bishwas123
03-14 05:34 PM
Hello everyone,
My LC was filed in Perm process and even got approved but the hard copy got lost in mail handling. Can I have another LC filed from the same company? Furthermore, can I reuse my first LC's postings-advertisements that the company does before filing the LC?
Please any suggestions would be greatly appreciated
Thank you.
My LC was filed in Perm process and even got approved but the hard copy got lost in mail handling. Can I have another LC filed from the same company? Furthermore, can I reuse my first LC's postings-advertisements that the company does before filing the LC?
Please any suggestions would be greatly appreciated
Thank you.
tp976
04-30 05:38 PM
thanks Jai. You are right, its probly all luck. BTW , which service center is your case pending at
krishna.ahd
02-23 04:46 PM
Can H4 dependent join college without changing his/her visa status to students visa.
Also what are the implecations for this on the green card process if one is waiting for the PD to be current.
Now the H1 and H4 are decoupled against 6 years limit , one can afford to remain in H4 , people used to get F1 (while on college) only to avoid 6 years limit on H4 , but there are other disadvantages to remain on H4
I dont think there should be any impact on GC process, consult your attorney
Also what are the implecations for this on the green card process if one is waiting for the PD to be current.
Now the H1 and H4 are decoupled against 6 years limit , one can afford to remain in H4 , people used to get F1 (while on college) only to avoid 6 years limit on H4 , but there are other disadvantages to remain on H4
I dont think there should be any impact on GC process, consult your attorney
LegalIndianInUSA
06-18 10:52 PM
yes it is the red colored number on the visa stamp
My visa stamp was issued in the US (revalidation locally), which they have now stopped.
The stamp says place of issue: "DEPARTMENT".
Is that sufficient to put on the 485 ?
My visa stamp was issued in the US (revalidation locally), which they have now stopped.
The stamp says place of issue: "DEPARTMENT".
Is that sufficient to put on the 485 ?
more...
h1techSlave
07-17 11:24 AM
It is difficult to arrive at hard numbers using these kinds of analysis.
For example you say "Supposed 30K unskilled (or low skilled) labor is added (which neither creates jobs nor are employed). Now if they are added, the rate becomes 330000/10030000 or ~ 3.3%".
In reality there are no such human being exist. When a person comes here, he/she does contribute to the society. The person may not be in any official pay roll, but he buys stuff, he does work (in the house at least), he consumes services etc. Now such behavior by the hypothetically low skilled person has a positive contribution to the economy. May be the person took care of the house hold chorus of a young family, enabling the mom to take a Masters in computer science. Fast forward two years, the couple starts a successful software company which employs dozens of Americans.
The story line that you give is the same argument that NumbersUSA gives, which is that an additional person is just a job stealer; but I disagree.
Hello All,
I want to start an interesting discussion - not sure whether a thread already exists or a similar discussion has already taken place.
We all know about the current state of the economy and current unfortunate unemployment rate. We all also know that majority jobs lost are in construction, manufacturing etc. We also know that some people (who have no other choice) are targetting legal EB community as if they are responsible for all this mess.
I want people to discuss the other things like DV Lottery, Chain Family Migration or any other popular programs from labor/unemployment point of view. Please no intent to discuss it from any other angle at all.
These forms of migration bring a lot of uneducated (or less educated), unskilled (or low skilled) population/labor into the country which contribute higher for the unemployment rate (for both numerator and denomenator - rate = # unemployed/# total).
example: suppose in a hypothetical community of 10000000, 300000 are unemployed. They have 3% of unemployement rate.
Supposed 30K unskilled (or low skilled) labor is added (which neither creates jobs nor are employed). Now if they are added, the rate becomes 330000/10030000 or ~ 3.3%
This can be bad example but it was just to put a point forward.
Are there any statistics (again?) available about the effect of DV, chain family migration or any such program in the last 10-15 years towards the unemployment rate today? A lot of unskilled (or low skilled) labor was added to the economy which was OK during upward economy but cannot sustain at all in down economy like this.
Thanks,
M.
For example you say "Supposed 30K unskilled (or low skilled) labor is added (which neither creates jobs nor are employed). Now if they are added, the rate becomes 330000/10030000 or ~ 3.3%".
In reality there are no such human being exist. When a person comes here, he/she does contribute to the society. The person may not be in any official pay roll, but he buys stuff, he does work (in the house at least), he consumes services etc. Now such behavior by the hypothetically low skilled person has a positive contribution to the economy. May be the person took care of the house hold chorus of a young family, enabling the mom to take a Masters in computer science. Fast forward two years, the couple starts a successful software company which employs dozens of Americans.
