jonty_11
07-11 04:20 PM
There is a lot of hurtburn among folks here abt a lot of things...Does that mean USCIS is going to cater to every case of heartburn. I dont think so.
wallpaper Wedding Flowers wallpaper
mrdelhiite
07-23 03:47 PM
485 is not for employer, its for employee. AOS.
If you don't submit, they'll ask you as RFE.
Please do not scare anybody with half knowledge.
All you can say politely is there might be a chance instead of rejected.
Have some dignity.
""Have some dignity."" ??? just read the replies below your reply.
If you don't submit, they'll ask you as RFE.
Please do not scare anybody with half knowledge.
All you can say politely is there might be a chance instead of rejected.
Have some dignity.
""Have some dignity."" ??? just read the replies below your reply.
karanp25
07-14 06:34 PM
That's possible too. Please share when you received this RFE?
Is it possible they are trying to adjudicate my 485. I am EB2 India PD: JAN 2006.
Is it possible they are trying to adjudicate my 485. I am EB2 India PD: JAN 2006.
2011 Wedding Flowers and Florists
tikka
07-04 08:32 AM
Veerug,
I understand your concern. But $5000 was just number put by me as target.. I am sure we need more then that.. I feel if we put some target then people contribute and try to achieve it. But core member never said we just need $5000. So please don't stick with that number.. That number was just target that I thought we could meet. If you ask core members they going to say that we need more then that. As you know everything needs money.. Core is putting their time and mmoney and doing this all for everybody.. At least we can do is act on their action items.
Hope this makes little sense.
Thanks.
Based on the volume of folks logged in funding team sets a target.. to be reached.
Veerug if you have not can you please DIGG!!
if you have many thanks :)
I understand your concern. But $5000 was just number put by me as target.. I am sure we need more then that.. I feel if we put some target then people contribute and try to achieve it. But core member never said we just need $5000. So please don't stick with that number.. That number was just target that I thought we could meet. If you ask core members they going to say that we need more then that. As you know everything needs money.. Core is putting their time and mmoney and doing this all for everybody.. At least we can do is act on their action items.
Hope this makes little sense.
Thanks.
Based on the volume of folks logged in funding team sets a target.. to be reached.
Veerug if you have not can you please DIGG!!
if you have many thanks :)
more...
apahilaj
02-21 02:32 PM
Please note:PERM Audit very aggressive with EB2 since last couple of months. Just to keep in mind
Till how long can they audit the PERM once it's approved? Just curious.
Till how long can they audit the PERM once it's approved? Just curious.
suriajay12
02-19 07:21 AM
And who do you think is going to process the paperwork for illegals? ... guess again, the same agency that is processing for Legal would-be-could-be immigrants. So how is it not going to increase processing time which would ultimately result in further delay?
Moreover, it doesn't matter wether their is delay or not. Simply, putting illegals in front of legals is ethically, morally and legally wrong!!
There is a difference.. In this case (>5 years), it will also include clauses or something that will not jeopardize your status. Compare requirements we have to meet in different stages and in this case. In LC, 140... you are at the mercy of many agencies, including mood of the officier who looks at your case, economic conditions, your employer, etc etc.. endless list . In this case you are just dependent upon yourself and if you can prove you were in the US for >5 years in whatever ways you can, then you are good. I know some who dont meet this 5 years may be disappointed, but they must find a way to include themselves if they can make sense. But not just cut the line.
To prove >5 year legally in US is fully on you.. which is VERY good. Support it.
Moreover, it doesn't matter wether their is delay or not. Simply, putting illegals in front of legals is ethically, morally and legally wrong!!
There is a difference.. In this case (>5 years), it will also include clauses or something that will not jeopardize your status. Compare requirements we have to meet in different stages and in this case. In LC, 140... you are at the mercy of many agencies, including mood of the officier who looks at your case, economic conditions, your employer, etc etc.. endless list . In this case you are just dependent upon yourself and if you can prove you were in the US for >5 years in whatever ways you can, then you are good. I know some who dont meet this 5 years may be disappointed, but they must find a way to include themselves if they can make sense. But not just cut the line.
