gc28262
07-28 01:48 PM
Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_arizona_immigration;_ylt=AgcIIY.ht_GJNzOqM3G8sH 6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNta2N1b3FnBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNz I4L3VzX2FyaXpvbmFfaW1taWdyYXRpb24EY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBv cHVsYXIEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwM3BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW 5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNqdWRnZWJsb2Nrc3A-)
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
wallpaper here for the 2008 winners.
anjans
07-09 09:46 PM
thanks
nixstor
06-14 11:57 AM
I am planning on buying a house in 30 days. My company would be paying me about 2500$ rent for renting out a part of my house. This is what made me think that I would actually be able to afford house in NJ.
House in 30 days in this market? I personally would take 60 days. As long as you dont force yourself into a decision just because your company is picking up the tab for 2500$ for an year does not mean that you have to buy a house that has a commitment of 30 years. Your company can do that for an apartment or rented property as well. Probably it wont be as much as 2500 but you can add up Internet, phone bills and other expenses to get close to the 2500$
How would that work out? Does 2500/month become additional taxable income? My mortgage payments would be about 3500/month. If it becomes a taxable income we would be screwed big time as we would cross all limits to low tax brackets :(
No its not taxable income. In other words you wont get a W-2 for that money. How ever its good to have a letter from your employer saying that your job and your employer required you to have a home office and not at your own will. The reason why I say this is because Home office deduction is one of the audit triggers on a return. Even though you will not declare this on your return, your employer will disclose this as a write off. chances are very less that IRS will ask you, but just in case have that letter from your employer. Read this (http://nixstor.blogspot.com/2008/02/home-office-deduction-eligibility.html) and talk to a good CPA/IRS.
Also I am a july 07 filer with PD sept 2006 and would have few years before I can get GC. So would my chances of getting a mortgage like 450k are less as I am not permanent resident?
did you guys specified non resident alien in your mortgage application and did it have any affect on rates?
I dont think it matters. All that matter is your credit score. Dont tell the lender that you are NOT a permanent resident unless they ask you or the application asks you for. If they figure that you are concerned they will another quarter point
Thanks in advance,
USDream2Dust
House in 30 days in this market? I personally would take 60 days. As long as you dont force yourself into a decision just because your company is picking up the tab for 2500$ for an year does not mean that you have to buy a house that has a commitment of 30 years. Your company can do that for an apartment or rented property as well. Probably it wont be as much as 2500 but you can add up Internet, phone bills and other expenses to get close to the 2500$
How would that work out? Does 2500/month become additional taxable income? My mortgage payments would be about 3500/month. If it becomes a taxable income we would be screwed big time as we would cross all limits to low tax brackets :(
No its not taxable income. In other words you wont get a W-2 for that money. How ever its good to have a letter from your employer saying that your job and your employer required you to have a home office and not at your own will. The reason why I say this is because Home office deduction is one of the audit triggers on a return. Even though you will not declare this on your return, your employer will disclose this as a write off. chances are very less that IRS will ask you, but just in case have that letter from your employer. Read this (http://nixstor.blogspot.com/2008/02/home-office-deduction-eligibility.html) and talk to a good CPA/IRS.
Also I am a july 07 filer with PD sept 2006 and would have few years before I can get GC. So would my chances of getting a mortgage like 450k are less as I am not permanent resident?
did you guys specified non resident alien in your mortgage application and did it have any affect on rates?
I dont think it matters. All that matter is your credit score. Dont tell the lender that you are NOT a permanent resident unless they ask you or the application asks you for. If they figure that you are concerned they will another quarter point
Thanks in advance,
USDream2Dust
2011 favorite quotes – ones
laborchic
09-09 12:49 PM
These references are from the statement made on 24th June 2009. Nothing after that !!!!!!!!!!
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
more...
sjhugoose
January 6th, 2004, 12:48 PM
Thanks Scott! Do I understand correctly that you mean I could blend in an "unfiltered bird" over the "NeatImaged" one?
