madhuvj
09-16 05:19 PM
Ok now.... Here is something interesting.
Who said ? Lawsuits will not work. If you guys have any doubts ? Follow the links below, iam gonna paste. It will tell you how powerful lawsuits are in this country if you think you have been fooled over and over on false promises. This is especially true in the case of People whose priority date was current for a long time but still they were made to wait because of unknown reasons by USCIS while the folks who had priority dates as recent as 2006 walked with Green Cards. People especially who fall under this category are sure to succeed only by filing lawsuits. I dont see any other way out here.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/12/17/immigrants_are_suing_to_speed_up_citizenship/
http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?t=194681
Thanks
MadhuVJ
Dudes & Dudettes,
Hasnt the issue of processing order been beaten to death?
I understand the momentum here....not trying to rain on a parade or anything...but shouldnt we be a little practical. How long is litigation going to take? Wont only naive lawyers even take this up?
USCIS can always pull the security reason trump card here.
moreover, during the last quarter...in the effort to not waste visas, low hanging easy to approve cases with later priority dates have gotten approved. wudnt u rather have that than visas going waste?
We have been patient for a very long time....lets see how the dates move in the 1st 2 quarters of fiscal 09.
My personal suggestion....stop worrying aout GC...there are much bigger things in life to worry about. :)
Who said ? Lawsuits will not work. If you guys have any doubts ? Follow the links below, iam gonna paste. It will tell you how powerful lawsuits are in this country if you think you have been fooled over and over on false promises. This is especially true in the case of People whose priority date was current for a long time but still they were made to wait because of unknown reasons by USCIS while the folks who had priority dates as recent as 2006 walked with Green Cards. People especially who fall under this category are sure to succeed only by filing lawsuits. I dont see any other way out here.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/12/17/immigrants_are_suing_to_speed_up_citizenship/
http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?t=194681
Thanks
MadhuVJ
Dudes & Dudettes,
Hasnt the issue of processing order been beaten to death?
I understand the momentum here....not trying to rain on a parade or anything...but shouldnt we be a little practical. How long is litigation going to take? Wont only naive lawyers even take this up?
USCIS can always pull the security reason trump card here.
moreover, during the last quarter...in the effort to not waste visas, low hanging easy to approve cases with later priority dates have gotten approved. wudnt u rather have that than visas going waste?
We have been patient for a very long time....lets see how the dates move in the 1st 2 quarters of fiscal 09.
My personal suggestion....stop worrying aout GC...there are much bigger things in life to worry about. :)
wallpaper from Lyrical tattoos pool
dingudi
02-05 11:38 AM
No FP yet for me too.July 2 filer. Application at TSC.
malibuguy007
02-25 07:36 PM
$1890 - who is the one to get us in into 2000?
2011 dresses Lock and key tattoo
Deepika
07-04 03:46 PM
My application was delivered on Jul 2, 12:15 PM to Nebraska and signed by Robert Picture .
more...
lasvegas
02-05 12:56 PM
Thanks Lasantha.
ChainReaction
08-14 09:22 AM
My application was mailed on June 25th to TSC and picked up by TSC IO on June 28th . The new weekly processing update states processing/receipting completed till june 28th. But they still haven't cashed my check or issued any receipt ? When I called the 800 number to ask them regarding my application they first told me to wait for 15 days ,then 45 days and now 90 days. Whats the point of issuing weekly update if USCIS itself is not following it,it is creating more anxiety then doing any good.
I am wondering what if they misplaced/lost my application, will they accept resubmitting a new I485 petition after Aug17th based on Fedex signature conformation receipt signed by an IO, of previously filed petition??:confused:
I am wondering what if they misplaced/lost my application, will they accept resubmitting a new I485 petition after Aug17th based on Fedex signature conformation receipt signed by an IO, of previously filed petition??:confused:
more...
desi3933
05-11 05:16 PM
we are talking about inclusion logic here. Not the exclusion logic.
I do see in sec 203 how some one becomes eligible for "eb quota". I dont see ebdependents there. I see only eb primary.
I am sorry, I am not interested to carry this debate forward for the fun of debating. I strongly urge you to read sec 203. Thanks for understanding.
Read for yourself.
INA 203(d) Treatment of family members
A spouse or child as defined in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 1101(b)(1) of this title shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.
This means that if primary beneficiary is using visa number from EB(2) classification then dependent(s) will also be using same classification as primary beneficiary (i.e. EB(2) in this example).
______________________
Not a legal advice
US citizen of Indian origin
I do see in sec 203 how some one becomes eligible for "eb quota". I dont see ebdependents there. I see only eb primary.
I am sorry, I am not interested to carry this debate forward for the fun of debating. I strongly urge you to read sec 203. Thanks for understanding.
Read for yourself.
INA 203(d) Treatment of family members
A spouse or child as defined in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 1101(b)(1) of this title shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.
This means that if primary beneficiary is using visa number from EB(2) classification then dependent(s) will also be using same classification as primary beneficiary (i.e. EB(2) in this example).
______________________
Not a legal advice
US citizen of Indian origin
2010 2010 head. head tattoos for
jsb
12-20 10:23 AM
Hi All,
I would like to know if I will get in trouble if I do this:
First, switch to a completely unrelated job after 180 days of I485 filing,
then, switch back to similar job when my priority date becomes current or close to becoming current.
Does USCIS check what other jobs have I done during the entire adjustee period or it is only concerned about the job at the time of adjudication?
Thanks in advance!
Prior to getting your GC, you can work
(i) On any job using EAD
(ii) Job with a specific employer (which may or may not be your sponsor) using H1, L1, etc.
Until you get your GC, you are supposed to be a guest worker. USCIS only cares if sponsoring employer (or any other employer after 180 days of AOS pending) has a job offer for you on your getting GC.
If you are already working with the employer (prior to or at the time of getting GC) where you would work AFTER getting your GC, it only re-enforces your and your employers intentions.
So, in brief answer to your question is, no you will not be in trouble, as long as sponsoring employer (or any other employer after 180 days) is willing to confirm their intentions of hiring you if and when USCIS asks for it.
You can actually switch your job even prior to 180 days of filings AOS without impacting your case. You need not even have worked at all for the sponsoring emloyer. USCIS memos clarify these issues in detail.
I would like to know if I will get in trouble if I do this:
First, switch to a completely unrelated job after 180 days of I485 filing,
then, switch back to similar job when my priority date becomes current or close to becoming current.
Does USCIS check what other jobs have I done during the entire adjustee period or it is only concerned about the job at the time of adjudication?
Thanks in advance!
Prior to getting your GC, you can work
(i) On any job using EAD
(ii) Job with a specific employer (which may or may not be your sponsor) using H1, L1, etc.
Until you get your GC, you are supposed to be a guest worker. USCIS only cares if sponsoring employer (or any other employer after 180 days of AOS pending) has a job offer for you on your getting GC.
If you are already working with the employer (prior to or at the time of getting GC) where you would work AFTER getting your GC, it only re-enforces your and your employers intentions.
So, in brief answer to your question is, no you will not be in trouble, as long as sponsoring employer (or any other employer after 180 days) is willing to confirm their intentions of hiring you if and when USCIS asks for it.
You can actually switch your job even prior to 180 days of filings AOS without impacting your case. You need not even have worked at all for the sponsoring emloyer. USCIS memos clarify these issues in detail.
more...
newbee7
12-17 07:49 PM
Check out the story on GregSiskind about a family with kids seperated due to immigration woes. Thank god that at least most of us are fortunate enough to be with our loved ones.
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10211326
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10211326
hair and lyrical tattoosgt;gt;
ngopalak
07-20 11:21 AM
I will pledge $50 ..where is the link to contribute
Dear Members
For those of you joining us late, here is some info about this thread.
1. This is to do our least part to the core IV Team for their selfless sacrifice, for all of us getting the benefits of legal immigration. Note that , Aman Kapoor , the co-founder of IV has done his part by sacrificing $64,000/- from his own personal funds towards the administrative costs of IV. Yes you read it right , it is $64,000/- We come to know from his co-worker that he has sold his house towards running this show for us.
2. We have not yet figured out a way to reimburse these costs as IV does not yet have administrative costs part of the expenditure allocation, as we understand it. So instead of a wait and watch, we decided to go ahead with collecting the pledge from the members on the amount they are putting forth for reimbursing the amount. Once we come up with a strategy(members we look for your suggestions on how to get this done, please add your comments) we will instruct the members pledged to pay out.
So do not pay it directly to the IV core funds, yet.
Please help us spread the message about this thread in other threads by copy and pasting the following in other threads too.
There is a funding drive in this other thread towards reimbursing Aman and other core IV member's expenses towards the administrative costs of IV.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=10708
Could you please pledge an amount ?
Thanks
Anzer
Dear Members
For those of you joining us late, here is some info about this thread.
1. This is to do our least part to the core IV Team for their selfless sacrifice, for all of us getting the benefits of legal immigration. Note that , Aman Kapoor , the co-founder of IV has done his part by sacrificing $64,000/- from his own personal funds towards the administrative costs of IV. Yes you read it right , it is $64,000/- We come to know from his co-worker that he has sold his house towards running this show for us.
2. We have not yet figured out a way to reimburse these costs as IV does not yet have administrative costs part of the expenditure allocation, as we understand it. So instead of a wait and watch, we decided to go ahead with collecting the pledge from the members on the amount they are putting forth for reimbursing the amount. Once we come up with a strategy(members we look for your suggestions on how to get this done, please add your comments) we will instruct the members pledged to pay out.
So do not pay it directly to the IV core funds, yet.
Please help us spread the message about this thread in other threads by copy and pasting the following in other threads too.
There is a funding drive in this other thread towards reimbursing Aman and other core IV member's expenses towards the administrative costs of IV.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=10708
Could you please pledge an amount ?
Thanks
Anzer
more...
glus
08-26 12:26 PM
Hi:
EAD applied 07/08/2008 - renewal -TSC
No Luds, no finger print notice, nothing....
Status: pending.
EB3.
EAD applied 07/08/2008 - renewal -TSC
No Luds, no finger print notice, nothing....
Status: pending.
EB3.
hot (It#39;s based on a lyric from
manishs7
09-24 04:54 PM
Consider the scenario:
Two guys (A and B) come to US in 2005, both do not have MS and experience less than 5 years. Therefore both not elligible for EB2 on 2005. They are from a retrogressed country.
A does MS and joins job in 2007, becomes eligible for EB2 and files GC on 2007.
B joins a job on 2005 that do not need MS and experience and files for EB3.
Till 2010 both of them did not get GC. But B crossed 5 years of experience and from EB3 to EB2. Now B's priority date is 2005, although he was not elligible for EB2 at that time.
Although A was elligible for EB2 in 2007 earlier than B (2010), A is pushed behind B.
SHould it be acceptable to people like A? And there is not one or two pleale like B, thousands arer doing that?
If you see my priority date you will understand I am not saying this for myself. I have a bro and friends who are facing this isssue.
Therefore EB2s who are from mid 2006 onwards will really get pushed back..
I see this porting simillar to the labor substitition.. Till it was in place it was legal although thousands bought labors and that is one main reason EB2 had retrogressed back to 2000. I predict simillar thing is happending again, people are paying money to the desi employers to file perm in EB2 again pretty soon same tertrogression will happen to EB2 I if any urgent action is not taken.
I hace passed this stage.. now its for you all to decide..
Mr RSharama, it's 'A's ignorance of the process. He should be aware at the time of starting the Masters that GC is based on the position in the queue ( no body's gives a rat's if the person in front of you is a retard). Porting was legal in 2005 and it is now. there is no change in Law.
You can't compare porting with labor substitution. For porting, you have to go through the complete process and not just throw some dollars.
Same logic applies to people who say "I was eligible to file for EB2, but my employer/lawyer forced me to file on EB3".
It's the ignorance of process, if you are eligible for EB2 .. go join any other company.. it's America .. for God's sake..
If it doesn't suit me it's injustice.
Two guys (A and B) come to US in 2005, both do not have MS and experience less than 5 years. Therefore both not elligible for EB2 on 2005. They are from a retrogressed country.
A does MS and joins job in 2007, becomes eligible for EB2 and files GC on 2007.
B joins a job on 2005 that do not need MS and experience and files for EB3.
Till 2010 both of them did not get GC. But B crossed 5 years of experience and from EB3 to EB2. Now B's priority date is 2005, although he was not elligible for EB2 at that time.
Although A was elligible for EB2 in 2007 earlier than B (2010), A is pushed behind B.
SHould it be acceptable to people like A? And there is not one or two pleale like B, thousands arer doing that?
If you see my priority date you will understand I am not saying this for myself. I have a bro and friends who are facing this isssue.
Therefore EB2s who are from mid 2006 onwards will really get pushed back..
I see this porting simillar to the labor substitition.. Till it was in place it was legal although thousands bought labors and that is one main reason EB2 had retrogressed back to 2000. I predict simillar thing is happending again, people are paying money to the desi employers to file perm in EB2 again pretty soon same tertrogression will happen to EB2 I if any urgent action is not taken.
I hace passed this stage.. now its for you all to decide..
Mr RSharama, it's 'A's ignorance of the process. He should be aware at the time of starting the Masters that GC is based on the position in the queue ( no body's gives a rat's if the person in front of you is a retard). Porting was legal in 2005 and it is now. there is no change in Law.
You can't compare porting with labor substitution. For porting, you have to go through the complete process and not just throw some dollars.
Same logic applies to people who say "I was eligible to file for EB2, but my employer/lawyer forced me to file on EB3".
It's the ignorance of process, if you are eligible for EB2 .. go join any other company.. it's America .. for God's sake..
If it doesn't suit me it's injustice.
more...
house photos tattoo. Cross Tattoos
gccovet
07-24 09:44 AM
Paper filed at TSC on May 22, 2008
Service center: TSC
Last LUD on May 29
No updates since.
Currently working on EAD and exires in Sept 2008
----------------
Just called the service center and reply I got back was weird. Apparently their case status viewing system is down and will not be up and running for another 1 week. So, no info as of now and call back in 1 week :(
Same here:
Service Center : TSC
File type : Paper Based
Filed : May 29th
No update since then:
EAD Expires 09/08.
Started to get worried!!! Hoping to get the cards in two weeks else will ask lawyer to look into the matter (Don't know what they can do in this situation)
GCCovet
Service center: TSC
Last LUD on May 29
No updates since.
Currently working on EAD and exires in Sept 2008
----------------
Just called the service center and reply I got back was weird. Apparently their case status viewing system is down and will not be up and running for another 1 week. So, no info as of now and call back in 1 week :(
Same here:
Service Center : TSC
File type : Paper Based
Filed : May 29th
No update since then:
EAD Expires 09/08.
Started to get worried!!! Hoping to get the cards in two weeks else will ask lawyer to look into the matter (Don't know what they can do in this situation)
GCCovet
tattoo riannahs rianah tattoos
paragpujara
01-06 11:55 AM
I selected following options for infopass appointment.
You need Service on a case that has already been filed -->Case Services follow-up appointment - If it has been over 45 days since you contacted NCSC and have not received a response to your inquiry. You must bring the Service Request ID Number related to your inquiry to the appointment.
And I carried Receipts for 485,765 and 131 for myself and my wife (of course photo ID).
Hope this helps. Good Luck.
Congrats Parag. You got it finally. Am still waiting.
Do you know which option you selected when you had scheduled the infopass? Also, what documents did you carry at the infopass?
Thanks for the update again.
You need Service on a case that has already been filed -->Case Services follow-up appointment - If it has been over 45 days since you contacted NCSC and have not received a response to your inquiry. You must bring the Service Request ID Number related to your inquiry to the appointment.
And I carried Receipts for 485,765 and 131 for myself and my wife (of course photo ID).
Hope this helps. Good Luck.
Congrats Parag. You got it finally. Am still waiting.
Do you know which option you selected when you had scheduled the infopass? Also, what documents did you carry at the infopass?
Thanks for the update again.
more...
pictures sporting a 15 tattoo
sunny1000
07-09 12:13 AM
United states postal service. My lawyer sent it on june 29 and to this day it's a mestry to me how it was delivered at 10:10 pm at night. I did not think anybody would accept it. BUt if they were working on 25000 in 48 hours. The only reason i think they took it is to finish the number of visa available.
still It does not mean anything ... they can reject it.
Can you please tell the date..was it 6/29? Thx
still It does not mean anything ... they can reject it.
Can you please tell the date..was it 6/29? Thx
dresses song lyric tattoos. lyrics
hi_sunny74
09-17 03:34 PM
Do let us know incase your receipt numbers start with WAC
>>>>>
My receipt numbers started with src
>>>>>
My receipt numbers started with src
more...
makeup lyric or phrase on my arm.
imh1b
02-04 03:51 PM
I cannot stand the Sardar and his super corrupt party also sick of seeing that joker 'Rahul Gandhi' face they show him 24 X 7 on all Indian channels...I curse him every single day when I see his face in the Newspapers. These b..stards have eaten our country like parasites. If I go to India, I will have to see his face everyday...I'll rather see Obama..
But you watch Indian TV and see him everyday? :D
Why are you attached to India when you hate it? You want to get Green Card in USA and live here permanently. So should you not learn more about this country and culture. You cannot live in USA but think about India all the time and hate it too.
But you watch Indian TV and see him everyday? :D
Why are you attached to India when you hate it? You want to get Green Card in USA and live here permanently. So should you not learn more about this country and culture. You cannot live in USA but think about India all the time and hate it too.
girlfriend tattoo#39;s
chmur
07-27 06:28 PM
Chmur; I appreciate your post. For the sake of a discussion could you share what is the temporary relief that you are seeking. I am curious to know the details. Is it
1. Revert back to the vertical spillover rule. OR
2. Revert back to vertical spillover rule and after EB3-ROW becomes current split the visas equally between EB2-I and EB3-I OR
3. Keep the horizontal spill over in place but any spill over from EB2 ROW should go equally to EB2-Retro and EB3 (ROW and Retro) category.
Let me offer my answers to the questions above:
1. In this case EB3-I is no better off as EB3ROW and EB2-I has to become current before any excess visas can go to EB3-I.
2. Completely negates the categorization as laid out by law after the initial handout is done equally. Is a hybrid approach where the vertical rule would be enforced so long as EB2 and EB3 (both ROW) are current. But after that a selective interpretation of the vertical rule is sought where EB2-I and EB3-I share it equally. The basis of this selective interpretation appears to be length of wait - nowhere does the INA state that length of wait can be used as a basis for negating categorization of EB category.
3. Is against the law - read my earlier post. Again selectively uses horizontal spill over till EB2 ROW demand is satisfied and then use vertical spill over to share visas between EB2-Retro and EB3 category.
I completely respect your right to lobby for change. However I am a little baffled as to how this change can be sought without changing law. Even if the change is approved, I see a strong possibility of a counter EB2 movement to nullify this change. I would appreciate any details from you anybody else on this. Cheers
None ....
Eb3-I has to explain it's position and request DOS to suggest an alternative method to mitigate the starving under the given laws.
As suggested earlier which requires change in law and which does not is not clear to any of us. DOS itself has had contradictory implementations over the years.
I am baffled that you think anyone of us can actually dictate DOS what to do.
1. Revert back to the vertical spillover rule. OR
2. Revert back to vertical spillover rule and after EB3-ROW becomes current split the visas equally between EB2-I and EB3-I OR
3. Keep the horizontal spill over in place but any spill over from EB2 ROW should go equally to EB2-Retro and EB3 (ROW and Retro) category.
Let me offer my answers to the questions above:
1. In this case EB3-I is no better off as EB3ROW and EB2-I has to become current before any excess visas can go to EB3-I.
2. Completely negates the categorization as laid out by law after the initial handout is done equally. Is a hybrid approach where the vertical rule would be enforced so long as EB2 and EB3 (both ROW) are current. But after that a selective interpretation of the vertical rule is sought where EB2-I and EB3-I share it equally. The basis of this selective interpretation appears to be length of wait - nowhere does the INA state that length of wait can be used as a basis for negating categorization of EB category.
3. Is against the law - read my earlier post. Again selectively uses horizontal spill over till EB2 ROW demand is satisfied and then use vertical spill over to share visas between EB2-Retro and EB3 category.
I completely respect your right to lobby for change. However I am a little baffled as to how this change can be sought without changing law. Even if the change is approved, I see a strong possibility of a counter EB2 movement to nullify this change. I would appreciate any details from you anybody else on this. Cheers
None ....
Eb3-I has to explain it's position and request DOS to suggest an alternative method to mitigate the starving under the given laws.
As suggested earlier which requires change in law and which does not is not clear to any of us. DOS itself has had contradictory implementations over the years.
I am baffled that you think anyone of us can actually dictate DOS what to do.
hairstyles indie middot; tattoo middot; lyric
jonty_11
07-05 06:29 PM
dont give ur return address..jack Bauer may be on ur trail.
sankap
07-10 03:14 PM
I-140 is for future job, and the petition says that the original employer has *intent* to hire the petitioner on FT/"perm" job. Now, let's say the original employer withdraws the petition after 180 days of filing I-485 and approved I-140 and lets you go. That's where AC21 comes to rescue, and you can become "self-employed" rather than "unemployed." Question is, why can't self-employment in same/similar occupation as your I-140 petition be considered to satisfy I-140 requirement? (Fortunately, yes it can be, per Yates memo.) Another situation: If you continue working with the same employer on H-1B until you get your GC, and leave him the next day of getting GC, and then plan to take a long holiday (not working). Would your GC be canceled because you don't have a FT/"perm" job?
I-140 is for future GC and hence, must be full time and permanent.
I-140 is not for current H-1B job.
You are mixing two things.
I-140 is for future GC and hence, must be full time and permanent.
I-140 is not for current H-1B job.
You are mixing two things.
chanduy9
07-03 12:54 PM
I think any flower is good, if we run out of the same..just an idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment