reachag
04-08 07:29 AM
How long is your current H1 valid? As far as i know, You can get your H1 extended with the new company till the present H1 date provided the pending LC is not revoked. Normally most companies do not specifically cancel the LC..so you should be fine.
As soon as you join the new company, apply for Perm.
This was discussed at length at immigrationportal.com website. There is a seperate thread for guys in H1 7th year extension. check it out.
As soon as you join the new company, apply for Perm.
This was discussed at length at immigrationportal.com website. There is a seperate thread for guys in H1 7th year extension. check it out.
wallpaper clip art heart borders. clip
nousername
06-30 02:21 PM
Unfortunately not.. AP is only for 1yr. You see in these tough times both US gov. and our attorneys need to make some extra cash..:rolleyes:
Are they approving parole for two years similar to EAD?
Are they approving parole for two years similar to EAD?
yabadaba
07-17 08:38 PM
hahaha. i also remember one guy telling everyone on this bbs to not file till July 29, so the PDs remain current for August. some one later found out by reading his old posts that he had already filed his 485 :eek:
that guy was classic.. with a poll and everything..hahahaha
that guy was classic.. with a poll and everything..hahahaha
2011 heart clip art border. clip
kerstbrd
09-23 02:04 AM
I'm perplexed.... "You know, like nunchuck skills, bowhunting skills, computer hacking skills... Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills. "... or the one with him shouting at Tina the Llama to eat food?
http://www.gotwavs.com/0095461785/MP3S/Movies/Napoleon_Dynamite/lucky.mp3
Congratulations though.
http://www.gotwavs.com/0095461785/MP3S/Movies/Napoleon_Dynamite/lucky.mp3
Congratulations though.
more...
piperwarrior
07-17 09:27 PM
Yeah, let's ban everyone. Everyone should rejoice with you, because your body-shop employer won't be able to take advantage of you for much longer...
You should be banned again.
People who feel happy at other people's sorrows don't deserve here. Today in the moment of happiness you only came to spoil the mood and want sympathy from everyone. Your previous posts were VERY offensive. Do not act innocent. I saw them saddistic remarks.
Infact a lot of backlog center people started posting offensive remarks and showed happiness when dates became unavailable. I will never support you guys after what I saw from you as reactions.
You should be banned again.
People who feel happy at other people's sorrows don't deserve here. Today in the moment of happiness you only came to spoil the mood and want sympathy from everyone. Your previous posts were VERY offensive. Do not act innocent. I saw them saddistic remarks.
Infact a lot of backlog center people started posting offensive remarks and showed happiness when dates became unavailable. I will never support you guys after what I saw from you as reactions.
HawaldarNaik
06-15 09:49 PM
Can someone tell me , about the INFO pass process. How does one create a INFO Pass appointment, what is the process , in case i want to know about the status of my 485 application. How soon do u get the appointment ? I am based out of Southern CA
more...
ram04
05-25 03:56 PM
Thank you for contacting me regarding our nation's immigration policies. I appreciate hearing from you.
Immigration is the most contentious issue that I have worked on during my tenure in Congress. It is imperative that we first secure our borders and enforce our existing immigration laws before we attempt to implement comprehensive immigration reform. According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), just over 600 miles of border fence has been constructed along the Southwest border to date. In more remote areas, DHS is using tower-based integrated cameras and sensors, ground-based radar, mobile surveillance systems, and an unmanned aerial system. These initiatives are in addition to border patrol agents who are actively patrolling the areas.
I have consistently supported providing the Department of Homeland Security with the necessary tools they need to protect our country from those who seek to cross our borders illegally. For instance, in July 2009, I supported an amendment requiring the completion of 700 miles of double-layer physical fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border by December 31, 2010. This amendment follows through on the three-year-old promise made by Congress and the Department of Homeland Security to secure the border under previously passed legislation.
We must also address the illegal immigrants that are currently in our country. I will not support any proposal that provides amnesty or a path to citizenship for those that are currently here illegally. Additionally, I will continue to support programs like E-verify that provide employers with tools to verify whether or not current and prospective employees are legally allowed to work in the U.S. Since its inception in 1996, the E-Verify program has provided employers with a process to verify the work eligibility of new hires. E-Verify is free and more than 87,000 employers are enrolled in the program. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, more than 1,000 employers voluntarily sign up to use E-Verify each week.