Ya thats what I was saying. Sorry if I was not clear, cold medicine blurs you clarity! Hope this idea helps a touch!
BTW, looks like your really enjoying the 100-400L!
Scott
Ya thats what I was saying. Sorry if I was not clear, cold medicine blurs you clarity! Hope this idea helps a touch!
BTW, looks like your really enjoying the 100-400L!
Scott
STAmisha
07-09 05:52 PM
My lawyer also says the same. I'm also in similar condition where company is applying for 1 1140's.
Regd experience, I dont know if USCIS calls an employer.
Regd experience, I dont know if USCIS calls an employer.
more...
wheretogo
11-28 01:35 PM
On Monday (11/27) I got EAD card. There was wrong in "from valid Date"
My Current EAD expires on Feb 27th 2007 and I received New EAD Valid from 11/28/2007 to 11/27/2008.
- I called Customer service First time they have told me to resend I-765, Original EAD and letter telling, what is wrong.
- Second time when I called customer service and explain issue, She transferred me to Immigration office. I got Immigration officer from Los Angles and He told me same thing to re-send all documents again without Fee
- Third time, I called VSC and talk to officer and he look my case and realized the mistake and told me , he will take care and send me new EAD card with proper validate date but when I asked me case number or reference number, he told me that you have to wait for 30 day to get new card.
- I also took InfoPass appointment tomorrow and see what local INS office suggest me.
- Tomorrow I am going to call Vermount centre and discuss and then send I-765 forms , Original EAD and letter explaining the issue.
My Current EAD expires on Feb 27th 2007 and I received New EAD Valid from 11/28/2007 to 11/27/2008.
- I called Customer service First time they have told me to resend I-765, Original EAD and letter telling, what is wrong.
- Second time when I called customer service and explain issue, She transferred me to Immigration office. I got Immigration officer from Los Angles and He told me same thing to re-send all documents again without Fee
- Third time, I called VSC and talk to officer and he look my case and realized the mistake and told me , he will take care and send me new EAD card with proper validate date but when I asked me case number or reference number, he told me that you have to wait for 30 day to get new card.
- I also took InfoPass appointment tomorrow and see what local INS office suggest me.
- Tomorrow I am going to call Vermount centre and discuss and then send I-765 forms , Original EAD and letter explaining the issue.
2010 Winners will receive a
sri1309
11-05 10:26 PM
Congratulate OBAMA.. This is the time to tell them that we would like to vote him next time. He knows the immigrant problems.. We should hope for change..
more...
JazzByTheBay
05-30 02:08 AM
While doing some ad-hoc research after watching Valkyrie, I discovered this interesting bit of U.S. immigration history and couldn't help but be amazed how nobody seems to know or talk about United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind).
The Luce-Celler Act of 1946 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luce-Celler_Act_of_1946) was proposed by Republican Clare Booth Luce and Democrat Emanuel Celler in 1943 and signed into being by President Harry Truman on July 2, 1946, granting naturalization rights to Indian Americans (and Filipino Americans) and re-established immigration from India (and the Philippines).
Food for thought...
jazz
The Luce-Celler Act of 1946 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luce-Celler_Act_of_1946) was proposed by Republican Clare Booth Luce and Democrat Emanuel Celler in 1943 and signed into being by President Harry Truman on July 2, 1946, granting naturalization rights to Indian Americans (and Filipino Americans) and re-established immigration from India (and the Philippines).
Food for thought...
jazz
hair Quick Quotes Quill - Acid
stxvr
07-09 10:46 AM
Means if we ask for AC21 then they ask for this kind of details? Also What is the Probability they ask for these details. Now I have 2 more questions:
1. if you are on H1 extension then you get new LCA at the time of H1 extension. If your current location and job are same as specified in the h1 extension LCA. (If you were working at wrong location at the time of first H1 but during the H1B extension you are working at the location specified in the LCA. Now how much is the possibility that they ask for the details for LCA Of the first H1B. Or tey look into only latest LCA).
