由买买提看人间百态

boards

本页内容为未名空间相应帖子的节选和存档,一周内的贴子最多显示50字,超过一周显示500字 访问原贴
EB23版 - **USCIS最新规则改变评论sample汇总**
相关主题
485 RFE AC21 Supplement J485新表J Form整死人不偿命
我们现在还有60天的评论期现在申请EB1a可以使用和已经排期中的NIW不同的SOC code吗?
问问evl回复form J 里面的NAICS CODE
J form还需要等状态更新吗RFE求祝福!
原來的公司還在support綠卡,拿到綠卡一定要為公司工作嗎?原来公司eb3排期到了,可以递交485吗?现在在新公司。
breaking news! Proposed Rule for Employment-Based Immigration Modernization485提交后的问题
问题的关键:换工作后140是否还可以提交485Legal Immigration Modernization Report from White House
140 EAD? 哪里看到有这个字眼?拿到绿卡多久之后可以辞职呢?
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: ac21话题: eb话题: immigrant话题: job话题: employer
进入EB23版参与讨论
1 (共1页)
k***e
发帖数: 47
1
单开一贴汇总一些comments,大家参考一下
主要来源:http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/EB23/32494565.html
事关大家利益,举手之劳,请至少去评论一条吧。谢谢!
在这里评论:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2015-0008-0
2/29截止评论。
====================================================
先来个中文的中心思想,大家体会一下先
发信人: leaf1234 (leaf1234), 信区: EB23
标 题: Re: USCIS最新规则改变评论已开放(链接更新在一楼)
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Dec 31 15:01:48 2015, 美东)
中文;
J表阻碍人才流动,对雇主,经济,创新不利。
USCIS的Officer要更辛苦了。(希望能激起他们内部反对的呼声)
大家因为485的不确定,不敢买房买车。
两地夫妻,不敢辞职,违背人伦。
====================================================
Sample #1
发信人: lionhearted (zz), 信区: EB23
标 题: 485 Sppl-J 表 改革弊端
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Wed Dec 30 19:10:00 2015, 美东)
抛砖引玉, 我先来两条:
1. Exacerbates the cumbersome 485 application processing, and incurs many
more procedural RFE if J-supplemental form is mandatory.
2. Put unnecessary attestation burden on employer from private sector and
small business owners (e.g. human resource hours/attorney fees/
communications with previous employers who held original I140 but unwilling
to cooperate, etc) (in addition, many of which are start-ups who were
originally able to hire through 485-EAD, in order to stay competitive in
business).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample #2
发信人: BubbleSort (亚特兰蒂斯), 信区: EB23
标 题: Re: USCIS最新规则改变评论已开放(链接更新在一楼)
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Dec 31 14:42:28 2015, 美东)
我的评论,抛砖引玉,没仔细修饰:
Comment on Supplement J:
This Supplement J form to I-485 is benefiting the employer and lawyers, not
the applicant. Actually, I think the purpose of this Supplement J form is to
prevent applicant whose I-485 has been pending for 180 days changing jobs.
An EVL required in the past will only need the signature of HR, while the
supplement J form will need the lawyers to fill it. Who the lawyers are
working for? The employer. This is absolutely a huge setback of portability
of jobs for applicant whose I-485 has been pending for over 180 days.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample #3
发信人: maximus2002 (水过), 信区: EB23
标 题: Re: USCIS最新规则改变评论已开放(链接更新在一楼)
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Dec 31 16:28:15 2015, 美东)
我polish了一下,看看是否有问题:
I want to comment on how the new supplement J form will cause inconvenience
and uncertainty for employers and I-485 appliers.
First, the employers will get confused whether this means a new kind of
sponsorship, which is an extra burden.
second, the form does not reduce the backlog of the long I-485 waiting
queue. Instead, it will make the review of I-485 even more burdensome. It
can be expected that USCIS officers will have to spend much longer time on
reviewing each application if this form J is required. They will have to
read the form more than one time probably to decide the similarity of jobs.
