rajuram
01-26 02:23 AM
I (and may be lot of others like me) want to care about IV & want to contribute to IV. But there has not even a single thread of good news for last several months. This is very demotivating. I have contributed only once. Every time I visit this site, I feel guilty of taking a free ride. But at the same time I find it hard to make any contributions with nothing happening on the horizon. Currently it looks like what ever is happening or going to happen with CIR etc is just moving at its own pace. If we can not expedite it, then what is the use? in any case congress will pass some relief for skilled workers when CIR comes up.
wallpaper rihanna short hair. rihanna
sivakumar
02-22 11:57 AM
Hi Friends,
I have a question regarding the new ruling that states that if your Name check is pending for more than 180 days and your PD is current then you I-485 will be approved.
In my case I-485 was filed on 23 june 2007, FP was done on 12Aug 2007, got EAD on 23september 2007.
Since I had a RFE on I-140 it finally got approved on 25th October 2007.
NOW MY QUESTION IS AT WHAT POINT DOES USCIS SEND APPLICATION FOR NAME CHECK? Why I am asking this question is becase I want to calculate the 180 day period. will it be after finger prinitng (e.g 12august07) or after 1-140 got approved (e.g 25october07).
I am under EB2 caterory from India. My priority date is 12 March 2003.
As there is a feeling that the April visa might have 12/01/2003 as the priority date.
I may get it or I might not get it ( depending when FP started)
Please advice,
Thanks a lot in advance and anticipation of an answer :)
Siva.
I have a question regarding the new ruling that states that if your Name check is pending for more than 180 days and your PD is current then you I-485 will be approved.
In my case I-485 was filed on 23 june 2007, FP was done on 12Aug 2007, got EAD on 23september 2007.
Since I had a RFE on I-140 it finally got approved on 25th October 2007.
NOW MY QUESTION IS AT WHAT POINT DOES USCIS SEND APPLICATION FOR NAME CHECK? Why I am asking this question is becase I want to calculate the 180 day period. will it be after finger prinitng (e.g 12august07) or after 1-140 got approved (e.g 25october07).
I am under EB2 caterory from India. My priority date is 12 March 2003.
As there is a feeling that the April visa might have 12/01/2003 as the priority date.
I may get it or I might not get it ( depending when FP started)
Please advice,
Thanks a lot in advance and anticipation of an answer :)
Siva.
kaisersose
08-09 03:25 PM
My wife is on L-1 currently and has an approved H-1b petition from company B which is a "change of status" effective October 01.
We would like to stick to the L-1 for some more time and from what I gather one way of doing it is for her to travel out of the country and move back in.
What other options do we have?
Thanks
We would like to stick to the L-1 for some more time and from what I gather one way of doing it is for her to travel out of the country and move back in.
What other options do we have?
Thanks
2011 rihanna short haircuts.
grinch
03-15 05:19 PM
ok made thread, lets do this...
And are the polls done for this battle?
And are the polls done for this battle?
more...
gk_2000
08-10 01:48 PM
I feel frustrated at some peoples' unwillingness to admit that EB3 needs IV's help now more than ever. They are saying that nothing much can be done for EB3, as INS merely corrected its wrong interpretation in visa allocation
But, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
But, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
dressking
09-28 03:39 PM
Sorry about the generalization. I was refering to Senthil1 kind of folks, not folks like you. Thanks for all the support. My friend got a green card as recently as a month back, he struggled for a long time before he got one, I asked him if he wants to come for the rally and he told me "MRRRRRRRR I GOT MY GREEN CARD, YOU ARE ASKING THE WRONG PERSON FOR THE RALLY" and the same person told me "SOMETHING MUST HAPPEN TO THESE ROTTEN CONSULTING COMPANIES, THEY ARE RUINING THE SYSTEM" he got his GC from a small consulting company and after getting his GC he says these companies must not exist - he wants to shut thee door behind him
Those Asian Americans who are against new Asian immigrants, which include some of my relatives, sadly to tell you, are just helping White Americans in this fight. It is their wish and their passion. But if White Americans don't want it, they will have no chance of getting their voices heard. Not all White Americans are against immigration. But there is a big percentage of White Americans who are either fiercely against it or do not want it. I can hardly find any White American who says he or she wants more immigrants. And a small percentage of White Americans are fiercely against immigration. They would curse at anyone who they think is a new immigrant at any opportunity they have.