On July 8, 2009, the Senate passed H.R. 2892, the "Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010." Included in this bill was an amendment, offered by Senator Sessions, which removed the sunset date on the E-Verify program, and requires federal contractors to participate in the E-Verify program. With my support, the Senate passed this amendment by voice vote. This program began September 8, 2009, and requires federal contractors to use the E-Verify system to check the immigration and citizenship status of new hire and those assigned to new federal contracts.
Immigration reform is one of the most important domestic issues facing our nation today. The President and Congress must work together to secure the border first. Once this is done, we can work to resolve the collateral issues. I believe we can get there, but we are not there yet.
If you would like to receive timely email alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web site at: www.chambliss.senate.gov . Please let me know whenever I may be of assistance.
Immigration is the most contentious issue that I have worked on during my tenure in Congress. It is imperative that we first secure our borders and enforce our existing immigration laws before we attempt to implement comprehensive immigration reform. According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), just over 600 miles of border fence has been constructed along the Southwest border to date. In more remote areas, DHS is using tower-based integrated cameras and sensors, ground-based radar, mobile surveillance systems, and an unmanned aerial system. These initiatives are in addition to border patrol agents who are actively patrolling the areas.
I have consistently supported providing the Department of Homeland Security with the necessary tools they need to protect our country from those who seek to cross our borders illegally. For instance, in July 2009, I supported an amendment requiring the completion of 700 miles of double-layer physical fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border by December 31, 2010. This amendment follows through on the three-year-old promise made by Congress and the Department of Homeland Security to secure the border under previously passed legislation.
We must also address the illegal immigrants that are currently in our country. I will not support any proposal that provides amnesty or a path to citizenship for those that are currently here illegally. Additionally, I will continue to support programs like E-verify that provide employers with tools to verify whether or not current and prospective employees are legally allowed to work in the U.S. Since its inception in 1996, the E-Verify program has provided employers with a process to verify the work eligibility of new hires. E-Verify is free and more than 87,000 employers are enrolled in the program. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, more than 1,000 employers voluntarily sign up to use E-Verify each week.
On July 8, 2009, the Senate passed H.R. 2892, the "Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010." Included in this bill was an amendment, offered by Senator Sessions, which removed the sunset date on the E-Verify program, and requires federal contractors to participate in the E-Verify program. With my support, the Senate passed this amendment by voice vote. This program began September 8, 2009, and requires federal contractors to use the E-Verify system to check the immigration and citizenship status of new hire and those assigned to new federal contracts.
Immigration reform is one of the most important domestic issues facing our nation today. The President and Congress must work together to secure the border first. Once this is done, we can work to resolve the collateral issues. I believe we can get there, but we are not there yet.
If you would like to receive timely email alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web site at: www.chambliss.senate.gov . Please let me know whenever I may be of assistance.
2010 clip art heart borders. clip
gdilla
02-28 01:41 PM
Since you are a Canadian you can apply for a visitor visa (B1) – by applying the visa we will be in legal status until a decision is taken. B1 visa is generally approved if you give the reason of finishing up matters in US (like selling house/cars/closing bank accounts/credit accounts etc). I guess you are asking just to be informed but if it really happens another option for you is TN1 – if you have not yet applied for 485.
But they never know when you leave really, at least if you're canadian. By going home, all I do is give the CANADIAN immigration officer the i-94 paper with the h1 stamp when i enter canada if i don't plan on returning to the US again, at least on that visa. Plus, they never ask, so it's really up to you to give it to them. And getting a visitor visa, canadians automatically enter on 6month visitor status as default, no stamping required. If you're flying, all you have to do is tell them you're coming back to canada. If you drive across the border, they don't care to ask. So i guess i can just hop back to vancouver for a weekend and come back as a visitor and be fine then (to clean up affairs, or just hang out for 6 months).