2. One more question: If your LCA shows the city name LA but you are actually not specific in LA city but you are in LA county then is that location considered to be correct OR this is still violation?
1. if you are on H1 extension then you get new LCA at the time of H1 extension. If your current location and job are same as specified in the h1 extension LCA. (If you were working at wrong location at the time of first H1 but during the H1B extension you are working at the location specified in the LCA. Now how much is the possibility that they ask for the details for LCA Of the first H1B. Or tey look into only latest LCA).
2. One more question: If your LCA shows the city name LA but you are actually not specific in LA city but you are in LA county then is that location considered to be correct OR this is still violation?
more...
ajay
12-31 09:58 AM
Ajay, did you receive 3 years of H1 extension? I am in my 5th year of initial H1B. wondering if I will receive 3 years extension when I file for H1B transfer with an approved 140. I am changing jobs using AC21 to join a new employer.
Let me know your exp. Did you also get new I-94 attached with H1B ext approval notice?
I got it.
Please let me know the procedure you followed for filing AC21. Did you go through your own attorney?
Let me know your exp. Did you also get new I-94 attached with H1B ext approval notice?
I got it.
Please let me know the procedure you followed for filing AC21. Did you go through your own attorney?
hot Congrats to our winners
Jaime
09-15 09:28 PM
One Day Of Sacrifice!!!
A Lifetime Of Fredom With Your Green Card!!!
One Day Of Procrastination = A Lifetime Of Regret
Avoid The Regret! Come Get Your Green Card!!! It's At The Base Of The Washington Monument! Tuesday the 18th! 9 Am!
A Lifetime Of Fredom With Your Green Card!!!
One Day Of Procrastination = A Lifetime Of Regret
Avoid The Regret! Come Get Your Green Card!!! It's At The Base Of The Washington Monument! Tuesday the 18th! 9 Am!
more...
house elie wiesel quotes. wiesel
spicy_guy
09-04 06:01 PM
Hello,
Last November I quit my job in the US and left the country as well. Two days ago, I received an email saying my 485 is approved, and card production was ordered. The card will go to an address in the US where someone can forward me the mail.
What should I do? Try to enter the U.S. with the card? What to say to POE officials? WIll I be questioned?
Thanks.
If you have AP you will be able to enter into the country without any issues / questions.
Last November I quit my job in the US and left the country as well. Two days ago, I received an email saying my 485 is approved, and card production was ordered. The card will go to an address in the US where someone can forward me the mail.
What should I do? Try to enter the U.S. with the card? What to say to POE officials? WIll I be questioned?
Thanks.
If you have AP you will be able to enter into the country without any issues / questions.
tattoo winners of the quotes
chanduv23
11-05 01:07 PM
Tri State Also participates in operation 100, come on Tri State folks lets do it together with Texas
more...
pictures Winners never cheat
axp817
05-15 04:25 PM
yes, he lucked out when his file/case/name/application got picked last Aug/Sept when that PD was current for a brief while.
I could be wrong, but don't the dependents also need their PDs to be current in order for their 485 to be approved?
The wife wasn't as lucky and her application wasn't picked while the window lasted, which is why she is still waiting. No?
I could be wrong, but don't the dependents also need their PDs to be current in order for their 485 to be approved?
The wife wasn't as lucky and her application wasn't picked while the window lasted, which is why she is still waiting. No?
dresses winners, agnostic quotes,
thomachan72
09-14 06:30 AM
You cannot work with an expired EAD. End of the story.
But if it is approved and you haven't got the card in your hand , few companies would allow you to work for 90 days from the date of approval.
so a person whose EAD expires but is waiting renewed EAD card has to resign and then be rehired??? Isn't there some clarity regarding this?
But if it is approved and you haven't got the card in your hand , few companies would allow you to work for 90 days from the date of approval.
so a person whose EAD expires but is waiting renewed EAD card has to resign and then be rehired??? Isn't there some clarity regarding this?
more...
makeup Alexander Freydank winner
desi485
06-06 12:38 PM
Looks like everything in GM is on sale.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ae2V3Y.7j85k&refer=news
Saturn is sold for $100 to $200 mn.
