June05
08-06 11:59 AM
The only LUD was on my 140, which is on 7/13 - There was no LUD on any other applications H1, EAD, AP - One LUD today after the status change. Hope this helps.
I am not talking about LUD's.
When you check your status online - it says - YOUR CASES WAS RECEIVED BY USCIS ON XXX DATE. That is the date I was trying to find out.
I am not talking about LUD's.
When you check your status online - it says - YOUR CASES WAS RECEIVED BY USCIS ON XXX DATE. That is the date I was trying to find out.
wallpaper hairstyles for lack women
lkapildev
07-17 04:43 PM
Dear Mod,
Stop people like Kumar1 to access your website. They need to know how to Respect people. He is a shame for entire Indian community. Does not know how to respect people.
He deserves to be kicked out from this forum.
Ms. Murthy may same age of his Mother. These folks do not know how to respect.
She is realistic on her message on her website and Murthy/Rajiv S Khann never engaged in any hype.
So sad to see these messages.
Have Kumar's IP and Account information ready. Ms. Murthy might be reading this thread and might need. Most of the sites tacks IPs and users system information
Regards
Stop people like Kumar1 to access your website. They need to know how to Respect people. He is a shame for entire Indian community. Does not know how to respect people.
He deserves to be kicked out from this forum.
Ms. Murthy may same age of his Mother. These folks do not know how to respect.
She is realistic on her message on her website and Murthy/Rajiv S Khann never engaged in any hype.
So sad to see these messages.
Have Kumar's IP and Account information ready. Ms. Murthy might be reading this thread and might need. Most of the sites tacks IPs and users system information
Regards
gantilk
04-27 11:26 PM
Thanks Desertfox. Did you send any supporting documents. there were contradicting opinions on whether to send or not send any additional documentation after e-filing EAD. Please let us know what you sent or not sent?
2011 Hairstyle for Black Women
amitjoey
08-06 02:01 PM
Honorable Senator Specter
Did you know that during the immigration debates, the most shrill voices against �immigration reform� (legitimizing illegal immigrants) was by legal immigrants who are living here in the US, and waiting for green cards, while their spouses are not allowed to work (half a million at the most recent count). Others who were against the reforms were immigrants who came here legally after waiting years, and are now green card holders. Democrats and liberal Republican senators have shown no empathy for legal immigrants and US citizens in their zeal for legalizing illegal immigrants through "immigration reform". I was not surprised to see just a single statement in your article, at the far end (probably as an afterthought) about green cards for legal skilled immigrants. Over 350,000 legal immigrants (99%) of who have nothing to do with crime are stuck in FBI name checks, and are unable to naturalize. Another 500,000 highly skilled legal immigrants (Doctors, Engineers etc) most of whom studied in the US, are stuck in retrogression (from countries such as India, China, Philippines etc). These legal immigrants are not even on your radar, even as Senators such as yourself, Ms. Diane Feinstein and others loose no opportunity to try to provide amnesty for the 12 million people who crossed over the border with scant regard for US law. You want to reward these people ahead of any �reform� for legal skilled workers. So much for President Bush�s statement about �putting these undocumented workers at the back of the line�. I don't think the American citizens will ever buy this lopsided reform. Genuine Border control is being held up as bait, for legalizing 12 million people. Please attend to border control and solve legacy problems of legal skilled immigrants already in the US, before doing anything on legalizing �undocumented workers�. Why is this so hard for our honorable congressmen and women to understand?
Lastly neither USCIS nor the FBI is able to timely service the legal immigrants already here, how do you propose to process the illegal immigrants without causing huge delays for those who played by the rules?
On the money, perfectly described. good choice of words.
