drona
08-31 07:45 PM
Have you looked at the status of the rally polls? Are you even aware that we are having a historic first rally for legal immigrants in Washington DC? Please people, get your heads out of the sand and participate in this rally to fix this broken system.
wallpaper quot;knockout by Lil Wayne and
tikka
06-05 08:15 PM
In spite of all the forum spamming, I have contributed, thank you
And yes, I've sent multiple faxes to every senator.
And yes, I've visited, phoned and emailed multiple senators and congressmen.
And yes, I've sent approximately 700 emails to media outlets nationwide
PLEASE stop spamming the forums
so much franklin for all your efforts!
And yes, I've sent multiple faxes to every senator.
And yes, I've visited, phoned and emailed multiple senators and congressmen.
And yes, I've sent approximately 700 emails to media outlets nationwide
PLEASE stop spamming the forums
so much franklin for all your efforts!
casinoroyale
08-17 02:00 PM
Anybody tried entering USA by road using AP after they applied for H1-B visa and it got into admin processing or PIMS delays?
2011 Nicki Minaj x Drake Moment 4
sainwa
06-16 11:53 AM
Concurrent I-140/I-485: Yes
Mailed From State: CA
Mailed : June 11
Transferred to TSC: ?
140 approved : ?
Receipt Date : ?
Notice Date : ?
Mailed From State: CA
Mailed : June 11
Transferred to TSC: ?
140 approved : ?
Receipt Date : ?
Notice Date : ?
more...
desi3933
07-10 12:44 PM
.....
6. Again, Permanent job is a job that is expected to last unknown term and is not defined for a period.
Can you point us to a USCIS/DOL resource to confirm that definition of "permanent "job?
Permanent means job that is for for a term of indefinite or unlimited duration.
http://www.uscis.gov/err/B3%20-%20Outstanding%20Professors%20and%20Researchers/Decisions_Issued_in_2004/MAR232004_01B3203.pdf
.....
H-1B job is not permanent since they have end date specified by LCA and H-1B visa petition.
If *no* H1B job is "permanent," as you say, then how can that job be permanent after filing PERM or I-140? Second, following your argument, if you're on H-1B and changed employers using AC21, the new job wouldn't be considered "permanent," right? Third, if H-1B job is not "permanent," then which one is?
AC-21 is not just for changing GC employer.
AC-21 is for
1. H-1B portability - starting new H1-B immediately after filing opf new petition
2. Extension of H-1B beyond 6 years - if labor is pending > 365 days or I-140 is approved/pending. Since each H-1B petition is linked to LCA and LCA is for temp job, each H1 petition is a new or extension of temp job.
3. Changing of GC employer - Please note that you can change your GC employer even without changing job, just by getting job offer from new employer, as GC job is for job starting after I-485 approval.
Do not confuse existing H-1B job with future GC job.
H-1B is linked to LCA (Temp Job) (http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/h-1b.cfm) Note: The link clearly says
The H-1B program allows an employer to temporarily employ a foreign worker in the U.S. on a nonimmigrant basis in a specialty occupation or as a fashion model of distinguished merit and ability.
On the other hand, I-140 is linked to Permanent Labor Certification (http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/perm.cfm) (aka GC labor)
6. Again, Permanent job is a job that is expected to last unknown term and is not defined for a period.
Can you point us to a USCIS/DOL resource to confirm that definition of "permanent "job?
Permanent means job that is for for a term of indefinite or unlimited duration.
http://www.uscis.gov/err/B3%20-%20Outstanding%20Professors%20and%20Researchers/Decisions_Issued_in_2004/MAR232004_01B3203.pdf
.....
H-1B job is not permanent since they have end date specified by LCA and H-1B visa petition.
If *no* H1B job is "permanent," as you say, then how can that job be permanent after filing PERM or I-140? Second, following your argument, if you're on H-1B and changed employers using AC21, the new job wouldn't be considered "permanent," right? Third, if H-1B job is not "permanent," then which one is?
AC-21 is not just for changing GC employer.
AC-21 is for
1. H-1B portability - starting new H1-B immediately after filing opf new petition
2. Extension of H-1B beyond 6 years - if labor is pending > 365 days or I-140 is approved/pending. Since each H-1B petition is linked to LCA and LCA is for temp job, each H1 petition is a new or extension of temp job.
3. Changing of GC employer - Please note that you can change your GC employer even without changing job, just by getting job offer from new employer, as GC job is for job starting after I-485 approval.
Do not confuse existing H-1B job with future GC job.
H-1B is linked to LCA (Temp Job) (http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/h-1b.cfm) Note: The link clearly says
The H-1B program allows an employer to temporarily employ a foreign worker in the U.S. on a nonimmigrant basis in a specialty occupation or as a fashion model of distinguished merit and ability.
On the other hand, I-140 is linked to Permanent Labor Certification (http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/perm.cfm) (aka GC labor)
txh1b
08-25 04:54 PM
Each IO has given me different info on different calls. Whatever they say about visa number cannot be considered true. Just say ok and move on or call back to get a different answer.
Frustrated soul here! Getting impatient with a dozen plus years under my a$$ without a GC.
Frustrated soul here! Getting impatient with a dozen plus years under my a$$ without a GC.
more...
sdudeja
09-18 01:06 PM
:)I applied for my wife's EAD renewal online on 11 august and got the card in mail on 15 sep. I guess this was a good experience.
2010 Nicki Minaj – Queen Of
reddymjm
05-05 04:56 PM
Your Id makes sense for me now. That 2020 part. :)
more...
pitha
07-08 11:08 AM
no it will not be voilation of the law at all. consider this scenario thats been going on for the last 30+ years. For example July 2006 visa bulletin for EB2 india was jan 2003 and the August 2006 visa bulletin for EB2 india was unavailable. EB2 india visa numbers might have already been used up when the August 2006 visa bulletin was released but they still accepted the AOS petitions filed until the end of July 2006, they did not issue an updated visa bulletin or a revised visa bulletin saying eb2 india numbers are used up and they will not accept eb2 india aos applications, they continued accpeting AOS applications until the end of july 2006.
If you have the patience you can go through the visa bulletin archieves and find many such examples. The point is for the last 30+ years USCIS\DOS accepted applications according to the visa bulletin even when visa numbers were used up, they could have just followed the same precedent that they themselves set for the last 30+ years and accepted the applications this time as well without issuing a revised visa bulletin. I am no legal expert but that is how i see it.
It gets interesting. Doesn't it? Even if the court agrees that this is a fiasco and would like to compensate the beneficiaries by allowing us to file for 485, it would be in direct violation of the law that " there must be a number available on the day of filing ".We don't have any numbers. Do we? My point is, will a judicial system go out of the box and allow us to file when there are no visa numbers available? The only way is get numbers and make every one file and the only way for that is to undo what the USCIS has done in the last 2 weeks of June. Just my thoughts. I am ready to take anything positive out of this because I have least hopes pegged on the law suit.
If you have the patience you can go through the visa bulletin archieves and find many such examples. The point is for the last 30+ years USCIS\DOS accepted applications according to the visa bulletin even when visa numbers were used up, they could have just followed the same precedent that they themselves set for the last 30+ years and accepted the applications this time as well without issuing a revised visa bulletin. I am no legal expert but that is how i see it.
It gets interesting. Doesn't it? Even if the court agrees that this is a fiasco and would like to compensate the beneficiaries by allowing us to file for 485, it would be in direct violation of the law that " there must be a number available on the day of filing ".We don't have any numbers. Do we? My point is, will a judicial system go out of the box and allow us to file when there are no visa numbers available? The only way is get numbers and make every one file and the only way for that is to undo what the USCIS has done in the last 2 weeks of June. Just my thoughts. I am ready to take anything positive out of this because I have least hopes pegged on the law suit.
hair Lil Wayne - Knockout (ft.
looivy
09-19 07:57 PM
Instead of predicting and estimating why don't all of us do some calling for HR 5822.
more...
minimalist
07-26 12:18 AM
If I am not wrong, it is more to do with a rule interpretation change by USCIS.