Those Asian Americans who are against new Asian immigrants, which include some of my relatives, sadly to tell you, are just helping White Americans in this fight. It is their wish and their passion. But if White Americans don't want it, they will have no chance of getting their voices heard. Not all White Americans are against immigration. But there is a big percentage of White Americans who are either fiercely against it or do not want it. I can hardly find any White American who says he or she wants more immigrants. And a small percentage of White Americans are fiercely against immigration. They would curse at anyone who they think is a new immigrant at any opportunity they have.
more...
samirpatel08
03-10 01:44 PM
I agree with 'rexjamla'. My lawyer said same thing. I am working on my EAD, and I have not submit anything to USCIS.
According to my lawyer, AC 21 is a portability law which allow you to swith a job with same or similar work. Additionally, we need to have a valid job with the same job discription and pay(or higher pay) when our priority date become current.
In my case, my previous company's lawer is going to take care of my case for the future. If you are changing your lawyer then I think it would be ok to send AC 21 papers to make sure USCIS update lawyer's informtion. The new lawer information would help USCIS to contact your new lawer for the future.
If you are changing the job and if possible that your previous company's lawer going to work for your case....I think you do not need to worry about anything...At least... I have not filed anything...
There is no need to let USCIS know about changing job after 180 days of 485 filing. U should have offer / empl letter from the employer when your priority date becomes current.
Job title can be different but job duties must be similar.
Salary difference is ok but it should not be less than what is mentioned in labor certification.
In addition to this couple of my close friends got GC recently and they never notify USCIs about new job(AC 21).
Cheers!
According to my lawyer, AC 21 is a portability law which allow you to swith a job with same or similar work. Additionally, we need to have a valid job with the same job discription and pay(or higher pay) when our priority date become current.
In my case, my previous company's lawer is going to take care of my case for the future. If you are changing your lawyer then I think it would be ok to send AC 21 papers to make sure USCIS update lawyer's informtion. The new lawer information would help USCIS to contact your new lawer for the future.
If you are changing the job and if possible that your previous company's lawer going to work for your case....I think you do not need to worry about anything...At least... I have not filed anything...
There is no need to let USCIS know about changing job after 180 days of 485 filing. U should have offer / empl letter from the employer when your priority date becomes current.
Job title can be different but job duties must be similar.
Salary difference is ok but it should not be less than what is mentioned in labor certification.
In addition to this couple of my close friends got GC recently and they never notify USCIs about new job(AC 21).
Cheers!
2010 Rihanna#39;s bad blonde!
grinch
03-09 07:22 PM
entries due tomorrow, and I don't know what I'm gona do with mine. I want to fix so much, but theres no time, I'll get my final render in tomorrow
more...
ksvreg
06-10 01:45 PM
best bet is eb3 to eb2 conversion in addition to advocacy efforts?
hair rihanna short hair styles 2010
av2004
07-02 10:34 AM
Sent the e-mails to my senators.. Will update if there is any response back from the Senators. Thanks to IV for providing the simplified form!
more...
nag2007
04-03 01:52 PM
Not yet Filed EAD. PD MARCH 2005
hot rihanna short hair styles 2011. Latest 2011 short hair styles,
pzh
07-16 06:18 PM
There isn't a single fact that is true in this fax here. I don't know how groups like this get taken seriously if they don't even do basic research on what they are sending to congresspeople.
(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies.
First, there is no such thing as anchor baby for H-1B workers. No legal H-1B worker in their right mind would ever try to immigrate in this way. H-1B workers are mostly stuck in the GC waiting game. Most of them are highly educated and will not sit and wait in illegal status for their child to grow up to sponsor them.
(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers.
This is another lie. H-1Bs pay all taxes. Also, they are not eligible to use social security benefits when they retire unless they've worked for at least
ten years in the US.
(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.
Again, this statement is a lie. Changing jobs is risky and not many employers are willing to hire people on H-1B due to problems with immigration procedures and the broken immigration system (one of the reasons Microsoft also opened an office in Vancouver). Every time an H-1B changes their job, they have to get a new LABOR CERTIFICATION. This ensures that the new job will be in the "hard to fill" category!
(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.
Again another lie. The H-1B system is open to people of all nationalities and it is based on skills and education. None of the major ethnic groups or nationalities that use H-1B are "protected" under affirmative action programs. Most important, "affirmative action" does not apply to foreigners in the first place.
(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies.
First, there is no such thing as anchor baby for H-1B workers. No legal H-1B worker in their right mind would ever try to immigrate in this way. H-1B workers are mostly stuck in the GC waiting game. Most of them are highly educated and will not sit and wait in illegal status for their child to grow up to sponsor them.
(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers.
This is another lie. H-1Bs pay all taxes. Also, they are not eligible to use social security benefits when they retire unless they've worked for at least
ten years in the US.
(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.
