txh1b
08-27 10:35 PM
Unless there was clear USCIS error, No refunds. Details below.
DHS | USCIS Refunds: How is the Process Working for You?: Questions from CIS Ombudsman's Teleconference on January 31, 2008 (http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1226610826777.shtm)
6. EAD Application, Green Card – A caller filed for a replacement work authorization card. The next month the caller received a green card approval letter. The work authorization application was never adjudicated, but USCIS did not return the fee. How can this applicant get a refund?
•USCIS Response on April 30, 2008: The applicant will not be entitled to a refund. When an applicant or petitioner pays a filing fee on an application, he or she is seeking a decision from USCIS regarding the applicant or beneficiary's eligibility for the benefit(s) being sought. In general, USCIS does not refund a fee or application regardless of the decision on the application.
The implementation of the new fee schedule, effective July 30, 2007, prevents situations like this from happening. If you filed Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, on or after July 30, 2007, then no fee is required to file a request for employment authorization on Form I-765.
DHS | USCIS Refunds: How is the Process Working for You?: Questions from CIS Ombudsman's Teleconference on January 31, 2008 (http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1226610826777.shtm)
6. EAD Application, Green Card – A caller filed for a replacement work authorization card. The next month the caller received a green card approval letter. The work authorization application was never adjudicated, but USCIS did not return the fee. How can this applicant get a refund?
•USCIS Response on April 30, 2008: The applicant will not be entitled to a refund. When an applicant or petitioner pays a filing fee on an application, he or she is seeking a decision from USCIS regarding the applicant or beneficiary's eligibility for the benefit(s) being sought. In general, USCIS does not refund a fee or application regardless of the decision on the application.
The implementation of the new fee schedule, effective July 30, 2007, prevents situations like this from happening. If you filed Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, on or after July 30, 2007, then no fee is required to file a request for employment authorization on Form I-765.
wallpaper Quote family love, and you#39;ve
jlander
January 7th, 2005, 07:24 PM
I learned somewhere that extreme closup macro (2:1) shots can be taken by mating another lens in reverse to the front of the lens mounted to the camera. Does anyone have any idea what makes a good combination of lenses and what is needed?
I have an old canon 52mm manual focus lens that is in great shape.
I have an old canon 52mm manual focus lens that is in great shape.
gconmymind
07-29 02:51 PM
Are you sure Systems Analyst and Director of Development are considered "similar" jobs? To me it does not sound like similar jobs. Systems Analyst is a technical job whereas Director is purely managerial position.
Let me know if you have documentation on "same/similar".
Let me know if you have documentation on "same/similar".
2011 quotes about family love. love
Winner
04-21 12:28 PM
If I485 is denied for wrong reason (due to USCIS error), I understand that the applicant and attorney can file a MTR, but during the time till the case is reopened again, is it legal for the employee to work on EAD?
My assumption here is once the denial notice is received, it may take few weeks/months to gather the necessary information, send it to USCIS and then the case gets reopened.
My assumption here is once the denial notice is received, it may take few weeks/months to gather the necessary information, send it to USCIS and then the case gets reopened.
more...
drona
10-03 11:26 AM
gctoget, I have sent you an email.
paskal, thanks for your efforts to activate all state chapters. We really appreciate it.
paskal, thanks for your efforts to activate all state chapters. We really appreciate it.
sanju
04-17 01:08 PM
As per today I have an H1b visa, I have my I140 approved, and my 6th year ends on April 25, 2008. My actual employer have give a contract that says that upon I become a permanent resident i will have to work for him for 5 years, then if I quit after the 5th year or before I will not able to work on the same industry on all the united states, also mention what my salary would be but there is no mention of increase.
I do not know what to do , this is almost illegal (I think !), do I have time to change employer and do again my visa, and I140, so I don't lost status ??
I truly understand your position my friend and feel sorry to see you go though this.
Here is my suggestion -
Start going to doctor complaining for chest pains, stress, lack of sleep etc. Sign the contract and get your green card. After getting the green card, sue the employer for harassment, exploitation, metal trauma and stress by showing the medical record and visitations with the doctor. And don't worry about this contract, it is illegal and non-enforceable. So don't worry about it and sign it with closed eyes without a second thought. If I were you, I would do the exact same thing.
I think some employers are good and they take care of employees. And like everywhere else in the world, some employers are exploitative and the law doesn't provide provisions to protect/empower the H1b/non-immigrant employees. On top of that, IEEE and Ron Hira want all of us out and are working to put in harsher conditions. They are not suggesting change in law to empower us to prevent any chance of exploitation. So we need to organize ourselves and become part of one organization that could represent us all.
I do not know what to do , this is almost illegal (I think !), do I have time to change employer and do again my visa, and I140, so I don't lost status ??
I truly understand your position my friend and feel sorry to see you go though this.
Here is my suggestion -
Start going to doctor complaining for chest pains, stress, lack of sleep etc. Sign the contract and get your green card. After getting the green card, sue the employer for harassment, exploitation, metal trauma and stress by showing the medical record and visitations with the doctor. And don't worry about this contract, it is illegal and non-enforceable. So don't worry about it and sign it with closed eyes without a second thought. If I were you, I would do the exact same thing.
I think some employers are good and they take care of employees. And like everywhere else in the world, some employers are exploitative and the law doesn't provide provisions to protect/empower the H1b/non-immigrant employees. On top of that, IEEE and Ron Hira want all of us out and are working to put in harsher conditions. They are not suggesting change in law to empower us to prevent any chance of exploitation. So we need to organize ourselves and become part of one organization that could represent us all.
more...
ashkam
12-04 01:42 PM
I think ashkam is missing the main point here. You are on EAD which is based on an employment based GC application where you have to be employed all the time. You (EAD and people who are on H1) are not supposed to tell that are unemployed! Duh!
A people who are on H1 (same goes to people with EAD based on a employment based GC) and out of payroll for more than 28 days (not sure about the exact # of days, some says 42 days), you are out of status.
So think twice before you disclose that you are unemployed.
"You are on EAD which is based on an employment based GC application where you have to be employed all the time" : False and for the "duh" part, FAIL.
Also, FAIL for the second paragraph as well.
You can be unemployed while in I-485 pending status as long as you are able to show proof of future employment, if requested by the USCIS. The key phrases being "future employment" and "if requested".
A people who are on H1 (same goes to people with EAD based on a employment based GC) and out of payroll for more than 28 days (not sure about the exact # of days, some says 42 days), you are out of status.
So think twice before you disclose that you are unemployed.
"You are on EAD which is based on an employment based GC application where you have to be employed all the time" : False and for the "duh" part, FAIL.
Also, FAIL for the second paragraph as well.
You can be unemployed while in I-485 pending status as long as you are able to show proof of future employment, if requested by the USCIS. The key phrases being "future employment" and "if requested".
2010 i love my family quotes or
h1techSlave
09-18 02:11 PM
Despite what the Democrats are saying illegals might get health benefit even when they are illegals. The reason for this is that the current bill does not mandate immigration status check.
Agreed. But, that is only until CIR is not passed. Once CIR is approved ( IF ) next year, then all the undocumented people will come under the shield and will enjoy all the health benefit government is going to offer at the expense of Tax payers money.
Agreed. But, that is only until CIR is not passed. Once CIR is approved ( IF ) next year, then all the undocumented people will come under the shield and will enjoy all the health benefit government is going to offer at the expense of Tax payers money.
more...
whoever
07-19 10:36 AM
guess what i have a question. this is what happened. we are married in india quite sometime back, however, we had no marriage certificate and could not get one from india after trying for a long time. so we got married again here itself some weeks back. we had been filing tax as a couple until now. how to amend that?
hair quotes about family love.
diptam
02-18 02:38 PM
Any H employer is supposed to pay the minimum wage to the employee , so paystub seems natural in this process. But if you are genuine and just missed the paystubs for some reason you can send some alternatives :
a) Timesheet signed.
b) benefits confirmation ,
c) email correspondence to indirectly prove that you were working in H1 status and getting paid
Hope this helps
Is paystub needed When a person is on H1B and is out of project when AOS on 485.
a) Timesheet signed.
b) benefits confirmation ,
c) email correspondence to indirectly prove that you were working in H1 status and getting paid
Hope this helps
Is paystub needed When a person is on H1B and is out of project when AOS on 485.
more...
srkamath
10-15 02:58 PM
If you have two jobs on hand, and your sponsoring employer keeps the offer for the future job open, then you can simply use your EAD for both jobs. What would you need the H1B for unless you have reasons to believe the I-485 will be denied?
If you wish to change employers, i.e. no longer take up the job with the employer who did your labor cert, then wait for 180 days after the receipt date of your I-485, find a " same or similar" job and use AC21 portability. - The AC21 law is kind of complex, most use the services of a (competent) lawyer.
