Copy And Paste This Comment For I140 Ead Rule

[DaleSteyn1]

Ms. Laura Dawkins

Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Department of Homeland Security

20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.

Washington, DC 20529

 

 

Re:         Comments on Proposed Rule: Retention of EB–1, EB–2, and EB–3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting High- Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers

 

80 Fed. Reg. 81900 (December 31, 2015)

 

Docket ID: USCIS-2015-0008

 

Dear Chief Dawkins:

 

I would like to submit the following comments in response to the USCIS Proposed Rule, “Retention of EB–1, EB–2, and EB–3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting High- Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers,” published in the Federal Register on December 31, 2015.

 

As a nonimmigrant worker in the United States, I have been waiting for my permanent residence for _______ years. I came to this country legally, use my skills to benefit all Americans, pay my taxes, and file all necessary applications to maintain my legal immigration status. ____________[add additional information regarding special work you have done, how you have benefited the US economy…]____________.

 

I was glad to see the proposed rule seeking improvements for high-skilled nonimmigrants. There are a few helpful provisions for those of us stuck in long visa backlogs. However, there are many improvements that should be considered to ultimately provide the needed relief for high-skilled employment-based applicants.

 

Job Portability Under AC21 for Certain Applicants for Adjustment of Status

 

Job portability should be extended to beneficiaries who do not have applications for adjustment of status filed because immigrant visa numbers are not available. The stated purpose of the proposed regulatory changes is to increase the ability of high-skilled workers who are the beneficiaries of employment-based immigrant visa petitions to further their careers by accepting promotions, changing positions with current employers, changing employers, and pursuing other employment opportunities. However, the proposed flexibility only applies to applicants with a pending adjustment of status. Current visa backlogs prohibit a large number of beneficiaries of approved immigrant petitions from reaching the adjustment of status stage for years. Those subject to backlogs due to application of “per-country” limitations on immigrant visas are particularly disadvantaged by this proposed rule. While those not subject to backlogs may freely change jobs after 180 days, those subject to backlogs are restricted from accepting promotions or changing employers without completely starting the process over. The proposed rule should be changed to allow all beneficiaries of approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions to change jobs after 180 days without the need for a new immigrant visa petition as long as a new job offer is available in a same or similar occupation.

 

Revocation of Approved Employment Based Immigrant Visa Petitions

 

The proposed rule maintaining validity of approved immigrant petitions withdrawn after 180 days is a welcome change. Currently, H-1B workers are at the mercy of employers when seeking to change jobs beyond the six-year limit. I am glad that DHS recognize the precarious situation of H-1B workers remaining in the U.S. pursuant to the exemptions in AC-21. H-1B workers should be eligible to change employers without wondering whether additional extensions will be granted.

 

Retention of Priority Dates

 

The clarification regarding retention of priority dates is extremely helpful to high-skilled immigrants. For many years, it has been unclear whether the priority date would be lost due to a job change because of the potential for an employer to withdraw an approved immigrant petition. The ability to retain the priority even after an employer withdrawal will provide employment-based applicants a sense of stability knowing that they will not lose their place in the immigration line.

 

Providing a 60-Day Grace Period to Certain Nonimmigrant Classifications

 

A grace period in the event of sudden or unexpected employment changes would provide much-needed stability for workers. Because of the increasing amount of time it can take to seek new employment and file the requisite nonimmigrant visa petition, a 60-day grace period for such situations provides peace of mind that a nonimmigrant worker’s status will not be in jeopardy. However, clarification is needed regarding the proposal that this be a “one-time” grace period. It is unclear whether this means once in a lifetime for a nonimmigrant worker, or once per employer. In today’s job market, it is not unreasonable for a worker to experience a sudden or unexpected termination more than once in a career. Therefore, the limitation that the 60-day grace period be granted only one time should be removed.