But they never know when you leave really, at least if you're canadian. By going home, all I do is give the CANADIAN immigration officer the i-94 paper with the h1 stamp when i enter canada if i don't plan on returning to the US again, at least on that visa. Plus, they never ask, so it's really up to you to give it to them. And getting a visitor visa, canadians automatically enter on 6month visitor status as default, no stamping required. If you're flying, all you have to do is tell them you're coming back to canada. If you drive across the border, they don't care to ask. So i guess i can just hop back to vancouver for a weekend and come back as a visitor and be fine then (to clean up affairs, or just hang out for 6 months).
more...
nk2006
07-15 10:38 AM
The attorney i had was Jeffries expensive but good.
I have a BS in biology and computers (was on F1 visa)
Then I did research on cancer cells at the university while trying to get into Graduate school. Got my MS in information Science and also an MBA.
For MBA I did my research on Economic growth and Military spending.
After MS i got job h1b for a research facility was doing mba at the same time. Switched employer to work for a multi national corporation. Quite my job for multi national because they would not apply green card started work for a consulting body shop they apply for my green card.
Now Soon I will give my resignation.
You really have a great lawyer to pursue EB1 while your EB2 application is in process (that too without even requesting) .... I almost cant believe that there are such lawyers in immigration field. Congratulations and have fun.
As an aside I will tell my story - have couple masters and a PhD with several publications. My EB2 thru employer is pending. I requested (actually begged) my employer and attorney to pursue EB1 as well - they said no - lawyer's response is EB1 is very difficult and you should be someone of nobel prize calibre etc.etc. I tried convincing by giving several examples of my friends/classmates in PhD who got approved with fewer publications/patents. The lawyer got irritated (maybe because I am providing info that he is not very well aware of) that I am actually giving suggestions and he and HR indicated that I should be happy that they are sponsoring me for EB2. I went ahead with another private attorney to submit another EB1 I140 separately which is still pending. EB1 needs lot of paperwork on our own and needs employer assistance in providing solid proof that work is of high importance - I didnt get that assistance so not very positive about EB1 approval. For now just waiting for my EB2 PD to become current.
I am telling this story because my experience with immigration attorneys is generally bad and its same with scores of friends so much so that I am convinced that immigration lawyers may be one of the least competent professionals in US. In US customer satisfaction is everything in almost all professions - customer is god because he/she is giving us business. But in immigration lawyer community - the end customer may not be the one who is giving them money and even worse the HR people in companies (even the best ones) are either ignorant of or scared of immigration laws and just defer everything to lawyers who kind of exploit this situation. So if you come across a good immigration lawyer please say thanks to him/her on all our behalf.
I have a BS in biology and computers (was on F1 visa)
Then I did research on cancer cells at the university while trying to get into Graduate school. Got my MS in information Science and also an MBA.
For MBA I did my research on Economic growth and Military spending.
After MS i got job h1b for a research facility was doing mba at the same time. Switched employer to work for a multi national corporation. Quite my job for multi national because they would not apply green card started work for a consulting body shop they apply for my green card.
Now Soon I will give my resignation.
You really have a great lawyer to pursue EB1 while your EB2 application is in process (that too without even requesting) .... I almost cant believe that there are such lawyers in immigration field. Congratulations and have fun.
As an aside I will tell my story - have couple masters and a PhD with several publications. My EB2 thru employer is pending. I requested (actually begged) my employer and attorney to pursue EB1 as well - they said no - lawyer's response is EB1 is very difficult and you should be someone of nobel prize calibre etc.etc. I tried convincing by giving several examples of my friends/classmates in PhD who got approved with fewer publications/patents. The lawyer got irritated (maybe because I am providing info that he is not very well aware of) that I am actually giving suggestions and he and HR indicated that I should be happy that they are sponsoring me for EB2. I went ahead with another private attorney to submit another EB1 I140 separately which is still pending. EB1 needs lot of paperwork on our own and needs employer assistance in providing solid proof that work is of high importance - I didnt get that assistance so not very positive about EB1 approval. For now just waiting for my EB2 PD to become current.