If you wish to change employers, i.e. no longer take up the job with the employer who did your labor cert, then wait for 180 days after the receipt date of your I-485, find a " same or similar" job and use AC21 portability. - The AC21 law is kind of complex, most use the services of a (competent) lawyer.
hot quotes about family love.
gc_on_demand
04-07 07:22 AM
Any IV member got so far ?
more...
house funny quotes on love. funny
prom2
07-22 12:02 AM
New fee is 1010 (I-485 + FP) + $305 (AP) + $340 (EAD) = $1655
I-485 new filing fee is a package fee (I-485+EAD+AP)= 1,010
I-485 new filing fee is a package fee (I-485+EAD+AP)= 1,010
tattoo hot quotes about family love.
casinoroyale
01-24 04:36 PM
I don't think you need to withdraw your H1B visa application.
lostinGCland: My wife (on H4) is in the same boat as you. Do you have AP in hand yet, and did they return your passport to you? If yes on both, then my attorney recommended to send a letter to the consulate instructing them to withdraw your H1B stamping application, then with a copy of that letter in hand, along with the AP, reenter the US on AP. Good luck!
lostinGCland: My wife (on H4) is in the same boat as you. Do you have AP in hand yet, and did they return your passport to you? If yes on both, then my attorney recommended to send a letter to the consulate instructing them to withdraw your H1B stamping application, then with a copy of that letter in hand, along with the AP, reenter the US on AP. Good luck!
more...
pictures love quotes for family. family
mannan74
08-27 06:01 PM
The answer is right there for you
"Applicants applying for a different category visa (e.g. had a student visa, now applying for a work visa)."
So not sure what your question is?
"Applicants applying for a different category visa (e.g. had a student visa, now applying for a work visa)."
So not sure what your question is?
dresses Family Love Quotes
Desertfox
01-03 01:19 AM
SEVIS applies to F, M and J nonimmigrant students irrespective of undergraduate or graduate studies. I don't think Robert Kumar should consider F1, because he already has AOS pending status and not considered a nonimmigrant student anymore. Its no different than a permanent resident applying for a F1 visa. BTW, I took more than 18 credits in year 2010 @ resident tuition rate with my I-485 receipt, and received federal student loan as an eligible non-citizen with my AP stamp on passport. From what I heard on this forum, some universities are reluctant in considering AOS for resident tuition rate, but one can get help from the justice department in such cases. Here in Arizona all state universities accept AOS as equivalent status of a permanent resident.
more...
makeup girlfriend love and family
ZemtitoEvet
03-24 11:47 PM
Priofeseria Anne sexton poems (http://dmix.mx.am/xjgkpi.html)
Viaggi veneto (http://ogk.mx.am/bbbs.html)
:-|
:-@
Killer sex (http://dmix.mx.am/utkj.html)
:-v
biowbabiptoli College teens webcam (http://kladez.mx.am/ofdj.html)
biowbabiptoli :-?
Cause and effect of teen pregnancy (http://dmix.mx.am/sgbg.html)
Viaggi veneto (http://ogk.mx.am/bbbs.html)
:-|
:-@
Killer sex (http://dmix.mx.am/utkj.html)
:-v
biowbabiptoli College teens webcam (http://kladez.mx.am/ofdj.html)
biowbabiptoli :-?
Cause and effect of teen pregnancy (http://dmix.mx.am/sgbg.html)
girlfriend Family And Love Quotes. love
hmehta
07-13 07:52 PM
All,
My Attorney emailed today that in order to potentially benefit from the AILF lawsuit for the July VB fiasco, they will go ahead and file my I-485 next week. Now, I am not sure if this is a good thing to do. Anybody with such a situation? Any experts, please advise.
My Attorney emailed today that in order to potentially benefit from the AILF lawsuit for the July VB fiasco, they will go ahead and file my I-485 next week. Now, I am not sure if this is a good thing to do. Anybody with such a situation? Any experts, please advise.
hairstyles family and love quotes. quotes about family love. quotes about family love.
vicky007
05-10 12:16 PM
Sorry, the link is not working anymore.
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
purgan
11-11 10:32 AM
Randell,
Congratulations on getting the attention of the Times, and your tireless efforts in spreading word of the broken legal immigration system.