Insuppose the most feasible solution for the ones that are really bothered and have a chance is to do a EB2 porting. EB3 is like the slow lane. EB2 also used to be like that but benefited from the change in spillover.
EB3 best chance is to have the Visa Recapture which is already being pursued or have some other legislative fix.
----
Not a lawyer.
EB3 May 2006
Contributed $100
Insuppose the most feasible solution for the ones that are really bothered and have a chance is to do a EB2 porting. EB3 is like the slow lane. EB2 also used to be like that but benefited from the change in spillover.
EB3 best chance is to have the Visa Recapture which is already being pursued or have some other legislative fix.
----
Not a lawyer.
EB3 May 2006
Contributed $100
hot Lil Wayne featuring Nicki
avi_ny
07-21 09:40 PM
EAD application mailed to USCIS on 21 May 2008
There was one RFE - USCIS requesed two photos. They were shipped on July 2nd.
I have not received any FP Notice. (strange)
Approved EAD (1 year) received on 21 July 2008 (Today)
There was one RFE - USCIS requesed two photos. They were shipped on July 2nd.
I have not received any FP Notice. (strange)
Approved EAD (1 year) received on 21 July 2008 (Today)
more...
house Nicki Minaj feat Lil#39; Wayne -
ushkand
07-20 10:03 AM
I pledge $100. Thanks IV for all your efforts.
tattoo hot Lil Wayne Nicki Minaj
anilsal
12-13 12:07 PM
All actions taken by IV is for the community. We are enjoying many benefits (AC21, 7th year H) etc that was a struggle by earlier outfits like ISN.
IV will be successful.
IV will be successful.
more...
pictures “I#39;m so happy that Wayne put
BharatPremi
12-15 11:09 PM
Been in the US since 1998, have an EB-2 PD of 2001, have played by the rules all along. Still no GC... And, the dates are going back to 2000 from the new year.. I've lost hopes...
A: I suggest you to have a trip in India and visit some places like Dharavi,
Mumbai. If you do not want to go to India, Just take a trip to Brooklyn, NY
You will see lots of souls in a such condition, you will start feeling better.
I would not say this is nice way to feel good but that is the qucikest thing
I can think of. What I mean to say is do not feel hopeless as you are in a
way better condition than millions. And those millions have not lost hope
and faith. Yes, you do not have GC so I also do not have GC. I do not
have assets like what Bill Gates or Anil Ambani has. So now I get a good
reason to depress and feel hopeless. Should I start feeling depressed?
I'm pretty close to getting clinical depression because of this game played by USCIS, Labor Dept, FBI and my own bad luck.
SKILL bill, OMNIBUS, etc. comes and goes. IV does seem to be doing things to lobby for the community, but let's face one reality. Like a news article said, no one in congress or senate wants to touch immigration even with a long pole until 2009.
Ans: World history is full of events when people have done and made success
against all odds. Have confidence and faith in yourself. Stand up to
challenge the problems and entities who impose the problem on you.
The US has been very good to me (other than the GC part), more than my home country (India) which is why I'm still here.
Question: Have you done anything good for India or planning to do any good
for USA? Or it is always about yourself?
Have invested too much of time in this country to just pack up and go.
Q: As per your claim, India has not done good to you with comparison to USA.
Are you planning to go back to India after packing up? Just curious.
Just curious if any of you feel this way? How do you handle such depressing feelings?
See the answers and hope my answers do not depress you.
A: I suggest you to have a trip in India and visit some places like Dharavi,
Mumbai. If you do not want to go to India, Just take a trip to Brooklyn, NY
You will see lots of souls in a such condition, you will start feeling better.
I would not say this is nice way to feel good but that is the qucikest thing
I can think of. What I mean to say is do not feel hopeless as you are in a
way better condition than millions. And those millions have not lost hope
and faith. Yes, you do not have GC so I also do not have GC. I do not
have assets like what Bill Gates or Anil Ambani has. So now I get a good
reason to depress and feel hopeless. Should I start feeling depressed?
I'm pretty close to getting clinical depression because of this game played by USCIS, Labor Dept, FBI and my own bad luck.
SKILL bill, OMNIBUS, etc. comes and goes. IV does seem to be doing things to lobby for the community, but let's face one reality. Like a news article said, no one in congress or senate wants to touch immigration even with a long pole until 2009.
Ans: World history is full of events when people have done and made success
against all odds. Have confidence and faith in yourself. Stand up to
challenge the problems and entities who impose the problem on you.
The US has been very good to me (other than the GC part), more than my home country (India) which is why I'm still here.
Question: Have you done anything good for India or planning to do any good
for USA? Or it is always about yourself?
Have invested too much of time in this country to just pack up and go.
Q: As per your claim, India has not done good to you with comparison to USA.
Are you planning to go back to India after packing up? Just curious.
Just curious if any of you feel this way? How do you handle such depressing feelings?
See the answers and hope my answers do not depress you.
dresses Lil Wayne Feat. Nicki Minaj
alias
08-18 01:12 PM
Everybody has been waiting for his/her green card and congratulations to all those who has got their GC. On the other hand it is really unfair and to some extent unethical on the part of USICS not follow a fair system.
There are several people in 2004, 2005 who have been paitently waiting for their turn only to see that people behind them getting approved.
Several of us have writtent to Ombudsman, Director but of no avail.
Not sure what else can be done? Any Idea? Do we have any liaison with AILA who can take up this matter.
Didn't someone took up the EB3->EB2 porting issue already; can't this issue be clubed along with it? ek teer se do shikar!!
There are several people in 2004, 2005 who have been paitently waiting for their turn only to see that people behind them getting approved.
Several of us have writtent to Ombudsman, Director but of no avail.
Not sure what else can be done? Any Idea? Do we have any liaison with AILA who can take up this matter.
Didn't someone took up the EB3->EB2 porting issue already; can't this issue be clubed along with it? ek teer se do shikar!!
more...
makeup The Creep feat Nicki Minaj
sixpockets
07-19 10:42 PM
can core use the IV funds to reimburse their personal expenses incurred for IV related efforts?
OH No !!!! But thanks anyway !
If you read the first post , please pledge now. We will instruct on how to pay later.
If you pay now, the funds will be credited to the IV funds. This drive is specifically for reiimbursing the administrative costs incurred by Aman and other IV core team members.
OH No !!!! But thanks anyway !
If you read the first post , please pledge now. We will instruct on how to pay later.
If you pay now, the funds will be credited to the IV funds. This drive is specifically for reiimbursing the administrative costs incurred by Aman and other IV core team members.
girlfriend Lil Wayne - Knockout
simple1
05-01 03:27 PM
I repeat to avoid misunderstanding.
This thread tries to findout the correct interpretation of current law.
I am not proposing any change or correction of law. No lobbies or congress involved.
I also strongly believe families should be together and they will be ( as no one will be affected ).
It is a good point that some people have brought up and I am sure IV core will evaluate it to see if it will help more people or less.
However.........
I strongly believe that family should be together. Whatever GC and other immigration issues we have, one should strive for keeping the family together at all times. Missing out on even a few years of togetherness with your spouse and kids is not worth it.
Even in the current system where dependents come under EB quota, I have known people where one spouse got the GC and the other one had to wait for many years because of a name check or something. But the current laws (EAD/AP etc) made sure that atleast the family was not broken up.
If we are looking for a change or correction of law, we need to make sure that the new law has NO kinks that hinder family staying together. If primary applicant gets a GC and the spouse is still waiting for 5 more years (it is possible), then the primary applicant can get citizenship and apply for a new GC for the secondary. Like I said - This situation is possible even in the current system.
As long as kinks are discussed with the lawyers and smoothened out to preserve family togetherness, it should be fine.
This thread tries to findout the correct interpretation of current law.
I am not proposing any change or correction of law. No lobbies or congress involved.
