pappu
07-30 10:25 AM
Pappu - I agree with you in totality that it is an opportunity wasted when people focus on the individual issues. But, after listening in on a couple of calls, I find the whole call to be not much of use as they always defer the question with 'we have asked the TSC to find out' or 'that is for the USCIS to answer'.
I appreciate a channel of communication and a watchdog for USCIS activities but when communicating regarding problems with USCIS, I see ombudsman's office as a level of indirection. They seem to identify problems, pass on as a report that gets nowhere or gets partially addressed.
If USCIS took cues and had allowed a conference call with the USCIS leadership directly, or if one of us (could be me but I need some ideas as to how to approach) could do such a thing, we could see far more benefit in gathering more significant problems and getting them answered.
I would rather hear the news from the 'horse's mouth' than listening to someone who barely has an influence. I would gladly stand corrected if history has shown otherwise.
USCIS leaders too have meetings where organizations can take part. But one has to go to DC and take part in them during office hours. IV has met with their leadership a few times for our admin fixes.
Other avenue to meet USCIS is via their state offices. I had passed this information to state chapter leaders many months ago so that they start building relationship with the office in each state assigned the task of interfacing with community groups like IV in each state. I know MI chapter had reported that they established contact but do not know if they pursued it further and if other chapters too succeeded in making progress.
These calls with Ombudsman are important because they are attended by USCS and probably other officials from DHS. It is a time to talk about policy matters, recommendations, response of these recommendations from USCIS, and delays in their implementation. That can help bring positive changes for everyone rather than questions about individual cases. Just my opinion.
I appreciate a channel of communication and a watchdog for USCIS activities but when communicating regarding problems with USCIS, I see ombudsman's office as a level of indirection. They seem to identify problems, pass on as a report that gets nowhere or gets partially addressed.
If USCIS took cues and had allowed a conference call with the USCIS leadership directly, or if one of us (could be me but I need some ideas as to how to approach) could do such a thing, we could see far more benefit in gathering more significant problems and getting them answered.
I would rather hear the news from the 'horse's mouth' than listening to someone who barely has an influence. I would gladly stand corrected if history has shown otherwise.
USCIS leaders too have meetings where organizations can take part. But one has to go to DC and take part in them during office hours. IV has met with their leadership a few times for our admin fixes.
Other avenue to meet USCIS is via their state offices. I had passed this information to state chapter leaders many months ago so that they start building relationship with the office in each state assigned the task of interfacing with community groups like IV in each state. I know MI chapter had reported that they established contact but do not know if they pursued it further and if other chapters too succeeded in making progress.
These calls with Ombudsman are important because they are attended by USCS and probably other officials from DHS. It is a time to talk about policy matters, recommendations, response of these recommendations from USCIS, and delays in their implementation. That can help bring positive changes for everyone rather than questions about individual cases. Just my opinion.
wallpaper public safety videos.
WeldonSprings
01-29 12:40 AM
Guys,
I had to open a new thread to get your attention to this. But it seems that the House Stimulus Bill passed this evening contains the 'E-Verify' . Incidently, when Sen. Menendez introduced the Visa Recapture Bill last year, he held the republican's at bay by not passing E-verify in the senate. If, E-verify is passed in the senate, then we will loose an important bargaining chip for visa recapture bill of any kind. Please read the info. below. You can also google e-verify house stimulus bill to get the latest.
Action step is to strip e-verify from the Senate Stimulus bill. Please see below.
ACTION: Stimulus Bill Includes E-verify Requirement
January 23, 2009 � 2 Comments
The House Appropriations Committee made a serious mistake when it approved an amendment to the stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) that would require all businesses and other public or private �entities� that contract to receive money from the stimulus package to use the flawed federal Basic Pilot/E-Verify program. This will not only delay use of stimulus funds, but will hurt millions of workers. It should be stripped from the bill.
