ARUNRAMANATHAN
06-18 10:02 AM
So PERM does this have more than one processing center .....
Atlanta and
??????
Now if more than one processing center then do you know the list of states that fall under each processing center .
This is for ALL Guys who planning to Start the GC process ASAP.
Thanks
Atlanta and
??????
Now if more than one processing center then do you know the list of states that fall under each processing center .
This is for ALL Guys who planning to Start the GC process ASAP.
Thanks
wallpaper of Orange County with a
mdipi
11-02 10:10 AM
i never thought of flash. but see i want to be able to make sure the have flash. like this cat did IDEE FREAK (http://www.vonelab.com/~idfreak)
by the way i made another new image. =) no clue how i did it but i did.
-mike:cyclops:
by the way i made another new image. =) no clue how i did it but i did.
-mike:cyclops:
gc_samba
07-17 02:56 PM
My GC was approved last month after a very long wait time. Currently I am working for company B on EAD (not the GC filing employer). The question I had was can I continue to work for company B on a part time basis and join company A (GC filling employer).
Company A has a 9 month probation period I am worried if i quiet company B and company A fire me later then I will be with out job.
So I can work for company A (GC filing employer) full time and at the same time work part time with company B.
So this way if company A does fire me during probation period I continue with company B :confused: on full time basis. Is this ok will it come to haunt me when I file for citizenship?
Company A has a 9 month probation period I am worried if i quiet company B and company A fire me later then I will be with out job.
So I can work for company A (GC filing employer) full time and at the same time work part time with company B.
So this way if company A does fire me during probation period I continue with company B :confused: on full time basis. Is this ok will it come to haunt me when I file for citizenship?
2011 The Real Housewives of Orange
snathan
02-08 11:49 AM
In a move that could ruffle a few feathers in the Barack Obama administration, American entertainment giant Warner Bros has said it will be outsourcing jobs to India.
It is believed that about 200 positions are to be outsourced to India and Poland by Warner Bros, which will slash as many as ten per cent of its 8,000-strong workforce in the coming days.
"While no final decision have been made internationally, the company expects the layoffs, elimination of open positions and outsourcing to affect nearly 800 positions worldwide, or approximately ten per cent of its 8,000 employees," a Warner Bros official told PTI in an e-mailed statement.
About 200 open positions and 300 outsourced jobs would be affected as part of the reduction, while another 300 employees would be laid off, the official said, adding that jobs would be outsourced to India.
While the spokesperson declined to comment on exact number of jobs being moved to India, the sources said that about 300 positions are being outsourced, out of which about 200 would go to India and Poland.
Open positions are referred to those, which are currently vacant, and for which, the company was hiring.
In January, Warner Bros' Chairman and Chief Executive Barry Meyer along with president and chief operating officer Alan Horn had said the company would be reducing its staff strength.
"We have examined every aspect of our business in order to cut costs responsibly and to keep staff reductions to a minimum.
One way to achieve these objectives is to outsource certain job functions to a third-party company," Meyer and Horn wrote in an e-mail to employees on January 20.
It noted that even though the decision to cut the workforce was "very difficult" to make, the move reflects changes necessary for stability and growth going forward.
"We are very sad to announce that based on the global economic situation and current business forecasts, the studio will have to make staff reductions in the coming weeks in order to control costs," the e-mail said.
Meyers and Horn wrote in the e-mail that the changing entertainment business landscape, shifting consumer demand and the overall state of the economy have affected companies around the world, and "Warner Bros is not immune to these factors".
It is believed that about 200 positions are to be outsourced to India and Poland by Warner Bros, which will slash as many as ten per cent of its 8,000-strong workforce in the coming days.
"While no final decision have been made internationally, the company expects the layoffs, elimination of open positions and outsourcing to affect nearly 800 positions worldwide, or approximately ten per cent of its 8,000 employees," a Warner Bros official told PTI in an e-mailed statement.
About 200 open positions and 300 outsourced jobs would be affected as part of the reduction, while another 300 employees would be laid off, the official said, adding that jobs would be outsourced to India.
While the spokesperson declined to comment on exact number of jobs being moved to India, the sources said that about 300 positions are being outsourced, out of which about 200 would go to India and Poland.
Open positions are referred to those, which are currently vacant, and for which, the company was hiring.
In January, Warner Bros' Chairman and Chief Executive Barry Meyer along with president and chief operating officer Alan Horn had said the company would be reducing its staff strength.
