applicants already in the scheduling process are not negatively impacted by the change. In order to ensure you receive the visa services you have paid for, please review the guidance below regarding transition timetables.
* Applicants who have already scheduled an appointment at a U.S. consulate on or after September 1, 2010 through NVARS:
If you have already scheduled to attend an appointment through NVARS, please pay your MRV fee prior to September 1, 2010 and bring your Scotiabank receipt with you to your appointment. If you have not already scheduled an appointment, we recommend that you wait until September 1, 2010 or later to pay the MRV fee and register through the new service.
I highlighted the text in bold. My appointment is scheduled for Vancouver on Sept 8. What does this mean to me? Will I need to be physically in Canada prior to September 1, to be able to go to a Scotia bank and make payment there? This is insane. I still haven't gotten my canadian visa stamped on my passport so I can enter Canada.
Anyone aware of this or impacted by this?
2010 VANESSA HUDGENS Says Nude
tpcool
05-31 05:21 PM
Hi,
I was wondering if anyone was ever able to change from Software Engineer to Technical Marketing Engineer (TME), using the AC21 portability rules. A TME needs similar level of technical skills as that of a Software Engineer, of course used for a different purpose.
A short description of this role (for those of you who don't know about this role)
The Technical Marketing Engineer role is exciting and challenging for the employee that enjoys equally working hands on with technology in the lab and marketing this knowledge to customers. Working with marketing, engineering, services and the sales channels
I really like to consider moving to TME roles. I see this as a first point to moving to Product Manager roles. One could move to Product Manager directly, but I guess the transition for a Software Engineer will be smooth, when he/she goes from Software Engineer -> TME -> Product Manager. The advantage with TME is, you can leverage your technical skills to perform this new role and then gradually hone your marketing/soft skills, to move to the Product Manager position. This is also the input I got from the Marketing Director of one of the reputed firms.
All looks good, but I am not sure if this transition to TME will be acceptable under the AC21 rules. It would be nice to know if anyone has ever able to do it successfully (without getting any RFEs/rejections). Right now, I have a feeling that I am totally stuck in the Software Engineer role and really like to explore my options.
Appreciate your thoughts on this
I was wondering if anyone was ever able to change from Software Engineer to Technical Marketing Engineer (TME), using the AC21 portability rules. A TME needs similar level of technical skills as that of a Software Engineer, of course used for a different purpose.
A short description of this role (for those of you who don't know about this role)
The Technical Marketing Engineer role is exciting and challenging for the employee that enjoys equally working hands on with technology in the lab and marketing this knowledge to customers. Working with marketing, engineering, services and the sales channels
I really like to consider moving to TME roles. I see this as a first point to moving to Product Manager roles. One could move to Product Manager directly, but I guess the transition for a Software Engineer will be smooth, when he/she goes from Software Engineer -> TME -> Product Manager. The advantage with TME is, you can leverage your technical skills to perform this new role and then gradually hone your marketing/soft skills, to move to the Product Manager position. This is also the input I got from the Marketing Director of one of the reputed firms.
All looks good, but I am not sure if this transition to TME will be acceptable under the AC21 rules. It would be nice to know if anyone has ever able to do it successfully (without getting any RFEs/rejections). Right now, I have a feeling that I am totally stuck in the Software Engineer role and really like to explore my options.
Appreciate your thoughts on this
more...
indianabacklog
07-25 11:25 AM
I didn't find what I am looking for.
I already have a lawyer and the ONLY reason I want to file myself is because I am fed up in chasing lawyers, my company etc. They don't respond in time and anyways I am preparing all my documents my self and guiding lawyer also.
So, I am thinking to file myself.
You can download all the forms from the USCIS website.
I already have a lawyer and the ONLY reason I want to file myself is because I am fed up in chasing lawyers, my company etc. They don't respond in time and anyways I am preparing all my documents my self and guiding lawyer also.
So, I am thinking to file myself.