The E-Verify provision in the stimulus will:
� Harm workers who are either falsely denied work or are targeted by employers abusing the E-verify program;
� Create substantial new burdens for businesses, especially small businesses, at precisely the wrong time;
� Send the wrong signal to new voters that the Congress prefers to play politics by enacting symbolic and ineffective immigration �enforcement� measures over serious and effective economic stimulus or serious immigration reform.
ACTION NEEDED
1. Call Speaker Nancy Pelosi (head of Democratic Leadership) at 202-225-0100.
2. Call Chairman Obey (chair of the House Appropriations committee) at 202-225-3365.
3. Call Democrats who sit on the appropriations committee if you live in their state.
4. Tell them:
� You are extremely disappointed that the E-Verify requirement was included on the Stimulus and you want the provision stripped from the bill.
� Including E-verify in the stimulus package completely undercuts the purpose of the bill and will only be counterproductive for American business, workers and the economy.
� Real solutions to our economic problems and immigration reform should be approached seriously and separately.
� The flawed E-Verify program�s database errors will wrongly workers their jobs.
FAIR (the Federation for American Immigration Reform) just sent out an alert to its very active network to call committee members in support of this provision. We need to counter their calls.
I had to open a new thread to get your attention to this. But it seems that the House Stimulus Bill passed this evening contains the 'E-Verify' . Incidently, when Sen. Menendez introduced the Visa Recapture Bill last year, he held the republican's at bay by not passing E-verify in the senate. If, E-verify is passed in the senate, then we will loose an important bargaining chip for visa recapture bill of any kind. Please read the info. below. You can also google e-verify house stimulus bill to get the latest.
Action step is to strip e-verify from the Senate Stimulus bill. Please see below.
ACTION: Stimulus Bill Includes E-verify Requirement
January 23, 2009 � 2 Comments
The House Appropriations Committee made a serious mistake when it approved an amendment to the stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) that would require all businesses and other public or private �entities� that contract to receive money from the stimulus package to use the flawed federal Basic Pilot/E-Verify program. This will not only delay use of stimulus funds, but will hurt millions of workers. It should be stripped from the bill.
The E-Verify provision in the stimulus will:
� Harm workers who are either falsely denied work or are targeted by employers abusing the E-verify program;
� Create substantial new burdens for businesses, especially small businesses, at precisely the wrong time;
� Send the wrong signal to new voters that the Congress prefers to play politics by enacting symbolic and ineffective immigration �enforcement� measures over serious and effective economic stimulus or serious immigration reform.
ACTION NEEDED
1. Call Speaker Nancy Pelosi (head of Democratic Leadership) at 202-225-0100.
2. Call Chairman Obey (chair of the House Appropriations committee) at 202-225-3365.
3. Call Democrats who sit on the appropriations committee if you live in their state.
4. Tell them:
� You are extremely disappointed that the E-Verify requirement was included on the Stimulus and you want the provision stripped from the bill.
� Including E-verify in the stimulus package completely undercuts the purpose of the bill and will only be counterproductive for American business, workers and the economy.
� Real solutions to our economic problems and immigration reform should be approached seriously and separately.
� The flawed E-Verify program�s database errors will wrongly workers their jobs.
FAIR (the Federation for American Immigration Reform) just sent out an alert to its very active network to call committee members in support of this provision. We need to counter their calls.
Hinglish
03-03 11:35 AM
adjusted Gross Income:)
Shoot ... I knew I didnt get that right ... :p
Shoot ... I knew I didnt get that right ... :p
2011 funny safety PSA possibly
misholiver
12-17 11:16 AM
did you ever got a receipt notice?
ps. I am in the same boat and getting very nervous now.
ps. I am in the same boat and getting very nervous now.
more...
hopefulgc
11-05 10:24 PM
Did your company file an EB2 labor/petition on your behalf?
Hi
I my PD is July 2003 EB3 (India).
My I140 was approved in 2006 and had applied for 485, EAD, A/P in July 2007 like most of you. Yesterday LUD on my approved I140 and 485, EAD, A/P applications in USCIS changed after months. But now my approved I140 status has changed to
What is even more surprising is that it also says This is incorrect since i got the approval notice in Nov 2006.