I am telling this story because my experience with immigration attorneys is generally bad and its same with scores of friends so much so that I am convinced that immigration lawyers may be one of the least competent professionals in US. In US customer satisfaction is everything in almost all professions - customer is god because he/she is giving us business. But in immigration lawyer community - the end customer may not be the one who is giving them money and even worse the HR people in companies (even the best ones) are either ignorant of or scared of immigration laws and just defer everything to lawyers who kind of exploit this situation. So if you come across a good immigration lawyer please say thanks to him/her on all our behalf.
hair clip art heart borders.
PD073102VA
03-19 11:42 AM
Here is what Attorney Mathew Oh thinks about provisions for STEM.
Section 406. Visas for Individuals with Advanced Degrees: Section 406 exempts from the numerical cap on employment-based visas aliens with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, or math, and has worked in a related field in the U.S. during the 3 year period preceding their application for adjustment of status.
[Matthew Oh Comment: This benefit appears to apply not only to the U.S. earned advanced degree holders but also to those advanced degree holders who earned the degrees in the foreign countries as well.]
It also exempts immediate relatives of aliens who are admitted as employment-based immigrants from the numerical limitations of 203(b).
[Matthew Oh Comment: Exemption from the numerical limitation of spouses and children of EB immigrants and exemption from the numberical limitation of advanced degree holders in science, technology, engineering and mathematics with 3-year employment in the U.S. would practically make a substantially large addtitional numbers available to the total EB immigration numbers beyond the total cap of 290,000.]
Finally, it increases the available visas numbers for H-1B nonimmigrants and provides an exemption from the numerical limitation aliens who have earned advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, or math.
[Matthew Oh Comment: Currently those advanced degree holders who are benefitted from the different H-1B annual cap are limited to the U.S. earned advanced degree holders. Besides, they are still subject to a cap, albeit separate, of 20,000 annually. This provision appears to make totally H-1Bcap-exempt for those advanced degree holders in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics.]
The H-1B numerical limitation is also supplemented with a flexible limitation that is set according to demand for foreign high-skilled workers.
Section 406. Visas for Individuals with Advanced Degrees: Section 406 exempts from the numerical cap on employment-based visas aliens with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, or math, and has worked in a related field in the U.S. during the 3 year period preceding their application for adjustment of status.
[Matthew Oh Comment: This benefit appears to apply not only to the U.S. earned advanced degree holders but also to those advanced degree holders who earned the degrees in the foreign countries as well.]
It also exempts immediate relatives of aliens who are admitted as employment-based immigrants from the numerical limitations of 203(b).
[Matthew Oh Comment: Exemption from the numerical limitation of spouses and children of EB immigrants and exemption from the numberical limitation of advanced degree holders in science, technology, engineering and mathematics with 3-year employment in the U.S. would practically make a substantially large addtitional numbers available to the total EB immigration numbers beyond the total cap of 290,000.]
Finally, it increases the available visas numbers for H-1B nonimmigrants and provides an exemption from the numerical limitation aliens who have earned advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, or math.
[Matthew Oh Comment: Currently those advanced degree holders who are benefitted from the different H-1B annual cap are limited to the U.S. earned advanced degree holders. Besides, they are still subject to a cap, albeit separate, of 20,000 annually. This provision appears to make totally H-1Bcap-exempt for those advanced degree holders in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics.]
The H-1B numerical limitation is also supplemented with a flexible limitation that is set according to demand for foreign high-skilled workers.
more...
snathan
05-23 11:07 AM
After all of that if your pay is greater than 75K and if you file separately you will not be getting stimulus package. This was the news i got confirmed from IRS over phone.
This is very old news dude....:D:D
This is very old news dude....:D:D
hot clip art heart borders. heart
zico123
06-19 09:52 AM
if my previous company revoke my visa after the new copmany filed for the transfer will this be a reason for ins to deny my h1b transfer?
Once you get a receipt for your H1 transfer application you can start working for the new employer. From that point onwards your H1 application is linked to your new employer and no longer dependent on your old employer. I would suggest follow up with USCIS regarding your case.