You can download all the forms from the USCIS website.
hair vanessa hudgens 2011 scandal.
noboundaries78
10-09 06:55 PM
I am not a lawyer, but this is what I can tell (as far as I know):
1. You will get 3 yrs extension of H1B for company B as long as your 140 is not revoked by employer A at the time of adjudication of H1B AND your PD is retrogressed.
2. If company A revokes 140 AFTER your H1B with company B is approved, this will not affect your H visa/status. what I dont know is: will this create any problems in getting a VISA stamped at the consulate in future or not.
3. Once your 140 is approved, PD is urs. No matter what happens to the original I 140, as long as you save a copy of approval notice, you can port the PD any time in future.
4. As you have not filed 485 yet, you are not eligible for AC21. So, once you go to company B (and company A is not ready to co-operate and/or revokes 140); you will have to start your GC process from scratch (new PERM and new 140). However, PD will be urs forever!
Good Luck.
I just went through a job change with an approved I-140 and can tell you that whatever kodur_007 has stated is true from personal experience.
Its a rather big pain though but that's the fate of an immigrant(specially I or C) in the US.
1. You will get 3 yrs extension of H1B for company B as long as your 140 is not revoked by employer A at the time of adjudication of H1B AND your PD is retrogressed.
2. If company A revokes 140 AFTER your H1B with company B is approved, this will not affect your H visa/status. what I dont know is: will this create any problems in getting a VISA stamped at the consulate in future or not.
3. Once your 140 is approved, PD is urs. No matter what happens to the original I 140, as long as you save a copy of approval notice, you can port the PD any time in future.
4. As you have not filed 485 yet, you are not eligible for AC21. So, once you go to company B (and company A is not ready to co-operate and/or revokes 140); you will have to start your GC process from scratch (new PERM and new 140). However, PD will be urs forever!
Good Luck.
I just went through a job change with an approved I-140 and can tell you that whatever kodur_007 has stated is true from personal experience.
Its a rather big pain though but that's the fate of an immigrant(specially I or C) in the US.
more...
eb3_nepa
01-15 11:29 PM
Unless the country cap is removed from EB immigration - things will not change for folks from India.
Have you noticed that when it comes to giving amnesty, there is always a special clause that exempts illegals from country caps? Ever wonder why?
Coz the illegals are already HERE and form a GREAT voter base. These are people who are not very educated (most barely have any education), they band together and can be easily influenced. That makes them an EXCELLENT source of future votes. Educated folks like us can see through the nonsense that politicians promise. Also it is a simple numbers game: LESS than 1 million legal immigrants v/s 13 million Illegal immigrants.
Do we still wonder why?
Have you noticed that when it comes to giving amnesty, there is always a special clause that exempts illegals from country caps? Ever wonder why?
Coz the illegals are already HERE and form a GREAT voter base. These are people who are not very educated (most barely have any education), they band together and can be easily influenced. That makes them an EXCELLENT source of future votes. Educated folks like us can see through the nonsense that politicians promise. Also it is a simple numbers game: LESS than 1 million legal immigrants v/s 13 million Illegal immigrants.
Do we still wonder why?
hot vanessa hudgens 2011 scandal
prem_goel
08-18 04:22 PM
If she uses her H4 Visa stamp to enter , will have to file H4 to H1 Chane of status to be able to work on H1.
I think you probably can get the H-1B stamped as well and have your wife enter as H-1B.
I think you probably can get the H-1B stamped as well and have your wife enter as H-1B.
more...
house vanessa hudgens photo scandal 2. vanessa hudgens 2011 scandal
ganguteli
02-10 01:27 PM
The idea is good but,
People with EAD will not come. They are out of the troble zone anyways and can use EAD to get a new job easily as EAD is like a greencard.
People not working in financial sector will not come as they do not think it affects them
People from financial sector will also not come as they are busy finding a job
Remaining will also not come as we desis are reluctant to spend money. It costs money to travel. So maybe DC area and nearby area people may come. But they will be handful.
Most people will be ok to do online petition or fax campaign as you just need to press a button.
People with EAD will not come. They are out of the troble zone anyways and can use EAD to get a new job easily as EAD is like a greencard.