To prove >5 year legally in US is fully on you.. which is VERY good. Support it.
more...
pointlesswait
07-28 12:45 PM
I would recommend each and everyone...be it a believer or a non-believer..
to read the book by Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion..
If u have even an iota of rationality ..you will appretiate the beauty of his argument...This book is a must read for every mortal...
You can get a "used" copy on amazon for 3$...please..i beg u guys to read it!
to read the book by Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion..
If u have even an iota of rationality ..you will appretiate the beauty of his argument...This book is a must read for every mortal...
You can get a "used" copy on amazon for 3$...please..i beg u guys to read it!
2010 Wedding Flowers bouquets
bestia
01-19 03:54 PM
Its a matter of interpretation. Cops are not lawyers and neither am I. Arguing simply makes matters worse. None the less, you can argue as much as you want but if the cop has one on his mind and you have another, it certainly doesn't help your situation.
Of course. Judges are the ones who interpret the laws. Officers just do what they are instructed to do. My point was just out of curiosity, how I think this law is being interpreted.
But of course. My opinion is not only not to argue with officers, but don't even talk to them. When I feel that officer wants some "conversation" with me, my favorite response is "sorry officer, me no understand, no speak english". period. Smile to his face, keep saying "sorry". Don't show any extra document - just only what is required, nothing extra. Officer can be asking any questions, just hand him business card of your lawyer, say "my lawyer, talk him". as worse English you will use, as better it will be for you. My experience.
When I first entered United States I was kept at secondary check for 4 hours (1999, IAD, Virginia). They kept asking me all kinda questions, it was no end. Finally I got pissed, I said "Sorry, I don't speak English good" and started playing with them. I took my dictionary and starting looking up every word. My next answer took 5 minutes. In next 5 minutes a woman walked to me, handed my documents and said "Welcome to America".
Of course. Judges are the ones who interpret the laws. Officers just do what they are instructed to do. My point was just out of curiosity, how I think this law is being interpreted.
But of course. My opinion is not only not to argue with officers, but don't even talk to them. When I feel that officer wants some "conversation" with me, my favorite response is "sorry officer, me no understand, no speak english". period. Smile to his face, keep saying "sorry". Don't show any extra document - just only what is required, nothing extra. Officer can be asking any questions, just hand him business card of your lawyer, say "my lawyer, talk him". as worse English you will use, as better it will be for you. My experience.
When I first entered United States I was kept at secondary check for 4 hours (1999, IAD, Virginia). They kept asking me all kinda questions, it was no end. Finally I got pissed, I said "Sorry, I don't speak English good" and started playing with them. I took my dictionary and starting looking up every word. My next answer took 5 minutes. In next 5 minutes a woman walked to me, handed my documents and said "Welcome to America".
more...
gimmeacard
07-13 05:08 PM
hoping we dont see another retrogression
hair Wedding Photography in The
meridiani.planum
03-13 11:51 AM
Has any one working on EAD experienced delays in renewals and how does HR department react to such delay's. Least on H1 it is clear that you can work for 8 months on receipt.
where I work one of two things happen:
- HR department is clueless about EAD expiry date, so people can continue to (illegally) work once EAD expires before the new EAD comes. Or they can choose to tell HR and stop working.
- If hte case is handled by company attorneys (some AC-21 folks have stuck to their own attorneys), then company attorney sends a mail to HR saying its illegal for tha tperson to work starting from so-and-so date, and that person is put on unpaid leave starting that date.
File the extension as soon as possible (120 days) and then start praying you get it before th eold one expires.
where I work one of two things happen:
- HR department is clueless about EAD expiry date, so people can continue to (illegally) work once EAD expires before the new EAD comes. Or they can choose to tell HR and stop working.
- If hte case is handled by company attorneys (some AC-21 folks have stuck to their own attorneys), then company attorney sends a mail to HR saying its illegal for tha tperson to work starting from so-and-so date, and that person is put on unpaid leave starting that date.