Once you get a receipt for your H1 transfer application you can start working for the new employer. From that point onwards your H1 application is linked to your new employer and no longer dependent on your old employer. I would suggest follow up with USCIS regarding your case.
more...
house clip art heart borders.
gneerajg
07-18 12:50 PM
They will definitely accept the copies of the check. The reason I applied my I-140 in May 07 and didn't got any receipt and I intend to file PPS for which I require copy of I-140 but when I talked to the customer service they suggested me this solution and after that I got my check photocopies from my employer
tattoo Heart And Candy Border clip
amitjoey
02-08 03:40 PM
chitta123, do not panic. You are in a better situation overall. Find an employer willing to sponsor your H1 and greencard. Start H1 Process (transfer). You will get a new H1- with date of April 2008. Start working as soon as you get a receipt date.
Also start new perm-labor with new employer. apply I-140 with and ask to retain old PD date from employer A -I-140 (Old employer). Since Employer A has laid you off (guessing that they were out of work for you), they cannot and will not benefit from revoking the I-140. Since they cannot use it to hire any other foreigner, since they just layed off.
There might be some other easy way you can do this. Please do not take my views as legal advice. Consult a lawyer (good one) immediately.
Also start new perm-labor with new employer. apply I-140 with and ask to retain old PD date from employer A -I-140 (Old employer). Since Employer A has laid you off (guessing that they were out of work for you), they cannot and will not benefit from revoking the I-140. Since they cannot use it to hire any other foreigner, since they just layed off.
There might be some other easy way you can do this. Please do not take my views as legal advice. Consult a lawyer (good one) immediately.
more...
pictures heart
beautifulMind
06-13 10:04 PM
Is this true for Consular Processing applications as well ? I thought CPs are filed at the local US consulate (Mumbai in our case). Additionally, I have a question about I-485 - CP filing and retrogression. Once we file the 485, does the CP get stuck in case there is retrogression in a few months time or is it that once we have applied the process keeps going ? Thanks in advance for the information.
Do not go for CP. My friend did the same thing in 2005 and he was in india 2 days before his interview in the mumbai consulate and dates retrogressed and they cancelled his interview and had to come back...since he did not file for I-485 he did not get his ead and is still stuck in retrogression untill now.
I had chosen the option of CP in my I-140 application but now i am going to file AC21 to change that to adjustment of status so i can take advantage of EAD and AP..The dates are surely going to retrogresss severly in Sept and thats not enough time to get an interview (min 3 months) in an embassy abroad..
So do not go for CP
Do not go for CP. My friend did the same thing in 2005 and he was in india 2 days before his interview in the mumbai consulate and dates retrogressed and they cancelled his interview and had to come back...since he did not file for I-485 he did not get his ead and is still stuck in retrogression untill now.
I had chosen the option of CP in my I-140 application but now i am going to file AC21 to change that to adjustment of status so i can take advantage of EAD and AP..The dates are surely going to retrogresss severly in Sept and thats not enough time to get an interview (min 3 months) in an embassy abroad..
So do not go for CP
dresses clip art heart borders. heart
LostInGCProcess
03-05 03:17 AM
This is what Ron Gotcher had to say about this wonderful organization:
Quote" Not even Congress has been able to rein in the INS/CIS. Repeatedly, they have passed legislation ordering the agency to produce reports on their backlogs - all of which have been ignored with impunity."
So, I think this is just another tactic to discourage people from getting the information thru FIA by charging some imaginary figure of $5k to get some basic information. This is the heights of Arrogance.
Quote" Not even Congress has been able to rein in the INS/CIS. Repeatedly, they have passed legislation ordering the agency to produce reports on their backlogs - all of which have been ignored with impunity."
So, I think this is just another tactic to discourage people from getting the information thru FIA by charging some imaginary figure of $5k to get some basic information. This is the heights of Arrogance.
more...
makeup clip art heart borders. spring
extra_mint
01-15 03:11 AM
Well majority of the people on this thread and forum is finding this as just cause, I am totally for it.
However no one is sure if this logic will hold water. Well none of us are lawyers, thus our arguments for or against doesn't hold. Someone said at the start of this thread that let's consult some big lawyers.
