Slumdog
01-22 04:17 PM
JSB, I agree partially with your analogy on US & Japan�s Quality of life but that is a generalized statement. The meaning of �Quality of Life� is lost the day people started looking at their house as an investment.
I also agree the quality of Life comes with a price. But not everything should be looked or compared monetarily. Back when I was kid, my Dad had a choice to send me to Govt School or Private school. Private school was expensive & he did pay price by sending me to private school, cutting most of his expenses because he wanted to give good quality of life for his kids. So for everything there is a Price to pay & what �price� means to you is again subjective. There is a lot of difference between Quality of Life & Enjoyment. If a person can only afford Honda Civic & he wishes to buy BMW X5 then he is doing that for his own enjoyment & NOT quality of life. I call it Stupidity. Buying a house (Affordable) with calculated risks is totally different matter & I will explain why on my next topic.
Your Comment �where a GC seeker gets up at 5am in a nicely furnished home, and gets to work, is entirely his choosing for happiness with material things. He knowingly chooses to sacrifice his peace of mind for more material wealth� is purely your imagination except that I getup at 5:00 & go to work. I am almost done writing new topic �Why Non GC Holders buy houses?� & will be posting shortly. Watch out for that & may be you will find some answers.
No Joke, I agree with you on considering the risks associated with quality of life.
Saggi13, It�s sad to hear your side of story. However I did have a backup plan & reserves & I will be explaining my side of story in the above new topic. Don�t loose hope & you will be back in no time.
~ Slumdog
I also agree the quality of Life comes with a price. But not everything should be looked or compared monetarily. Back when I was kid, my Dad had a choice to send me to Govt School or Private school. Private school was expensive & he did pay price by sending me to private school, cutting most of his expenses because he wanted to give good quality of life for his kids. So for everything there is a Price to pay & what �price� means to you is again subjective. There is a lot of difference between Quality of Life & Enjoyment. If a person can only afford Honda Civic & he wishes to buy BMW X5 then he is doing that for his own enjoyment & NOT quality of life. I call it Stupidity. Buying a house (Affordable) with calculated risks is totally different matter & I will explain why on my next topic.
Your Comment �where a GC seeker gets up at 5am in a nicely furnished home, and gets to work, is entirely his choosing for happiness with material things. He knowingly chooses to sacrifice his peace of mind for more material wealth� is purely your imagination except that I getup at 5:00 & go to work. I am almost done writing new topic �Why Non GC Holders buy houses?� & will be posting shortly. Watch out for that & may be you will find some answers.
No Joke, I agree with you on considering the risks associated with quality of life.
Saggi13, It�s sad to hear your side of story. However I did have a backup plan & reserves & I will be explaining my side of story in the above new topic. Don�t loose hope & you will be back in no time.
~ Slumdog
wallpaper White Texture Background
gc_bucs
02-18 04:33 PM
Not sure where you read that H1B would be eliminated totally. It does mention Elimination of H-1B Classification for Fashion Models
Below is the text
TITLE VII--EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRATIONCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 701. UNFAIR IMMIGRATION-RELATED EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES.
Section 274B (8 U.S.C. 1324b) is amended--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) in subsection (a)(5)--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(A) by amending the paragraph heading to read �Prohibition of Intimidation, Retaliation, or Unlawful Discrimination in Employment�;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(B) by moving the text down and to the right 2 ems;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(C) by inserting before such text the following: �(A) IN GENERAL- �; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(D) by adding at the end the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(B) FEDERAL LABOR OR EMPLOYMENT LAWS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer to directly or indirectly threaten any individual with removal or any other adverse consequences pertaining to that individual�s immigration status or employment benefits for the purpose of intimidating, pressuring, or coercing any such individual not to exercise any right protected by State or Federal labor or employment law (including section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 157)), or for the purpose of retaliating against any such individual for having exercised or having stated an intention to exercise any such right.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(C) DISCRIMINATION BASED ON IMMIGRATION STATUS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer, except to the extent specifically authorized or required by law, to discriminate in any term or condition of employment against any individual employed by such employer on the basis of such individual�s immigration status.�; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) in subsection (c)(2), by adding at the end the following: �The Special Counsel shall not disclose to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, and shall not cause to be published in a manner that discloses to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, any information obtained by the Special Counsel in any manner concerning the immigration status of any individual who has filed a charge under this section, or the identity of any individual or entity that is a party or witness to a proceedings brought pursuant to such charge. The Secretary of Homeland Security may not rely, in whole or in part, in any enforcement action or removal proceeding, upon any information obtained as a result of the filing or prosecution of an unfair immigration-related employment practice charge. For purposes of this paragraph, the term �Special Counsel� includes individuals formerly appointed to the position of Special Counsel and any current or former employee of the office of the Special Counsel. Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits information to be used in violation of this paragraph shall be fined not more than $10,000.�.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 702. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TASK FORCE.