Who knows GM may sell the retired brands for 1 or 2 mn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac#End_of_the_Pontiac_brand
Now the important question.
Did tatas overpay for jaguar and landrover ? Looks like they did.
Saturn has plants to produce cars, BUT NO TECHNOLOGY OF THEIR OWN. NO R&D.
Saturn sells rebranded-rebadged OPEL (GM - EUROPE, now sold to Magna) Vehicles.
While Jaguar and Land Rover are very strong brands with their own technologies and research & design capabilities. Besides Tata bought those brands when Rupee was historically high (below 40 per USD). So I don't think Tata made any mistakes.
I think it is Mahindra who is making mistake by not buying Hummer or Volvo or Saturn. I am very excited to see first Indian Vehicle to be sold in US i.e. Mahindra in 2009. No matter what, I will be the first to buy one.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ae2V3Y.7j85k&refer=news
Saturn is sold for $100 to $200 mn.
Who knows GM may sell the retired brands for 1 or 2 mn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac#End_of_the_Pontiac_brand
Now the important question.
Did tatas overpay for jaguar and landrover ? Looks like they did.
Saturn has plants to produce cars, BUT NO TECHNOLOGY OF THEIR OWN. NO R&D.
Saturn sells rebranded-rebadged OPEL (GM - EUROPE, now sold to Magna) Vehicles.
While Jaguar and Land Rover are very strong brands with their own technologies and research & design capabilities. Besides Tata bought those brands when Rupee was historically high (below 40 per USD). So I don't think Tata made any mistakes.
I think it is Mahindra who is making mistake by not buying Hummer or Volvo or Saturn. I am very excited to see first Indian Vehicle to be sold in US i.e. Mahindra in 2009. No matter what, I will be the first to buy one.
girlfriend The 12 Choice of Winners
sanjeev_2004
05-26 03:21 PM
Previously India used to have 150,000 * 7 / 100 = 10500 visas every year. Now India will get 90,000 * 10 /100 = 9000 visas every year. Loss of visas to india because this new law will be 10500 - 9,000 = 1500.
It will increase the waiting for PDs to be currenct by 1500 * 100 / 105,00 = 100 / 7 % = 14.3%.
If remaining waiting of remianing qualified aplicant is 1 year then we will suffer 3 more months with our currect emploer and if it 2 years then we will suffer 6 more months with our currect employer only because of this new bill.
thanks.
It will increase the waiting for PDs to be currenct by 1500 * 100 / 105,00 = 100 / 7 % = 14.3%.
If remaining waiting of remianing qualified aplicant is 1 year then we will suffer 3 more months with our currect emploer and if it 2 years then we will suffer 6 more months with our currect employer only because of this new bill.
thanks.
hairstyles scrap-off winners
reedandbamboo
08-29 12:54 PM
volunteer as a writer.
sanan
06-04 08:15 AM
PD July 2002
no update yet! Although I know atleast one person on another forum got an email on day 1 (June 1st) that his was approved! That sucked for him coz he didn't get any time to file for his wife!:(
no update yet! Although I know atleast one person on another forum got an email on day 1 (June 1st) that his was approved! That sucked for him coz he didn't get any time to file for his wife!:(
chilushah
11-03 02:30 AM
Team, My Labor is filed under PERM was Audited and now approved.
For, Qualification it says Bachelor + No Experience
However, in Skills section it says 5 years of experience in Software Development (.NET).
I got Audited and was required to provide Business Justification for 5 years experience for software developer position.
Can this be applied in EB2?
Thanks!
For, Qualification it says Bachelor + No Experience
However, in Skills section it says 5 years of experience in Software Development (.NET).
I got Audited and was required to provide Business Justification for 5 years experience for software developer position.
Can this be applied in EB2?
Thanks!
No comments:
Post a Comment