People are ready to contribute (including me) and I personally think that IV Core will be the best forum to take this up with lawyers. They already have an existing network, have folks that have participated in efforts related to legal immigration,
To IV Core
--------------
Country Quota is single biggest reason for retrogression, Have you guys (in the past) discussed with lawyers if removing Country Quota for EMPLOYMENT BASED can be legally challenged ??
If this has not been discussed do you guys think some one from lawyer forum (one that is on IV) can research on this ??
If above research shows things can be challenged then let's get it challenged through some esteemed lawyers !!
Also since so many people (once again including me) are ready to contribute, IV can become forum to raise money for this Legal challenge...like another pool.
I am sure people have talked, discussed about removing country quota in the past. However I am not sure if serious effort have been made to see if this can be challenged and that is the focus we all should have.
However no one is sure if this logic will hold water. Well none of us are lawyers, thus our arguments for or against doesn't hold. Someone said at the start of this thread that let's consult some big lawyers.
People are ready to contribute (including me) and I personally think that IV Core will be the best forum to take this up with lawyers. They already have an existing network, have folks that have participated in efforts related to legal immigration,
To IV Core
--------------
Country Quota is single biggest reason for retrogression, Have you guys (in the past) discussed with lawyers if removing Country Quota for EMPLOYMENT BASED can be legally challenged ??
If this has not been discussed do you guys think some one from lawyer forum (one that is on IV) can research on this ??
If above research shows things can be challenged then let's get it challenged through some esteemed lawyers !!
Also since so many people (once again including me) are ready to contribute, IV can become forum to raise money for this Legal challenge...like another pool.
I am sure people have talked, discussed about removing country quota in the past. However I am not sure if serious effort have been made to see if this can be challenged and that is the focus we all should have.
girlfriend A Perfect World - Clip Art:
smartboy75
06-04 12:10 PM
Hi guys,
This is what my lawyer said.
If you/spouse have used your EAD or are using your EAD then your "Current Immigration Status" is "Adjustment of Status Pending/Parolee". If not then it is either H1B or H4.
If you/spouse have actually travlled outside the US and re-entered using the Advanced parole, then your "Manner of Last Entry" is "Parolee". If not then it is what it says on your I-94 (H1B or H4).
You do **NOT** need the $80 Biometric fee for the Advanced Parole.
hey eb3_nepa
One quick question....if the spouse is on H4, working on EAD and then travels outside and comes back in using her H4....can she then still use her EAD.....??
This is what my lawyer said.
If you/spouse have used your EAD or are using your EAD then your "Current Immigration Status" is "Adjustment of Status Pending/Parolee". If not then it is either H1B or H4.
If you/spouse have actually travlled outside the US and re-entered using the Advanced parole, then your "Manner of Last Entry" is "Parolee". If not then it is what it says on your I-94 (H1B or H4).
You do **NOT** need the $80 Biometric fee for the Advanced Parole.
hey eb3_nepa
One quick question....if the spouse is on H4, working on EAD and then travels outside and comes back in using her H4....can she then still use her EAD.....??
hairstyles clip art heart borders. clip
pitha
06-08 06:14 PM
CIR is going to be back for sure no doubt about it and when it comes back it is going to be the same bill. Harrry Reid is just creating a drama so that he can reduce the number of amendments introduced by the republicans. There are currently more than 30 to 40 amendments remaining, with this drama harry reid is trying to reduce the amendments to about 5 or 6 more amendments.
We should try something like applying for 485 without priority date but even the cantwell cornyn amendment does not have this provision
There is a SLIM chance that CIR might come back this year, but if this CIR is taken again with its current provision for the EB Category and H1B in it, it is very bad for many of us.
Plan B, I think must be, trying to insert or get some sort of SMALL provision that would alleviate the problem for vast majority of us, into some appropriation bill (Read some where there will be 11 appropriation bill taken up this summer) as the appropriation bill must have to pass for the government to function.
I would either try for filing AOS while visa numbers are not available with an extra fee of $1000… or recapture of unused visas from previous years and use them once without country limit might help. As long as we are not asking for some thing new or more, but like recapture, change of process to ease the current problem, etc might have a SMALL chance.