The story line that you give is the same argument that NumbersUSA gives, which is that an additional person is just a job stealer; but I disagree.
Hello All,
I want to start an interesting discussion - not sure whether a thread already exists or a similar discussion has already taken place.
We all know about the current state of the economy and current unfortunate unemployment rate. We all also know that majority jobs lost are in construction, manufacturing etc. We also know that some people (who have no other choice) are targetting legal EB community as if they are responsible for all this mess.
I want people to discuss the other things like DV Lottery, Chain Family Migration or any other popular programs from labor/unemployment point of view. Please no intent to discuss it from any other angle at all.
These forms of migration bring a lot of uneducated (or less educated), unskilled (or low skilled) population/labor into the country which contribute higher for the unemployment rate (for both numerator and denomenator - rate = # unemployed/# total).
example: suppose in a hypothetical community of 10000000, 300000 are unemployed. They have 3% of unemployement rate.
Supposed 30K unskilled (or low skilled) labor is added (which neither creates jobs nor are employed). Now if they are added, the rate becomes 330000/10030000 or ~ 3.3%
This can be bad example but it was just to put a point forward.
Are there any statistics (again?) available about the effect of DV, chain family migration or any such program in the last 10-15 years towards the unemployment rate today? A lot of unskilled (or low skilled) labor was added to the economy which was OK during upward economy but cannot sustain at all in down economy like this.
Thanks,
M.
stueym
07-08 04:21 PM
Wonderful support. Thank you. So far we have over 850 viewings and have been rated 76 times and 23 comments. That has managed to push us to #6 in the News and Politics stories of the day. This morning we overtook a Ron Paul story. If you have not had a chance to check the video out, please rate it by clicking on the stars or leave a comment as that will push our position even further.
Thank you once again. My son is beginning to get quite optimistic that CNN might just pick this one :-)
Thank you once again. My son is beginning to get quite optimistic that CNN might just pick this one :-)
more...
nixstor
10-30 04:30 PM
sss2000,
Most of the major airlines require 15000 to 25000 miles for flying inside the continental US. Thanks for digging through the threads and making an offer. Just make sure you use your skymiles number on delta and with delta's partners. If you are going out on an international trip that will get you there faster. Their credit cards offer 20,000 bonus miles initially. check delta's and partners websites.
Most of the major airlines require 15000 to 25000 miles for flying inside the continental US. Thanks for digging through the threads and making an offer. Just make sure you use your skymiles number on delta and with delta's partners. If you are going out on an international trip that will get you there faster. Their credit cards offer 20,000 bonus miles initially. check delta's and partners websites.
sam_hoosier
01-07 11:24 AM
can Employer with draw I-140 if they want after 180 days of pending 485 if any body changes his/her job with out notifying USCIS(AC21).
thanks for your replies.
Yes, employer can withdraw I-140 anytime but after 180 days of I-485 receipt date it will not affect AC21. It is always safer to notify USCIS if you are changing jobs on AC21 to minimize chances of future RFEs.
thanks for your replies.
Yes, employer can withdraw I-140 anytime but after 180 days of I-485 receipt date it will not affect AC21. It is always safer to notify USCIS if you are changing jobs on AC21 to minimize chances of future RFEs.
more...
TheColonial
04-27 01:35 AM
SDL is not really that confusing at all.
I never said it was. What I am saying is that it's off topic considering what he wants to achieve.
And he will have to learn it at one time or another, and why limit a program to one OS.
He will? Why?
DirectX/OpenGL can be used in a windowed environment
Again, that's got nothing to do with the desire to learn Win32.
so even if you just want to do Win32 stuff DirectX can enhance it.
And so can using the WPF in .NET, but how does that help with learning Win32?
I never said it was. What I am saying is that it's off topic considering what he wants to achieve.
And he will have to learn it at one time or another, and why limit a program to one OS.
He will? Why?
DirectX/OpenGL can be used in a windowed environment
Again, that's got nothing to do with the desire to learn Win32.
so even if you just want to do Win32 stuff DirectX can enhance it.
And so can using the WPF in .NET, but how does that help with learning Win32?
nareshdin
04-08 02:52 PM
Hi,
Have you hear anything from USCIS after you sent your FedEx reciepts?
I am also in the similar kind of situation.
I had applied for H1 extension in month of Jan 2009, and got RFE in the month of Feb,
later my employer sent the required documents asked by USCIS.
On Apr 3, H1 B extension status has been changed to "Denial Notification Sent",
and yet to know the reason for Denial.
My present H1 is valid till mid of next month. Now my employer is re applying for new extension as my I-94 valid for another one month. Can any one suggest if you see any risk if same employer re applies for extension again? If so let me know any other options.
Thanks..
Have you hear anything from USCIS after you sent your FedEx reciepts?
I am also in the similar kind of situation.
I had applied for H1 extension in month of Jan 2009, and got RFE in the month of Feb,
later my employer sent the required documents asked by USCIS.
On Apr 3, H1 B extension status has been changed to "Denial Notification Sent",
and yet to know the reason for Denial.
My present H1 is valid till mid of next month. Now my employer is re applying for new extension as my I-94 valid for another one month. Can any one suggest if you see any risk if same employer re applies for extension again? If so let me know any other options.
Thanks..
more...
maddipati1
08-15 12:54 PM
Great.. please contribute to DC rally in anyway you can.
Great.. update ur profile with ur contribution
Great.. update ur profile with ur contribution
Munna Bhai
01-09 01:01 PM
Mine is Feb 2007 NSC. I-140 got RFE on Oct will be replying sometime this week.
Looks like they may work on May 2007 cases sometime this month occording to NSC progress.
what that RFE was for?? could you please share, if ability to pay, then how much was written on your application and what is your education etc.
Thank you very much.
Looks like they may work on May 2007 cases sometime this month occording to NSC progress.
what that RFE was for?? could you please share, if ability to pay, then how much was written on your application and what is your education etc.
Thank you very much.
more...
aguy
08-23 01:17 AM
Hi,
My first NIW/I140 was concurrent filed with I485 for both my wife and me. When they denied I140, the USCIS also denied I485s for both of us. I have a pending MTR for that I140.
While the MTR was pending, I filed another NIW/I140, which was approved. I noticed that the approval notice has the A# that was on the I485 of the first petition.
So, should I assume that my the USCIS has interfiled my I485 automatically and my old PD is active?
Thanks.
My first NIW/I140 was concurrent filed with I485 for both my wife and me. When they denied I140, the USCIS also denied I485s for both of us. I have a pending MTR for that I140.
While the MTR was pending, I filed another NIW/I140, which was approved. I noticed that the approval notice has the A# that was on the I485 of the first petition.
So, should I assume that my the USCIS has interfiled my I485 automatically and my old PD is active?
Thanks.
coloniel60
08-15 01:34 PM
Absolutely right, how otherwise do you explain that they issued card production for people with PD's in 2004, (Dates not current in June) on July 2nd and in an hour and then said the visas are unavailable.
NO FIFO whatsoever.
They just saved themselves by retracting the VB of JULY, or else they would have faced lawsuits, and investigation which would have shown all irregularities and fraud.
If they can't follow FIFO in issuing receipt notices, which is the first and most basic step, then we should not expect them to follow FIFO for the rest of the steps.
NO FIFO whatsoever.
They just saved themselves by retracting the VB of JULY, or else they would have faced lawsuits, and investigation which would have shown all irregularities and fraud.
If they can't follow FIFO in issuing receipt notices, which is the first and most basic step, then we should not expect them to follow FIFO for the rest of the steps.
more...
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
spicy_guy
08-10 02:30 PM
By other poster...
"Some people already know about this bill introduced on July 1 by John Shadegg (AZ)
H.R. 5658 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to increase competitiveness in the United States, and for other purposes.
Link: H.R.5658: SKIL Act of 2010 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5658/show)
go to the link and click and write to you local representative to consponsor and suppor this bill and pass this bill.
If congress passes this bill it would increase the available EB visa numbers and will make life easy for lots of indian and chinese citizens.
Good Luck
And thanks"
"Some people already know about this bill introduced on July 1 by John Shadegg (AZ)
H.R. 5658 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to increase competitiveness in the United States, and for other purposes.
Link: H.R.5658: SKIL Act of 2010 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5658/show)
go to the link and click and write to you local representative to consponsor and suppor this bill and pass this bill.
If congress passes this bill it would increase the available EB visa numbers and will make life easy for lots of indian and chinese citizens.
Good Luck
And thanks"
more...
indianindian2006
10-09 08:34 PM
My RFE is with regards to Employer's ability to pay. Somehow, my employer hasn't submitted anything yet and the deadline is on Thurs Oct. 11. What will happen if we are not able to submit anything by the deadline? Will the app automatically get denied?