"We have examined every aspect of our business in order to cut costs responsibly and to keep staff reductions to a minimum.
One way to achieve these objectives is to outsource certain job functions to a third-party company," Meyer and Horn wrote in an e-mail to employees on January 20.
It noted that even though the decision to cut the workforce was "very difficult" to make, the move reflects changes necessary for stability and growth going forward.
"We are very sad to announce that based on the global economic situation and current business forecasts, the studio will have to make staff reductions in the coming weeks in order to control costs," the e-mail said.
Meyers and Horn wrote in the e-mail that the changing entertainment business landscape, shifting consumer demand and the overall state of the economy have affected companies around the world, and "Warner Bros is not immune to these factors".
more...
ganguteli
05-28 01:22 PM
How about Lawyers reducing their fees?
We are all paying so much to lawyers and that fees is much higher than what USCIS charges.
Why can't lawyers run a campaign or post on their blogs to reduce their fees.
We are all paying so much to lawyers and that fees is much higher than what USCIS charges.
Why can't lawyers run a campaign or post on their blogs to reduce their fees.
ajay
12-02 09:58 PM
Thanks for sharing this good news.
more...
sam_hoosier
09-15 12:40 PM
Were there some problems with the case ? RFEs ??:confused:
2010 Official site for Orange
pappu
12-12 12:26 PM
Prashanthi was there on chat for 30 min and as no one turned up to ask questions she left. She will be available for chat every Thursday at 9.30 PM EST.
You may want to remind people in the day about the chat. Once it happens regularly, people will remember.
You may want to remind people in the day about the chat. Once it happens regularly, people will remember.
more...
gulute
09-16 02:57 AM
The major grievance of people on H1 was their spouses cannot work and when the ruling came into effect that the time spent on H4 will not be counted and a new 6 year term is possible, H4s massively applied for H1, and this year�s H1 quota was over on the first day itself and then the lotto! Now when the H1 is approved they are too chicken and do not want to work!
They have taken away these most coveted H1 visa numbers from qualified professionals who wanted to come and work in this country. Please don�t do this next year!
So far two, any more in the same situation! :confused:
Same situation here. As per my lawyer (good lawyer can be trusted but could be ill informed) If my wife doesn't join the employer there is no status change. No need to file any reinstatement from H4 to H1. And I have reconfirmed this a couple of times now.
If you hear anything different from a legit source please do let me know.
Other relevant details in my case is that my wife's ead/ap application was filed on 2nd July. and She is under Adjustment of Status (485) as a derivative. On a second thought, I am not sure if this is the same case as yours.
They have taken away these most coveted H1 visa numbers from qualified professionals who wanted to come and work in this country. Please don�t do this next year!
So far two, any more in the same situation! :confused:
Same situation here. As per my lawyer (good lawyer can be trusted but could be ill informed) If my wife doesn't join the employer there is no status change. No need to file any reinstatement from H4 to H1. And I have reconfirmed this a couple of times now.
If you hear anything different from a legit source please do let me know.
Other relevant details in my case is that my wife's ead/ap application was filed on 2nd July. and She is under Adjustment of Status (485) as a derivative. On a second thought, I am not sure if this is the same case as yours.
hair The Real Housewives of Orange
rkm
08-16 10:00 AM
Why dont you put a counter in the excel sheet based on the pending cases, will know how many people are in line to get approval.
I observed this repeatedly, a gmail user "prakashnetmkt" has been deleting all data repeatedly and I believe intentionally. I have reverted back to the old revision again.
I have modified some permissions, so now you do have to login to be able to edit. Still it is easy to mess up the data if you want t
Link below:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pQG8H7vLQOz5-YnFYQw71PA&t=6902263567496904009&guest
I observed this repeatedly, a gmail user "prakashnetmkt" has been deleting all data repeatedly and I believe intentionally. I have reverted back to the old revision again.
I have modified some permissions, so now you do have to login to be able to edit. Still it is easy to mess up the data if you want t
Link below:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pQG8H7vLQOz5-YnFYQw71PA&t=6902263567496904009&guest
more...
chanduv23
03-08 08:30 PM
Do the stastics actually show spilled over numbers? ie if EB1 India has depleted 3K visas, does it mean upto 3K were used because they got spilled to Eb2 and Eb3?
hot Real Housewives Of Orange
green-mile
01-18 03:17 PM
Hey NJBOY , here no one is against no one .....