Third, The uncertainty of I-485 applier who want to port their similar jobs
prevents them change their job and economy growth, i.e. scare away those
potential home buyers.
Fourth, this Supplement J form to I-485 is benefiting the employer and
lawyers, not the applicant. An EVL required in the past will only need the
signature of HR, while the supplement J form will need the lawyers to fill
it. This is absolutely a huge setback of portability of jobs for applicant
whose I-485 has been pending for over 180 days.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample #4
发信人: yiyeguhu (Dartmouse), 信区: EB23
标 题: Re: USCIS最新规则改变评论已开放(链接更新在一楼)
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sat Jan 2 16:39:31 2016, 美东)
The United States needs to provide I-140-based EAD with no string attached
to truly implement retention of EB-1/2/3 Immigrant Talents rather than let
them bring their jobs and associated economic prosperity back to their home
countries.
The United States needs to provide I-140-based EAD with no string attached
to truly implement retention of EB-1/2/3 Immigrant Talents rather than let
them bring their jobs and associated economic prosperity back to their home
countries.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample #5
发信人: DANSHUI (DANSHUI), 信区: EB23
标 题: Re: Re: USCIS最新规则改变评论已开放(链接更新在一楼)
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Jan 4 07:31:15 2016, 美东)
3次,一天一次。
我昨天发的,大意,allowing true job portability,releasing the strings
attached to the job for these immigrant workers and letting them move,
relocate and change jobs freely will benefit the economy and overall wages
for American workers since the petitioner (employer)will not suppress the
immigrant workers wages and will always only file immigration paper work
for the best talent.
So I strongly support no re_PERM for 140filed after 180days. And I'm
strongly against the supplemental J_FORM since it adds more paper work for
the new employer who might not be familiar with immigration issues and not
willing to cooperate to certify the job.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample #6
发信人: DANSHUI (DANSHUI), 信区: EB23
标 题: Re: Re: USCIS最新规则改变评论已开放(链接更新在一楼)
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Jan 14 18:33:42 2016, 美东)
语法也许没有仔细斟酌。又掐了一次
Legal immigrants deserves more. They pay taxes without enjoy benefits (such
as scholarships for kids).
They are talented people who might create another Google,Yahoo,Tesla, if the
chains on their freedom are released.
They obey laws.They are contributors,not burdens of the society. Why the so
called job portability comes with strings attached. Releasing the chains
will only benefit the economy overall. If true job portability granted,
employers who filed immigration petition can not suppress wages because they
have no place to go. And employers will only hire true talented people
rather than cheap labor. Treating these immigrant workers like slaves is
shortsighted. The supplemental J FORM is going to do exactly the opposite to
what this rule claimed to do. I heard many cases that human resources
refuse to even put job duties to employment verification letter,let alone
sign their names under oath.(as required by J FORM). Since human resources
usually are familiar with engineering,science professions, it's
understandable that they don't want to put their signature under oath. No
body wants to get involved with unfamiliar territory while risking
jeopardize their careers unintentionally. As a result, either employees will
hesitate to change jobs or not,or employers will hesitate the hire best
talent they need.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample #7
I am an immigrant myself in the final steps of obtaining my LPR status.
I do not support the reform in its current shape, for the proposed changes
is contradictory to President Obama's EO for modernizing the immigration
system for US' competitiveness in 21st century.
Specifically,
1. Additional I485 supplement J forms required further processing effort
from USCIS, and will EXACERBATE the already cumbersome and severely back-
logged 485 application process, and will incur many more procedural RFE if J
-supplement form is mandatory.
2. The I485 J supplement form necessitate unnecessary attestation burden on
employer from private sector and small business owners (e.g. human resource
hours/attorney fees/communications with previous employers who held original
I140 but unwilling to cooperate, etc). Furthermore, many of the potential
employers are small start-up company who were originally able to hire
through 485-EAD, in order to stay competitive in high-tech business.
In addition, the proposed rule is procedurally not feasible. Let me take the
following requirement as an example:
To properly file a Supplement J form,
"
What Evidence Must You Submit With Supplement J?
A letter from the employer on the employer’s letterhead describing the new
job offer referenced in Part 5. of Supplement J (including job requirements
and duties in the new position), and HOW the new job offer as described in
Part 5. of Supplement J is in the same or a similar occupational
classification as the job offer in the underlying Form I-140."
As we are aware of, the PERM and I140 are by law the property of the
sponsoring employer, who is not obligated to provide such job description
information to the succeeding new employer. It remains in dark how USCIS can
ensure a smooth transfer of important legal information between the
involved parties.
Based on the above analysis, I call for revocation of the premature reform
in the proposed rule in making.
Thank you for considering my concerns.
A respectful LEGAL immigrant
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample #8
发信人: stll (Cynthia we love you), 信区: EB23
标 题: Re: USCIS最新规则改变评论已开放(链接更新在一楼)
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Jan 1 18:06:41 2016, 美东)
我的回复,超了字数,分了两次提交
This proposed rule (USCIS-2015-0008-0001) suppose to retain EB-1/2/3
immigrant workers, however on the contrary the proposed rule adds more
obstacles to the EB-1/2/3 immigrant workers to continue stay in USA. The
proposed rule does NOT make the immigration procedure easier for EB-1/2/3
immigrant workers. With all due respect, I strongly recommend that the
proposed rule is NOT enacted at all, if key components of the rule cannot be
modified to truly benefit the EB-1/2/3 immigrant workers.
I, a LEGAL EB immigrant worker, am strongly against this proposed rule,
specifically for below items in the draft:
(1) Section IV.A.2 Job Portability Under AC21 for Certain Applicants for
Adjustment of Status
(2) The proposed rule does not update AC21 to fit for the changed
immigration situation that blocks a large portion of EB-1/2/3 immigrant
workers from changing jobs or employers under current AC21.
(1) Section IV.A.2 Job Portability Under AC21 for Certain Applicants for
Adjustment of Status
In this section, "DHS is proposing to clarify and improve policies and
procedures related to the job portability protections provided by section
106(c) of AC21." The proposed rule does not either improve the procedure or
clarify the policies provided by section 106(c) of AC21. First, the proposed
addition of section 204(j) does NOT enhance the ability of EB-1/2/3
immigrant workers to change jobs or employers if they have I-485 (Adjust of
Status) application pending for over 180 days; on the opposite, the new
section 204(j) makes it more difficult for EB-1/2/3 immigrant workers to
change jobs or employers.
First and foremost, in current practice, when the EB-1/2/3 immigrant worker
is promoted, or change jobs or employers to a same or similar position,
there is no requirement for either the EB-1/2/3 immigrant worker nor the
employer to notify USCIS or any other government of such change unless the
original immigration petition (such as I-140, I485) is of question or need
further clarifications. This addition of section 204(j), with its generated
supplemental J for form I-485, requires additional sponsorship from the
employer to the immigrant worker, and also adds unnecessary procedural
obstacles to all the players, the immigration worker, the employer, and the
USCIS. This addition of section 204(j) is literally against principle to
improve the procedure provided by section 106(c) of AC21. This section 204(j
) requests duplicated information that should have been previously provided,
such as the information about the immigrant worker, the employer, and the
job, so it is also against the paperwork reduction spirit of the government
and common sense. Questioning the Bona Fide of a job offer for EB-1/2/3
immigrant worker is against the spirit of the U.S. that considers people
innocent unless proved otherwise, besides the fact that most, if not all, EB
-1/2/3 immigrant workers enter U.S. legally and should not be treated as a
criminal.