According to what I have read,if the additional evidence is not sent out by the deadline then they will decide the case with the evidence that they have on hand,which is most likely not enough for them to approve the case.After they decide the case and if it goes against you then your option is motion to reopen the case or an appeal.Contact your employer and attorney to send the papers ASAP.
Good luck.
According to what I have read,if the additional evidence is not sent out by the deadline then they will decide the case with the evidence that they have on hand,which is most likely not enough for them to approve the case.After they decide the case and if it goes against you then your option is motion to reopen the case or an appeal.Contact your employer and attorney to send the papers ASAP.
Good luck.
rkgc
11-17 11:33 AM
I think I know what the company means, I have been in the position. My previous company went through lot of layoffs and they are still. But the point here is, they are strictly following the lawyers words, i.e. when a company layoffs and if they are planning to make your friend permanent i.e. start his green card process, then technically during layoffs if the skill-set matches they should offer your friends job to the supposed to be layed off people, now if the company went thru layoffs in the last 6 months, then they should reach the previously layed off people with matching skill-set and offer them the positoin. Basically the company is getting rid of some bad blood also during layoffs so they don't really want to offer them any positoin, so they would rather wait and start GC process for your friend 6 months from the last layoff. The above reply I got from my previous company lawyer (so don't quote me on this) is similar to what your friend got.
Hope this helps...
~rk
Hope this helps...
~rk
logiclife
12-31 06:52 PM
But the way its worded now, it means no benefit for people who have no master's or Ph.D from US accredited university.
And you have to have 3 year experience to top it. From the wording, it means probably before you filed you I-140, you need to have 3 years of experience in relevant field.
And you have to have 3 year experience to top it. From the wording, it means probably before you filed you I-140, you need to have 3 years of experience in relevant field.
boreal
08-29 01:54 PM
I think there are still some visas left for EB2 I/C but they want to distribute them judiciously.
Due to the random processing, seveal people had earlier complained to USCIS and Ombudsman. This may have probably resulted in drawing a line that would mandate following a RD by IOs.
On the other hand DOS has still not made any official statement as the visa may be available or would be available towards the end of month.
Thus all those people whose RD is earlier than the published RD and PD is within the window should remain hopeful.
My theory is that USCIS could not handle the load of all the calls from us to CSRs, the infopass appointments, the SRs being opened...It was pretty silly of them to have moved the dates to August 10 (NSC) when there were thousands of applications with the RD of July 2. Obviously, that resulted in tonnes of SR/Infopass requests. Makes me think there is no one unit within USCIS that can do _some_ analysis regarding the consequences of their actions. This organization exhibits no accountability to anyone, i guess only action from Congress can make it be a little more responsible, but that doesnt seem a possibility as Congress doesnt really seem to have any incentive taking that route. (Even if all 300 of active IV folks cry out loud!)
Due to the random processing, seveal people had earlier complained to USCIS and Ombudsman. This may have probably resulted in drawing a line that would mandate following a RD by IOs.
On the other hand DOS has still not made any official statement as the visa may be available or would be available towards the end of month.
Thus all those people whose RD is earlier than the published RD and PD is within the window should remain hopeful.
My theory is that USCIS could not handle the load of all the calls from us to CSRs, the infopass appointments, the SRs being opened...It was pretty silly of them to have moved the dates to August 10 (NSC) when there were thousands of applications with the RD of July 2. Obviously, that resulted in tonnes of SR/Infopass requests. Makes me think there is no one unit within USCIS that can do _some_ analysis regarding the consequences of their actions. This organization exhibits no accountability to anyone, i guess only action from Congress can make it be a little more responsible, but that doesnt seem a possibility as Congress doesnt really seem to have any incentive taking that route. (Even if all 300 of active IV folks cry out loud!)
rajuram
08-20 12:50 AM
Having been in these forums for years now...I know that IV cannot do much about retrogression until president decides to push for CIR. That may be at least 1 year away, if not more. Recapture of visa numbers is also next to impossible in this economy.
But somethings that may be worth trying in the interim are -
1. More flexibility in changing jobs under AC21, to allow career progression. This may not require a legislative fix.
2. Longer duration AP.
3. Fee reduction for 2nd & subsequent renewal of EADs and APs.
4. An apology from USCIS for the delay!!
But somethings that may be worth trying in the interim are -
1. More flexibility in changing jobs under AC21, to allow career progression. This may not require a legislative fix.
2. Longer duration AP.
3. Fee reduction for 2nd & subsequent renewal of EADs and APs.
4. An apology from USCIS for the delay!!
No comments:
Post a Comment