===
New York Times
Immigration, a Love Story
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/fashion/12green.html
WHEN Kenneth Harrell Jr., an Assemblies of God minister in South Carolina, invited Gricelda Molina to join his Spanish ministry in 2000, it didn’t take him long to realize he had found the woman he had been waiting for. On the telephone and during romantic strolls they talked about their goals, their commitment to God and how many children each would like to have. Six months flew by, and he asked her to marry him.
“She’s a beautiful woman with a beautiful spirit, very gentle, very sincere,” Mr. Harrell said. But Ms. Molina, a factory worker, was also an undocumented immigrant from Honduras, who had crossed into the United States twice, having once been deported. Mr. Harrell, the pastor of Airport Assembly of God church in West Columbia, said he was not too concerned. “Whatever came, we would walk through this path together,” he said.
Mr. Harrell and Ms. Molina, both 35, married in 2001, in a large wedding attended by family from both sides and blessed by pastors in English and Spanish. But the Harrells no longer live together, not because of divorce, but because Mrs. Harrell, now the mother of two sons and four months pregnant with their third child, has been deported. She had applied for legal residency, or a green card, with her new husband as her sponsor, Mr. Harrell said, but she was sent back to Honduras 20 months ago because of her illegal entries and told she would have to wait 10 years to try again.
“Illegals are pouring over the border,” said Mr. Harrell, who has visited his family five times. “We meet them, we fall in love with them, we marry them. And then the government tears your family apart, and they take no responsibility for letting them in, in the first place.”
Falling in love and marching toward marriage is not always easy, but a particular brand of heartache and hardship can await when one of the partners is in this country illegally. The uncertainty of such a union has only been heightened by the national debate over illegal immigration. Whether the new Democratic leadership in Congress will help people like the Harrells remains to be seen.
It is hard to quantify how many people find themselves in Mr. Harrell’s situation, but with stepped-up enforcement in recent years, deportations have increased, and so have fears of losing a loved one in that way. (There were 168,310 removals in 2005, compared with 108,000 in 2000, immigration officials said.)
And that is only one byproduct of love between two people with such uneven places in society, immigration lawyers say. Many relationships strain under the financial burden of hiring lawyers for what can turn into years of visiting government offices, producing pictures, tax records and other evidence of a legitimate marriage in the quest for legalization. And while instances of immigrants faking love for a green card are in the minority, according to immigration officials, some couples feel pressure to marry before they are ready, hoping that marriage will prevent a loved one’s deportation.
Raul Godinez, an immigration lawyer in Los Angeles, said: “I ask people, ‘How much do you love this person? Because immigration is going to test your marriage.’ If you don’t feel it’s going to be a strong marriage, I wouldn’t do it.”
Many people may still believe that obtaining legal status through marriage is easy, because of periodic reports of marriage scams. In a three-year investigation called Operation Newlywed Game, immigration and customs enforcement agents caught more than 40 suspects in California for allegedly orchestrating sham marriages between hundreds of Chinese or Vietnamese nationals and United States citizens. But such fraud occurs in only a minority of cases, federal officials said.
In reality, immigration lawyers said, marrying a citizen does not automatically entitle the spouse to a green card and is only the first step in a long bureaucratic journey. The lawyers noted that changes in the law in the last five years have made this legalization path increasingly difficult, one worth choosing only if true love is at stake. (Other routes include sponsorship by immediate family members or an employer.)
The Harrells said they had no idea how difficult it could be and were shocked when Mrs. Harrell’s application for permanent residence was turned down, leaving them only 12 days to prepare for her departure. In that time, Mr. Harrell said, they decided that the children, now 4 and 3, would go with her. So Mr. Harrell obtained passports for them, and the church held a farewell service.
“It was very traumatic,” he said. “Our whole world was crashing around us.”
In Yoro, in north central Honduras, where Mrs. Harrell and the children live with her parents, she said the older boy constantly asks for his father, begging, “Let’s go to my papa’s house.” She has coped with her own dejection, too. “I know how much work he has over there,” she said by telephone. “He needs his wife.”
But even in the best of circumstances, when an immigrant enters the country legally, couples may have to rearrange their lives and defer their dreams.
Paola Emery, a jewelry designer, and her husband, Randall Emery, a computer consultant in Philadelphia, said they delayed having children and buying a house for the nearly four years it took the government to complete a background check for Mrs. Emery, who had entered the country from Colombia with a tourist visa and applied for permanent residency after they married in 2002.
