a*m
2 楼
Supplement J 的相关文件已经开始公示，现在485处理时间很长，新的法案将为485长
时间pending的战友们带来比以前大很多的不便和风险，点击下面的链接可以去comment
，大家行动起来，争取自己的权益！
即使现在还没交485的，以后也很有可能会面临485后换工作的问题，大家要团结起来！
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2015-0008-0
时间pending的战友们带来比以前大很多的不便和风险，点击下面的链接可以去comment
，大家行动起来，争取自己的权益！
即使现在还没交485的，以后也很有可能会面临485后换工作的问题，大家要团结起来！
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2015-0008-0
Q*n
3 楼
4个洗护或者定性的，刚好不花钱。
d*4
4 楼
怎么说文件不存在呢？
l*a
5 楼
3个洗护+1个lotion,用3个1.5off+1个2off
j*p
6 楼
请楼主修改一下连接：
先进：
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=USCIS-2015-0008
然后点击 “Comment Now!”.
thanks.
先进：
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=USCIS-2015-0008
然后点击 “Comment Now!”.
thanks.
c*5
7 楼
2off的胖子给个链接呗 谢谢
c*n
8 楼
这不就是所谓关于140portability的comment嘛，都是一个文件
l*n
10 楼
Form J 是包括在这次140portability里面的 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp=25;po=0;dct=SR%252BO;D=USCIS-2015-0008
【在 c*******n 的大作中提到】
: 这不就是所谓关于140portability的comment嘛，都是一个文件
【在 c*******n 的大作中提到】
: 这不就是所谓关于140portability的comment嘛，都是一个文件
a*m
11 楼
谢谢！已改。
【在 j****p 的大作中提到】
: 请楼主修改一下连接：
: 先进：
: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=USCIS-2015-0008
: 然后点击 “Comment Now!”.
: thanks.
【在 j****p 的大作中提到】
: 请楼主修改一下连接：
: 先进：
: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=USCIS-2015-0008
: 然后点击 “Comment Now!”.
: thanks.
l*t
12 楼
前几天已评，今天呆会再评一个。
j*i
13 楼
这个提案是60天后就变成法律实施吗？
a*m
14 楼
不知道要多长时间，目前还在公示，如果过了公示应该会挺快的。最好把它扼杀在摇篮
里啊。
【在 j*****i 的大作中提到】
: 这个提案是60天后就变成法律实施吗？
里啊。
【在 j*****i 的大作中提到】
: 这个提案是60天后就变成法律实施吗？
F*r
15 楼
要每天一评才行。
【在 l******t 的大作中提到】
: 前几天已评，今天呆会再评一个。
【在 l******t 的大作中提到】
: 前几天已评，今天呆会再评一个。
s*n
16 楼
Cannot type Chinese, will post my comments everyday:
The proposed new Form-J (Conformation of Bona Fide Job Offer or Request for
Job Portability under INA Section 204(j)) contradicts the goals of President
’s Executive Order with regard to “Job Portability and High-Skilled Worker
Retention”.
It disincentives the employers to either retain existing or hire new foreign
nationals with pending I-485 by making compliance with such regulation more
difficult. For employers who wish to retain skilled employees, the new
regulations add more administrative burdens to the current operations, even
if the employer is willing to add more legal expenses to keep the employee.
The new Form-J disrupts the existing policy of the employers. They can be
thrown into utter confusion and struggle to draft new policies to address
the new requirements for retaining the skilled employees.
For employers who want to hire new employees with pending I-485, such
compliance will definitely discourage them from doing so before they are
certain that there is no legal risk. Currently, foreign nationals with I-485
pending over 180 days are entitled to change jobs under AC21. When they do
so, they inform their new employer that no sponsorship is needed. Form-J
will confuse the new employer with the hidden obligations of “sponsorship”
so the employer will be intimidated to hire him or her for the reasons of
legal complications.
The proposed new Form-J (Conformation of Bona Fide Job Offer or Request for
Job Portability under INA Section 204(j)) contradicts the goals of President
’s Executive Order with regard to “Job Portability and High-Skilled Worker
Retention”.
It disincentives the employers to either retain existing or hire new foreign
nationals with pending I-485 by making compliance with such regulation more
difficult. For employers who wish to retain skilled employees, the new
regulations add more administrative burdens to the current operations, even
if the employer is willing to add more legal expenses to keep the employee.
The new Form-J disrupts the existing policy of the employers. They can be
thrown into utter confusion and struggle to draft new policies to address
the new requirements for retaining the skilled employees.