Did you know that during the immigration debates, the most shrill voices against �immigration reform� (legitimizing illegal immigrants) was by legal immigrants who are living here in the US, and waiting for green cards, while their spouses are not allowed to work (half a million at the most recent count). Others who were against the reforms were immigrants who came here legally after waiting years, and are now green card holders. Democrats and liberal Republican senators have shown no empathy for legal immigrants and US citizens in their zeal for legalizing illegal immigrants through "immigration reform". I was not surprised to see just a single statement in your article, at the far end (probably as an afterthought) about green cards for legal skilled immigrants. Over 350,000 legal immigrants (99%) of who have nothing to do with crime are stuck in FBI name checks, and are unable to naturalize. Another 500,000 highly skilled legal immigrants (Doctors, Engineers etc) most of whom studied in the US, are stuck in retrogression (from countries such as India, China, Philippines etc). These legal immigrants are not even on your radar, even as Senators such as yourself, Ms. Diane Feinstein and others loose no opportunity to try to provide amnesty for the 12 million people who crossed over the border with scant regard for US law. You want to reward these people ahead of any �reform� for legal skilled workers. So much for President Bush�s statement about �putting these undocumented workers at the back of the line�. I don't think the American citizens will ever buy this lopsided reform. Genuine Border control is being held up as bait, for legalizing 12 million people. Please attend to border control and solve legacy problems of legal skilled immigrants already in the US, before doing anything on legalizing �undocumented workers�. Why is this so hard for our honorable congressmen and women to understand?
Lastly neither USCIS nor the FBI is able to timely service the legal immigrants already here, how do you propose to process the illegal immigrants without causing huge delays for those who played by the rules?
On the money, perfectly described. good choice of words.
more...
sgorla
02-23 02:38 PM
I was told by the University of Nevada -Reno (UNR) that I 140 approval does not change one's immigration status, and the person (or his/her dependent) will not be eligible for in-state tution.
What if I-140 is approved , and the primary applicant (H1) is waiting for the PD to be current, and the dependent wants to go to school. Will this have any impact on the GC process?
What if I-140 is approved , and the primary applicant (H1) is waiting for the PD to be current, and the dependent wants to go to school. Will this have any impact on the GC process?
gc28262
01-15 04:16 PM
I agree.
Visa Recapture or remove country limit for skilled labor (EB category). these would probably be the only ones that will fly.
Maybe they should also keep it low key so less people oppose it;)
Send it through when Mr.King is on vacation:D
Don't keep your expectations so low. Change is on the way ! Senate's color has changed. ;)
Visa Recapture or remove country limit for skilled labor (EB category). these would probably be the only ones that will fly.
Maybe they should also keep it low key so less people oppose it;)
Send it through when Mr.King is on vacation:D
Don't keep your expectations so low. Change is on the way ! Senate's color has changed. ;)
more...
laksmi
01-07 04:02 PM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14154
2010 Black Curly Hairstyle For
veni001
03-31 12:40 PM
What happens if your previous employer cancel the approved I140 before the new company files the for I140. I think you need at least 7-8 months to get Labor approved. I am pretty sure by that time, the old employer will cancel the approved I140. I am taking about big Consulting companies here where you can not negotiate to keep the I140 open after you resign.
Thanks in advance
If the old employer withdraw his petition (that's what most employers do to be on safe side, in this economy) before new employer's i-140 approval then you can not port old priority date.
Thanks in advance
If the old employer withdraw his petition (that's what most employers do to be on safe side, in this economy) before new employer's i-140 approval then you can not port old priority date.
more...
aaren253
02-19 02:51 AM
ok i 16 and i want to go to pasadena art center for transportation...and i want to know is their llike a art school that i can go to to help me create a portfolio and enhance my skills in sketching.
hair bobs for lack women. cute
needhelp!
01-18 01:14 PM
Wonderful news!
And gsc is back with a bang!
And gsc is back with a bang!
more...
singhsa3
07-12 09:18 AM
Thats not the fact! and could be easily argued against.
"We continue to pay for Your Social Security
But the presidency gives illegals over legals more priority"
"We continue to pay for Your Social Security
But the presidency gives illegals over legals more priority"
hot lack women,natural
logiclife
02-08 11:48 AM
You want to keep your 140 intact for 2 reasons:
1. To port the priority date for future use in a subsequent Greencard petition.
2. To get more H1 extensions based on this 140, until you have another labor and 140 going on with new employer.
First, about 1:
There is a lot of information on this thread about priority date transfers (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=912)from old approved 140 to a new 140. Read that thread and you will learn all you want to learn and all the information out there in the immigration world about PD transfer from one 140 to another 140.
In a nutshell:
Its a grey area of the law. If your 140 is never revoked, you would be fine and able to port your priority date. If it is revoked for fraud and willful misrepresentation, then you cannot port that PD under any circumstances. If 140 is revoked by employer then it falls into grey area. USCIS adjudicator's field manual says that you can still port your PD. The code of federal regulations says that you cannot. Currently USCIS is porting priority dates even if employer has revoked that 140, and they are following the AFM(adjudicator's field manual). However that can change in future. Legislation trumps regulation and regulation trumps the adjudicator's field manual. For now, things are great as AFM is being followed.
About 2:
If you have an H1 approved for 3 years after 140 approval, and you transfer jobs to a new employer and get another H1. You should be fine. If your previous employer cancels your I-140 after you leave and go to another employer, then USCIS will not go back and cancel your H1 because it was based on an approved 140 that is now revoked. This is what is happening as of now. At the time of H1 transfer to your new employer, your 140 should be in good status and you should have a photocopy of your approved 140. Once your H1 transfer is done (probably will have same end-date as the current 3-year H1 from your current employer), if the 140 is revoked AFTER that, then you should be fine. I am saying this based on advice from a very good lawyer.
Now, in far future, USCIS may decide to go and look for H1s that were approved based on approved 140 and then if that 140 is revoked, then they would go and cancel that H1 also. Its very very unlikely that they would do that even in future. They dont have that kind of resources to keep track of H1s based on 140 approvals and then go back and cancel them whenever some disappointed employer revokes 140.
About preventing 140 from being revoked:
I do not think that by changing lawyers, you can stop the previous 140 from being revoked. Your previous employer, for any reason, can get that 140 revoked with any lawyer they choose, regardless of who your current lawyer is. Lawyers are tied to clients, not petitions and cases. However, if someone knows more about this, please post here.
1. To port the priority date for future use in a subsequent Greencard petition.
2. To get more H1 extensions based on this 140, until you have another labor and 140 going on with new employer.
First, about 1:
There is a lot of information on this thread about priority date transfers (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=912)from old approved 140 to a new 140. Read that thread and you will learn all you want to learn and all the information out there in the immigration world about PD transfer from one 140 to another 140.
In a nutshell:
Its a grey area of the law. If your 140 is never revoked, you would be fine and able to port your priority date. If it is revoked for fraud and willful misrepresentation, then you cannot port that PD under any circumstances. If 140 is revoked by employer then it falls into grey area. USCIS adjudicator's field manual says that you can still port your PD. The code of federal regulations says that you cannot. Currently USCIS is porting priority dates even if employer has revoked that 140, and they are following the AFM(adjudicator's field manual). However that can change in future. Legislation trumps regulation and regulation trumps the adjudicator's field manual. For now, things are great as AFM is being followed.
About 2:
If you have an H1 approved for 3 years after 140 approval, and you transfer jobs to a new employer and get another H1. You should be fine. If your previous employer cancels your I-140 after you leave and go to another employer, then USCIS will not go back and cancel your H1 because it was based on an approved 140 that is now revoked. This is what is happening as of now. At the time of H1 transfer to your new employer, your 140 should be in good status and you should have a photocopy of your approved 140. Once your H1 transfer is done (probably will have same end-date as the current 3-year H1 from your current employer), if the 140 is revoked AFTER that, then you should be fine. I am saying this based on advice from a very good lawyer.
Now, in far future, USCIS may decide to go and look for H1s that were approved based on approved 140 and then if that 140 is revoked, then they would go and cancel that H1 also. Its very very unlikely that they would do that even in future. They dont have that kind of resources to keep track of H1s based on 140 approvals and then go back and cancel them whenever some disappointed employer revokes 140.