We should try something like applying for 485 without priority date but even the cantwell cornyn amendment does not have this provision
There is a SLIM chance that CIR might come back this year, but if this CIR is taken again with its current provision for the EB Category and H1B in it, it is very bad for many of us.
Plan B, I think must be, trying to insert or get some sort of SMALL provision that would alleviate the problem for vast majority of us, into some appropriation bill (Read some where there will be 11 appropriation bill taken up this summer) as the appropriation bill must have to pass for the government to function.
I would either try for filing AOS while visa numbers are not available with an extra fee of $1000… or recapture of unused visas from previous years and use them once without country limit might help. As long as we are not asking for some thing new or more, but like recapture, change of process to ease the current problem, etc might have a SMALL chance.
needhelp!
03-06 05:16 PM
Section 6: Time Limits for Agencies to Act on Requests Section 6 of the Open Government Act has two provisions that address time limits for complying with FOIA requests, and the consequences of failing to do so. Significantly, this section does not take effect until one year after the date of enactment and will apply to FOIA requests �filed on or after that effective date.� Accordingly, agencies have until December 31, 2008 to take any necessary steps to prepare for the implementation of this Section.
First, section 6(a) of the Open Government Act amends 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(A) which gives the statutory time period for processing FOIA requests, and includes criteria for when that time period begins to run and when that time period may be suspended or �tolled.� Specifically, section 6(a) provides that the statutory time period commences �on the date on which the request is first received by the appropriate component of the agency, but in any event not later than ten days after the request is first received by any component of the agency that is designated in the agency�s regulations under this section to receive requests.� This provision addresses the situation where a FOIA request is received by a component of an agency that is designated to receive FOIA requests, but is not the proper component for the request at issue. In such a situation, the component that receives the request in error � provided it is a component of the agency that is designated by the agency�s regulations to receive requests � has ten working days within which to forward the FOIA request to the appropriate agency component for processing. Once the FOIA request has been forwarded and received by the appropriate agency component � which must take place within ten working days � the statutory time period to respond to the request commences.
Section 6(a) further provides for those circumstances when an agency may toll the statutory time period. Specifically, an agency �may make one request to the requester for information and toll� the statutory time period �while it is awaiting such information that it has reasonably requested from the requester.� The agency may also toll the time period �if necessary to clarify with the requester issues regarding fee assessment.� There is no limit given for the number of times an agency may go back to a requester to clarify issues regarding fee assessments � which sometimes may need to be done in stages as the records are being located and processed. In both situations, section 6(a) specifies that the requester�s response to the agency�s request �ends the tolling period.�
Second, section 6(b) addresses compliance with the FOIA�s time limits by amending 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(4)(A), the provision addressing fees. Section 6(b) adds a clause to that provision providing that �[a]n agency shall not assess search fees (or in the case of a [favored] requester [i.e., one who qualifies as an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, or as a representative of the news media] duplication fees) . . . if the agency fails to comply with any time limit under paragraph (6), if no unusual or exceptional circumstances (as those terms are defined for purposes of (6)(B) and (C), respectively) apply to the processing of the request.�
As noted in the language of the new provision, the terms �unusual circumstances� and �exceptional circumstances� are existing terms in the FOIA. �Unusual circumstances� occur when there is a need to search or collect records from field offices, or other establishments; when there is a need to search for and examine a voluminous amount of records; or when there is a need for consultation with another agency or with more than two components within the same agency. Unlike �unusual circumstances,� �exceptional circumstances� are not affirmatively defined in the FOIA, but the FOIA does provide that �exceptional circumstances� cannot include �a delay that results from a predictable agency workload of requests . . . unless the agency demonstrates reasonable progress in reducing its backlog of pending requests.� 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(C)(ii). In addition, the statute provides that the �[r]efusal by a person to reasonably modify the scope of a request, or arrange an alternative time frame for processing the request . . . shall be considered as a factor in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist.� Id. at � 552(a)(6)(C)(iii).
Section 6(b) therefore precludes an agency from assessing search fees (or in the case of �favored� requesters, duplication fees), if the agency fails to comply with the FOIA�s time limits, unless �unusual� or �exceptional� circumstances �apply to the processing of the request.�
Finally, section 6(b) amends 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(B)(ii), which discusses notification to requesters regarding the time limits and the option of arranging an alternative time frame for processing, by directing agencies �[t]o aid the requester� by making �available its FOIA Public Liaison, who shall assist in the resolution of any disputes between the requester and the agency.� This provision incorporates an existing aspect of Executive Order 13,392.
The Department of Justice will be providing guidance to agencies in the near future on section 6.
First, section 6(a) of the Open Government Act amends 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(A) which gives the statutory time period for processing FOIA requests, and includes criteria for when that time period begins to run and when that time period may be suspended or �tolled.� Specifically, section 6(a) provides that the statutory time period commences �on the date on which the request is first received by the appropriate component of the agency, but in any event not later than ten days after the request is first received by any component of the agency that is designated in the agency�s regulations under this section to receive requests.� This provision addresses the situation where a FOIA request is received by a component of an agency that is designated to receive FOIA requests, but is not the proper component for the request at issue. In such a situation, the component that receives the request in error � provided it is a component of the agency that is designated by the agency�s regulations to receive requests � has ten working days within which to forward the FOIA request to the appropriate agency component for processing. Once the FOIA request has been forwarded and received by the appropriate agency component � which must take place within ten working days � the statutory time period to respond to the request commences.
Section 6(a) further provides for those circumstances when an agency may toll the statutory time period. Specifically, an agency �may make one request to the requester for information and toll� the statutory time period �while it is awaiting such information that it has reasonably requested from the requester.� The agency may also toll the time period �if necessary to clarify with the requester issues regarding fee assessment.� There is no limit given for the number of times an agency may go back to a requester to clarify issues regarding fee assessments � which sometimes may need to be done in stages as the records are being located and processed. In both situations, section 6(a) specifies that the requester�s response to the agency�s request �ends the tolling period.�
Second, section 6(b) addresses compliance with the FOIA�s time limits by amending 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(4)(A), the provision addressing fees. Section 6(b) adds a clause to that provision providing that �[a]n agency shall not assess search fees (or in the case of a [favored] requester [i.e., one who qualifies as an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, or as a representative of the news media] duplication fees) . . . if the agency fails to comply with any time limit under paragraph (6), if no unusual or exceptional circumstances (as those terms are defined for purposes of (6)(B) and (C), respectively) apply to the processing of the request.�
As noted in the language of the new provision, the terms �unusual circumstances� and �exceptional circumstances� are existing terms in the FOIA. �Unusual circumstances� occur when there is a need to search or collect records from field offices, or other establishments; when there is a need to search for and examine a voluminous amount of records; or when there is a need for consultation with another agency or with more than two components within the same agency. Unlike �unusual circumstances,� �exceptional circumstances� are not affirmatively defined in the FOIA, but the FOIA does provide that �exceptional circumstances� cannot include �a delay that results from a predictable agency workload of requests . . . unless the agency demonstrates reasonable progress in reducing its backlog of pending requests.� 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(C)(ii). In addition, the statute provides that the �[r]efusal by a person to reasonably modify the scope of a request, or arrange an alternative time frame for processing the request . . . shall be considered as a factor in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist.� Id. at � 552(a)(6)(C)(iii).
Section 6(b) therefore precludes an agency from assessing search fees (or in the case of �favored� requesters, duplication fees), if the agency fails to comply with the FOIA�s time limits, unless �unusual� or �exceptional� circumstances �apply to the processing of the request.�
Finally, section 6(b) amends 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(B)(ii), which discusses notification to requesters regarding the time limits and the option of arranging an alternative time frame for processing, by directing agencies �[t]o aid the requester� by making �available its FOIA Public Liaison, who shall assist in the resolution of any disputes between the requester and the agency.� This provision incorporates an existing aspect of Executive Order 13,392.
The Department of Justice will be providing guidance to agencies in the near future on section 6.
niklshah
03-05 09:44 AM
I am in for contribution...... some information is better than nothing what we have rite now...
No comments:
Post a Comment