 

Eligibility for Employment Authorization in Compelling Circumstances

 

The proposed I-140 EAD could be a viable option, but the vast majority of possible beneficiaries would ultimately choose not to obtain this benefit due to various shortcomings. The proposal could be improved as follows: First, the requirement for compelling circumstances should be removed. The lack of an available immigrant visa should be reason enough to provide beneficiaries of approved immigrant petitions with an EAD. Second, the EAD should be issued in two-year increments to provide better stability. Renewals should be allowed as long as the immigrant visa remains unavailable. Third, EAD holders should also be granted Advance Parole to allow travel. Finally, it should be made clear that an individual who holds an I-140 EAD should be eligible to adjust status in the United States and without the need for a new immigrant petition as long as a new job offer is available in a same or similar occupation.

 

Elimination of 90-Day Processing Timeframe and Interim EADs

 

If the 90-day processing timeframe is eliminated, USCIS should allow applicants to file for renewal of EADs up to 180 days in advance of the expiration. Currently, applicants can only file up to 120 days in advance. Processing delays often result in gaps in employment authorization leading to job loss. A 180-day filing window would also align with the current I-129 filing window for H-1B and L-1 nonimmigrants. This would allow the nonimmigrant worker and spouse to apply for extensions of stay and employment authorization all together, which would allow for increased efficiency of adjudications for USCIS.

 

With this letter, I urge you to support the U.S. economy by implementing this new rule with the recommended changes as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration, time, and support in this matter.

 

Sincerely,

 

XXXX

[DaleSteyn1]

THIS IS PROVIDED BY AN ATTORNEY 

http://immigrationgirl.com/draft-comment-for-high-skilled-immigrant-relief-i-140-ead-rule/

 

 

Post your comment here

http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=USCIS-2015-0008-0001

[phatposts]

Copy paste is not a good idea. Everyone should present their view in the best possible manner. Comments should be as Civil as possible. There are 2 thing - comments received and comments published. All template style comments are ignored. So that will be of very less use. 

[tennisluvr]

Ee comments ivanni waste guys, evvaru koorchuni 10,000 20,000 comments chadavaru. They are bent upon passing the new laws, they are just taking their sweet time to draft and finalize the guidelines. 

 

Since they need time to do that, they just ask us to give comments etc about this rule. None of them care about what we say though seriously. 

[ramudu3]

copy paste cheyakandi raa ayaaaa.... Duplicate/ similar comments elminate chesthunaru 

[Feelingbad]

Comments doesn't matter... only lobbying and money does.. which desi service companies & lawyers have... end of it.

[vasu123]

Copy paste chesi ikkada kooda indians gorre lani prove chesukovala. No plagiarism.

[tennisluvr]

Comments doesn't matter... only lobbying and money does.. which desi service companies & lawyers have... end of it.

Correct, you are absolutely right. Which is why almost every Indian that gets a GC/Citizenship starts his own consultancy and starts robbing people from the very next day. They prefer the model we have today

[pavone]

And remember guys don't copy paste the comment do some modification before posting: 

**************** This count refers to the total comment/submissions received on this document, as of 11:59 PM yesterday. Note: Agencies review all submissions, however some agencies may choose to redact, or withhold, certain submissions (or portions thereof) such as those containing private or proprietary information, inappropriate language, or duplicate/near duplicate examples of a mass-mail campaign. This can result in discrepancies between this count and those displayed when conducting searches on the Public Submission document type. For specific information about an agency’s public submission policy, refer to its website or the Federal Register document.***************

 

Ms. Laura Dawkins

Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Department of Homeland Security

20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.

Washington, DC 20529

 

 

Re:         Comments on Proposed Rule: Retention of EB–1, EB–2, and EB–3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting High- Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers

 

80 Fed. Reg. 81900 (December 31, 2015)

 

Docket ID: USCIS-2015-0008

 

Dear Chief Dawkins:

 

I would like to submit the following comments in response to the USCIS Proposed Rule, “Retention of EB–1, EB–2, and EB–3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting High- Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers,” published in the Federal Register on December 31, 2015.

 

As a nonimmigrant worker in the United States, I have been waiting for my permanent residence for _______ years. I came to this country legally, use my skills to benefit all Americans, pay my taxes, and file all necessary applications to maintain my legal immigration status. ____________[add additional information regarding special work you have done, how you have benefited the US economy…]____________.

 

I was glad to see the proposed rule seeking improvements for high-skilled nonimmigrants. There are a few helpful provisions for those of us stuck in long visa backlogs. However, there are many improvements that should be considered to ultimately provide the needed relief for high-skilled employment-based applicants.