I have NOT done any labor substitution or anything like that.
As usually our corporate lawyer and HR were useless and think this is just some system issue at USCIS. Did anyone else see this before? I was looking for other threads but couldn't find anyone else having similar issues.
Immigration gurus - any suggestions/comments? Is this normal?
Thanks!
Hi
I my PD is July 2003 EB3 (India).
My I140 was approved in 2006 and had applied for 485, EAD, A/P in July 2007 like most of you. Yesterday LUD on my approved I140 and 485, EAD, A/P applications in USCIS changed after months. But now my approved I140 status has changed to
What is even more surprising is that it also says This is incorrect since i got the approval notice in Nov 2006.
I have NOT done any labor substitution or anything like that.
As usually our corporate lawyer and HR were useless and think this is just some system issue at USCIS. Did anyone else see this before? I was looking for other threads but couldn't find anyone else having similar issues.
Immigration gurus - any suggestions/comments? Is this normal?
Thanks!
satishku_2000
06-08 01:01 AM
well the status quo isn't that bad, is it? Gradually, retrogression will reduce. Now that there is no labor sub, there will be roughly a FIFO system. Plus, no increase in H1B should help the future --- as far as retorgression is concerned. another big plus is that current H1B system is intact. This bill would have driven thousands out of H1B status.
So I say: CIR, RUST in PEACE.
rimzhim , Totally agree with ya ...
So I say: CIR, RUST in PEACE.
rimzhim , Totally agree with ya ...
more...
gc_on_demand
05-20 12:52 PM
Here is link to full article..
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r110:13:./temp/~r110hBM8XT::
Some one posted on IV that Mr. SESSIONS supported recapture but opposed AgJobs portion. Truth is he only supported EB5 programme where US can make money.
This post is only for awareness. Please call these guys and let them know what we are and what we are fighting for.
It will not increase GC. which Sessions was saying yesterday. CALL NOW>>
"It would also increase the number of employment-based green cards that will be given out over the next few years by 218,000. It is called green card recapture. I note that a green card, in effect, gives permanent legal status to a person who has a green card, and a guaranteed path to citizenship, as long as they don't have some felony offense. It would reauthorize the Foreign Investor Visa Program. That program probably deserves consideration for renewal and reauthorization. I just thought we certainly have not discussed it in the Judiciary Committee, where I think it is supposed to be coming forward. No hearings have been held on it. It was stuck in while the appropriators were considering funding our military men and women in Iraq and in other places. It was stuck into that without any real debate. "
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r110:13:./temp/~r110hBM8XT::
Some one posted on IV that Mr. SESSIONS supported recapture but opposed AgJobs portion. Truth is he only supported EB5 programme where US can make money.
This post is only for awareness. Please call these guys and let them know what we are and what we are fighting for.
It will not increase GC. which Sessions was saying yesterday. CALL NOW>>
"It would also increase the number of employment-based green cards that will be given out over the next few years by 218,000. It is called green card recapture. I note that a green card, in effect, gives permanent legal status to a person who has a green card, and a guaranteed path to citizenship, as long as they don't have some felony offense. It would reauthorize the Foreign Investor Visa Program. That program probably deserves consideration for renewal and reauthorization. I just thought we certainly have not discussed it in the Judiciary Committee, where I think it is supposed to be coming forward. No hearings have been held on it. It was stuck in while the appropriators were considering funding our military men and women in Iraq and in other places. It was stuck into that without any real debate. "
2010 funny safety videos.
yabadaba
06-22 03:23 PM
Do we have to send our application to one of the centers based on where we reside/work?
yes:
2 options:
1. current law allows u file at Nebraska
2. direct filing memo says that filing can be done at Texas or Nebraska based on the state u work in from 07/30/2007..however they are allowing people from now till then to do the same.
yes:
2 options:
1. current law allows u file at Nebraska
2. direct filing memo says that filing can be done at Texas or Nebraska based on the state u work in from 07/30/2007..however they are allowing people from now till then to do the same.
more...
ronhira
04-26 07:44 PM
this is how cir will end..... with a procedural vote -
Financial regulation plan fails first Senate test - U.S. business- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36770907/ns/business-us_business/)
bet $100?