People not working in financial sector will not come as they do not think it affects them
People from financial sector will also not come as they are busy finding a job
Remaining will also not come as we desis are reluctant to spend money. It costs money to travel. So maybe DC area and nearby area people may come. But they will be handful.
Most people will be ok to do online petition or fax campaign as you just need to press a button.
tattoo Scandal new american actress
Hermione
09-25 01:15 PM
Take an infopass appointment and talk to an officer. There have been rumors that you may get the answer over the phone, but I never experienced it.
more...
pictures vanessa hudgens 2011 pictures.
ksrk
09-01 03:16 PM
Got the email this morning...
EB2I
PD : 10/04
RD : 07/02/07
Beat the 10 year deadline by couple of months :)
Priderock, congratulations on your obtaining the coveted GC. Can you please update your profile to reflect India as your country of chargeability? Also, additional details in your profile will be very helpful.
Good luck and congrats again!
EB2I
PD : 10/04
RD : 07/02/07
Beat the 10 year deadline by couple of months :)
Priderock, congratulations on your obtaining the coveted GC. Can you please update your profile to reflect India as your country of chargeability? Also, additional details in your profile will be very helpful.
Good luck and congrats again!
dresses vanessa hudgens 2011 leak.
immigrationmatters30
01-16 08:23 AM
Nothing in this bill talks about the increasing EB VISA numbers but they have clause for the family based VISA numbers to about 1Million.I know Mr.Obama would bring "change" but it is not going to be good for us. Anytime he talked about legal immigration, he only made references to family based immigration backlogs. Never have I heard him talk about EB VISA backlogs.I think we are in for a change which not going be so good after all.
more...
makeup VANESSA HUDGENS MOVIES 2011
MetteBB
05-26 07:58 AM
^^^^^^^^
things that go BUMP! in the night
things that go BUMP! in the night
girlfriend vanessa hudgens 2011 scandal.
setpit_gc
06-08 01:23 PM
got 1st LUD on 05/31/2009 with message change.
Soft LUDs so far:
06/02/2009,
06/03/2009,
06/05/2009,
06/07/2009
06/08/2009
Whats going on?. Any idea?.
Soft LUDs so far:
06/02/2009,
06/03/2009,
06/05/2009,
06/07/2009
06/08/2009
Whats going on?. Any idea?.
hairstyles vanessa hudgens 2011 scandal
a_yaja
07-18 09:24 AM
I was thinking about that as well...but I have minor problems that might not be solved within July so it better for me to apply in August.
I would advise you to file in July. Although USCIS says it will accept application till Aug 17th, in theory they could reject your application saying that your priority date is August. It would be heartburn for you all over again. If you can explain what your "minor" problems are, perhaps some of us could suggest a way out.
Good Luck on your filing and hope you make the July deadline.
I would advise you to file in July. Although USCIS says it will accept application till Aug 17th, in theory they could reject your application saying that your priority date is August. It would be heartburn for you all over again. If you can explain what your "minor" problems are, perhaps some of us could suggest a way out.
Good Luck on your filing and hope you make the July deadline.
WillIBLucky
05-30 02:44 PM
I agree this crappy bill better not pass and is worse than retrogression. It is screwing everyone at the cost of giving amnesty to illegals. It is such a joke I would have never imagined that they would have the balls to do this, but I guess they are all politicians!!!
It would take 10 years for Illegals to get citizenship under this bill and get voting rights.
But it looks like the exisiting latino group has promised vote to democratic candidate in 2009 for President. And so this bill is so much for illegals. We educated even if become citizen will take a educated decision on who should we vote. So they are screwing us. Politics!
It would take 10 years for Illegals to get citizenship under this bill and get voting rights.
But it looks like the exisiting latino group has promised vote to democratic candidate in 2009 for President. And so this bill is so much for illegals. We educated even if become citizen will take a educated decision on who should we vote. So they are screwing us. Politics!
Blog Feeds
10-15 06:30 PM
[Federal Register: October 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 192)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
No comments:
Post a Comment