Planum is trying to tell you , check your facts before you post some thing (This includes your heading)...
your heading clearly says [B]recession = 485 deny?, how does any one will assume if NJBOy says 485 what he exactly meant is labour certification.
Before you blame some one double check your post.
BTW , I don't think USCIS has history of denieng 485 on the grounds of recession, if any one who already crossed 180 days after filing 485 are required to show that the person is still working in the similar job..as long as person working , USCIS should be able to grant greencard, provided visa numbers availability.
Planum is trying to tell you , check your facts before you post some thing (This includes your heading)...
your heading clearly says [B]recession = 485 deny?, how does any one will assume if NJBOy says 485 what he exactly meant is labour certification.
Before you blame some one double check your post.
BTW , I don't think USCIS has history of denieng 485 on the grounds of recession, if any one who already crossed 180 days after filing 485 are required to show that the person is still working in the similar job..as long as person working , USCIS should be able to grant greencard, provided visa numbers availability.
more...
house The Real Housewives of Orange
gconmymind
10-04 05:43 PM
I live near Ahmedabad so I ask my parents to travel to Ahmedabad and submit it at Ahmedabad VFS office. VFS has offices in certain cities (lookup the website) and will accept your papers there. I hate the fact that you cannot directly mail your papers to the Mumbai consulate from USA. If your family is in Mumbai, they should be able to submit it in person to VFS.
VFS also has an email address on their website if you want to ask them questions. They are pretty good at responding.
So can I submit the docs through my family .. now and just go for the final interview?
This way I can go to the embassy the day I land in Mumbai.
VFS also has an email address on their website if you want to ask them questions. They are pretty good at responding.
So can I submit the docs through my family .. now and just go for the final interview?
This way I can go to the embassy the day I land in Mumbai.
tattoo Housewives.of.Orange.County.
meridiani.planum
10-12 08:25 PM
This can easily be defeated if challenged in a court of law.
All these are effect of lobbying from Merck.
lawsuit?? oh come on. This is for a CDC recommended vaccine which might help prevent cancer!!
To my mind this is the ONLY fees that we are paying which really means something useful to us... After paying thousands of dollars in fees to USCIS (H1/485/EAD/AP), hundreds to DoS (visa stampings), and sponsoring multiple trips to Hawaii for my lawyer (his fees would make you faint) this is finally a fee that actually does something useful to the applicant, and I would gladly pay this for my family members.
All these are effect of lobbying from Merck.
lawsuit?? oh come on. This is for a CDC recommended vaccine which might help prevent cancer!!
To my mind this is the ONLY fees that we are paying which really means something useful to us... After paying thousands of dollars in fees to USCIS (H1/485/EAD/AP), hundreds to DoS (visa stampings), and sponsoring multiple trips to Hawaii for my lawyer (his fees would make you faint) this is finally a fee that actually does something useful to the applicant, and I would gladly pay this for my family members.
more...
pictures of Orange County,
smuggymba
08-19 10:35 AM
Really! ... dude go around and look at forum, than tell me how every other post is 100% directed towards Immigration.
If you had read the link, you would have been educated on avoiding scams that could happen with you or your loved ones in future. Next time pay attention before you reply!
No where in the news piece it's mentioned that he is on Indian origin. Your headline says - Indian Origin doc.................
Really dude...LOL. Grow up
If you had read the link, you would have been educated on avoiding scams that could happen with you or your loved ones in future. Next time pay attention before you reply!
No where in the news piece it's mentioned that he is on Indian origin. Your headline says - Indian Origin doc.................
Really dude...LOL. Grow up
dresses orange county housewives 2011.
eblues
09-05 06:06 PM
What is the reason your university cited for their position that you might be violating J status?
It is not the official position of my university. It is the opinion of the lady at the international office I spoke to, and actually all she did was warn me that flight training is kind of a delicate issue here in the US (and I can honestly see why) and that I should look into the matter carefully before proceeding.
Can the training you are seeking be construed as a professional training (even if you may choose to use it as a hobby)? I sort of recall that flight instruction schools could issue I-20, which would imply that those courses are considered professional courses. If that is the case, then you might indeed be violating your J status.