Mrs. Emery, 27, said lawyers advised them it was not wise for her to risk trouble by visiting her close-knit family in Colombia and then trying to re-enter this country. She said she was absent through weddings, illnesses and even the kidnapping and rescue of an uncle.
“I felt like I was in jail,” Mrs. Emery said.
Officials with the Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Homeland Security Department say that delays lasting years are rare, but some immigration lawyers say they see clients who wait three to four years for security clearance. Mrs. Emery and her husband, 34, sued Homeland Security over the delays, and she was finally cleared last May. By then Mr. Emery had helped form American Families United, a group of citizens who have sponsored immediate family members for immigration, and which advocates immigration-law change to keep families together. Immigration Services officials say they are not out to impede love or immigration. Nearly 260,000 spouses of citizens received permanent residency through marriage last year, out of 1.1 million people who became permanent residents, according to the Immigration Services office. “The goal is to give people who are eligible the benefit,” said Marie T. Sebrechts, its spokeswoman in Southern California. She said the agency does not comment on individual cases.
When a legal immigrant is sponsored by an American spouse, she said, the green card can be obtained in as little as six months. But with complications like an illegal entry, laws are not that benevolent, Ms. Sebrechts said. In those cases, the immigrant usually must return to the home country and wait 3 to 10 years to apply for residency, though waivers are sometimes granted.
Such obstacles are far from the minds of couples when they meet. And for some, so is the idea to question whether the beloved feels equally in love with them.
Sharyn T. Sooho, a divorce lawyer and a founder of divorcenet.com, a Web site for divorcing couples, said she has represented American spouses who realized too late that the person they married was more interested in a green card than in living happily ever after. “They feel conflicted, used and abused,” she said. “It’s a quick marriage, and suddenly the person who was so sweet is turning into a nightmare.”
But more often, said Carlina Tapia-Ruano, the president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, couples marry before they are ready because “there’s fear that if you don’t do this, somebody is going to get deported.”
Krystal Rivera, 18, a college student in Los Angeles, and her boyfriend fall into this group. Ms. Rivera is set on marrying in April 2008, even as she worries that it may put too much pressure on the relationship.
“I never wanted to follow the Hispanic ritual of getting married early,” said Ms. Rivera, a native of Los Angeles whose parents emigrated from Mexico.
She said she fell in love at 13 with a Mexican-born boy who sang in the church choir with her. “He started poking me, and I said ‘Stop it!’ ” she remembered.
Ms. Rivera is still in love with the boy, now 19, who was brought into the country illegally by his mother when he was 12. He goes to college and wants to become a teacher, while she hopes to become a doctor.
But for those plans to work, Ms. Rivera said, she needs to help him legalize his status. She said she has witnessed his frustration as he dealt with employers who didn’t pay what they owed him or struggled to find better jobs than his current one as a line cook. Because of his illegal status, he is unable to get a driver’s license or visit the brothers he left in Mexico. “We want to be normal,” Ms. Rivera said.
The Harrells, too, have decided to take charge. After months of exploring how to reunite the family and spending thousands of dollars on lawyers, Mr. Harrell has decided to leave his small congregation, sell his house and join his wife in Honduras. He will be a missionary for his church for a fraction of the $40,000 a year he makes as a minister.
Congratulations on getting the attention of the Times, and your tireless efforts in spreading word of the broken legal immigration system.
===
New York Times
Immigration, a Love Story
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/fashion/12green.html
WHEN Kenneth Harrell Jr., an Assemblies of God minister in South Carolina, invited Gricelda Molina to join his Spanish ministry in 2000, it didn’t take him long to realize he had found the woman he had been waiting for. On the telephone and during romantic strolls they talked about their goals, their commitment to God and how many children each would like to have. Six months flew by, and he asked her to marry him.
“She’s a beautiful woman with a beautiful spirit, very gentle, very sincere,” Mr. Harrell said. But Ms. Molina, a factory worker, was also an undocumented immigrant from Honduras, who had crossed into the United States twice, having once been deported. Mr. Harrell, the pastor of Airport Assembly of God church in West Columbia, said he was not too concerned. “Whatever came, we would walk through this path together,” he said.
Mr. Harrell and Ms. Molina, both 35, married in 2001, in a large wedding attended by family from both sides and blessed by pastors in English and Spanish. But the Harrells no longer live together, not because of divorce, but because Mrs. Harrell, now the mother of two sons and four months pregnant with their third child, has been deported. She had applied for legal residency, or a green card, with her new husband as her sponsor, Mr. Harrell said, but she was sent back to Honduras 20 months ago because of her illegal entries and told she would have to wait 10 years to try again.