Financial regulation plan fails first Senate test - U.S. business- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36770907/ns/business-us_business/)
bet $100?
hair Free+funny+safety+pictures
h1bemployee
06-25 01:57 PM
Hi Prasanthi,
In the denial letter they stated that
"The beneficiary may remain in the current immigration status until date indicated on Form I94.. ". My I-94 is valid till sep 30 2009 .... so even though my H1b transfer got denied ,will that save me from being out-of-status?
In the denial letter they stated that
"The beneficiary may remain in the current immigration status until date indicated on Form I94.. ". My I-94 is valid till sep 30 2009 .... so even though my H1b transfer got denied ,will that save me from being out-of-status?
more...
immi_enthu
08-28 11:28 AM
According to the legal assistant:
Traditional Labor:
Incase of substitution the beneficiary has to sign the approved labor. Otherwise it is not required.
PERM: Requires beneficiary's signature.
Thanks bond65
Traditional Labor:
Incase of substitution the beneficiary has to sign the approved labor. Otherwise it is not required.
PERM: Requires beneficiary's signature.
Thanks bond65
hot funny safety videos.
gondalguru
06-20 11:52 AM
I thought that you can use AC21 only if you work for employer and I-485 pending more than 180 days and then you leave the employer to work for somebody else.
Is it possible to use prior employer's I-140, Empolyment offer letter - and file I-485 for future employment--- wait 6 months and then use AC21 clause to get greencard - All these while working for company other than original employer who file I-140?
Is it possible to use prior employer's I-140, Empolyment offer letter - and file I-485 for future employment--- wait 6 months and then use AC21 clause to get greencard - All these while working for company other than original employer who file I-140?
more...
house Funny-Flight-Safety-Videos1
desiin_va
01-14 10:17 PM
To port PD from Eb3 to EB2, He does not require to qulify for EB2 before Nov 2001, He is eligible if he is qualified at time of filing EB2.
Folks redhagd's statement is correct, i checked with Atorney Sheela Murhty on Friday. To port from EB3 to EB2, you must be eligible for EB2 at the time of filing Labor in Eb2.
Folks redhagd's statement is correct, i checked with Atorney Sheela Murhty on Friday. To port from EB3 to EB2, you must be eligible for EB2 at the time of filing Labor in Eb2.
tattoo Very Funny Video!
Desertfox
10-30 10:04 PM
Lawyer? So, You don't believe what was posted on USIS website?
I find it wise to pay my lawyer to find the correct information for me.... be it from USCIS website or from her professional knowledge base. Believe it or not, I trust a qualified professional more than myself when it comes to a subject outside of my expertise...:D
I find it wise to pay my lawyer to find the correct information for me.... be it from USCIS website or from her professional knowledge base. Believe it or not, I trust a qualified professional more than myself when it comes to a subject outside of my expertise...:D
more...
pictures safety video which may or
thomachan72
08-12 10:56 AM
I dont understand why your lawyer did not notice this and question you before sending everything out. However, there are thousands of applications that they are dealing with and hopefully yours will go through. By the way did you send in all the original documents or notarized photocopies? Those who send in affidavits+non-availability certificates, did you send in originals or notarized copies?
dresses Funny Safety Videos : Safety
ras
04-03 11:12 AM
I do not see any harm in replying to an RFE even if it is late. You should really be pushing your employer and attorney to respond to this RFE at the EARLIEST.
It might also help to give a reason as to why you were late in responding.
There is a substantial amount of financial adjustments required. Infact that is the reason why it is being delayed.
It might also help to give a reason as to why you were late in responding.
There is a substantial amount of financial adjustments required. Infact that is the reason why it is being delayed.
more...
makeup On Gun Safety FUNNY
gc_kaavaali
09-16 05:03 PM
It is my request only!!! Can you please stop replying in 'Red' color? It is really annoying.