I also strongly believe families should be together and they will be ( as no one will be affected ).
It is a good point that some people have brought up and I am sure IV core will evaluate it to see if it will help more people or less.
However.........
I strongly believe that family should be together. Whatever GC and other immigration issues we have, one should strive for keeping the family together at all times. Missing out on even a few years of togetherness with your spouse and kids is not worth it.
Even in the current system where dependents come under EB quota, I have known people where one spouse got the GC and the other one had to wait for many years because of a name check or something. But the current laws (EAD/AP etc) made sure that atleast the family was not broken up.
If we are looking for a change or correction of law, we need to make sure that the new law has NO kinks that hinder family staying together. If primary applicant gets a GC and the spouse is still waiting for 5 more years (it is possible), then the primary applicant can get citizenship and apply for a new GC for the secondary. Like I said - This situation is possible even in the current system.
As long as kinks are discussed with the lawyers and smoothened out to preserve family togetherness, it should be fine.
hairstyles Lil Wayne Ft. Nicki Minaj -
zoooom
07-20 02:32 PM
Zoooom, Anzeraja & All pledgers,
Thanks for driving this effort. Subsequent to Aman's post, we can direct these pledges to the normal contribution drive for IV.
It was amazing to see such response to call for funds for Aman and other core members.
So whats the verdict..Do we ask all the members to donate towards the core fund..Anzzeraja what do u say...SAM??
Thanks for driving this effort. Subsequent to Aman's post, we can direct these pledges to the normal contribution drive for IV.
It was amazing to see such response to call for funds for Aman and other core members.
So whats the verdict..Do we ask all the members to donate towards the core fund..Anzzeraja what do u say...SAM??
iptel
05-24 07:22 PM
Immigration Voice strongly opposes the bill S 1348 in its current form and requests congress to amend this bill and treat the legal skilled immigrants at parity with undocumented immigrants, future guest-workers and pending family-based applicants.
Are we sure that we are refering to right bill S 1348 by Harry Reid seems to be pro-High skilled immigrant
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01348:
The text of part of legistlation is as follows
(b) Employment-Based Immigrants- Section 201(d) (8 U.S.C. 1151(d)) is amended to read as follows:
`(d) Worldwide Level of Employment-Based Immigrants-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Subject to paragraph (2), the worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to the sum of--
`(A)(i) 450,000, for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2017; or
`(ii) 290,000, for fiscal year 2018 and each subsequent fiscal year;
`(B) the difference between the maximum number of visas authorized to be issued under this subsection during the previous fiscal year and the number of visas issued during the previous fiscal year; and
`(C) the difference between--
`(i) the maximum number of visas authorized to be issued under this subsection during fiscal years 2001 through 2005 and the number of visa numbers issued under this subsection during those fiscal years; and
`(ii) the number of visas calculated under clause (i) that were issued after fiscal year 2005
Are we sure that we are refering to right bill S 1348 by Harry Reid seems to be pro-High skilled immigrant
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01348:
The text of part of legistlation is as follows
(b) Employment-Based Immigrants- Section 201(d) (8 U.S.C. 1151(d)) is amended to read as follows:
`(d) Worldwide Level of Employment-Based Immigrants-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Subject to paragraph (2), the worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to the sum of--
`(A)(i) 450,000, for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2017; or
`(ii) 290,000, for fiscal year 2018 and each subsequent fiscal year;
`(B) the difference between the maximum number of visas authorized to be issued under this subsection during the previous fiscal year and the number of visas issued during the previous fiscal year; and
`(C) the difference between--
`(i) the maximum number of visas authorized to be issued under this subsection during fiscal years 2001 through 2005 and the number of visa numbers issued under this subsection during those fiscal years; and
`(ii) the number of visas calculated under clause (i) that were issued after fiscal year 2005
gccovet
02-09 03:00 PM
Transaction ID #34211805W72220746
thank you Jelo, your valuable contribution takes us to $443.00
thank you Jelo, your valuable contribution takes us to $443.00
No comments:
Post a Comment