“Illegals are pouring over the border,” said Mr. Harrell, who has visited his family five times. “We meet them, we fall in love with them, we marry them. And then the government tears your family apart, and they take no responsibility for letting them in, in the first place.”
Falling in love and marching toward marriage is not always easy, but a particular brand of heartache and hardship can await when one of the partners is in this country illegally. The uncertainty of such a union has only been heightened by the national debate over illegal immigration. Whether the new Democratic leadership in Congress will help people like the Harrells remains to be seen.
It is hard to quantify how many people find themselves in Mr. Harrell’s situation, but with stepped-up enforcement in recent years, deportations have increased, and so have fears of losing a loved one in that way. (There were 168,310 removals in 2005, compared with 108,000 in 2000, immigration officials said.)
And that is only one byproduct of love between two people with such uneven places in society, immigration lawyers say. Many relationships strain under the financial burden of hiring lawyers for what can turn into years of visiting government offices, producing pictures, tax records and other evidence of a legitimate marriage in the quest for legalization. And while instances of immigrants faking love for a green card are in the minority, according to immigration officials, some couples feel pressure to marry before they are ready, hoping that marriage will prevent a loved one’s deportation.
Raul Godinez, an immigration lawyer in Los Angeles, said: “I ask people, ‘How much do you love this person? Because immigration is going to test your marriage.’ If you don’t feel it’s going to be a strong marriage, I wouldn’t do it.”
Many people may still believe that obtaining legal status through marriage is easy, because of periodic reports of marriage scams. In a three-year investigation called Operation Newlywed Game, immigration and customs enforcement agents caught more than 40 suspects in California for allegedly orchestrating sham marriages between hundreds of Chinese or Vietnamese nationals and United States citizens. But such fraud occurs in only a minority of cases, federal officials said.
In reality, immigration lawyers said, marrying a citizen does not automatically entitle the spouse to a green card and is only the first step in a long bureaucratic journey. The lawyers noted that changes in the law in the last five years have made this legalization path increasingly difficult, one worth choosing only if true love is at stake. (Other routes include sponsorship by immediate family members or an employer.)
The Harrells said they had no idea how difficult it could be and were shocked when Mrs. Harrell’s application for permanent residence was turned down, leaving them only 12 days to prepare for her departure. In that time, Mr. Harrell said, they decided that the children, now 4 and 3, would go with her. So Mr. Harrell obtained passports for them, and the church held a farewell service.
“It was very traumatic,” he said. “Our whole world was crashing around us.”
In Yoro, in north central Honduras, where Mrs. Harrell and the children live with her parents, she said the older boy constantly asks for his father, begging, “Let’s go to my papa’s house.” She has coped with her own dejection, too. “I know how much work he has over there,” she said by telephone. “He needs his wife.”
But even in the best of circumstances, when an immigrant enters the country legally, couples may have to rearrange their lives and defer their dreams.
Paola Emery, a jewelry designer, and her husband, Randall Emery, a computer consultant in Philadelphia, said they delayed having children and buying a house for the nearly four years it took the government to complete a background check for Mrs. Emery, who had entered the country from Colombia with a tourist visa and applied for permanent residency after they married in 2002.
Mrs. Emery, 27, said lawyers advised them it was not wise for her to risk trouble by visiting her close-knit family in Colombia and then trying to re-enter this country. She said she was absent through weddings, illnesses and even the kidnapping and rescue of an uncle.
“I felt like I was in jail,” Mrs. Emery said.
Officials with the Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Homeland Security Department say that delays lasting years are rare, but some immigration lawyers say they see clients who wait three to four years for security clearance. Mrs. Emery and her husband, 34, sued Homeland Security over the delays, and she was finally cleared last May. By then Mr. Emery had helped form American Families United, a group of citizens who have sponsored immediate family members for immigration, and which advocates immigration-law change to keep families together. Immigration Services officials say they are not out to impede love or immigration. Nearly 260,000 spouses of citizens received permanent residency through marriage last year, out of 1.1 million people who became permanent residents, according to the Immigration Services office. “The goal is to give people who are eligible the benefit,” said Marie T. Sebrechts, its spokeswoman in Southern California. She said the agency does not comment on individual cases.