About preventing 140 from being revoked:
I do not think that by changing lawyers, you can stop the previous 140 from being revoked. Your previous employer, for any reason, can get that 140 revoked with any lawyer they choose, regardless of who your current lawyer is. Lawyers are tied to clients, not petitions and cases. However, if someone knows more about this, please post here.
more...
house Hairstyles For Black Women
leonqiu
03-14 12:06 PM
Charles Oppenheim, Chief of Immigrant Visa Control and Reporting Division at the U.S. Department of State (DOS) was a guest speaker at a February 28, 2007 Washington D.C. Chapter meeting of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). Mr. Oppenheim was kind enough to share his office�s visa number / Visa Bulletin expectations for 2007.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF RETROGRESSION
Mr. Oppenheim discussed the historical background that has led to the current retrogression situation. Retrogression is not something new or unfamiliar in immigration law, as long-time MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers may recall. For many, however, who may have become involved in the green card process since 2001, it is new and, of course, highly problematic. Employment-based (or EB) numbers were current from 2001 through 2005 due to a legislative "fix." This legislation authorized prior, unused immigrant visa numbers from several earlier years to be recaptured and put back into the immigration system. That quota of recaptured numbers was exhausted during Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. As a result, in FYs 2005, 2006 and 2007 we have witnessed severe backlogs in the EB3 categories for all countries and, starting in FY2006, in the EB2 categories for China and India.
PREDICTIONS FOR EB IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS
Employment-Based First Preference / EB1
Mr. Oppenheim stated that the employment-based first preference (EB1) category is expected to remain current for all countries of chargeability, including India and China. This is likely throughout the remainder of FY2007 (ending September 30, 2007).
Mr. Oppenheim explained what he referred to as the �trickling effect� of unused visa numbers between EB categories. This trickling effect has resulted in the EB1 category's having remained current. The numbers in the employment-based fourth preference (EB4) and employment-based fifth preference (EB5) categories that are unused are transferred up to the EB1 category. Without this trickling affect, the EB1 category would not remain current for India and China.
This also has an impact on EB2, as unused EB1 numbers trickle down to EB2. There are not enough numbers for India and China, however, to allow the EB2 for these two countries to become current. But it has helped to move EB2 forward for these two countries, to some extent.
Employment-Based Second Preference / EB2
The employment-based second preference (EB2) category is expected to remain at its current cutoff dates for nationals of India and China. These dates have been stagnant at April 22, 2005 for China and January 8, 2003 for India for a few months.
Employment-Based Third Preference / EB3
No forward movement is expected for the employment-based third preference (EB3) category. In fact, as predicted in the March Visa Bulletin and confirmed by Mr. Oppenheim, there is a strong possibility that the EB3 numbers that are not in the "worldwide" chargeability will further retrogress, or move backward. This is expected to occur in the summer of 2007. This backward movement is based upon excessive demand for the limited supply of visa numbers. This will adversely affect nationals of India and China.
Double Dipping
Another problem important to note is one of �doubling dipping� for visa numbers by some individuals. As explained by Mr. Oppenheim, if an employment-based beneficiary filed for adjustment of status in the U.S. and for consular processing overseas, that individual could acquire two visa numbers if both cases are approved. This would result in a wasted immigrant visa number. As a result of this scenario, the DOS and the USCIS are planning a system that would coordinate their visa number allocation, so that each will be aware if the other has already issued a visa number for a particular individual, to prevent waste of this kind.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate Mr. Oppenheim's continued willingness to address matters related to visa numbers and the Visa Bulletin. The lack of employment-based visa numbers is a source of great frustration for many and Mr. Oppenheim's predictions do not assuage that feeling. It is better to have an understanding of the reality of the situation, however, than to operate in ignorance or with unrealistic expectations. The shortage of visa numbers, once again, underscores the need for legislation in this area, to increase the numbers, change the counting of the numbers (from one per person to one per family), or to revamp the system entirely.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF RETROGRESSION
Mr. Oppenheim discussed the historical background that has led to the current retrogression situation. Retrogression is not something new or unfamiliar in immigration law, as long-time MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers may recall. For many, however, who may have become involved in the green card process since 2001, it is new and, of course, highly problematic. Employment-based (or EB) numbers were current from 2001 through 2005 due to a legislative "fix." This legislation authorized prior, unused immigrant visa numbers from several earlier years to be recaptured and put back into the immigration system. That quota of recaptured numbers was exhausted during Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. As a result, in FYs 2005, 2006 and 2007 we have witnessed severe backlogs in the EB3 categories for all countries and, starting in FY2006, in the EB2 categories for China and India.
PREDICTIONS FOR EB IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS
Employment-Based First Preference / EB1
Mr. Oppenheim stated that the employment-based first preference (EB1) category is expected to remain current for all countries of chargeability, including India and China. This is likely throughout the remainder of FY2007 (ending September 30, 2007).
Mr. Oppenheim explained what he referred to as the �trickling effect� of unused visa numbers between EB categories. This trickling effect has resulted in the EB1 category's having remained current. The numbers in the employment-based fourth preference (EB4) and employment-based fifth preference (EB5) categories that are unused are transferred up to the EB1 category. Without this trickling affect, the EB1 category would not remain current for India and China.
This also has an impact on EB2, as unused EB1 numbers trickle down to EB2. There are not enough numbers for India and China, however, to allow the EB2 for these two countries to become current. But it has helped to move EB2 forward for these two countries, to some extent.
Employment-Based Second Preference / EB2
The employment-based second preference (EB2) category is expected to remain at its current cutoff dates for nationals of India and China. These dates have been stagnant at April 22, 2005 for China and January 8, 2003 for India for a few months.
Employment-Based Third Preference / EB3
No forward movement is expected for the employment-based third preference (EB3) category. In fact, as predicted in the March Visa Bulletin and confirmed by Mr. Oppenheim, there is a strong possibility that the EB3 numbers that are not in the "worldwide" chargeability will further retrogress, or move backward. This is expected to occur in the summer of 2007. This backward movement is based upon excessive demand for the limited supply of visa numbers. This will adversely affect nationals of India and China.
Double Dipping
Another problem important to note is one of �doubling dipping� for visa numbers by some individuals. As explained by Mr. Oppenheim, if an employment-based beneficiary filed for adjustment of status in the U.S. and for consular processing overseas, that individual could acquire two visa numbers if both cases are approved. This would result in a wasted immigrant visa number. As a result of this scenario, the DOS and the USCIS are planning a system that would coordinate their visa number allocation, so that each will be aware if the other has already issued a visa number for a particular individual, to prevent waste of this kind.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate Mr. Oppenheim's continued willingness to address matters related to visa numbers and the Visa Bulletin. The lack of employment-based visa numbers is a source of great frustration for many and Mr. Oppenheim's predictions do not assuage that feeling. It is better to have an understanding of the reality of the situation, however, than to operate in ignorance or with unrealistic expectations. The shortage of visa numbers, once again, underscores the need for legislation in this area, to increase the numbers, change the counting of the numbers (from one per person to one per family), or to revamp the system entirely.
tattoo lack bob hairstyle
randomdude
12-07 12:34 PM
I have my EAD for a rainy day.
In some cases where transfers from one center to another affected the RD, the concept is gray. if you are a risk taker you can try to swing it, but I do not recommend it. Check the RD on your 485 receipt. If it is 180 days from that date you are fine.
The only problem that can come by moving earlier is your employer may revoke your 140. There is no reason for them to do it, except out of spite (earlier they had the advantage of reusing the labor for someone else). If your relations with your employer will be smooth even after you move on, then that risk is alleviated.
Also remember that your 140 should be approved before you invoke AC21 to avoid potential problems from that area.
Thanks again for your reply KaiserSose
FYI, I sent my app to NSC and got a receipt from them. Then it got transferred to TSC which sent me a notice after 2 months. I do have the correct date on my receipt from NSC though and will wait for 180 days to finish based on this receipt date. I hope that eliminates all the risk, right?
As far as I140 goes, its already approved. :)
I am guessing there are no issues with me moving to AC21, correct?
In some cases where transfers from one center to another affected the RD, the concept is gray. if you are a risk taker you can try to swing it, but I do not recommend it. Check the RD on your 485 receipt. If it is 180 days from that date you are fine.
The only problem that can come by moving earlier is your employer may revoke your 140. There is no reason for them to do it, except out of spite (earlier they had the advantage of reusing the labor for someone else). If your relations with your employer will be smooth even after you move on, then that risk is alleviated.
Also remember that your 140 should be approved before you invoke AC21 to avoid potential problems from that area.
Thanks again for your reply KaiserSose
FYI, I sent my app to NSC and got a receipt from them. Then it got transferred to TSC which sent me a notice after 2 months. I do have the correct date on my receipt from NSC though and will wait for 180 days to finish based on this receipt date. I hope that eliminates all the risk, right?