For employers who want to hire new employees with pending I-485, such
compliance will definitely discourage them from doing so before they are
certain that there is no legal risk. Currently, foreign nationals with I-485
pending over 180 days are entitled to change jobs under AC21. When they do
so, they inform their new employer that no sponsorship is needed. Form-J
will confuse the new employer with the hidden obligations of “sponsorship”
so the employer will be intimidated to hire him or her for the reasons of
legal complications.
l*t
17 楼
评了，过几天再去评几次。
s*1
18 楼
support!
b*7
19 楼
让我想起了英国的做法，英国有个几年的签证限制，导致好多公司在签证过期快到就再
也不跟你续签了。就是个长期包身工的协议。限制的做法，就是雇主可以无限期hold你
，直到你快被榨干时候，一脚踢开。
也不跟你续签了。就是个长期包身工的协议。限制的做法，就是雇主可以无限期hold你
，直到你快被榨干时候，一脚踢开。
a*m
20 楼
英国一般不给办绿卡吗？
【在 b******7 的大作中提到】
: 让我想起了英国的做法，英国有个几年的签证限制，导致好多公司在签证过期快到就再
: 也不跟你续签了。就是个长期包身工的协议。限制的做法，就是雇主可以无限期hold你
: ，直到你快被榨干时候，一脚踢开。
【在 b******7 的大作中提到】
: 让我想起了英国的做法，英国有个几年的签证限制，导致好多公司在签证过期快到就再
: 也不跟你续签了。就是个长期包身工的协议。限制的做法，就是雇主可以无限期hold你
: ，直到你快被榨干时候，一脚踢开。
y*u
21 楼
英国绿卡不是公司想搞就能搞定的，主要是基于申请人自身的条件。
【在 a*****m 的大作中提到】
: 英国一般不给办绿卡吗？
【在 a*****m 的大作中提到】
: 英国一般不给办绿卡吗？
p*i
22 楼
已踩
I strongly oppose the proposed I485-J supplement. It is logically
inconsistent and it imposed undue burden on the beneficiary and the
potential new employers. Enforcing it will undoubtedly hinder job
portability and is a direct violation of President Obama's executive action.
"C. 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 all know, Perm and I-140 are employer's property. There is no such
requirement that obligates the employ to share the copy of such document
with the beneficiary. In practice many employers refuse to give a copy of
I140 to beneficiaries. There is no reliable and efficient way for the
beneficiary or the new employer to obtain this critical information that
Supplement J requires. How are they able to describe whether the new
position is "same or a similar occupational classification as the job offer
in the underlying
Form I-140" without being able to see it?
As a result, enforcing this rule will be a disaster for job portability. Bad
employers will exploit this in order to retain foreign employees while
paying them below-the-market wages knowing that the employee cannot claim
AC21 portability without them releasing the I140. The foreign workers will
become more hesitated in changing jobs in the fear of losing the I485 cases
thus cannot contribute their full potentials.
How is such a rule good for US workers? How is such a rule good for US
economy? How is such a rule consistent with the spirit of President Obama's
immigration EA to promote job portability?
Uploaded File(s)(Optional)
comment
【在 a*****m 的大作中提到】
: Supplement J 的相关文件已经开始公示，现在485处理时间很长，新的法案将为485长
: 时间pending的战友们带来比以前大很多的不便和风险，点击下面的链接可以去comment
: ，大家行动起来，争取自己的权益！
: 即使现在还没交485的，以后也很有可能会面临485后换工作的问题，大家要团结起来！
: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2015-0008-0
I strongly oppose the proposed I485-J supplement. It is logically
inconsistent and it imposed undue burden on the beneficiary and the
potential new employers. Enforcing it will undoubtedly hinder job
portability and is a direct violation of President Obama's executive action.
"C. 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 all know, Perm and I-140 are employer's property. There is no such
requirement that obligates the employ to share the copy of such document
with the beneficiary. In practice many employers refuse to give a copy of
I140 to beneficiaries. There is no reliable and efficient way for the
beneficiary or the new employer to obtain this critical information that
Supplement J requires. How are they able to describe whether the new
position is "same or a similar occupational classification as the job offer
in the underlying
Form I-140" without being able to see it?
As a result, enforcing this rule will be a disaster for job portability. Bad
employers will exploit this in order to retain foreign employees while
paying them below-the-market wages knowing that the employee cannot claim
AC21 portability without them releasing the I140. The foreign workers will
become more hesitated in changing jobs in the fear of losing the I485 cases
thus cannot contribute their full potentials.