When a legal immigrant is sponsored by an American spouse, she said, the green card can be obtained in as little as six months. But with complications like an illegal entry, laws are not that benevolent, Ms. Sebrechts said. In those cases, the immigrant usually must return to the home country and wait 3 to 10 years to apply for residency, though waivers are sometimes granted.
Such obstacles are far from the minds of couples when they meet. And for some, so is the idea to question whether the beloved feels equally in love with them.
Sharyn T. Sooho, a divorce lawyer and a founder of divorcenet.com, a Web site for divorcing couples, said she has represented American spouses who realized too late that the person they married was more interested in a green card than in living happily ever after. “They feel conflicted, used and abused,” she said. “It’s a quick marriage, and suddenly the person who was so sweet is turning into a nightmare.”
But more often, said Carlina Tapia-Ruano, the president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, couples marry before they are ready because “there’s fear that if you don’t do this, somebody is going to get deported.”
Krystal Rivera, 18, a college student in Los Angeles, and her boyfriend fall into this group. Ms. Rivera is set on marrying in April 2008, even as she worries that it may put too much pressure on the relationship.
“I never wanted to follow the Hispanic ritual of getting married early,” said Ms. Rivera, a native of Los Angeles whose parents emigrated from Mexico.
She said she fell in love at 13 with a Mexican-born boy who sang in the church choir with her. “He started poking me, and I said ‘Stop it!’ ” she remembered.
Ms. Rivera is still in love with the boy, now 19, who was brought into the country illegally by his mother when he was 12. He goes to college and wants to become a teacher, while she hopes to become a doctor.
But for those plans to work, Ms. Rivera said, she needs to help him legalize his status. She said she has witnessed his frustration as he dealt with employers who didn’t pay what they owed him or struggled to find better jobs than his current one as a line cook. Because of his illegal status, he is unable to get a driver’s license or visit the brothers he left in Mexico. “We want to be normal,” Ms. Rivera said.
The Harrells, too, have decided to take charge. After months of exploring how to reunite the family and spending thousands of dollars on lawyers, Mr. Harrell has decided to leave his small congregation, sell his house and join his wife in Honduras. He will be a missionary for his church for a fraction of the $40,000 a year he makes as a minister.
lacrossegc
12-08 05:28 PM
A thought came to mind for those still not convinced on this
Think of this IV drive as an opportunity to SAVE on future payments to USCIS.
All those "enjoying" Interim benefits will likely be shelling out atleast $350 every yr for renewals of EAD, AP (if you apply yourself) considerable more if you go through a lawyer... for those still on H1 ... you'll be spending on H1 renewals, travel to counsulates, Visa reciporocal fees etc etc
The wait time for the final Green card approval for those with more recent Priority dates with no changes could be anywhere from 3-4 yrs....
So conservatively you would be spending 4* 350 = $1400
Think about it.... what if IV's drive for changes is successful in lobbying for better provisions which reduce OUR wait times even if by a little bit ... lets say ... by one yr .... YOU would INSTANTLY SAVE $350 ... and it multiplies for every year you save waiting for the final approval.
Lets say you contributed $100 today and you saved 1 yr in wait time ...
YOUR Profit is $250 on a $100 contribution in 3 yrs
atleast 250% returns in 3 yrs .... Can any stock market/bond or CDs match that rate of return
Contribute now so that IV can make that profit for YOU
Think of this IV drive as an opportunity to SAVE on future payments to USCIS.
All those "enjoying" Interim benefits will likely be shelling out atleast $350 every yr for renewals of EAD, AP (if you apply yourself) considerable more if you go through a lawyer... for those still on H1 ... you'll be spending on H1 renewals, travel to counsulates, Visa reciporocal fees etc etc
The wait time for the final Green card approval for those with more recent Priority dates with no changes could be anywhere from 3-4 yrs....
So conservatively you would be spending 4* 350 = $1400
Think about it.... what if IV's drive for changes is successful in lobbying for better provisions which reduce OUR wait times even if by a little bit ... lets say ... by one yr .... YOU would INSTANTLY SAVE $350 ... and it multiplies for every year you save waiting for the final approval.
Lets say you contributed $100 today and you saved 1 yr in wait time ...
YOUR Profit is $250 on a $100 contribution in 3 yrs
atleast 250% returns in 3 yrs .... Can any stock market/bond or CDs match that rate of return
Contribute now so that IV can make that profit for YOU
No comments:
Post a Comment