Again, this statement is a lie. Changing jobs is risky and not many employers are willing to hire people on H-1B due to problems with immigration procedures and the broken immigration system (one of the reasons Microsoft also opened an office in Vancouver). Every time an H-1B changes their job, they have to get a new LABOR CERTIFICATION. This ensures that the new job will be in the "hard to fill" category!
(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.
Again another lie. The H-1B system is open to people of all nationalities and it is based on skills and education. None of the major ethnic groups or nationalities that use H-1B are "protected" under affirmative action programs. Most important, "affirmative action" does not apply to foreigners in the first place.
more...
house rihanna short hair. about
CSPAvictim
07-09 06:30 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
tattoo Short Hairstyle,Rihanna New
Ennada
12-10 08:10 AM
http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/cut_off_dates.html
more...
pictures hairstyles ack view.
return_to_india
10-10 05:42 PM
It is unreasonable to carry a passport at all times when you are living here. What happens if you leave it behind in the grocery store by mistake or leave it in the cab or something? I think the issue reported by the OP is more relevant close to the border. Nobody asks for your passport in Vegas or Denver.
I would advise US govt. to build a system where officers can verify legality by checking the biometrics ( some handheld devices that connect to a DB ) , which should free up one to carry documents while on domestic travel. If biometrics cannot be found then proceed to grill on docs.
I would advise US govt. to build a system where officers can verify legality by checking the biometrics ( some handheld devices that connect to a DB ) , which should free up one to carry documents while on domestic travel. If biometrics cannot be found then proceed to grill on docs.
dresses rihanna hair colour
tapukakababa
07-03 03:54 PM
I have contributed $100 yesterday. We can do it.
more...
makeup Your emo style haircut cut
chennaikar
03-31 12:20 PM
In the USCIS Ombudsman Report In the USCIS Ombudsman Report http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual_Report_2007.pdf
On page 52 it mentions
"
The Grand Total of Employment Preference Numbers Available for Recapture is shown as 218,759 (not 268,759), since it reflects subtraction of 50,000 numbers already recaptured from FY 01 through FY 04.
"
Also there is a break up of per year unused visa numbers from 1992 till 2006.
On page 52 it mentions
"
The Grand Total of Employment Preference Numbers Available for Recapture is shown as 218,759 (not 268,759), since it reflects subtraction of 50,000 numbers already recaptured from FY 01 through FY 04.
"
Also there is a break up of per year unused visa numbers from 1992 till 2006.
girlfriend 2011 Medium Wavy Hairstyle
BharatPremi
09-26 10:22 AM
Dear Editor and Eilene Zimmerman,
I am very sad to inform you that this article is completely misleading readers about the rally organized by legal immigrants (Employment Based immigration catgory) .
Article tells 'Last week 1,000 protestors-mostly legal immigrants-drew attention to the situation of highly skilled foreigners who want to work for companies in the U.S. by marching on Capitol Hill.'
But in reality this march /rally was organized to protest Burocratic delays enforced by USCIS on applicants of Permanent residency who are suffering long delays since years. These legal immigrants, following every law and process dot able to see their Green Cards even after waiting 4 to 6 years, with some of them having rotted in queue since last 8 to 9 yeras.
I would request writer and you to have more information about the rally from the rally organizers (http://immigrationvoice.org) and publicly accept this arror and implement correction.
Thanks.
- XXXX
I am very sad to inform you that this article is completely misleading readers about the rally organized by legal immigrants (Employment Based immigration catgory) .
Article tells 'Last week 1,000 protestors-mostly legal immigrants-drew attention to the situation of highly skilled foreigners who want to work for companies in the U.S. by marching on Capitol Hill.'
But in reality this march /rally was organized to protest Burocratic delays enforced by USCIS on applicants of Permanent residency who are suffering long delays since years. These legal immigrants, following every law and process dot able to see their Green Cards even after waiting 4 to 6 years, with some of them having rotted in queue since last 8 to 9 yeras.
I would request writer and you to have more information about the rally from the rally organizers (http://immigrationvoice.org) and publicly accept this arror and implement correction.
Thanks.
- XXXX
hairstyles View 10 Photos ›
mirage
02-05 03:06 PM
^^Bump^^
nc14
09-10 10:43 AM
How many posts are required to access chat feature?
It seems I don't have the number of posts necessary to log in. Is there anyway I can just view the live updates?
It seems I don't have the number of posts necessary to log in. Is there anyway I can just view the live updates?
svr_76
06-10 12:51 PM
@hpandey : I dont think that this is any "racist" amendment. I think this amendment is more geared towards the perception that Microsoft (US) (and the simmilars) when firing ppl in US fire citizen and "hire" (H1B ppl immediately). I think if at all it needs improvement on what they mean by "same title" as within the same title people skills/trade would be different.