You're right, flight schools run all sorts of courses and from my research I know that they can issue the documentation required for M-1 visa (it used to be J-1s as well but that stopped in June 2009, if I remember correctly). I am just interested in sport flight training, which means that (even) if I get a flight license I won't be able to fly for compensation of any sort and I won't be able to perform any sort of aerial work. My flight experience could be regarded as professional training just like driving a car can be regarded useful for learning to drive a truck, though. In my opinion it is a bit far-fetched to affirm that this makes it 'professional training', otherwise most forms of training (even playing baseball with friends on Sunday afternoons) would count as professional. I hope this point makes sense :-)
On the other hand, if you can show that the course you will that cannot be used as a professional course, e.g., that course cannot fulfill credit requirements towards becoming an instructor, or a pilot who can fly cargo and/or passengers, then you should be alright.
Becoming an instructor, flying cargo and passengers for compensation all require more advanced licenses that all come with their courses and additional requirements (the "importance" sequence is -- more or less -- sport pilot -> private pilot -> commercial pilot -> airline transportation pilot). AFAIK flight hours logged as a sports pilot (not during training) can be made to count towards fulfilling the requirements for becoming a private pilot (and he cannot use his license to work as well, btw) but I'm not even trying to do that (and I can show it: if I wanted I'd have required a different kind of TSA clearance and medical certificate, I believe).
In any case thank you very, very much for your opinion. It's quite probably the first substantiated one I get for my case. This forum and its users rock.
Pierluigi
It is not the official position of my university. It is the opinion of the lady at the international office I spoke to, and actually all she did was warn me that flight training is kind of a delicate issue here in the US (and I can honestly see why) and that I should look into the matter carefully before proceeding.
Can the training you are seeking be construed as a professional training (even if you may choose to use it as a hobby)? I sort of recall that flight instruction schools could issue I-20, which would imply that those courses are considered professional courses. If that is the case, then you might indeed be violating your J status.
You're right, flight schools run all sorts of courses and from my research I know that they can issue the documentation required for M-1 visa (it used to be J-1s as well but that stopped in June 2009, if I remember correctly). I am just interested in sport flight training, which means that (even) if I get a flight license I won't be able to fly for compensation of any sort and I won't be able to perform any sort of aerial work. My flight experience could be regarded as professional training just like driving a car can be regarded useful for learning to drive a truck, though. In my opinion it is a bit far-fetched to affirm that this makes it 'professional training', otherwise most forms of training (even playing baseball with friends on Sunday afternoons) would count as professional. I hope this point makes sense :-)
On the other hand, if you can show that the course you will that cannot be used as a professional course, e.g., that course cannot fulfill credit requirements towards becoming an instructor, or a pilot who can fly cargo and/or passengers, then you should be alright.
Becoming an instructor, flying cargo and passengers for compensation all require more advanced licenses that all come with their courses and additional requirements (the "importance" sequence is -- more or less -- sport pilot -> private pilot -> commercial pilot -> airline transportation pilot). AFAIK flight hours logged as a sports pilot (not during training) can be made to count towards fulfilling the requirements for becoming a private pilot (and he cannot use his license to work as well, btw) but I'm not even trying to do that (and I can show it: if I wanted I'd have required a different kind of TSA clearance and medical certificate, I believe).
In any case thank you very, very much for your opinion. It's quite probably the first substantiated one I get for my case. This forum and its users rock.
Pierluigi
more...
makeup asked Real Housewife of Orange
dunkin
07-01 03:20 PM
will it help to also write to our respective senators regarding this?
girlfriend Real Housewives of Beverly
Krilnon
07-26 10:39 PM
Have you printed out the name of the file that was selected to make sure that that part is working? It seems like you've only done a minimal amount of debugging to determine the nature of the problem, so I would recommend starting with that.
hairstyles Latest The Real Housewives Of
indianindian2006
07-11 05:52 PM
What is LUD?
Last updated date
Last updated date
belmontboy
04-09 05:58 PM
how do you change the title of this thread?
Admin: could you please change the title to "Home buying - personal experiences"
Home owner's please shareyour personal experiences. That would help prospective buyers like me a lot.
- thanks in advance.
Admin: could you please change the title to "Home buying - personal experiences"
Home owner's please shareyour personal experiences. That would help prospective buyers like me a lot.
- thanks in advance.
Blog Feeds
10-15 06:30 PM
[Federal Register: October 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 192)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
Žiadne komentáre:
Zverejnenie komentára