Having stated the above which pretains only to those cases which are still in process.
For those who have their GC in their hand, the situation could be slightly different.
If you do not join the company, it is considered as SHAM EMPLOYMENT.
I am also in the same boat and I checked with a leading lawyer, According to her advice it is better to wait for 6 months or atleast couple of months before changing the employer.
GCProbs has an advantage here, since the Company A is about to be shut down wait till then. Obtain details about it and keep it with you. Just in the event of a question, you can answer.
By the way, I have decided to join another company after 2 months.
Jumping the boat immediately might cause trouble.
So please be patient and give it as much as time as possible. I will say at least 2-3 months.
Having stated the above which pretains only to those cases which are still in process.
For those who have their GC in their hand, the situation could be slightly different.
If you do not join the company, it is considered as SHAM EMPLOYMENT.
I am also in the same boat and I checked with a leading lawyer, According to her advice it is better to wait for 6 months or atleast couple of months before changing the employer.
GCProbs has an advantage here, since the Company A is about to be shut down wait till then. Obtain details about it and keep it with you. Just in the event of a question, you can answer.
By the way, I have decided to join another company after 2 months.
Jumping the boat immediately might cause trouble.
So please be patient and give it as much as time as possible. I will say at least 2-3 months.
girlfriend Funny Video Blog - Comedy
skynet2500
06-19 05:47 PM
The only catch could be on the MMR. MMR needs two vaccinations. The two vaccines nmeed to have a 1 month gap. So if you take one and to medical exam, they will force you take the 2'nd one right there. Ofcourse they don't care about the gap since they want to make money
hairstyles funny safety videos.
MeraNaamJoker
09-17 10:32 AM
Thank you for your responses.
My situation is different, since my 485 is not yet approved (PD Dec 2006 EB2).
Company A applied for my GC (140 approved and 485 filed in July 2007), but I have never worked for company-A. I had been working for company-B during all these on H1. However I am now with company-C for last 6 months using EAD.
I have never done the AC-21, since my lawyer said that is not required since I was with company-B and did not change jobs in between.
In my case, company-A is not closing down, and I am willing to work for them after 6 months or so.
My question is are there any risks in my 485 in this context?
Should I be moving to company-A to reduce any risk?
Would appreciate your responses in this.
Again the issue here will revert to the topic of SHAM EMPLOYMENT.
Either you should be working for the sponsor company or file AC21 and port out the process. That helps you to be on the safer side.
Even after filing AC21 two and half years back, my original approval notices went to my original GC sponsoring company's attorney's office.
My situation is different, since my 485 is not yet approved (PD Dec 2006 EB2).
Company A applied for my GC (140 approved and 485 filed in July 2007), but I have never worked for company-A. I had been working for company-B during all these on H1. However I am now with company-C for last 6 months using EAD.
I have never done the AC-21, since my lawyer said that is not required since I was with company-B and did not change jobs in between.
In my case, company-A is not closing down, and I am willing to work for them after 6 months or so.
My question is are there any risks in my 485 in this context?
Should I be moving to company-A to reduce any risk?
Would appreciate your responses in this.
Again the issue here will revert to the topic of SHAM EMPLOYMENT.
Either you should be working for the sponsor company or file AC21 and port out the process. That helps you to be on the safer side.
Even after filing AC21 two and half years back, my original approval notices went to my original GC sponsoring company's attorney's office.
go_gc_way
05-12 11:00 AM
Good job Amith and other folks!
eb3_nepa
08-10 05:10 PM
May be he or she has a spouse whose birth country is non retrogressed .. :)
Even THEN it is not possible. Coz the June 2007 bulletin says that even ROW has to be atlest June 2005. His PD was Dec 2005 so there is NO way he could have applied.
Even THEN it is not possible. Coz the June 2007 bulletin says that even ROW has to be atlest June 2005. His PD was Dec 2005 so there is NO way he could have applied.