File the extension as soon as possible (120 days) and then start praying you get it before th eold one expires.
more...
pappu
07-23 09:08 PM
Employment Letter is Required. I would even go to the extent of emphasising to put original letter instead of a photocopy. Do not take chances. The application can be rejected/RFE can be issued in the absece of initial evidence. Read the new memo and educate yourself rather then blindly believing members or lawyers. Ignorance of law is not an excuse if you were to challenge a denial notice. When all information is available, make yourself educated. and BTW get a good lawyer to file your application so that each and every small detail can be taken care of.
hot Wedding Flowers That Withstand
srkamath
07-18 03:17 PM
I complied the list from visa stastistics website
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html
example 2007 numbers from
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY07AnnualReportTableVp2.pdf
2006 numbers from
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY06AnnualReportTableV-Part2.pdf
This is simply the best data i have ever seen an IV member dig out in the last 2 years.. Great Job sachug22
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html
example 2007 numbers from
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY07AnnualReportTableVp2.pdf
2006 numbers from
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY06AnnualReportTableV-Part2.pdf
This is simply the best data i have ever seen an IV member dig out in the last 2 years.. Great Job sachug22
more...
house Pink flowers background free
HOPE_GC_SOON
11-20 05:05 PM
Hi LWPD
Thanks for your Posting of this URL.
The URL is no more active and please help me forwarding the specified .pdf file either a PM to me or please attach the same to your reply.
Alternatively, if you can describe the path on USCIS site, that would be of great help.. I doubt they still hold that .pdf file on site. If you had downloaded this .pdf file. Please help the Team.
Thanks
You guys won't believe how glad I am to read a few posts here where some people are standing up for themselves and refusing to take bullshit from certain lousy employers. This will send a message to those kinds of employers that they can't use the immigration system and treat employees like shit while continuing to profit from these hard-working people.
abc, just one suggestion for you. If you can, hold off until your I-140 gets approved. Once that happens, your 2003 priority date will stick and you can take it with you ( USCIS internal I-140 adjudication manual for your reference ... http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrel...h22_091206R.pdf )
I wish you all the best with your life.
lwpd
Thanks for your Posting of this URL.
The URL is no more active and please help me forwarding the specified .pdf file either a PM to me or please attach the same to your reply.
Alternatively, if you can describe the path on USCIS site, that would be of great help.. I doubt they still hold that .pdf file on site. If you had downloaded this .pdf file. Please help the Team.
Thanks
You guys won't believe how glad I am to read a few posts here where some people are standing up for themselves and refusing to take bullshit from certain lousy employers. This will send a message to those kinds of employers that they can't use the immigration system and treat employees like shit while continuing to profit from these hard-working people.
abc, just one suggestion for you. If you can, hold off until your I-140 gets approved. Once that happens, your 2003 priority date will stick and you can take it with you ( USCIS internal I-140 adjudication manual for your reference ... http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrel...h22_091206R.pdf )
I wish you all the best with your life.
lwpd
tattoo up any wedding bouquet,
prioritydate
12-20 04:26 PM
Please just dont worry about it too much , there are also chances that you may not get an RFE. There are chances that you may get an RFE but you dont know what USCIS will ask from you. You need to have RFE in hand to prepare response for that.
I know that I may or may not get an RFE. I just want to find out if any of you guys are in the same situation. I am sure that some people didn't worked due to the economic situation during 2000-2001. Since I am not entirely sure what should I do if I get an RFE, I just want to find out. If the IO ask me for a proof of work, then I may not provide it. I don't have w2, I didn't filed tax returns, don't have pay stubs; not sure what status I was in at that time. My i-94 was still valid, but I just didn't worked during that time period. If IO ask me to provide w2, I simply have to pack my bags!! :eek:
I know that I may or may not get an RFE. I just want to find out if any of you guys are in the same situation. I am sure that some people didn't worked due to the economic situation during 2000-2001. Since I am not entirely sure what should I do if I get an RFE, I just want to find out. If the IO ask me for a proof of work, then I may not provide it. I don't have w2, I didn't filed tax returns, don't have pay stubs; not sure what status I was in at that time. My i-94 was still valid, but I just didn't worked during that time period. If IO ask me to provide w2, I simply have to pack my bags!! :eek:
more...
pictures Our Wedding
varshadas
12-14 08:20 PM
Except for myself and Rajeev, no one joined the conference call tonight. C'mmon guys, we need some action here. We all ought to participate in these calls. Writing emails, coming and posting I am in is not going to help. We have to take actions here. I will set up a conference call on another day next week and please make sure you all attend.