The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall conduct a national study of American workplaces to determine the causes, extent, circumstances, and consequences, of exploitation of undocumented alien workers by their employers. As part of this study, the Secretary of Labor shall create a plan for targeted review of Federal labor law enforcement in industries with a substantial immigrant workforce, for the purpose of identifying, monitoring, and deterring frequent or egregious violators of wage and hour, antidiscrimination, National Labor Relations Act, and workplace safety and health requirements. Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall submit to the Congress a report describing the results of the study and the Secretary�s recommendations based on the study.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 703. RECRUITMENT OF AMERICAN WORKERS.
Section 214 is amended--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) by redesignating subsections (m) (as added by section 105 of Public Law 106-313), (n) (as added by section 107(e) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1513(c) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1102(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act), and (p) (as added by section 1503(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act) as subsections (n), (o), (p), (q), and (r), respectively; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) by adding at the end the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(s)(1) No petition to accord employment status under the nonimmigrant classifications described in sections 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) and (H) shall be granted in the absence of an affidavit from the petitioner describing the efforts that were made to recruit an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence or a citizen of the United States before resorting to a petition to obtain a foreign employee. The recruitment efforts must have included substantial attempts to find employees in minority communities. Recruitment efforts in minority communities should include at least one of the following, if appropriate for the employment being advertised:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(A) Advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker in local newspapers in the labor market that is likely to be patronized by a potential worker for at least 5 consecutive days.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(B) Undertake efforts to advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker through advertisements in public transportation systems.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(C) To the extent permitted by local laws and regulations, engage in recruitment activities in secondary schools, recreation centers, community centers, and other places throughout the communities within 50 miles of the job site that serve minorities.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(2)(A) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a 10 percent surcharge on all fees collected for petitions to accord employment status and shall use these funds to establish an employment training program which will include unemployed workers in the United States who need to be trained or retrained. The purpose of this program shall be to increase the number of lawful permanent residents and citizens of the United States who are available for employment in the occupations that are the subjects of such petitions. At least 50 percent of the funds generated by this provision must be used to train American workers in rural and inner-city areas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall reserve and make available to the Secretary of Labor a portion of the funds collected under this paragraph. Such funds shall be used by the Secretary of Labor to establish an �Office to Preserve American Jobs� within the Department of Labor. The purpose of this office shall be to establish policies intended to ensure that employers in the United States will hire available workers in the United States before resorting to foreign labor, giving substantial emphasis to hiring minority workers in the United States.�.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 1403. NONIMMIGRANT CATEGORY FOR FASHION MODELS.
(a) Elimination of H-1B Classification for Fashion Models- Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)) is amended--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) by striking �or as a fashion model�; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) by striking �or, in the case of a fashion model, is of distinguished merit and ability�.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) New Classification- Section 101(a)(15)(O) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(O)) is amended--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) in clause (iii), by striking �clause (i) or (ii)� and inserting �clause (i), (ii), or (iii)� and by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv); andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) by inserting after clause (ii) the following new clause:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(iii) is a fashion model who is of distinguished merit and ability and who is seeking to enter the United States temporarily to perform fashion modeling services that involve events or productions which have a distinguished reputation or that are performed for an organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation for, or a record of, utilizing prominent modeling talent; or�.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(c) Effective Date and Implementation-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h264/show
This bill is ending H1B for sure, but how will people get EB when there is no h1B or H1B renewal to wait for EB.
Please add your views about this bill.
Also, is there a IL chapter for IV?
Below is the text
TITLE VII--EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRATIONCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 701. UNFAIR IMMIGRATION-RELATED EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES.
Section 274B (8 U.S.C. 1324b) is amended--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) in subsection (a)(5)--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(A) by amending the paragraph heading to read �Prohibition of Intimidation, Retaliation, or Unlawful Discrimination in Employment�;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(B) by moving the text down and to the right 2 ems;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(C) by inserting before such text the following: �(A) IN GENERAL- �; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(D) by adding at the end the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(B) FEDERAL LABOR OR EMPLOYMENT LAWS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer to directly or indirectly threaten any individual with removal or any other adverse consequences pertaining to that individual�s immigration status or employment benefits for the purpose of intimidating, pressuring, or coercing any such individual not to exercise any right protected by State or Federal labor or employment law (including section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 157)), or for the purpose of retaliating against any such individual for having exercised or having stated an intention to exercise any such right.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(C) DISCRIMINATION BASED ON IMMIGRATION STATUS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer, except to the extent specifically authorized or required by law, to discriminate in any term or condition of employment against any individual employed by such employer on the basis of such individual�s immigration status.�; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) in subsection (c)(2), by adding at the end the following: �The Special Counsel shall not disclose to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, and shall not cause to be published in a manner that discloses to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, any information obtained by the Special Counsel in any manner concerning the immigration status of any individual who has filed a charge under this section, or the identity of any individual or entity that is a party or witness to a proceedings brought pursuant to such charge. The Secretary of Homeland Security may not rely, in whole or in part, in any enforcement action or removal proceeding, upon any information obtained as a result of the filing or prosecution of an unfair immigration-related employment practice charge. For purposes of this paragraph, the term �Special Counsel� includes individuals formerly appointed to the position of Special Counsel and any current or former employee of the office of the Special Counsel. Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits information to be used in violation of this paragraph shall be fined not more than $10,000.�.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 702. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TASK FORCE.
The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall conduct a national study of American workplaces to determine the causes, extent, circumstances, and consequences, of exploitation of undocumented alien workers by their employers. As part of this study, the Secretary of Labor shall create a plan for targeted review of Federal labor law enforcement in industries with a substantial immigrant workforce, for the purpose of identifying, monitoring, and deterring frequent or egregious violators of wage and hour, antidiscrimination, National Labor Relations Act, and workplace safety and health requirements. Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall submit to the Congress a report describing the results of the study and the Secretary�s recommendations based on the study.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 703. RECRUITMENT OF AMERICAN WORKERS.
Section 214 is amended--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) by redesignating subsections (m) (as added by section 105 of Public Law 106-313), (n) (as added by section 107(e) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1513(c) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1102(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act), and (p) (as added by section 1503(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act) as subsections (n), (o), (p), (q), and (r), respectively; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) by adding at the end the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(s)(1) No petition to accord employment status under the nonimmigrant classifications described in sections 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) and (H) shall be granted in the absence of an affidavit from the petitioner describing the efforts that were made to recruit an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence or a citizen of the United States before resorting to a petition to obtain a foreign employee. The recruitment efforts must have included substantial attempts to find employees in minority communities. Recruitment efforts in minority communities should include at least one of the following, if appropriate for the employment being advertised:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(A) Advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker in local newspapers in the labor market that is likely to be patronized by a potential worker for at least 5 consecutive days.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(B) Undertake efforts to advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker through advertisements in public transportation systems.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(C) To the extent permitted by local laws and regulations, engage in recruitment activities in secondary schools, recreation centers, community centers, and other places throughout the communities within 50 miles of the job site that serve minorities.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(2)(A) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a 10 percent surcharge on all fees collected for petitions to accord employment status and shall use these funds to establish an employment training program which will include unemployed workers in the United States who need to be trained or retrained. The purpose of this program shall be to increase the number of lawful permanent residents and citizens of the United States who are available for employment in the occupations that are the subjects of such petitions. At least 50 percent of the funds generated by this provision must be used to train American workers in rural and inner-city areas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall reserve and make available to the Secretary of Labor a portion of the funds collected under this paragraph. Such funds shall be used by the Secretary of Labor to establish an �Office to Preserve American Jobs� within the Department of Labor. The purpose of this office shall be to establish policies intended to ensure that employers in the United States will hire available workers in the United States before resorting to foreign labor, giving substantial emphasis to hiring minority workers in the United States.�.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 1403. NONIMMIGRANT CATEGORY FOR FASHION MODELS.