 

Job Portability Under AC21 for Certain Applicants for Adjustment of Status

 

Job portability should be extended to beneficiaries who do not have applications for adjustment of status filed because immigrant visa numbers are not available. The stated purpose of the proposed regulatory changes is to increase the ability of high-skilled workers who are the beneficiaries of employment-based immigrant visa petitions to further their careers by accepting promotions, changing positions with current employers, changing employers, and pursuing other employment opportunities. However, the proposed flexibility only applies to applicants with a pending adjustment of status. Current visa backlogs prohibit a large number of beneficiaries of approved immigrant petitions from reaching the adjustment of status stage for years. Those subject to backlogs due to application of “per-country” limitations on immigrant visas are particularly disadvantaged by this proposed rule. While those not subject to backlogs may freely change jobs after 180 days, those subject to backlogs are restricted from accepting promotions or changing employers without completely starting the process over. The proposed rule should be changed to allow all beneficiaries of approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions to change jobs after 180 days without the need for a new immigrant visa petition as long as a new job offer is available in a same or similar occupation.

 

Revocation of Approved Employment Based Immigrant Visa Petitions

 

The proposed rule maintaining validity of approved immigrant petitions withdrawn after 180 days is a welcome change. Currently, H-1B workers are at the mercy of employers when seeking to change jobs beyond the six-year limit. I am glad that DHS recognize the precarious situation of H-1B workers remaining in the U.S. pursuant to the exemptions in AC-21. H-1B workers should be eligible to change employers without wondering whether additional extensions will be granted.

 

Retention of Priority Dates

 

The clarification regarding retention of priority dates is extremely helpful to high-skilled immigrants. For many years, it has been unclear whether the priority date would be lost due to a job change because of the potential for an employer to withdraw an approved immigrant petition. The ability to retain the priority even after an employer withdrawal will provide employment-based applicants a sense of stability knowing that they will not lose their place in the immigration line.

 

Providing a 60-Day Grace Period to Certain Nonimmigrant Classifications

 

A grace period in the event of sudden or unexpected employment changes would provide much-needed stability for workers. Because of the increasing amount of time it can take to seek new employment and file the requisite nonimmigrant visa petition, a 60-day grace period for such situations provides peace of mind that a nonimmigrant worker’s status will not be in jeopardy. However, clarification is needed regarding the proposal that this be a “one-time” grace period. It is unclear whether this means once in a lifetime for a nonimmigrant worker, or once per employer. In today’s job market, it is not unreasonable for a worker to experience a sudden or unexpected termination more than once in a career. Therefore, the limitation that the 60-day grace period be granted only one time should be removed.

 

Eligibility for Employment Authorization in Compelling Circumstances

 

The proposed I-140 EAD could be a viable option, but the vast majority of possible beneficiaries would ultimately choose not to obtain this benefit due to various shortcomings. The proposal could be improved as follows: First, the requirement for compelling circumstances should be removed. The lack of an available immigrant visa should be reason enough to provide beneficiaries of approved immigrant petitions with an EAD. Second, the EAD should be issued in two-year increments to provide better stability. Renewals should be allowed as long as the immigrant visa remains unavailable. Third, EAD holders should also be granted Advance Parole to allow travel. Finally, it should be made clear that an individual who holds an I-140 EAD should be eligible to adjust status in the United States and without the need for a new immigrant petition as long as a new job offer is available in a same or similar occupation.

 

Elimination of 90-Day Processing Timeframe and Interim EADs

 

If the 90-day processing timeframe is eliminated, USCIS should allow applicants to file for renewal of EADs up to 180 days in advance of the expiration. Currently, applicants can only file up to 120 days in advance. Processing delays often result in gaps in employment authorization leading to job loss. A 180-day filing window would also align with the current I-129 filing window for H-1B and L-1 nonimmigrants. This would allow the nonimmigrant worker and spouse to apply for extensions of stay and employment authorization all together, which would allow for increased efficiency of adjudications for USCIS.

 

With this letter, I urge you to support the U.S. economy by implementing this new rule with the recommended changes as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration, time, and support in this matter.

 

Sincerely,

 

XXXX