How is such a rule good for US workers? How is such a rule good for US
economy? How is such a rule consistent with the spirit of President Obama's
immigration EA to promote job portability?
Uploaded File(s)(Optional)
comment
【在 a*****m 的大作中提到】
: Supplement J 的相关文件已经开始公示，现在485处理时间很长，新的法案将为485长
: 时间pending的战友们带来比以前大很多的不便和风险，点击下面的链接可以去comment
: ，大家行动起来，争取自己的权益！
: 即使现在还没交485的，以后也很有可能会面临485后换工作的问题，大家要团结起来！
: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2015-0008-0
F*r
23 楼
Well said.
已踩I strongly oppose the proposed I485-J supplement. It is logically
inconsistent and it ........
【在 p******i 的大作中提到】
: 已踩
: I strongly oppose the proposed I485-J supplement. It is logically
: inconsistent and it imposed undue burden on the beneficiary and the
: potential new employers. Enforcing it will undoubtedly hinder job
: portability and is a direct violation of President Obama's executive action.
: "C. 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
已踩I strongly oppose the proposed I485-J supplement. It is logically
inconsistent and it ........
【在 p******i 的大作中提到】
: 已踩
: I strongly oppose the proposed I485-J supplement. It is logically
: inconsistent and it imposed undue burden on the beneficiary and the
: potential new employers. Enforcing it will undoubtedly hinder job
: portability and is a direct violation of President Obama's executive action.
: "C. 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
z*g
24 楼
胡扯，英国合法工作满5年（不一定要是同一个雇主），自动有权力申请永居，不需要
雇主支持。
【在 b******7 的大作中提到】
: 让我想起了英国的做法，英国有个几年的签证限制，导致好多公司在签证过期快到就再
: 也不跟你续签了。就是个长期包身工的协议。限制的做法，就是雇主可以无限期hold你
: ，直到你快被榨干时候，一脚踢开。
雇主支持。
【在 b******7 的大作中提到】
: 让我想起了英国的做法，英国有个几年的签证限制，导致好多公司在签证过期快到就再
: 也不跟你续签了。就是个长期包身工的协议。限制的做法，就是雇主可以无限期hold你
: ，直到你快被榨干时候，一脚踢开。
c*g
25 楼
已填写
s*n
26 楼
不能简单比较一个条件，
英国的雇佣外国人须是政府认证的雇主，而且英国太小了工作很难找；
但去英国的难度比美国小，上学要花钱，去的都是家里有钱的，学习的动力比来美国的
穷人们要低很多，
压力也没有那么大，大家天天比较开心；
我觉得没有可比性，都不容易。但你说的对，只要在英国合法工作，甭管你用啥办法，
坚持5年就可以，结婚也应该是要撑过5年，美国2年就可以。
胡扯，英国合法工作满5年（不一定要是同一个雇主），自动有权力申请永居，不需要
雇主支持。
【在 z****g 的大作中提到】
: 胡扯，英国合法工作满5年（不一定要是同一个雇主），自动有权力申请永居，不需要
: 雇主支持。
英国的雇佣外国人须是政府认证的雇主，而且英国太小了工作很难找；
但去英国的难度比美国小，上学要花钱，去的都是家里有钱的，学习的动力比来美国的
穷人们要低很多，
压力也没有那么大，大家天天比较开心；
我觉得没有可比性，都不容易。但你说的对，只要在英国合法工作，甭管你用啥办法，
坚持5年就可以，结婚也应该是要撑过5年，美国2年就可以。
胡扯，英国合法工作满5年（不一定要是同一个雇主），自动有权力申请永居，不需要
雇主支持。
【在 z****g 的大作中提到】
: 胡扯，英国合法工作满5年（不一定要是同一个雇主），自动有权力申请永居，不需要
: 雇主支持。
相关阅读
请问网上更新多久后收到正式邮件这什么意思求助！RFE可不可以自己寄回USCIS？USCIS的e-request竟然没有I765 EAD的？拿AP卡回国，回美还要填I-94？听说换公民的时候用英文名，就可以回国不被消户了？TSC 485 RFEI-140 PP的receipt上会显示是PP还是regular吗？状态终于变了等140期间，可以在公司内部转职位么？h1b身份回国，再用AP入境会影响h1b签证吗？绿卡广告location of entry into USAThere is an app for it...EB3的485交了，卡没下来，但可能会海归如果180天后跳槽没有140批准复印件，用797可以么？eb3 重新relink 回eb2 需要多久时间？大家帮忙看看我的情况，谢谢EB2+EB3 140 priority date 问题485收到rfe通知