(a) Elimination of H-1B Classification for Fashion Models- Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)) is amended--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) by striking �or as a fashion model�; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) by striking �or, in the case of a fashion model, is of distinguished merit and ability�.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) New Classification- Section 101(a)(15)(O) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(O)) is amended--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) in clause (iii), by striking �clause (i) or (ii)� and inserting �clause (i), (ii), or (iii)� and by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv); andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) by inserting after clause (ii) the following new clause:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
�(iii) is a fashion model who is of distinguished merit and ability and who is seeking to enter the United States temporarily to perform fashion modeling services that involve events or productions which have a distinguished reputation or that are performed for an organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation for, or a record of, utilizing prominent modeling talent; or�.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(c) Effective Date and Implementation-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h264/show
This bill is ending H1B for sure, but how will people get EB when there is no h1B or H1B renewal to wait for EB.
Please add your views about this bill.
Also, is there a IL chapter for IV?
stucklabor
07-24 10:15 PM
.. there should definitely be some policy interpretation at the discretion of the USCIS
1) The law does not explicitly state that the visa number availability is a pre-requisite for filing the application
2) If you are interpreting it based on the words ....
"an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed"
Then according to 245(a)(2)....
"the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and "
....concurrent filing of I-140/I-485 should also be illegal because at the time of filing I-140 there is no determination of whether the alien is eligible to recieve the EB visa. If so how can USCIS allow filing of I-485 at that time.
Dude/Dudette, I give up. The alien's eligibility and admissibility is decided at I-485 stage - FBI name checks, medical tests ring a bell? The law explicitly states that visa number availabililty is a pre-requisite for the adjustment of status application in 245(a)(3). If you can't understand - or choose to refuse to understand - plain English, have fun arguing with yourself.
1) The law does not explicitly state that the visa number availability is a pre-requisite for filing the application
2) If you are interpreting it based on the words ....
"an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed"
Then according to 245(a)(2)....
"the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and "
....concurrent filing of I-140/I-485 should also be illegal because at the time of filing I-140 there is no determination of whether the alien is eligible to recieve the EB visa. If so how can USCIS allow filing of I-485 at that time.
Dude/Dudette, I give up. The alien's eligibility and admissibility is decided at I-485 stage - FBI name checks, medical tests ring a bell? The law explicitly states that visa number availabililty is a pre-requisite for the adjustment of status application in 245(a)(3). If you can't understand - or choose to refuse to understand - plain English, have fun arguing with yourself.
2011 Texture black felt, perfect
rayoflight
05-26 11:54 PM
Here is the link on CNN on the new rules being implemented..
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/05/26/canada.passport.requirement/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/05/26/canada.passport.requirement/index.html
more...
msp1976
04-10 03:14 PM
Can apply through company A...
nixstor
07-04 08:56 PM
Excellent analysis but it does have flaws
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
more...
chanduv23
09-28 05:18 PM
I have met a British guy here in New York who was like that. He loved the money, and always smiled to me for the money. But he never even want to lift a finger for the money he has been paid to do. And he despised me and was ashamed of having to talk to me because he was surrounded by some Southerners who were equally racist.
In fact, he even scammed me for money. And he was a businessman and now a CEO of a corporation.
This is a regular practice. This happens to everyone in their daily life. People tend to be nice to u and smile when you are paying money, but after that they let you know that they hate you for what you are.
In fact, he even scammed me for money. And he was a businessman and now a CEO of a corporation.
This is a regular practice. This happens to everyone in their daily life. People tend to be nice to u and smile when you are paying money, but after that they let you know that they hate you for what you are.
2010 leather texture black
crazyghoda
01-30 11:31 AM
Hello all,
A few days ago I started a thread where laid off folks can post their qualifications and people who know of job openings can let them know.
Unfortunately, yesterday I received an email saying that an RFE was raised about my 485. My PD is Sept 2005 in EB3. WTH is my case being processed now? I saw in some other threads also that people with further off PDs are getting RFEs. Can someone shed some light on what the RFE may be about?
I used AC21 earlier last year after completing 180 days of filing 485 and got a new H1 approved. My 140 is approved and my previous employer has not revoked it. They only revoked the H1 and that too about 7 months ago. My new (now ex) employer hasnt revoked my H1 yet.
How long does it take for the RFE to come? I suppose it will goto my old company's lawyer though they are nice folks and will let me know.
A few days ago I started a thread where laid off folks can post their qualifications and people who know of job openings can let them know.
Unfortunately, yesterday I received an email saying that an RFE was raised about my 485. My PD is Sept 2005 in EB3. WTH is my case being processed now? I saw in some other threads also that people with further off PDs are getting RFEs. Can someone shed some light on what the RFE may be about?
I used AC21 earlier last year after completing 180 days of filing 485 and got a new H1 approved. My 140 is approved and my previous employer has not revoked it. They only revoked the H1 and that too about 7 months ago. My new (now ex) employer hasnt revoked my H1 yet.
How long does it take for the RFE to come? I suppose it will goto my old company's lawyer though they are nice folks and will let me know.
more...
delhiguy
07-04 08:03 PM
Excellent
I agree with you 100 % , I believe having excessive media coverage and lawsuits , would bring the GC number and process in the open , and most americans would oppose the GC as they oppose H1B.
If i was a american i would surely be happy with USCIS/DOS creating so much trouble for the immigrants to my country , who i believe are taking my job.
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. Former INS or current USCIS�s functions and operations were not questionable and not known to public till ombudsman office was established. Ombudsman has helped customers and keep helping to improve efficiency of CIS. Ombudsman main concern (or goal) have been over the 4 years are
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The �documentarily qualified 485 applications� mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made �current� for all EB categories. This is how they determine �current� or �over-subscribed� and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered �Current.�
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be �oversubscribed� and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories �current� for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories �current� ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of �current� there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making �current� for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as �current� in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
I agree with you 100 % , I believe having excessive media coverage and lawsuits , would bring the GC number and process in the open , and most americans would oppose the GC as they oppose H1B.
If i was a american i would surely be happy with USCIS/DOS creating so much trouble for the immigrants to my country , who i believe are taking my job.
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. Former INS or current USCIS�s functions and operations were not questionable and not known to public till ombudsman office was established. Ombudsman has helped customers and keep helping to improve efficiency of CIS. Ombudsman main concern (or goal) have been over the 4 years are
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The �documentarily qualified 485 applications� mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made �current� for all EB categories. This is how they determine �current� or �over-subscribed� and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered �Current.�
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be �oversubscribed� and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories �current� for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories �current� ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of �current� there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making �current� for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as �current� in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
hair +grey+ackground+texture
vgayalu
10-05 01:02 PM
Just today mine and Spouse cases ( I 485) got approved after RFE ( RFE response reached to USCIS on Sep 30).
Still waiting for my kids approval.
Good luck to each and every one.
Still waiting for my kids approval.
Good luck to each and every one.
more...
tonyHK12
02-17 09:57 AM
Newsletters - will help reach out to wider public. The desi groceries, movie distributors, restaurants send emails and coupons, toysrus, best buy , etc... send emails, coupons, so many organizations do it and I think IV must do it to.
This is a nice idea, maybe bi-weekly or monthly. No one has an advocacy oriented one and we can take the lead in this. As usual I agree to volunteer for this one. We can get inputs from core/Senior members and the ones meeting law makers.
This is a nice idea, maybe bi-weekly or monthly. No one has an advocacy oriented one and we can take the lead in this. As usual I agree to volunteer for this one. We can get inputs from core/Senior members and the ones meeting law makers.
hot BLACK CARBON FIBER WALLPAPER
webr
07-12 07:09 PM
cut-off dates are equal for both India & china. Does that mean that both are going to jump in August bulletin? Hope they move it further to atleast Dec 2006.
Stop being selfish first , you will get automatically then.... You wanted to move dates , since your PD Is Dec 2006 ... There are tons waiting after your dates. Just consider others.
Stop being selfish first , you will get automatically then.... You wanted to move dates , since your PD Is Dec 2006 ... There are tons waiting after your dates. Just consider others.
more...
house Texture and Background
Tito_ortiz
02-28 01:04 PM
Unfortunately, Obama is not changing much. The mortgage bailout is just a show. Almost irrelevant.
What a lovely change. Every time Obama and his press Secy opens their mouth, markets dive into red. In this country Main Street and Wall Street are in bed with each other :-)
Obama with his sense-less economic policies, trying to separate Main Street from Wall street. Government needs to seriously lure the investors to the market , cut capital gains and taxes, take off protectionist hats and recover the economy. Then Obama can go with his socialist/populist agenda but certainly this is not the right time.:D
What a lovely change. Every time Obama and his press Secy opens their mouth, markets dive into red. In this country Main Street and Wall Street are in bed with each other :-)
Obama with his sense-less economic policies, trying to separate Main Street from Wall street. Government needs to seriously lure the investors to the market , cut capital gains and taxes, take off protectionist hats and recover the economy. Then Obama can go with his socialist/populist agenda but certainly this is not the right time.:D
tattoo We will increase the lacks of
needhelp!
09-26 11:31 AM
Re: http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/25/smbusiness/h1b_cap.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2007092606
The article referenced above written by you has a glaring error. It states that "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.
The demonstrators said that potential employees-who are needed in growing fields such as engineering and software development-are being shut out because of a lack of H-1B visas. "
I was under the impression that esteemed reporters like yourself research the facts in detail before providing such statements. That does not seem to have been the case here.
I was one of the participants in the rally held on September 18th by Immigration Voice (www.immigrationvoice.org). I flew from Dallas, TX to press for reform to the green card process which is taking anywhere between 6-12 years to process permanent residency applications. This is VERY different than H1-B which is a temporary visa.
As a participant of this rally, I am utterly disappointed to read that you and the CNN organization have completely misrepresented the purpose of my protest, thereby undermining the whole effort.
Kindly contact info@immigrationvoice.org and Immigration Voice should be able to provide you with the detailed facts about the purpose of the protest. I urge you to fix the article as soon as possible and issue a correction.
The article referenced above written by you has a glaring error. It states that "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.
The demonstrators said that potential employees-who are needed in growing fields such as engineering and software development-are being shut out because of a lack of H-1B visas. "
I was under the impression that esteemed reporters like yourself research the facts in detail before providing such statements. That does not seem to have been the case here.
I was one of the participants in the rally held on September 18th by Immigration Voice (www.immigrationvoice.org). I flew from Dallas, TX to press for reform to the green card process which is taking anywhere between 6-12 years to process permanent residency applications. This is VERY different than H1-B which is a temporary visa.
As a participant of this rally, I am utterly disappointed to read that you and the CNN organization have completely misrepresented the purpose of my protest, thereby undermining the whole effort.
Kindly contact info@immigrationvoice.org and Immigration Voice should be able to provide you with the detailed facts about the purpose of the protest. I urge you to fix the article as soon as possible and issue a correction.
more...
pictures Grey+ackground+textures
ajthakur
07-14 05:47 PM
Should I send a AC21 letter to USCIS along with my new employment letter?
Who is the best attorney for such cases?
Is it possible that my prevous employer hasn't revoked 140? How can I know that? I have received RFE after one year after filing the case. Is there any way I can know the date when my previous employer did revoke the 140 ( in case he did)?
ajthakur,
Your best bet if USCIS let you do the AC-21 switching and use the employment letter from the new EMployer who is sponsoring your H1B visa, if u dont respond to this RFE they may very well deny your I-485, remember the I-485 is dependent for at least 180 days on the underlying I-140 petition filed by the GC sponsoring employer, after 180 days you are free to take new job position in the similar field with same salary mentioned in your approved LC or salary greater than the one on aprroved LC.
Hope this helps...I am not an attorney, but thought my few cents might help you.
Who is the best attorney for such cases?
Is it possible that my prevous employer hasn't revoked 140? How can I know that? I have received RFE after one year after filing the case. Is there any way I can know the date when my previous employer did revoke the 140 ( in case he did)?
ajthakur,
Your best bet if USCIS let you do the AC-21 switching and use the employment letter from the new EMployer who is sponsoring your H1B visa, if u dont respond to this RFE they may very well deny your I-485, remember the I-485 is dependent for at least 180 days on the underlying I-140 petition filed by the GC sponsoring employer, after 180 days you are free to take new job position in the similar field with same salary mentioned in your approved LC or salary greater than the one on aprroved LC.
Hope this helps...I am not an attorney, but thought my few cents might help you.
dresses Black Ribbed Knit Fabric
pj1
03-24 12:11 PM
Hi,
I am on an L1B visa which is valid till 2013.I want to know different options available if i wish to get an H1B visa.
Thanks
I am on an L1B visa which is valid till 2013.I want to know different options available if i wish to get an H1B visa.
Thanks
more...
makeup ackground rock
optimystic
03-17 07:48 PM
"Eb3 India PD of May 2001"---optimystic
You should have got GC by now right??
Yes, I should have !! Its been a loooong Journey.
I was stuck in backlog till Dec 06.
Got I-140 approved in Jan 07.
Then due to the lazy As*****s at the immigration firm that our company hires, who should have applied my I-485 in June 07 itself when my PD became current, but kept on procrastinating until got hit by July 2 fiasco. They didn't even were prepared to file on July 2nd nor on July 17 (though they had all papers from my end).
Finally they applied I-485 on July 29th. (recpt dt: July 30th 07)
Now my PD is current again in March and April...so finally I am getting somewhere near (hopefully)
So first the backlog screwed me , then the attorneys, then the July 2 fiasco (making everything 'U' and then making everthing 'c' thus causing this whole another backlog again! )
Anyway no hard feelings towards people benifitted by July 2 fiasco and who atleast got EADs. I hope I dont have to wait much longer :)
You should have got GC by now right??
Yes, I should have !! Its been a loooong Journey.
I was stuck in backlog till Dec 06.
Got I-140 approved in Jan 07.
Then due to the lazy As*****s at the immigration firm that our company hires, who should have applied my I-485 in June 07 itself when my PD became current, but kept on procrastinating until got hit by July 2 fiasco. They didn't even were prepared to file on July 2nd nor on July 17 (though they had all papers from my end).
Finally they applied I-485 on July 29th. (recpt dt: July 30th 07)
Now my PD is current again in March and April...so finally I am getting somewhere near (hopefully)
So first the backlog screwed me , then the attorneys, then the July 2 fiasco (making everything 'U' and then making everthing 'c' thus causing this whole another backlog again! )
Anyway no hard feelings towards people benifitted by July 2 fiasco and who atleast got EADs. I hope I dont have to wait much longer :)
girlfriend Gritty+ackground+texture
ash123
02-12 04:04 PM
We have to wake-up before same continue while EAD/AP renewal
hairstyles Summary lack and white
ashkam
07-24 10:06 AM
"a letter on the letterhead of the petitioning employer which confirms that the job on which the visa petition is based is still available to you"
That's the offer letter.
That's the offer letter.
sunnymit
08-02 03:34 PM
At times we forget who we really are - Immigrants. Of course when the going gets tough, we will be the first ones to get hit. Why is that even under question? Do we expect any country to first worry about immigrants and then worry about its own citizens? I don't think so... We don't have the same rights as citizens or even GC holders, rightfully so. There are times when we will be discriminated against in the most polished way possible. For e.g. the President while giving out the TARP money to the banks mentioned that any banks receiving the loan can't hire any foreign worker (I don't remember the exact verbiage but it was something on these lines). Did people on H1s or other temporary work permits not pay taxes that consituted a portion (however small) of the TARP money handed out to the banks and car companies? So what? Some people complain about paying SS tax while they are not even eligible to receive any benefits unless they get GCs/Citizenships etc. So what?Now, all of these points can be argued in multiple ways but the bottom line is that us immigrants do have a lot of boundaries that we need to work within. Some of them are just, others aren't. Honestly, we are lucky that the govt hasn't come out with a rule yet that will send all the H1-Bs and other temporary work permit workers packing till the economy is back on its feet again. Guess what, we will all be angry about it when it happens to us, but the moment this coutnry opens the doors again to immigrants, we will be standing in the line right outisde the US embassy for new stamp.
Why am I saying all this - just to put things in perspective. As someone rightfully said earlier, filing for your GC process is an incentive by the company just like giving out a bonus - even that has a more certainity than GC. The company can anytime decide not to fulfill its obligations towards you if its not in its best interest.
Please believe me when I say that I am not writing this to lecture anyone about the realities of life. I have gone through the thick and thin of the immigration process just like all of you. I have spent countless hours thinking "agar aisa hoga, to phir kaisa hoga" (sounds filmy, I know) but its true. IMO, the sooner we understand the realities, the less painful it becomes for us...
Why am I saying all this - just to put things in perspective. As someone rightfully said earlier, filing for your GC process is an incentive by the company just like giving out a bonus - even that has a more certainity than GC. The company can anytime decide not to fulfill its obligations towards you if its not in its best interest.
Please believe me when I say that I am not writing this to lecture anyone about the realities of life. I have gone through the thick and thin of the immigration process just like all of you. I have spent countless hours thinking "agar aisa hoga, to phir kaisa hoga" (sounds filmy, I know) but its true. IMO, the sooner we understand the realities, the less painful it becomes for us...
pointlesswait
03-11 11:04 PM
kelaaaaaa....re kela..
No comments:
Post a Comment