Besides questioning the principle of the section 204(j), I also oppose the
implementation of this section and its Supplement J. More specifically, the
form "Form I-485, Supplement J", e.g. "Confirmation of Bona Fide Job Offer
or Request for Job Portability Under INA Section 204(j)" as of website "http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewIC?ref_nbr=201511-1615-006&icID=219005", adds obstacles to EB-1/2/3 immigration workers to change jobs or employers. In Part 4, the employer is requested to provide business related information, such as Current Number of U.S. Employees (Part 4.7), Gross Annual Income (Part 4.8), Net Annual Income (Part 4.9), NAICS Code (Part 4.10). The intent of USCIS to obtain such information is understandable, however, to provide accurate information on these requests could be an extra burden to the employer, and private company/employer may not want to disclose their business related information even they want to hire the immigrant worker. This part 4 of information request makes either new employer or the current employer reluctant to hire EB1/2/3 immigrant workers. To make the work easier and same time obtain needed information, categorized options should be provided to certain information requests. For example, Current Number of U.S Employees (Part. 4.7) should allow the employer to select from given range-type options such as (but not limited to) 1~50, 51~100, 100~500, 500~1000, 1000~5000, 5000~10000, 10000+. Gross Annual Income (Part 4.8) and Net Annual Income (Part 4.9) should also allow the employer to select from given range-type options such as (but not limited to) $0~$100,000; $100,001 ~ $1,000,000; $1,000,001 ~ $100,000,000; Above $100,000,000.
(2) The proposed rule does not update AC21 to fit for the changed
immigration situation that blocks a large portion of EB-1/2/3 immigrant
workers from changing jobs or employers under current AC21.
In Part 5 of the supplement J, Information About the Job Offer, the employer
is asked to enter the SOC Code (Part.5.2) along with the job title, and
also the nontechnical description of job (Part. 5.3). It is nice to see that
the proposed rule considers multiple factors in evaluating if the new job
is same or similar to that specified in I-140, based on AC21. However a
large portion of EB-1/2/3 immigrant workers becomes limited by AC21, because
the immigration situation changes from the time when AC21 was issued. A
large portion of the EB-1/2/3 immigrant workers wait 5~15 years or longer
for the green card visa number to become available. However, median employee
tenure is 4.7 year for men and 4.5 year for women in 2014, according to
Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/news.release/tenure.nr0.htm. When change a job or employer, it is very common to get a senior level position which could easily have different responsibilities but is a natural in one's career path. Besides focus the immigrant worker only in the same or similar job, the rule, e.g. AC21, should be updated to allow the long-waiting immigrant worker to advance in their career in the same company or with a new employer. I would recommend the authority to update AC21 to allow job portability for either (1) change to same or similar job; or (2) career advancement to a senior level but different job responsibility after certain years of working on the job described by I-140.
In an example, Tom joined company Atoms in Houston as a Mechanical Engineer
in 2009. The corresponding SOC code is 17-2141.00, with a level 2 prevailing
wage of $63,752, when he submitted the I-140 application in 2011. During 5
years working at company Atoms, he gained experience and earned more trust.
He began taking more and more responsibilities and eventually started
managing complex mechanical engineering related projects and also supervises
the work of junior mechanical engineers. During the period Tom also filed I
-485 in 2015 when his priority date became current. In 2015, after 6 years
working at company Atoms and the I-485 pended for over 180 days, Tom finds
another job at company Beatles in Los Angeles as a project manager. In SOC
scope, the project manager job falls into the category of Electrical
Engineering Technologists that has a SOC code of 17-3029.02 and a level 4
prevailing wage of $95,659. Tom loves the new job and company Beatles loves
Tom's background and skills. However under current AC21, the new job has a
big chance to be determined as not a "same or similar" job as the one
described in I-140, which is somewhat true as Tom becomes a better worker in
the past 6 years and he can now make more contributions to the employer.
Eventually Tom and company Beatles have to give up to the potential
immigration challenge. Due to the retrogression of the I-485 priority date,
Tom likely needs to wait 2~3 years before his I-485 can be approved. In this
case Tom's right to advance his career is blocked by the out-of-dated AC21,
for this time and for multiple times in the future. There is financial loss
and mental torture due to the limitation from AC21 in the U.S. of freedom.
In summary, I strongly recommend the proposed rule not be enacted unless
AC21 is updated to fit modern immigration situation and the rule is truly
benefit EB-1/2/3 immigrant workers. At the same time I strongly urge rule
makers to open hearings for the EB-1/2/3 immigrant workers to voice the true
needs and help improve current immigration rules for themselves.
Thank you and happy New Year!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/EB23/32494595.html
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t1/EB23/32494565_0_2.html
g****n
发帖数: 261
2
谢谢总结和模板,大家举手之劳都去评论吧
s**********1
发帖数: 4651
3
Thank you LZ
f****c
发帖数: 642
4
刚抄了sample #7提交了comment
政府人员看到了一样内容的不算抄袭吧?
z******y
发帖数: 969
5
good job..
B********n
发帖数: 12753
6
谢谢总结
h***a
发帖数: 1775
7
thanks 赞, 已评论
l******t
发帖数: 238
8
顶楼主
c*******n
发帖数: 2629
9
y****o
发帖数: 626
10
已经发表了评论,希望大家踊跃参与啊....
大家得团结啊
相关主题
breaking news! Proposed Rule for Employment-Based Immigration Modernization485新表J Form整死人不偿命
问题的关键:换工作后140是否还可以提交485现在申请EB1a可以使用和已经排期中的NIW不同的SOC code吗?
140 EAD? 哪里看到有这个字眼?form J 里面的NAICS CODE
进入EB23版参与讨论
m*********2
发帖数: 178
11
赞总结,每天去comment一下
D*****I
发帖数: 987
12
Why the DACA EAD doesn't have to satisfy this and that, and they can change
jobs freely without worrying a job verification?
Why people obey laws always get penalized and people come here illegally get
rewarded for breaking the laws?
I'm strongly against the supplemental J FORM requirements because this form
was invented to hurt job portability rather than help it. Since employers
who want to hire any 485 Ead holders will hesitate since at some point they
need to testify under oath that the employment is the same or similar to the
one petitioned by another employer,and such petition material by law is the
property of the previous employer,.which they don't have access to.
。。。。。。。
每天一掐
[发表自未名空间手机版 - m.mitbbs.com]
D*****I
发帖数: 987
13
顶下,大家伙都去掐
[发表自未名空间手机版 - m.mitbbs.com]
l*********0
发帖数: 336
14
在哪掐,我也去掐

【在 D*****I 的大作中提到】
: 顶下,大家伙都去掐
: [发表自未名空间手机版 - m.mitbbs.com]

D*****I
发帖数: 987
15
链接见首页
[发表自未名空间手机版 - m.mitbbs.com]
1 (共1页)
进入EB23版参与讨论
相关主题
拿到绿卡多久之后可以辞职呢?原來的公司還在support綠卡,拿到綠卡一定要為公司工作嗎?
拿了绿卡后主申请人不能立刻离职, 但是副申请人可以随时换工作, 对吗?breaking news! Proposed Rule for Employment-Based Immigration Modernization
我晕,NIW收到第二个RFE!问题的关键:换工作后140是否还可以提交485
有没有用了AC21之后去485面试的同志?140 EAD? 哪里看到有这个字眼?
485 RFE AC21 Supplement J485新表J Form整死人不偿命
我们现在还有60天的评论期现在申请EB1a可以使用和已经排期中的NIW不同的SOC code吗?
问问evl回复form J 里面的NAICS CODE
J form还需要等状态更新吗RFE求祝福!
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: ac21话题: eb话题: immigrant话题: job话题: employer