kshitijnt
03-10 05:22 PM
Well PDs have to move forward. Else USCIS will have to approve EADs and APs for 2 years thus reducing their revenue. Cant see how USCIS will manage its budget given that they are funded by immigrants unless they want to move their personnel to ICE to deport people.
But once most of the immigrants are deported, I wonder what will these guy do :-d
But once most of the immigrants are deported, I wonder what will these guy do :-d
wallpaper Free Spring Flower Wreath Clip
GCKaMaara
03-12 12:01 PM
I was been a donor in the past. But since then I noticed all this and have written several emails to IV asking them to convert IV access to paid donors only otherwise freeloaders like you are eating my lunch.
So now only paid people get access to information. Why don't you start contributing now?
I am not on any side and seriously want atleast the bashing stopped. But don't want some piece of jerk doing this for sake of passing time. I would consider Ron Hira a better candidate to counter bashing. He is paid (thats what it shows on his status as "donor").
More, I sincerely don't believe that paid employee of competitor can do this. 2 reasons:
1. By any kind of conversation, site gets more traffic. Thats exactly competitors don't want.
2. This could lead to serious legal issue and opposites can lose their shirts.
I think the people on opposite sites are some old finger burnt people from IV itself like Kumar. Think what Kumar will do if he is banned from IV today for harsh bashing!
So now only paid people get access to information. Why don't you start contributing now?
I am not on any side and seriously want atleast the bashing stopped. But don't want some piece of jerk doing this for sake of passing time. I would consider Ron Hira a better candidate to counter bashing. He is paid (thats what it shows on his status as "donor").
More, I sincerely don't believe that paid employee of competitor can do this. 2 reasons:
1. By any kind of conversation, site gets more traffic. Thats exactly competitors don't want.
2. This could lead to serious legal issue and opposites can lose their shirts.
I think the people on opposite sites are some old finger burnt people from IV itself like Kumar. Think what Kumar will do if he is banned from IV today for harsh bashing!
nomi
12-11 02:48 PM
Since this has always been pushed through legilative means (S.1932), there might be a hurdle involved in using "Rulemaking" approach to this solution, nevertheless this idea should atleast be explored. Here is how rulemaking procedures work in Govt Agency: (Adding Flexibility is something that can be done through Rulemaking).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rulemaking
Adding flexibility. More detailed regulations allow for more nuanced approaches to various conditions than a single legislative standard could. Moreover, regulations tend to be more easily changed as new data or technologies emerge.
I think we should study that how does USCIS make new rule without going into Congress and then see how can we implement this rule or atleast ask them to consider this option.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rulemaking
Adding flexibility. More detailed regulations allow for more nuanced approaches to various conditions than a single legislative standard could. Moreover, regulations tend to be more easily changed as new data or technologies emerge.
I think we should study that how does USCIS make new rule without going into Congress and then see how can we implement this rule or atleast ask them to consider this option.
2011 Spring Flowers Pink Clip Art
bigboy007
06-30 06:54 AM
Good question are u talking about G325A i dont know whether this is the right way but what i did is filled up another form with rest of details in table col as you might need to do this 4 times as they need four copies of same form , dont copy it though as bottom left no.s differ , may be others can suggest a better approach?
more...
GSB
09-19 12:13 PM
The rally was very well organized and I am glad that I flew down from CA to attend. On the flight back I was watching Lou Dobbs on CNN and they used a clipping from our rally and did a whole piece on illegal immigration without even mentioning the rally!! That is so typical of the media.
lacrossegc
07-11 02:20 PM
My details:
Case # D-05175-8nnnn
PD : 13th January, 2003
SWA: WI/Non-RIR/EB3
Never made to Regional
45 Day Letter Recd & Replied: 05/2/06
Job Posted on AJB: 04/12/07
RI Received: 04/17/07
Recruitment Period: 04/27/2007-05/28/2007
Recruitment docs submitted: 06/28/2007
BEC Online Status: In-Process
Case # D-05175-8nnnn
PD : 13th January, 2003
SWA: WI/Non-RIR/EB3
Never made to Regional
45 Day Letter Recd & Replied: 05/2/06
Job Posted on AJB: 04/12/07
RI Received: 04/17/07
Recruitment Period: 04/27/2007-05/28/2007
Recruitment docs submitted: 06/28/2007
BEC Online Status: In-Process
more...
sc3
10-16 06:05 PM
What happened to your sense of judgment, whoever said that USCIS is doing it maliciously? They reacted for sure but within legal boundaries. I do not understand why you keep twisted people’s answers.