Thanks,
Varsha
Thanks,
Varsha
dresses Wedding Specialists
gauravster
11-12 04:58 PM
WRONG.
YOU are an EB2 India guy for sure and your PD is close.
If spillover happens, all visas will get used up by EB2 India only. EB3 India gets nothing. There are way too many Indians in the system. Even if something is left from EB2 India, EB3 ROW will get breadcrums.
EB3 India gets nothing. So stop giving wrong logic. I will oppose IV helping EB2 guys with close priority dates and not caring about everyone else.
If spillover happens, it will go to EB2 India sure. But getting the visas used is better than having them wasted. Also, though remote, everyone in EB3 does have a remote chance that at sometime, they might be ported to EB2. For example, those who have EAD, but working with a different employer now (after getting EAD) can ask for the employer to file a new application and be eligible for EB2. Some in same company may also be able to apply for porting.
There is no problem in having multiple fronts of attack to the problem.
YOU are an EB2 India guy for sure and your PD is close.
If spillover happens, all visas will get used up by EB2 India only. EB3 India gets nothing. There are way too many Indians in the system. Even if something is left from EB2 India, EB3 ROW will get breadcrums.
EB3 India gets nothing. So stop giving wrong logic. I will oppose IV helping EB2 guys with close priority dates and not caring about everyone else.
If spillover happens, it will go to EB2 India sure. But getting the visas used is better than having them wasted. Also, though remote, everyone in EB3 does have a remote chance that at sometime, they might be ported to EB2. For example, those who have EAD, but working with a different employer now (after getting EAD) can ask for the employer to file a new application and be eligible for EB2. Some in same company may also be able to apply for porting.
There is no problem in having multiple fronts of attack to the problem.
more...
makeup plum flowers background 2
speddi
07-18 10:01 AM
my application reached texas center on july 2nd at 10.23am .. I called USCIS today and the rep said they didnt enter the information into the system..he said it might take upto 30 days to start giving receipt notices because of the load of applications
girlfriend Beautiful ackground with
abracadabra102
07-01 04:18 PM
It is "petition". Thank you.
hairstyles Wedding Flowers wallpaper
xyzgc
12-10 08:22 PM
even if we could do population control, another thing we would need is a time machine to go back and implement the control with retroactive effect. is there anyone who has been working on a time machine? How is it coming? :D:D:D:D
I've a time machine. you want it?:D Its gonna cost you man:p
I've a time machine. you want it?:D Its gonna cost you man:p
nomi
12-11 03:58 PM
USCIS cannot do anything on the matter. INA is clear on the AOS conditions, one of which is "An immigrant visa is IMMEDIATELY available at time of filing for adjustment of status" (INA 245, 8 USC 1225)
INA should be changed which should be done through a legislative process, not through any rule making.
Thank xbohdukc. I think, this door is also close.
INA should be changed which should be done through a legislative process, not through any rule making.
Thank xbohdukc. I think, this door is also close.
nixstor
03-18 05:17 PM
I can use some help if I am missing some things here.
Snip from 202 a 5 (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid|SLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination|act202a&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1435)
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
Paragraph in the above corresond to each category. So paragraph 1 is EB1. Paragraph 2 is EB2 and so on. So the translation is what the VB exactly said.
What does 203 (b) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 say?
Define EB1-EB5 categories. Find it here (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/DocView/slbid/1/2/15?hilite=).
I posted the same Q on Ron Gotcher's forum this afternoon and my post did not go through to be moderated (I got the message that the post was submitted and will be posted after moderator approves it) or the mod chose not to post it.
Snip from 202 a 5 (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid|SLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination|act202a&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1435)
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
Paragraph in the above corresond to each category. So paragraph 1 is EB1. Paragraph 2 is EB2 and so on. So the translation is what the VB exactly said.
What does 203 (b) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 say?
Define EB1-EB5 categories. Find it here (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/DocView/slbid/1/2/15?hilite=).
I posted the same Q on Ron Gotcher's forum this afternoon and my post did not go through to be moderated (I got the message that the post was submitted and will be posted after moderator approves it) or the mod chose not to post it.
No comments:
Post a Comment