As far as I140 goes, its already approved. :)
I am guessing there are no issues with me moving to AC21, correct?
more...
pictures Cornrows hairstyles for lack
dealsnet
10-20 06:03 PM
You will not any answer for illegal matters.
What you did is illegal. Any H1B person can know H4 cannot work.
It is not the matter of ignorance.
Please see a lawyer.
Still looking for a knowledgeable response specifically to the questions asked.
What you did is illegal. Any H1B person can know H4 cannot work.
It is not the matter of ignorance.
Please see a lawyer.
Still looking for a knowledgeable response specifically to the questions asked.
dresses Hairstyles For Black Women
kutra
01-20 05:22 PM
My wife is the primary on the insurance and I am the dependent. My employer does not offer insurance. It is a consulting co. I checked with him; he said there were not enough people to go with Group policy and people have to find Individual Insurance. So COBRA may be the only option if something changes with her job.
In that case, your wife is eligible for COBRA. See eligibility guidelines (Q3: Who is entitled to benefits under COBRA?) here: FAQs For Employees About COBRA Continuation Health Coverage (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_consumer_cobra.HTML).
In that case, your wife is eligible for COBRA. See eligibility guidelines (Q3: Who is entitled to benefits under COBRA?) here: FAQs For Employees About COBRA Continuation Health Coverage (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_consumer_cobra.HTML).
more...
makeup Black Hair Styles Weave ~ The
americandesi
08-11 05:39 PM
That is not a flaw in the system and in the USCIS manual, they know it. Since the previous I-140 is already approved and you've stayed more than 6 months in that I-140, then there's no need for the ability to pay. USCIS is treating your case as if you already have a GC, it is just that it is pending.
If one has a GC, he can transfer to another employer. It is your risk if your new employer has not the ability to pay you. The same is true with portability, USCIS doesn't care anymore if you transfer to an employer with no ability to pay you because the first I-140 is already approved and you worked for it already. They are concerned now about your I-485 (AOS) and your qualifications under it.
What you say holds good only if employer A had already paid the proffered wage during those 6 months.
Suppose employer A is currently paying 70K and the wage for the proposed GC position is 80K and if employer A is able to prove that his Net Income or Net Assets is >=80K then it’s sufficient to prove ability to pay. In such a case, he is bound to pay 80K only after I-485 approval.
Going by above, the employee wasn’t paid 80K at anytime. Even then, USCIS approves his I-485 if he is able to provide an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A, though the abilty to pay 80K by employer C is in question.
If one has a GC, he can transfer to another employer. It is your risk if your new employer has not the ability to pay you. The same is true with portability, USCIS doesn't care anymore if you transfer to an employer with no ability to pay you because the first I-140 is already approved and you worked for it already. They are concerned now about your I-485 (AOS) and your qualifications under it.
What you say holds good only if employer A had already paid the proffered wage during those 6 months.
Suppose employer A is currently paying 70K and the wage for the proposed GC position is 80K and if employer A is able to prove that his Net Income or Net Assets is >=80K then it’s sufficient to prove ability to pay. In such a case, he is bound to pay 80K only after I-485 approval.
Going by above, the employee wasn’t paid 80K at anytime. Even then, USCIS approves his I-485 if he is able to provide an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A, though the abilty to pay 80K by employer C is in question.
girlfriend Black Hairstyles Twists.
saimrathi
07-03 09:21 AM
Sorry if you find it offensive, but I dont think its going to prove anything to the USCIS and I am not even sure they will notice it.
Why is no one talking about a public demonstartion in New York or something along those lines that is bound to get TV reporters attention and having a spokesperson who can speak on our behalf in front of a national audience and talk about the discrimintaion that US shows against legal workers
If Illegal Immigrants have the courage to pursue their agenda on the streets what is stopping us from doing it.
What are we afraid of? its not the lack of issues, its the lack of resolve
Lets see if thread swells to dewcent levels we can organize a protest against USCIS infront of NBC studios
I hope you get a day off from work for doing that..
Why is no one talking about a public demonstartion in New York or something along those lines that is bound to get TV reporters attention and having a spokesperson who can speak on our behalf in front of a national audience and talk about the discrimintaion that US shows against legal workers
If Illegal Immigrants have the courage to pursue their agenda on the streets what is stopping us from doing it.