I havent twisted anyone's answers. When you (and others) say "reacted" you mean that they are intentionally shafting you in some way. Do you dispute that? Why is the very first response to this idea something to the tune of "..and see the cutoff go back to ice ages". It clearly shows that people are saying USCIS will "revolt" against you (not necessarily in as many words).
That is exactly I am saying, I am asking why should it be this way, this is totally wrong. They should go by PD. Even if my application was not moved to another centre mine still would not have gotten approved because I applied in Aug and not July. I mentioned that to tell you that I have to wait even more now.
Now if you ask me why I applied in Aug and not in Jul, it is because my family was not in US at that time. If you had told me beforehand about the impending fiasco I wouldn’t have sent them in the first place. I had to call them back and cancel my trip spending hundreds of $s.
Why is it not sustainable, now you are defending something that is wrong, why should I have to wait though my GC was started ages before?
Let's see here; I don't need to know why you did not apply earlier, that is your personal matter. But answer me this.
I have a PD of late 2002 (EB3), and haven't been able to apply due to personal reasons. Now when the PD becomes current. I apply and the following bulletin further advances the PD. Do you think that I should be given preference over someone who had no personal obligations and applied in 2007, that is to say, should the entire system be ground to a halt because I am a late filer?
Now put yourself in the earlier RD's applicant? What will be your answer? Do you think someone who delays for personal reason be given a free pass just because he has an earlier PD??
I know you dont want to hear it, but the current system of RD based processing is a good system. Your grouse probably is that they advanced the PDs so much further when there was enough demand from earlier PDs. If you argue on that premise, I will be very supportive. But I am insensitive to "I have an earlier PD, so I should get my GC first".
PD has its place in the system, however it does not play a role in processing order.
Just because I said USCIS is doing something wrong (not following processing order..) doesn’t mean I said that DOS did something right.. you keep assuming things..
You were blaming USCIS for the Perm/BEC debacle, I did not assume anything you haven't already said.
Again you are running your imagination wild, who blamed all the other things on USCIS?..
I guess your computer has a bug, it is not showing the winkies and the smiles properly. Get a technician to look at it.
Dude, show me one post of mine which said anything against the idea. I even gave a green for what he is trying to do, at least he is doing something while the rest of us are watching….
I was responding to "bec", and you ended up debating the issue by supporting the idea that USCIS retaliated because of the July 07. I guess that makes it fair play for people to assume that you are against the original idea. I you consider it to be overreaching to make such connection, I apologize for that.
I havent twisted anyone's answers. When you (and others) say "reacted" you mean that they are intentionally shafting you in some way. Do you dispute that? Why is the very first response to this idea something to the tune of "..and see the cutoff go back to ice ages". It clearly shows that people are saying USCIS will "revolt" against you (not necessarily in as many words).
That is exactly I am saying, I am asking why should it be this way, this is totally wrong. They should go by PD. Even if my application was not moved to another centre mine still would not have gotten approved because I applied in Aug and not July. I mentioned that to tell you that I have to wait even more now.
Now if you ask me why I applied in Aug and not in Jul, it is because my family was not in US at that time. If you had told me beforehand about the impending fiasco I wouldn’t have sent them in the first place. I had to call them back and cancel my trip spending hundreds of $s.
Why is it not sustainable, now you are defending something that is wrong, why should I have to wait though my GC was started ages before?
Let's see here; I don't need to know why you did not apply earlier, that is your personal matter. But answer me this.
I have a PD of late 2002 (EB3), and haven't been able to apply due to personal reasons. Now when the PD becomes current. I apply and the following bulletin further advances the PD. Do you think that I should be given preference over someone who had no personal obligations and applied in 2007, that is to say, should the entire system be ground to a halt because I am a late filer?
Now put yourself in the earlier RD's applicant? What will be your answer? Do you think someone who delays for personal reason be given a free pass just because he has an earlier PD??
I know you dont want to hear it, but the current system of RD based processing is a good system. Your grouse probably is that they advanced the PDs so much further when there was enough demand from earlier PDs. If you argue on that premise, I will be very supportive. But I am insensitive to "I have an earlier PD, so I should get my GC first".
PD has its place in the system, however it does not play a role in processing order.
Just because I said USCIS is doing something wrong (not following processing order..) doesn’t mean I said that DOS did something right.. you keep assuming things..
You were blaming USCIS for the Perm/BEC debacle, I did not assume anything you haven't already said.
Again you are running your imagination wild, who blamed all the other things on USCIS?..
I guess your computer has a bug, it is not showing the winkies and the smiles properly. Get a technician to look at it.
Dude, show me one post of mine which said anything against the idea. I even gave a green for what he is trying to do, at least he is doing something while the rest of us are watching….
I was responding to "bec", and you ended up debating the issue by supporting the idea that USCIS retaliated because of the July 07. I guess that makes it fair play for people to assume that you are against the original idea. I you consider it to be overreaching to make such connection, I apologize for that.
2010 Clipart PNG - Spring Flowers
Rb_newsletter
04-09 06:39 PM
i don't..... becoz i' not in sarah palin brigade of mindless freaks who have to find someone to blame others for the sake of it..... we live in a complicated world..... just becoz we applied with uscis..... & just becoz they've to approve applications..... it doesn't mean
backlogs & delays is uscis fault..... the least amongst us can easily figure out that the problem is with the congress, not with cis.....
y the hell do u blame cis...... r they not allocating 140K per year..... what more do u want from them....... oh well...... for the sarah palin brigade on this forum i'm now an outcast.....
- the problem is with the congress, not with cis
Congress did not ask USCIS/DOS to subtract dependent visa numbers from 140K. If USCIS/DOS excludes dependent numbers from 140k, congress cannot question that because law doesn't mandate to include the dependent numbers in 140K.
-y the hell do u blame cis...... r they not allocating 140K per year
If USCIS/DOS doesn't agree to change their administration policy to exclude dependent visas from 140K after seeing our backlog, then who else do we have to blame.
Yes they are allocating 140K per year. But to who? In my view to the same applicant; one for primary applicant, another for his spouse, another for his kid, ....
Most of us here are 'keyboard ninjas'. Only very few contribute in actions and that contribution is hidden under donor forums. Without awareness of the good things happening, these keyboard-ninjas are not going to contribute in actions.
We all understand that blaming is not going to help anyone. But what else to do.
backlogs & delays is uscis fault..... the least amongst us can easily figure out that the problem is with the congress, not with cis.....
y the hell do u blame cis...... r they not allocating 140K per year..... what more do u want from them....... oh well...... for the sarah palin brigade on this forum i'm now an outcast.....
- the problem is with the congress, not with cis
Congress did not ask USCIS/DOS to subtract dependent visa numbers from 140K. If USCIS/DOS excludes dependent numbers from 140k, congress cannot question that because law doesn't mandate to include the dependent numbers in 140K.
-y the hell do u blame cis...... r they not allocating 140K per year
If USCIS/DOS doesn't agree to change their administration policy to exclude dependent visas from 140K after seeing our backlog, then who else do we have to blame.
Yes they are allocating 140K per year. But to who? In my view to the same applicant; one for primary applicant, another for his spouse, another for his kid, ....
Most of us here are 'keyboard ninjas'. Only very few contribute in actions and that contribution is hidden under donor forums. Without awareness of the good things happening, these keyboard-ninjas are not going to contribute in actions.
We all understand that blaming is not going to help anyone. But what else to do.
more...
Windy
09-19 11:41 AM
I was there in the rally with few other friends. Some friends have already got their greencards. Still, they were there to support the good cause.
Whenever I meet people in this area (especially Indians), they complain of not being able to switch jobs and the delay in green card and so on. There are thousands of greencards seekers in VA and MD area. I didn't see any of these folks who complained. They probably thought that someone else is anyway going to fight it out and they can sit back and enjoy the results without making any effort. It was a shameful thing that they did. Had these folks from VA and MD joined, there would have been over 10,000 participants.
Still, the rally was a huge success and wants to thank IV for making this happen.
Whenever I meet people in this area (especially Indians), they complain of not being able to switch jobs and the delay in green card and so on. There are thousands of greencards seekers in VA and MD area. I didn't see any of these folks who complained. They probably thought that someone else is anyway going to fight it out and they can sit back and enjoy the results without making any effort. It was a shameful thing that they did. Had these folks from VA and MD joined, there would have been over 10,000 participants.
Still, the rally was a huge success and wants to thank IV for making this happen.
hair clipart pattern with floral
bidhanc
07-18 10:18 AM
Please explain Greg's comment,
"We presume some folks are still waiting on their July 2nd cases to be returned and are debating refiling new cases rather than waiting. Unfortunately, there is a risk of not getting the package back before August 17th and some people will need to refile without proof of the earlier filing."
Shouldn't any application rejected on July 2nd have already reached our lawyer's office by now?
Also, if my appliction, filled on July 2nd,reached 11:34 AM CST, has not been returned yet, shouldn't we assume that it will be accepted?
Is it not possible to re-submit the documents all over, even though USCIS might be holding on to our first applications of July 2nd?
What are the ramifications (if any) of doing this?
"We presume some folks are still waiting on their July 2nd cases to be returned and are debating refiling new cases rather than waiting. Unfortunately, there is a risk of not getting the package back before August 17th and some people will need to refile without proof of the earlier filing."
Shouldn't any application rejected on July 2nd have already reached our lawyer's office by now?
Also, if my appliction, filled on July 2nd,reached 11:34 AM CST, has not been returned yet, shouldn't we assume that it will be accepted?
Is it not possible to re-submit the documents all over, even though USCIS might be holding on to our first applications of July 2nd?
What are the ramifications (if any) of doing this?
more...
alex99
04-09 08:16 AM
Please Participate in this...
hot thank you flowers clip art.
deepakjain
06-08 06:32 PM
Do not abuse me...for this post.
2 of my friends have moved back to India after looking at EB2 date of JAN00....I think they took the wise decision....
Else let us work here thinking that we are in Saudi Arabia, work till the age of 58-65 and then move back to India letting our kids settled here.
2 of my friends have moved back to India after looking at EB2 date of JAN00....I think they took the wise decision....
Else let us work here thinking that we are in Saudi Arabia, work till the age of 58-65 and then move back to India letting our kids settled here.
more...
house spring flower clip art free.
BharatPremi
07-10 12:24 AM
That really makes Sense, I believe USCIS/DOS are smart agencies, and wont do those kind of silly mistakes.. No. all above numbers already includes CPs.. CP is not GOD sent different pious product :)
tattoo Spring Flowers Clip Art
Googler
02-21 07:49 PM
how about eb 3 priority date for philippines? mine is september 27,2005. any predictions?
Those who are asking about other categories: I just want to say I am not holding back any info, and I don't have any magical powers, so..;)
Those who are asking about other categories: I just want to say I am not holding back any info, and I don't have any magical powers, so..;)
more...
pictures spring flower clip art images.
sodh
07-25 02:51 PM
http://www.google.com/answers/threadview?id=559556
If an applicant for adjustment wishes to take a new job in the same
or similar occupational classification at the job that was the basis
of his or her employment-based I-140 AND the I-485 has been pending
180 days or more, the new employer may be substituted into the
existing I-485 application without disrupting the application at all.
This is accomplished very easily - NO new petition and no new fees.
Step 1: The applicant notifies INS of the change in intent by letter.
Step 2: The Service should then make a request for a letter of
employment from the new employer.
Voila! Done deal."
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2001,0705-Latour.shtm
This is not new but only Lawyers and the employers who filed your GC knows what position and job duties on which they applied your GC.
If an applicant for adjustment wishes to take a new job in the same
or similar occupational classification at the job that was the basis
of his or her employment-based I-140 AND the I-485 has been pending
180 days or more, the new employer may be substituted into the
existing I-485 application without disrupting the application at all.
This is accomplished very easily - NO new petition and no new fees.
Step 1: The applicant notifies INS of the change in intent by letter.
Step 2: The Service should then make a request for a letter of
employment from the new employer.
Voila! Done deal."
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2001,0705-Latour.shtm
This is not new but only Lawyers and the employers who filed your GC knows what position and job duties on which they applied your GC.
dresses Spring Flowers Purple Clip Art
alterego
07-14 09:37 PM
The fundamental rule (for getting GC) is the longterm intent of having permanent employment relationship between employer and employee at the time of filing 140 and 485 (see the Q&A). The intet has to be "at the time of filing" only. The employee has worked 3 years in H1B for thr sponser. It clearly establishes the both party's intent at the time of filing. So, even if the employer revokes his approved 140, he is 100% safe.
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as the poster above said the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as the poster above said the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
more...
makeup flowers clip art border
frostrated
09-09 04:20 PM
I have read so many posts in the past where senior members have clearly said that their is nothing possible for EB3 alone and if something is possible it would be for EB.
(as per calculator, I am going to get my GC in 2030) Would contribution of all EB3 help them in any way?
Contributing money will not help, but contributing time and effort will go a long way in alleviating the pain that IV members are going through.
Make it a point to talk to the senators and representatives. They will have meet and greets every now and then. Go to those meetings. Set up appointments with them. Educate them.
If not, there is not going to be any CIR, and all the money that you send to IV will be a donation to IV, and that is all it is to it.
(as per calculator, I am going to get my GC in 2030) Would contribution of all EB3 help them in any way?
Contributing money will not help, but contributing time and effort will go a long way in alleviating the pain that IV members are going through.
Make it a point to talk to the senators and representatives. They will have meet and greets every now and then. Go to those meetings. Set up appointments with them. Educate them.
If not, there is not going to be any CIR, and all the money that you send to IV will be a donation to IV, and that is all it is to it.
girlfriend spring flower clip art free.
ciber.couger
09-18 09:17 PM
I just mentioned this in preious thread, I totaly agree with you
hairstyles clipart spring flowers
rockstart
03-14 11:34 AM
EAD renewal delays will be on of the single issue on which I would defer AC-21 till I can find some one willing for an H1 transfer.
suresh.emails
01-18 11:12 AM
Well, this is NOT a cooked up story. This happened to me yesterday at Harlingen (HRL) Texas airport.
On January 16, 2008, I went to Mexico for H1-B visa stamping at Matamoras US consulate. I got my H1-B visa stamped and returned to Brownville, Texas.
On January 17, 2008, I was at Harlingen (HRL), Texas airport for my final destination.
One of the TSA security personnel�s is in process of verifying my ticket before proceeding to security check. As every one knows, we must present one of the government issued PHOTO-ID to them to clear the security check. I have shown my driver license and he has cleared the security check (name check).
I was about to proceed further for security screening; mean while, a Police Officer came to me and asked me following questions.
Sir, are you a US citizen?
I said, No
Then, he asked me, can I see your immigration documents.
I have shown my passport to the police officer.
He looked at H1-B visa and I-94 and asked me; who do you work for?
I said my employer�s name.
Later, he gave me my passport back.
Now,
I have asked the Police Officer few questions
1. Sir, I�m in domestic traveling, is it mandatory to carry my immigration documents at all times?
Police Officer said, as per the US LAW, all non-immigrants must carry immigration documents and passport at all times.
2. What would you have done to me, if I had failed to present my passport?
Police office said, I could have DEPORTED you.
3. Sir, it is not possible for any one to carry passport at all times. Could the LAW allow me to carry photo copies of my passport and immigrations documents?
Police office said, No. Technically, you must carry original documents at all times.
I would advice you to carry Passport at all times.
I did not know this until Police Officer told me about this LAW.
P.S: BTW, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) level is in �ORGANE�.
On January 16, 2008, I went to Mexico for H1-B visa stamping at Matamoras US consulate. I got my H1-B visa stamped and returned to Brownville, Texas.
On January 17, 2008, I was at Harlingen (HRL), Texas airport for my final destination.
One of the TSA security personnel�s is in process of verifying my ticket before proceeding to security check. As every one knows, we must present one of the government issued PHOTO-ID to them to clear the security check. I have shown my driver license and he has cleared the security check (name check).
I was about to proceed further for security screening; mean while, a Police Officer came to me and asked me following questions.
Sir, are you a US citizen?
I said, No
Then, he asked me, can I see your immigration documents.
I have shown my passport to the police officer.
He looked at H1-B visa and I-94 and asked me; who do you work for?
I said my employer�s name.
Later, he gave me my passport back.
Now,
I have asked the Police Officer few questions
1. Sir, I�m in domestic traveling, is it mandatory to carry my immigration documents at all times?
Police Officer said, as per the US LAW, all non-immigrants must carry immigration documents and passport at all times.
2. What would you have done to me, if I had failed to present my passport?
Police office said, I could have DEPORTED you.
3. Sir, it is not possible for any one to carry passport at all times. Could the LAW allow me to carry photo copies of my passport and immigrations documents?
Police office said, No. Technically, you must carry original documents at all times.
I would advice you to carry Passport at all times.
I did not know this until Police Officer told me about this LAW.
P.S: BTW, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) level is in �ORGANE�.
gc_lover
07-18 09:54 AM
I checked with somebody who has hired Rajiv Khanna as his lawyer. He said that those who had filed in July are fine and there is no need to re-file it.
I am still waiting to hear from my lawyer though.
I am still waiting to hear from my lawyer though.
No comments:
Post a Comment