Lasantha
03-07 10:26 AM
Is it true that in some cases after you file for AC21, CIS would send a RFE for the financial details of the new company (to stablish that the new company can pay you - company tax details).
I think I heard this on the last IV attorney conference call with Attorney Prashanti. So if that's is true, what if the company does not want to send this kind of confidential information to a third party attorney (your attorney)?
Or if the company is a big one they may not want to help you with these details at all. You know, they may not want to be bothered with that sort of hassle.
Have any of you heard of a case where CIS asked for ability to pay supporting information for AC21?
I think I heard this on the last IV attorney conference call with Attorney Prashanti. So if that's is true, what if the company does not want to send this kind of confidential information to a third party attorney (your attorney)?
Or if the company is a big one they may not want to help you with these details at all. You know, they may not want to be bothered with that sort of hassle.
Have any of you heard of a case where CIS asked for ability to pay supporting information for AC21?
wallpaper steve jobs bill gates meme.
swissgear
09-14 02:46 PM
Well, I have not received RFE mail yet. I have changed my employer because our division was sold to Canadian firm and they moved everything to Montreal.
After changing my employer (in June), I applied for EAD/AP and both got approved within 3-4 weeks w/o any issues/RFE.
I have not filed for AC21 and used EAD to switch job. I think my previous employer might have notified USCIS about H1B case (as I had valid H1B too). Again as per attorney, it takes months if not year for USCIS to work on such notifications.
I had travelled to India last year July and came on AP as I could not get H1B stamp in India. The US consulate took more than few months to approve the my application and by that time I had already come to US on AP as suggested by my employer's attoteny.
As far as I know, most likely your RFE would be related to EVL, if you didn't receive it earlier. Also, if you changed state, and working on H1 or EAD, they are sending in a standard RFE like to describe location discrepancy and letter from Employer to state that they still support your GC as per the Labor and 140 application. Hope this helps!!! Good Luck!!!
After changing my employer (in June), I applied for EAD/AP and both got approved within 3-4 weeks w/o any issues/RFE.
I have not filed for AC21 and used EAD to switch job. I think my previous employer might have notified USCIS about H1B case (as I had valid H1B too). Again as per attorney, it takes months if not year for USCIS to work on such notifications.
I had travelled to India last year July and came on AP as I could not get H1B stamp in India. The US consulate took more than few months to approve the my application and by that time I had already come to US on AP as suggested by my employer's attoteny.
As far as I know, most likely your RFE would be related to EVL, if you didn't receive it earlier. Also, if you changed state, and working on H1 or EAD, they are sending in a standard RFE like to describe location discrepancy and letter from Employer to state that they still support your GC as per the Labor and 140 application. Hope this helps!!! Good Luck!!!
Googler
02-20 02:54 PM
I'd posted elsewhere about my Feb 13, 2008 conversation with the DOS official who sets cutoff dates:
And then there this piece of info from Ron Gotcher posted on Feb 14, 2008
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285
"Last night, at a meeting of the American Immigration Lawyer's Assocation Southern California chapter, Charles Oppenheim spoke. Mr. Oppenheim is the officer within the Visa Office tasked with calculating visa bulletin cutoff dates each month. He offered the following thoughts as to cutoff date movement in the upcoming months:
In April, India and China EB2 will be set at 12/01/2003
EB3 for India and China will slow down for the rest of the fiscal year."
I am riveted by this because I spoke to Oppenheim just the day before this meeting (he referred to it). This was the conversation in which he told me that at present EB-2 India would only get numbers leftover from EB-1 India -- the problem is he doesn't know either exactly how many EB-2 India adjudicated applications there are in any specific PD range -- so every month he makes wild guesses, with the intent of using up visas. So I guess at least as of 2/14/08 he thought moving the date to 12/1/03 would more than mop up whatever was leftover from EB-1 India. Given the end of the FBI boondoggle (the effects of which have not been quantified by Oppenheim or USCIS) I'd predict that even a date in early 2002 would be good enough to mop up. Let us see if he changes his mind by mid March.
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
And then there this piece of info from Ron Gotcher posted on Feb 14, 2008
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285
"Last night, at a meeting of the American Immigration Lawyer's Assocation Southern California chapter, Charles Oppenheim spoke. Mr. Oppenheim is the officer within the Visa Office tasked with calculating visa bulletin cutoff dates each month. He offered the following thoughts as to cutoff date movement in the upcoming months:
In April, India and China EB2 will be set at 12/01/2003
EB3 for India and China will slow down for the rest of the fiscal year."
I am riveted by this because I spoke to Oppenheim just the day before this meeting (he referred to it). This was the conversation in which he told me that at present EB-2 India would only get numbers leftover from EB-1 India -- the problem is he doesn't know either exactly how many EB-2 India adjudicated applications there are in any specific PD range -- so every month he makes wild guesses, with the intent of using up visas. So I guess at least as of 2/14/08 he thought moving the date to 12/1/03 would more than mop up whatever was leftover from EB-1 India. Given the end of the FBI boondoggle (the effects of which have not been quantified by Oppenheim or USCIS) I'd predict that even a date in early 2002 would be good enough to mop up. Let us see if he changes his mind by mid March.
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
2011 Steve+jobs+ill+gates+
vin
06-12 02:06 PM
I don't think they're considering the Cantwell amendment. The only amendments being considered are as below. Go to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280993,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280993,00.html)for complete article
Proposed Resolution to the Standoff
One of the proposals to overcome the impasse is to offer a limited list of Republican-sought amendments that could be considered before a final vote on the measure.
Bill supporters say, for now, their strategy is to get a list of proposed amendments from the authors of the border security letter � Sens. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, David Vitter of Louisiana, Jim Bunning of Kentucky, Charles Grassley of Iowa, John Ensign of Nevada and Jeff Sessions of Alabama.
�The details of exactly how we get from where we are now to the finish line is not something we�re prepared to announce today but I do think this bill is about 80 or 85 percent of the way through toward the finish line and we don�t have any interest in giving up on it,� Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said after meeting with the president.
Proposed Resolution to the Standoff
One of the proposals to overcome the impasse is to offer a limited list of Republican-sought amendments that could be considered before a final vote on the measure.
Bill supporters say, for now, their strategy is to get a list of proposed amendments from the authors of the border security letter � Sens. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, David Vitter of Louisiana, Jim Bunning of Kentucky, Charles Grassley of Iowa, John Ensign of Nevada and Jeff Sessions of Alabama.
�The details of exactly how we get from where we are now to the finish line is not something we�re prepared to announce today but I do think this bill is about 80 or 85 percent of the way through toward the finish line and we don�t have any interest in giving up on it,� Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said after meeting with the president.
more...
pappu
07-01 10:22 PM
Info on the lawsuit by AILA:
==============
USCIS VISA BULLETIN/
VISA AVAILABILTY LAWSUIT
Frequently Asked Questions about Participating in this Lawsuit
AILF is considering filing a lawsuit in federal district court against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) over its rejection of otherwise properly filed adjustment of status applications for the alleged reason that a visa was not available, even though the Visa Bulletin from the Department of State (DOS) states that a visa was available at the time of filing.
Any foreign national who is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status and whose adjustment of status application has been or will be returned or rejected solely on this basis may be eligible to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit. If you are considering being a participant in this lawsuit, you may find the following frequently asked questions and answers helpful.
Q: What is AILF?
A: The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of immigrants and refugees and to securing fair and just application and administration of the U.S. immigration laws. In order to achieve these goals, AILF sometimes files lawsuits involving various aspects of immigration law.
Q: What is this lawsuit about?
A: This lawsuit will be filed by plaintiffs who have been harmed because USCIS rejected or returned or is expected to reject or return a properly submitted adjustment of status application for the alleged reason that no visa was immediately available even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that a visa was available at that time.
To be eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, a foreign national must show that a visa number is “immediately available.” USCIS regulations state that the DOS Visa Bulletin is used to determine whether a visa number is immediately available. This Bulletin is published once a month and lists the visa availability dates for all categories of immigrants for the following month. Thus, for example, the July 2007 bulletin, listing visa availability dates for the entire month of July, was published in June 2007.
AILF has learned that USCIS has refused to allow certain adjustment of status applications to be filed even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that visa numbers are available for the immigrant category at that time. USCIS rejected these applications because DOS informed it in an internal communication that no visa numbers remained for that category of immigrants. To date, this has happened only in the employment-based “other worker” category. We anticipate that it may happen in a number of other types of employment-based immigrant categories beginning in July 2007.
We believe USCIS violated the law when it failed to apply the visa availability dates listed in the Visa Bulletin, as required by a federal regulation, and instead rejected properly filed adjustment applications. Through this lawsuit, we will challenge the rejection of adjustment of status applications on this basis. We will ask the court to order USCIS to accept the rejected adjustment applications and treat them as being filed as of the date they originally would have been filed had USCIS not rejected them.
Q: What is a “plaintiff” and how do I know if I am eligible to be a “plaintiff” in this lawsuit?
A: A plaintiff is a person who files a lawsuit against someone else. We are still determining the categories of plaintiffs but an eligible plaintiff for this lawsuit may include:
[other worker category]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in the “other worker” category for receipt by USCIS in June 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
[other employment-based categories]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in any employment-based category other than “other worker” for receipt by USCIS in July 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
Q: Why should I be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
2
A: If the lawsuit is successful, USCIS should accept your adjustment application and treat it as if it had been filed as of the date that you originally tried to file it. Because your adjustment application will then be considered to be pending before the agency, you may be eligible for interim benefits, including an employment authorization document, advance parole, and others.
What the lawsuit will not do is make a visa number immediately available to you if none is available. If the visa numbers have in fact been used for the current fiscal year, the court does not have the authority under the law to make a new number available to you. However, if the court orders that USCIS accept your adjustment application as of the date that you originally tried to file it, you will be at an earlier place in line when visa numbers become available again in the next fiscal year, October 1, 2007. Additionally, as mentioned, you may be eligible for interim benefits while you are waiting.
Q: What is likely to happen because of the suit?
A: Lawsuits are uncertain by nature. We cannot predict the exact outcome. However, other efforts to resolve these problems with USCIS have not succeeded. For this reason, we believe that a lawsuit is the only remaining possible way to resolve these problems.
Q: Will being a plaintiff in this lawsuit hurt my chances for permanent residence?
A: If an individual is otherwise legally entitled to have an application granted, the government cannot lawfully deny that application on the basis that the person is participating or participated in a lawsuit. If we believed the government was taking such action, we would complain to the lawyers representing the government and to the judge handling the case. In our experience, this retaliation has not happened.
Please be aware, though, that USCIS is likely to examine plaintiffs’ adjustment of status applications more closely than it otherwise might. It may ask the plaintiffs questions and ask for additional information about their adjustment applications or immigration status. See below regarding “discovery.”
Q: How much time must plaintiffs spend on this lawsuit?
A: Plaintiffs will have to provide us with the information and documentation we need in order to prepare the lawsuit. AILF will do most of the work in the lawsuit on paper. Depending on how the case proceeds, the government and its attorneys may want to ask the plaintiffs some questions about their case, either through written questions and answers or in person. This is called “discovery.” One type of discovery is a “deposition,” which is an interview where parties are asked questions about their cases.
Depositions are possible but not common in this type of case. In the event that discovery and/or depositions were required, an AILF attorney or an attorney working with us would assist plaintiffs to comply with any discovery requests, and would appear with plaintiffs at any deposition at no charge (see below). At a later stage, a plaintiff may be required to be present at
3
a hearing or a trial and possibly be asked to testify about their particular case, but this is quite rare.
Q: Will it cost me anything to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: AILF and any co-counsel will not charge any attorney’s fees for representing individuals in this lawsuit. AILF and any co-counsel also will pay the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuit, such as filing fees, copying, long distance calls, travel expenses for AILF attorneys and staff, depositions, transcripts, etc. In the unlikely event that an individual should be required to be present at a deposition, hearing or a trial, we may ask that he/she pay their own travel and lodging expenses, if any. Those expenses would be reimbursed if the lawsuit is successful and we recover costs.
Q: Will anyone know that I am a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: Lawsuits are public information, and are available as a public court document. Many courts now have lawsuits and other documents available electronically, accessible via the internet. Also, USCIS will, of course, know the identity of the plaintiffs. We also will discuss plaintiffs’ cases with any other lawyers working with us on the lawsuit. It also is possible that the media – newspapers, radio, or TV reporters – will see the court documents and decide to do a story on the lawsuit.
Q: What should I do if I am eligible and interested in being a plaintiff in the lawsuit?
A: Please quickly submit the Questionnaire for Potential Plaintiffs and send us the documents requested. If you do not have the Questionnaire, please send an email to visabulletin@ailf.org, and we will send it to you. You may also fax a request to AILF LAC at (202) 742-5619. Please indicate this is a question about the visa bulletin litigation.
If you have any questions that are not answered by this FAQ or the questionnaire, please send them to visabulletin@ailf.org or fax to (202) 742-65619, and we will respond. Thank you!
===============
==============
USCIS VISA BULLETIN/
VISA AVAILABILTY LAWSUIT
Frequently Asked Questions about Participating in this Lawsuit
AILF is considering filing a lawsuit in federal district court against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) over its rejection of otherwise properly filed adjustment of status applications for the alleged reason that a visa was not available, even though the Visa Bulletin from the Department of State (DOS) states that a visa was available at the time of filing.
Any foreign national who is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status and whose adjustment of status application has been or will be returned or rejected solely on this basis may be eligible to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit. If you are considering being a participant in this lawsuit, you may find the following frequently asked questions and answers helpful.
Q: What is AILF?
A: The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of immigrants and refugees and to securing fair and just application and administration of the U.S. immigration laws. In order to achieve these goals, AILF sometimes files lawsuits involving various aspects of immigration law.
Q: What is this lawsuit about?
A: This lawsuit will be filed by plaintiffs who have been harmed because USCIS rejected or returned or is expected to reject or return a properly submitted adjustment of status application for the alleged reason that no visa was immediately available even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that a visa was available at that time.
To be eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, a foreign national must show that a visa number is “immediately available.” USCIS regulations state that the DOS Visa Bulletin is used to determine whether a visa number is immediately available. This Bulletin is published once a month and lists the visa availability dates for all categories of immigrants for the following month. Thus, for example, the July 2007 bulletin, listing visa availability dates for the entire month of July, was published in June 2007.
AILF has learned that USCIS has refused to allow certain adjustment of status applications to be filed even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that visa numbers are available for the immigrant category at that time. USCIS rejected these applications because DOS informed it in an internal communication that no visa numbers remained for that category of immigrants. To date, this has happened only in the employment-based “other worker” category. We anticipate that it may happen in a number of other types of employment-based immigrant categories beginning in July 2007.
We believe USCIS violated the law when it failed to apply the visa availability dates listed in the Visa Bulletin, as required by a federal regulation, and instead rejected properly filed adjustment applications. Through this lawsuit, we will challenge the rejection of adjustment of status applications on this basis. We will ask the court to order USCIS to accept the rejected adjustment applications and treat them as being filed as of the date they originally would have been filed had USCIS not rejected them.
Q: What is a “plaintiff” and how do I know if I am eligible to be a “plaintiff” in this lawsuit?
A: A plaintiff is a person who files a lawsuit against someone else. We are still determining the categories of plaintiffs but an eligible plaintiff for this lawsuit may include:
[other worker category]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in the “other worker” category for receipt by USCIS in June 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
[other employment-based categories]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in any employment-based category other than “other worker” for receipt by USCIS in July 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
Q: Why should I be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
2
A: If the lawsuit is successful, USCIS should accept your adjustment application and treat it as if it had been filed as of the date that you originally tried to file it. Because your adjustment application will then be considered to be pending before the agency, you may be eligible for interim benefits, including an employment authorization document, advance parole, and others.
What the lawsuit will not do is make a visa number immediately available to you if none is available. If the visa numbers have in fact been used for the current fiscal year, the court does not have the authority under the law to make a new number available to you. However, if the court orders that USCIS accept your adjustment application as of the date that you originally tried to file it, you will be at an earlier place in line when visa numbers become available again in the next fiscal year, October 1, 2007. Additionally, as mentioned, you may be eligible for interim benefits while you are waiting.
Q: What is likely to happen because of the suit?
A: Lawsuits are uncertain by nature. We cannot predict the exact outcome. However, other efforts to resolve these problems with USCIS have not succeeded. For this reason, we believe that a lawsuit is the only remaining possible way to resolve these problems.
Q: Will being a plaintiff in this lawsuit hurt my chances for permanent residence?
A: If an individual is otherwise legally entitled to have an application granted, the government cannot lawfully deny that application on the basis that the person is participating or participated in a lawsuit. If we believed the government was taking such action, we would complain to the lawyers representing the government and to the judge handling the case. In our experience, this retaliation has not happened.
Please be aware, though, that USCIS is likely to examine plaintiffs’ adjustment of status applications more closely than it otherwise might. It may ask the plaintiffs questions and ask for additional information about their adjustment applications or immigration status. See below regarding “discovery.”
Q: How much time must plaintiffs spend on this lawsuit?
A: Plaintiffs will have to provide us with the information and documentation we need in order to prepare the lawsuit. AILF will do most of the work in the lawsuit on paper. Depending on how the case proceeds, the government and its attorneys may want to ask the plaintiffs some questions about their case, either through written questions and answers or in person. This is called “discovery.” One type of discovery is a “deposition,” which is an interview where parties are asked questions about their cases.
Depositions are possible but not common in this type of case. In the event that discovery and/or depositions were required, an AILF attorney or an attorney working with us would assist plaintiffs to comply with any discovery requests, and would appear with plaintiffs at any deposition at no charge (see below). At a later stage, a plaintiff may be required to be present at
3
a hearing or a trial and possibly be asked to testify about their particular case, but this is quite rare.
Q: Will it cost me anything to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: AILF and any co-counsel will not charge any attorney’s fees for representing individuals in this lawsuit. AILF and any co-counsel also will pay the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuit, such as filing fees, copying, long distance calls, travel expenses for AILF attorneys and staff, depositions, transcripts, etc. In the unlikely event that an individual should be required to be present at a deposition, hearing or a trial, we may ask that he/she pay their own travel and lodging expenses, if any. Those expenses would be reimbursed if the lawsuit is successful and we recover costs.
Q: Will anyone know that I am a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: Lawsuits are public information, and are available as a public court document. Many courts now have lawsuits and other documents available electronically, accessible via the internet. Also, USCIS will, of course, know the identity of the plaintiffs. We also will discuss plaintiffs’ cases with any other lawyers working with us on the lawsuit. It also is possible that the media – newspapers, radio, or TV reporters – will see the court documents and decide to do a story on the lawsuit.
Q: What should I do if I am eligible and interested in being a plaintiff in the lawsuit?
A: Please quickly submit the Questionnaire for Potential Plaintiffs and send us the documents requested. If you do not have the Questionnaire, please send an email to visabulletin@ailf.org, and we will send it to you. You may also fax a request to AILF LAC at (202) 742-5619. Please indicate this is a question about the visa bulletin litigation.
If you have any questions that are not answered by this FAQ or the questionnaire, please send them to visabulletin@ailf.org or fax to (202) 742-65619, and we will respond. Thank you!
===============
Slumdog
01-22 06:29 PM
As mentioned posted new thread. here you go.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=23267
Happy Reading..
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=23267
Happy Reading..
more...
kumarc123
10-19 02:28 PM
Just imagine the cowardice of these people!. Online forums already have sufficient anonymity that you dont have to reveal your true name. Despite that people hide behind comment system to give reds (and tell things like "you suck" and what not). I hope the admins shut down this misused feature. Or make the system non-anonymous so that we can drag out these people and take up their comments in open forum.
Hello there,
I cant less concur to what you jsut said, if someone has something to say and critique , they can very well post their response or send a private message.
Anyways the focus is the campaign. Have we decided on what and when we should do this flower campaign?
I request all IV members, to please unite and do something, we all need to be mobile and create more awareness.
Have we all forgotten how much publicity we got in 2007? lets all wait till the election day is over and the right candidate is elected.
Then we should plan a rally.
I am lucky, because I work hard. We all can be lucky as well, all we need to do is, work hard on these rally's. A flower campaign, a rally and maybe someone earlier suggested the EB community should take one day off work and attend that rally. This way, they will understand our Importance
Hello there,
I cant less concur to what you jsut said, if someone has something to say and critique , they can very well post their response or send a private message.
Anyways the focus is the campaign. Have we decided on what and when we should do this flower campaign?
I request all IV members, to please unite and do something, we all need to be mobile and create more awareness.
Have we all forgotten how much publicity we got in 2007? lets all wait till the election day is over and the right candidate is elected.
Then we should plan a rally.
I am lucky, because I work hard. We all can be lucky as well, all we need to do is, work hard on these rally's. A flower campaign, a rally and maybe someone earlier suggested the EB community should take one day off work and attend that rally. This way, they will understand our Importance
2010 Steve Jobs and Bill Gates (How
psaxena
05-26 07:10 PM
I lost you there. Being silent and possibly getting arrested is protesting in a legal manner ? Why would you do that ? There are numerous other means of doing it.
Being within 100 miles of the border ITSELF is grounds for being asked the question about your immigration status as per that law. There need not be additional suspicious activity.
Do not get me wrong, I fully agree with you on how bad it is to be subjected to such trauma. Suggesting being silent at the cost of being arrested is what bothered me from your post.
I am not sure if they asking me to step out for further questioning or even taking me to a police station would be consiered an arrest. i mean i don't think the event will be recordded in my history/profile in such a way that anyone reviewing my history will say "eb3_sep04 was arrested in NH in May 2009 for ....". I think detention is not same as arrrest, i view detention is something like cops requiring anyone wait reseonably longer (> an hour or so). they wouldn't handcuff me for not saying a word. Again these are just my thoughts, i am not an expert on those jargens.
I am sure you are not going to be silent and also going to act like a puppet when the border patrol will ask you. I have seen the similar case, when I was travelling back from india this fellow was ahead of me in the line at POE , his photo from the passport fall off and when he went to the officer and the officer asked what is this.. he was talking like a shivering cat. After interrogating him for an hour or so, he was let go.
Luckily he was sitting next to me in the connecting flight, and now he was telling me the story in a totally different way. " I told the officer what can I do if the photo from the passport fall off".
"I am waiting , but make sure that I get my connecting flight I got a very important meeting"... blah blah..
I was laughing out loud in my heart.. Its quite interesting to see these kind of personalities.
So I know what you gonna do , next time when you meet the border patrol. Accept the fact that we are middle class , god and immigration fearing creatures, who definitely have a lot of anger and aggression towards these laws and discrimination but cannot do anything about it and Also we like the life style and show off to the relatives in the India, that you are smart and rich NRI, are the reasons, we are not leaving this country despite of all these things.
Good to know all this so while travelling just be prepared.. but I dun see a reason for making this coversation of 10 pages thread.
Well I am gonna get more reds.. but I dun care.
Being within 100 miles of the border ITSELF is grounds for being asked the question about your immigration status as per that law. There need not be additional suspicious activity.
Do not get me wrong, I fully agree with you on how bad it is to be subjected to such trauma. Suggesting being silent at the cost of being arrested is what bothered me from your post.
I am not sure if they asking me to step out for further questioning or even taking me to a police station would be consiered an arrest. i mean i don't think the event will be recordded in my history/profile in such a way that anyone reviewing my history will say "eb3_sep04 was arrested in NH in May 2009 for ....". I think detention is not same as arrrest, i view detention is something like cops requiring anyone wait reseonably longer (> an hour or so). they wouldn't handcuff me for not saying a word. Again these are just my thoughts, i am not an expert on those jargens.
I am sure you are not going to be silent and also going to act like a puppet when the border patrol will ask you. I have seen the similar case, when I was travelling back from india this fellow was ahead of me in the line at POE , his photo from the passport fall off and when he went to the officer and the officer asked what is this.. he was talking like a shivering cat. After interrogating him for an hour or so, he was let go.
Luckily he was sitting next to me in the connecting flight, and now he was telling me the story in a totally different way. " I told the officer what can I do if the photo from the passport fall off".
"I am waiting , but make sure that I get my connecting flight I got a very important meeting"... blah blah..
I was laughing out loud in my heart.. Its quite interesting to see these kind of personalities.
So I know what you gonna do , next time when you meet the border patrol. Accept the fact that we are middle class , god and immigration fearing creatures, who definitely have a lot of anger and aggression towards these laws and discrimination but cannot do anything about it and Also we like the life style and show off to the relatives in the India, that you are smart and rich NRI, are the reasons, we are not leaving this country despite of all these things.
Good to know all this so while travelling just be prepared.. but I dun see a reason for making this coversation of 10 pages thread.
Well I am gonna get more reds.. but I dun care.
more...
desi3933
02-10 12:22 PM
I believed we get atleast 7% (cap) + any unused numbers. As there is a possiblilty of getting more than 7%, it is not considered a quota.
I did not know of getting less than 7% when there is high demand. :confused:
>> I believed we get at least 7% (cap) + any unused numbers.
Two things -
1. Since EB3 Row is not current, eb-3 India will not get any unused numbers.
2. 7% is the country-cap, and this is not quota. In other words, no more than 7%.
On a practical note, since there is high demand for immigrant visa numbers for eb-3 India category, the visa allocation should be close to 7%.
In short, 7% is just a maximum cap, not the minimum quota.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
I did not know of getting less than 7% when there is high demand. :confused:
>> I believed we get at least 7% (cap) + any unused numbers.
Two things -
1. Since EB3 Row is not current, eb-3 India will not get any unused numbers.
2. 7% is the country-cap, and this is not quota. In other words, no more than 7%.
On a practical note, since there is high demand for immigrant visa numbers for eb-3 India category, the visa allocation should be close to 7%.
In short, 7% is just a maximum cap, not the minimum quota.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
hair Steve: quot;Bill was much better
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...
zerozerozeven
03-09 12:17 PM
let the waiting start for the May bulletin....
hot Steve Jobs vs Bill Gates
feedfront
10-21 01:26 PM
Hi Guys
At last today is my day.. online status changed to "Card Production Order" :)
Hope every one will get soon.
Thanks
onemorecame
Congrats dude, I had told you to hang in there and you would hear something in a week or two.
At last today is my day.. online status changed to "Card Production Order" :)
Hope every one will get soon.
Thanks
onemorecame
Congrats dude, I had told you to hang in there and you would hear something in a week or two.
more...
house 2010 steve jobs bill gates
malaGCPahije
12-10 03:57 PM
Do some population control in India and China, that would automatically fix the issue of retrogression. We are simply too many and we have clogged the system real bad. every 6th person on the face of this earth is Indian.
every 4'th person on this earth is a chinese. The obvious conclusion given the 2 facts (6'th person as Indian and 4'th as Chinese) is that every 4'th person on this earth is a chinese, every 6'th person an Indian and every 12'th person is an Indian Chinese :-).
I know, bad joke...The only thing we can do is support IV, and I mean financially more so than anything else.
every 4'th person on this earth is a chinese. The obvious conclusion given the 2 facts (6'th person as Indian and 4'th as Chinese) is that every 4'th person on this earth is a chinese, every 6'th person an Indian and every 12'th person is an Indian Chinese :-).
I know, bad joke...The only thing we can do is support IV, and I mean financially more so than anything else.
tattoo Jobs Talks To Gates About
greyhair
02-12 01:56 PM
This whole thread is about what Ron Gotcher published. I didn't start this thread. I am only contributing my view that based on available information some things make sense and some dont. The things that do make some sense is wastage of visa numbers in 2010. We have some facts to support the "theory" but not enough.
What doesn't make sense is Ron's assertion that USCIS wasted 13K EB visas in 2009. Facts simply don't support that.
Does this help? (Again this is my view... don't want to push it onto others)
I disagree. This thread is not about some immigration lawyer. This thread is about visa numbers wasted due to USCIS inefficiency. That's what the title of the thread says. Why do I or anybody else care about some immigration lawyer? Why is he/she relevant if its specifically proven with facts that there is no wastage of visa number. You continue to advertise the name of the immigration lawyer. The reason I say this is because in my experience immigration lawyers comment on these issues as if they have direct access to USCIS Director or god. Even after disproving the visa wastage theory with facts you still continue to over analyze immigration body shop instead of discussing the issue. I am just wondering, why would you that? Are you that immigration lawyer or employee of his law firm? Just curious.
What doesn't make sense is Ron's assertion that USCIS wasted 13K EB visas in 2009. Facts simply don't support that.
Does this help? (Again this is my view... don't want to push it onto others)
I disagree. This thread is not about some immigration lawyer. This thread is about visa numbers wasted due to USCIS inefficiency. That's what the title of the thread says. Why do I or anybody else care about some immigration lawyer? Why is he/she relevant if its specifically proven with facts that there is no wastage of visa number. You continue to advertise the name of the immigration lawyer. The reason I say this is because in my experience immigration lawyers comment on these issues as if they have direct access to USCIS Director or god. Even after disproving the visa wastage theory with facts you still continue to over analyze immigration body shop instead of discussing the issue. I am just wondering, why would you that? Are you that immigration lawyer or employee of his law firm? Just curious.
more...
pictures Steve Jobs et Bill Gates a
MDix
02-08 03:42 PM
There is always chance of waste of visas, but i guess CIS is doing ok job from last two years.
dresses Steve Jobs vs Bill Gates
DianaSteve
10-29 05:36 PM
Sept 2001
EB3 India
LC approved April 2007
I-140 Pending
I-485 Pending
EB3 India
LC approved April 2007
I-140 Pending
I-485 Pending
more...
makeup Bill Gates and Steve Jobs
acecupid
05-26 04:49 PM
While on the way back from White Mountains in NH, our car was stopped on I-93 south by the US border patrol. They were stopping every single vehicle to question. They had over a dozen Govt vehicles with 40-50 people in uniform. My buddy was driving.
Officer : Sir what is your status in the US ?
Buddy: I am on L1 visa
I: H1B
buddy's wife: L2
my wife: H4
officer: is anyone US citizen ?
I: my son is (he was sitting in the car seat)
Officer: (to my buddy) Is your visa still valid ?
Buddy: yes
officer: do you have documents to prove your status?
buddy: i have some papers in my bag which in the the trunk
officer: can you show me?
(buddy got out showed him tax papers and answered some questions)
officer: did they not tell you you are supposed to carry your papers while travelling?
buddy: I came over a year ago so i don't remember
officer: I am letting you go, but i could have fined you $2000; $500 for each pasenger with no papers.
I was so pissed off by this experience, clearly they are doing this to harrase immigrants. theoratically even if I am going for a walk i am supposed to carry immigration papers because a border patrol officer, in theory, could asks me for my papers ?
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/immigration_Border_flyer.pdf
I have decided that if anyone ask me such a stupid question again inside the US and i am just going to remain silent even if that means they detain me for some time.
I think they let you off easy... sometimes they hassle immigrants a lot. I had one such experience close to the canadian border in northern minnesota. My friends and myself were asked to step out of the car at gun point and the whole car was searched inside out like a bomb squad. They detained us for 3 hrs since some of our papers were back in the hotel and couple of my friends had left their papers back home in wisconsin. They escorted us to the hotel, me driving the car and my friends locked up in the border security vehicle behind me. They checked my passport at the hotel and let my friends off with a strict warning.
Officer : Sir what is your status in the US ?
Buddy: I am on L1 visa
I: H1B
buddy's wife: L2
my wife: H4
officer: is anyone US citizen ?
I: my son is (he was sitting in the car seat)
Officer: (to my buddy) Is your visa still valid ?
Buddy: yes
officer: do you have documents to prove your status?
buddy: i have some papers in my bag which in the the trunk
officer: can you show me?
(buddy got out showed him tax papers and answered some questions)
officer: did they not tell you you are supposed to carry your papers while travelling?
buddy: I came over a year ago so i don't remember
officer: I am letting you go, but i could have fined you $2000; $500 for each pasenger with no papers.
I was so pissed off by this experience, clearly they are doing this to harrase immigrants. theoratically even if I am going for a walk i am supposed to carry immigration papers because a border patrol officer, in theory, could asks me for my papers ?
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/immigration_Border_flyer.pdf
I have decided that if anyone ask me such a stupid question again inside the US and i am just going to remain silent even if that means they detain me for some time.
I think they let you off easy... sometimes they hassle immigrants a lot. I had one such experience close to the canadian border in northern minnesota. My friends and myself were asked to step out of the car at gun point and the whole car was searched inside out like a bomb squad. They detained us for 3 hrs since some of our papers were back in the hotel and couple of my friends had left their papers back home in wisconsin. They escorted us to the hotel, me driving the car and my friends locked up in the border security vehicle behind me. They checked my passport at the hotel and let my friends off with a strict warning.
girlfriend Steve Jobs and Bill Gates
eb3retro
06-10 01:54 PM
may be they r special..
:D:D:D:D
You did not submit because it was ok for you. I know people who got RFE asking for employment proof.
:D:D:D:D
You did not submit because it was ok for you. I know people who got RFE asking for employment proof.
hairstyles steve jobs and ill gates
yabadaba
08-15 04:14 PM
i am squishing up a baby bumble bee ..wont my mommy be so proud of me...i m squishing up a baby bumble bee...ewww its yucky
optimystic
03-17 03:36 PM
What I am saying is spill over from ROW goes to EB2 first. It does not split to EB2 and EB3 evenly. So more people from EB2 gets visa granted and thus people who joined EB2 bandwagon from EB3 and had earlier PD, they get Visa quickly. Now generally this spillover does not go to EB3 from EB2 having high demand from EB2 and thus EB3 get stuck with conventional numbers with 7% country limit and thus EB3 numbers move slowly. But if that spillover happens for both EB3 and 2 equally than EB3 can also move little bit quickly which is not the case. Thus shortening the queue by switching over to EB2 does not give full advantage to remained lot of EB3.
Bottom line, people moving away from EB3 to EB2 queue does provide relief to people remaining in the EB3 queue. Since now there's 'x' less number of people competing for the 7% visa numbers.
Its a different matter that the spillover from ROW is going to benefit EB2 queue more than it does EB3. But that's a different point. And in fact, if EB2 starts moving faster because of this spill over, hopefully more Eb3 people jump ship to Eb2 queue . In that case the ROW spillover is indirectly going to help people who stay back in Eb3 queue.
As for myself, I have Eb3 India PD of May 2001, which is very close to the front of the queue. So none of this queue jumping or spillover will affect my status much :) . On the other hand the USCIS' ability to sanely act in a FIFO order does ! But thats impervious to any external factors :)
Bottom line, people moving away from EB3 to EB2 queue does provide relief to people remaining in the EB3 queue. Since now there's 'x' less number of people competing for the 7% visa numbers.
Its a different matter that the spillover from ROW is going to benefit EB2 queue more than it does EB3. But that's a different point. And in fact, if EB2 starts moving faster because of this spill over, hopefully more Eb3 people jump ship to Eb2 queue . In that case the ROW spillover is indirectly going to help people who stay back in Eb3 queue.
As for myself, I have Eb3 India PD of May 2001, which is very close to the front of the queue. So none of this queue jumping or spillover will affect my status much :) . On the other hand the USCIS' ability to sanely act in a FIFO order does ! But thats impervious to any external factors :)
gcobsessed
07-11 08:40 PM
I consider this movement of dates a ticket to enter a lucky draw. Whatever visa numbers remain to be used in last two months of the fiscal year is going to be allocated at random to people who have their PD current in this period. So, congratulations to whoever gets lucky.
Well, your luck might be influenced by a variety of reasons like when you sent your application, whether your 140 is already approved, is it a complicated case, pending RFEs, etc. Nevertheless, it still is good news that so many people are now eligible to participate in the draw...
Well, your luck might be influenced by a variety of reasons like when you sent your application, whether your 140 is already approved, is it a complicated case, pending RFEs, etc. Nevertheless, it still is good news that so many people are now eligible to participate in the draw...
No comments:
Post a Comment