1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Rin: 1615-ac05 (i-140 Ead Rule) Comments Brainstorming

Discussion in 'General discussion about executive action' started by Aarun, Nov 21, 2015.

  1. Aarun

    Aarun Member

    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Starting this thread to come up with comments, and how to get the rule to include what we really want.
     
  2. Aarun

    Aarun Member

    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    8
    We need -

    1. EAD for ALL I-140 EAD approved cases
    2. Advanced Parole
    3. Extendable for as long as the PD is not current
    4. No minimum income requirement of H1B as some may want to work for Startups for stock options
    5. Ability to be self employed
    6. EAD + AP status for future dependents of people on EAD + AP (Since they won't be eligible for H4)
     
  3. soopergal

    soopergal Guru

    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    156
    Trophy Points:
    43
    No 1 year wait time to be eligible.
     
  4. speedracer

    speedracer Guru

    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    363
    Trophy Points:
    63
    who came up with the 1 year wait time?? I don't get that notion, to get I-140 approval, one has to go through PERM and I-140 approval process, in best case scenario, it will take around 12 - 18 month time frame from the day the company OK's and starts the process.
     
  5. Aarun

    Aarun Member

    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Agreed!

    1. EAD for ALL I-140 EAD approved cases. Without any wait period as there is no such wait period for other nationalities!
    2. Advanced Parole
    3. Extendable for as long as the PD is not current
    4. No minimum income requirement of H1B as some may want to work for Startups for stock options
    5. Ability to be self employed
    6. EAD + AP status for future dependents of people on EAD + AP (Since they won't be eligible for H4)
     
  6. jvxr

    jvxr Guru

    Messages:
    445
    Likes Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The rule cannot make the current portability clause redundant. It may be easier to hold ground in court in the case of litigation which *WILL* be filed by anti-immigrant groups. So yes, it may be prudent to make compromises and not hold a hard-line policy here. All here need to understand that we are dealing with skynet here.
     
    cuckoo likes this.
  7. Blindsided

    Blindsided Member

    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    3
    First a disclosure: I do not belong to any camp, be it IV or lawyers forums. Like most of you, I just browse through all the information on all these locations and leave the final critical thinking for myself. However that said I agree with what IV is currently proposing to include in our comments – specifically related to FBI investigating the rule making process and people involved.



    Most of our comments are going to be one thing.. “EAD+AP… “; you think they don’t know what we wanted in the first place. Adding a comment about having an investigation to see how the proposed rule came to fruition will put the fear of God in those people writing the rule on our pretext with an ulterior motive.



    Please go ahead and state the obvious in the comments but let’s not let them think for a moment we are gullible not to know what is happening and will take this lying down.
     
  8. groot

    groot Member

    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Has anyone got insights on how the process for Promotion or Lateral Movements within the company is enabled through this rule. There is atleast reference to these words 5 or 6 times saying "this rule will enable people to accept promotion or move laterally for the same employer" but without any process as how its achieved.

    If they are just saying we can retain the date, but need to do new Perm and i140 as it currently stands they do not accept or count years from current employer as required experience, if that is the case then how did they make promotion or lateral movement forget easier but even a possibility?

    Should there be specific comments to drill down actual steps as how this will be possible after this rule?
     
  9. smartboy

    smartboy Senior Member

    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Despite the transfer/promotion/movements with the same employer is referred to in the 'scope portion' as you mention, so far nothing in the actual regulation text allows one to take promotions or lateral transfers without having to restart from PERM.

    The comments would also need to point out this too.
     
    groot likes this.
  10. groot

    groot Member

    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Right... in another thread there is a discussion on how one of the phrase indicate that new 140 or job offer is needed in case of withdrawal. Guess we need many clarifications
     
  11. sean231

    sean231 Member

    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    3
    I hope that they have a conference session (maybe more than 1) to address a lot of the legalese in the rule. Hell, even lawyers have questions and require clarity of what USCIS is trying to say in the rule.
     
  12. mayurjain13

    mayurjain13 Junior Member

    Messages:
    314
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Is the forum officially dead??
     
  13. manixium

    manixium Super Moderator

    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    827
    Trophy Points:
    93
    All the discussion is happening in the "Members only" section under "Forum Administration".
     

Share This Page