What are we afraid of? its not the lack of issues, its the lack of resolve
Lets see if thread swells to dewcent levels we can organize a protest against USCIS infront of NBC studios
I hope you get a day off from work for doing that..
hairstyles Popular Women Long Hair Styles
binadh
07-09 01:44 PM
I have made several attempts to get my money back from my previous lawyer without any success. After complaining about his services, he has sent me an email saying the he will return half of the money because he was not prompt on processing my case and I was not happy with his services. I received that email about 6 weeks ago and haven't seen a dime from him yet. And I do not think I will get my money back from this guy. This was paid for creating my job profile and filing the labor - what this bastard calls an initial retention.
Is there any specific website/forum where I can post my experience with this guy so that others will not take their business to this scammer. Please let us know if there is anything that we can do about this type of guys?
Is there any specific website/forum where I can post my experience with this guy so that others will not take their business to this scammer. Please let us know if there is anything that we can do about this type of guys?
rsayed
04-16 08:13 PM
My H-1 started in Oct'03 and is supposed to complete it's 6 yr term on Oct'09. But, my current H-1 (with my current employer) shows an expiry date of Apr'09 (same with the stamped visa on passport) - I don't know the reason for this.
My labor (EB2-PERM) and I-140 has been cleared/approved; Priority date is July 2006.
I'm being offered a F/T position in one of the Big 5 consulting firms - nice offer. But, they categorically state that "there is no guarantee of GC, upon completion of one/two year". I've been told that this is standard practice for them to say this, and they normally start your GC after one year if you have less than 2 yrs, left. Even, the HR rep. told me the same thing - just that they don't offer a commitment, due to changing market conditions.
My question - Is it advisable to change? Any ideas/thoughts on any chances whatsoever of "Immigration Reform" happening this year?
Should I just stay put (with my approved I-140), or should I change (which seems risky)?
Also, this "Big 5" firm processes GC in the EB-3 category - I know this for a fact (unless the position offered is of a "Manager", which is not the case with me).
Pl. advise. Thanks.
My labor (EB2-PERM) and I-140 has been cleared/approved; Priority date is July 2006.
I'm being offered a F/T position in one of the Big 5 consulting firms - nice offer. But, they categorically state that "there is no guarantee of GC, upon completion of one/two year". I've been told that this is standard practice for them to say this, and they normally start your GC after one year if you have less than 2 yrs, left. Even, the HR rep. told me the same thing - just that they don't offer a commitment, due to changing market conditions.
My question - Is it advisable to change? Any ideas/thoughts on any chances whatsoever of "Immigration Reform" happening this year?
Should I just stay put (with my approved I-140), or should I change (which seems risky)?
Also, this "Big 5" firm processes GC in the EB-3 category - I know this for a fact (unless the position offered is of a "Manager", which is not the case with me).
Pl. advise. Thanks.
purgan
03-05 11:01 AM
Oppose the Fee Increase!!
The proposed fee increases by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) are beyond excessive-they're exorbitant. For example, the current fee to apply for permanent residency is $325; USCIS proposes to raise this fee to $905 (a 178 percent increase). The fee for naturalization ("citizenship") applications would increase from $330 to $595 (an 80 percent increase).
Please take action today by contacting USCIS and letting them know that the proposed increases are exorbitant and unfair. Encourage USCIS to work with Congressional leaders to identify an alternative and permanent funding stream that supports USCIS operations.
View the AFSC website for more information; http://www.afsc.org/immigrants-rights/news/fee-increase2007.htm
The proposed fee increases by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) are beyond excessive-they're exorbitant. For example, the current fee to apply for permanent residency is $325; USCIS proposes to raise this fee to $905 (a 178 percent increase). The fee for naturalization ("citizenship") applications would increase from $330 to $595 (an 80 percent increase).
Please take action today by contacting USCIS and letting them know that the proposed increases are exorbitant and unfair. Encourage USCIS to work with Congressional leaders to identify an alternative and permanent funding stream that supports USCIS operations.
View the AFSC website for more information; http://www.afsc.org/immigrants-rights/news/fee-increase2007.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment