desi3933
07-08 04:43 PM
The legal reasoning is "Civil Rights Act of 1964" which applies to all individuals employed by a US employer in the US.
Wow! Amazing!
Please ask your attorney to quote this law when you file for H-1B extension, so that USCIS can not reject extension.
This law applies to US resident only. Temp worker (yes, on H1/L1 status, one is Temp Worker from legal point of view) can not claim protection citing this law. Reason: your employment is subject to USCIS regulations. It says right there on your SSN.
.
Wow! Amazing!
Please ask your attorney to quote this law when you file for H-1B extension, so that USCIS can not reject extension.
This law applies to US resident only. Temp worker (yes, on H1/L1 status, one is Temp Worker from legal point of view) can not claim protection citing this law. Reason: your employment is subject to USCIS regulations. It says right there on your SSN.
.
wallpaper rockabilly hairstyles
isantem
11-17 03:49 PM
Done! VA
Thanks IV
Thanks IV
SKK2004
08-25 04:35 PM
Being out of the backlog elimination center and waiting in this line since 2004, trust me when I say this circus isn't new to me :)!
your are very welcome.
Chill, relax and live everyday ( this USCIS circus is no fun).
your are very welcome.
Chill, relax and live everyday ( this USCIS circus is no fun).
2011 short female hair styles
Macaca
07-09 05:07 PM
Section 245.1 (g)
(g) Availability of immigrant visas under section 245 and priority dates�(1) Availability of immigrant visas under section
245. An alien is ineligible for the benefits of section 245 of the Act unless an immigrant visa is immediately available to him or her at the time the application is filed. If the applicant is a preference alien, the current Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Visa Bulletin will be consulted to determine whether an immigrant visa is immediately available. An immigrant visa is considered available for accepting and processing the application Form I�485 if the preference category applicant has a priority date on the waiting list which is earlier than the date shown in the Bulletin (or the Bulletin shows that numbers for visa applicants in his or her category are current), and (if the applicant is seeking status pursuant to section 203(b) of the Act) the applicant presents evidence that the appropriate petition filed on his or her behalf has been approved. An immigrant visa is also considered immediately available if the applicant establishes eligibility for the benefits of Public Law 101�238. Information concerning the immediate availability of an immigrant visa may be obtained at any Service office.
Please post URL of this and others. Thanks!
(g) Availability of immigrant visas under section 245 and priority dates�(1) Availability of immigrant visas under section
245. An alien is ineligible for the benefits of section 245 of the Act unless an immigrant visa is immediately available to him or her at the time the application is filed. If the applicant is a preference alien, the current Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Visa Bulletin will be consulted to determine whether an immigrant visa is immediately available. An immigrant visa is considered available for accepting and processing the application Form I�485 if the preference category applicant has a priority date on the waiting list which is earlier than the date shown in the Bulletin (or the Bulletin shows that numbers for visa applicants in his or her category are current), and (if the applicant is seeking status pursuant to section 203(b) of the Act) the applicant presents evidence that the appropriate petition filed on his or her behalf has been approved. An immigrant visa is also considered immediately available if the applicant establishes eligibility for the benefits of Public Law 101�238. Information concerning the immediate availability of an immigrant visa may be obtained at any Service office.
Please post URL of this and others. Thanks!
more...
shreekarthik
10-08 06:40 PM
First I-485 is triggered by an act of the applicant (he has to apply). So USCIS is never going to know whether an earlier applicant is still out there trying to file his application or not. In fact I would blame the entire retrogression on USCIS' attempt at FIFO which is scientifically impossible. It only results in wastage of visa numbers. In 2004 USCIS wasted 47000 visa numbers, in 2006 it wasted 10000 visa numbers. What USCIS could think of doing is just approve whoever is approvable. So the visa bulletin has only 2 possible values "C" and "U". If an earlier I485 applicant is stuck in name check then he should take appropriate action (writing to senators, FL, GWB or file WoM) and get his case adjudicated.
There are a lot of misconceptions about AoS. Let me write it here.
1. A visa number is not needed to get AoS adjudicated. A visa number is only required to file the application. But USCIS' stand is that visa number is required both while filing and adjudicating. This according to the statutes and regulations is not true and valid. If USCIS screwed up and delayed adjudicating your application that is their problem. According to statutes and regulations a visa number is only required at the time the application is filed.
2. Neither Statutes nor regulations call for any fbi name check. Remember FBI name check is different from criminal back ground check or finger print check. The name check is an arbitrary decision by FBI and USCIS and will not stand in any court of law.
3. An FBI name check was never called for by USCIS on AoS applicants. It was only required for naturalization applicants. FBI screwed up by sending every one's name through this dreaded name check and now claims that it has too many names to check.
4. If your AoS application is pending for more than a year file a law suit against USCIS because USCIS violated regulations 103.2(b)(18). According to this regulation if an investigation is pending for 6 months district director should review it. At the end of 1 year he should again review it. After that it has to be escalated to higher authorities. Trust me this never happens. Violation of regulations is a serious offense.
So FIFO will never happen because USCIS cannot control who will apply when. Second FIFO is really bad because USCIS then has to keep shuffling its visa numbers around. Instead if it just approves anyone who is approvable atleast visa numbers would get used.
There are a lot of misconceptions about AoS. Let me write it here.
1. A visa number is not needed to get AoS adjudicated. A visa number is only required to file the application. But USCIS' stand is that visa number is required both while filing and adjudicating. This according to the statutes and regulations is not true and valid. If USCIS screwed up and delayed adjudicating your application that is their problem. According to statutes and regulations a visa number is only required at the time the application is filed.
2. Neither Statutes nor regulations call for any fbi name check. Remember FBI name check is different from criminal back ground check or finger print check. The name check is an arbitrary decision by FBI and USCIS and will not stand in any court of law.
3. An FBI name check was never called for by USCIS on AoS applicants. It was only required for naturalization applicants. FBI screwed up by sending every one's name through this dreaded name check and now claims that it has too many names to check.
4. If your AoS application is pending for more than a year file a law suit against USCIS because USCIS violated regulations 103.2(b)(18). According to this regulation if an investigation is pending for 6 months district director should review it. At the end of 1 year he should again review it. After that it has to be escalated to higher authorities. Trust me this never happens. Violation of regulations is a serious offense.
So FIFO will never happen because USCIS cannot control who will apply when. Second FIFO is really bad because USCIS then has to keep shuffling its visa numbers around. Instead if it just approves anyone who is approvable atleast visa numbers would get used.
pcs
02-09 08:33 PM
I am sending $ 20 ...
Please keep sending emails to all members and encourage them to chip in regularly..
Please keep sending emails to all members and encourage them to chip in regularly..
more...
GKBest
10-08 11:29 AM
.....and our rest day in calling USCIS, checking our checks and the mail.
2010 short curly hair professional
hpandey
07-21 09:07 PM
EAD Paper Filed TSC - 21st June
RD - 06/23/08
No LUD after that. Still waiting.
RD - 06/23/08
No LUD after that. Still waiting.
more...
trueguy
07-28 09:54 AM
With EB2 getting all the spillovers, there is no per country limit for any category except EB3-I. Why?
hair rockabilly hairstyle. makeup
Gravitation
04-22 08:23 PM
Only if it is too restrictive. this case is pretty straightforward and simple. employee is directly hitting the employer's revenues.
That means nothing in the court actually. It takes a lot more such as violation of trade-secrets for a court to rule against an employee. If hitting revenue was a valid reason not to change a job, nobody will ever be able to change a job.
What you mention is a common misconception.
"In Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia), a plaintiff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff) must prove by a preponderance of the evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preponderance_of_the_evidence) that the covenant is reasonable in the sense that it is: (1) no greater than necessary to protect its legitimate business interests, such as a trade secret (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret); (2) not unduly harsh or oppressive in restricting the employee’s ability to earn a living; and (3) not against public policy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause
That means nothing in the court actually. It takes a lot more such as violation of trade-secrets for a court to rule against an employee. If hitting revenue was a valid reason not to change a job, nobody will ever be able to change a job.
What you mention is a common misconception.
"In Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia), a plaintiff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff) must prove by a preponderance of the evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preponderance_of_the_evidence) that the covenant is reasonable in the sense that it is: (1) no greater than necessary to protect its legitimate business interests, such as a trade secret (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret); (2) not unduly harsh or oppressive in restricting the employee’s ability to earn a living; and (3) not against public policy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause
more...
MightyIndian
10-01 05:22 PM
WAC means CSC?? We applied on July 23rd at NSC and no news yet:(
YES
YES
hot quot;hairstyles short hairquot;,
keshtwo
08-13 08:21 PM
Here is my update:
EB2 - India
PD - Sep/2006
I 140 approved - Dec 2006
I 485 Date received July 2nd 2007
RD - checks were cashed (date - July 30, 2007)
FP - Got a mail from USCIS regarding finger printing (scheduled - August 29,2007)
So far no receipt by mail, application is at Nebraska.
Yo man, you are one lucky dude! Nebraska hasn't issued many fp mails to July filers.
EB2 - India
PD - Sep/2006
I 140 approved - Dec 2006
I 485 Date received July 2nd 2007
RD - checks were cashed (date - July 30, 2007)
FP - Got a mail from USCIS regarding finger printing (scheduled - August 29,2007)
So far no receipt by mail, application is at Nebraska.
Yo man, you are one lucky dude! Nebraska hasn't issued many fp mails to July filers.
more...
house rockabilly hairstyle.jpg
chetanjumani
08-26 03:11 AM
I have only seen one person get through background check in the last year. That was through senator intervention. Person got approved (it was a premium processing case). companies generally do not want to go throgh senator/congressmen intervention due to fear of tweaking uscis.
Since his 140 is approved then he is not subject to the quota. However; he could just wait or file another h-1b with another comany. If he asks for I-94 card then uscis could ask for maintaining status. He is in what is considered a "bridge period". that is when I-94 card expires; you are legally here but if you fle an h-1b with another company then they shouldn't approve the second h-1b until the first one is approved (uscis doesn't always do this). Sometimes they approve the second one. However; if the first one gets denied then you wuld not be considered in "status" from date I-94 card expired until second companies h-1b got approved with I-94 card (would have greencard implications later).
He could just file an h-1b with another company in premium (do not ask for I-94 card). If/when uscis approves it then he would have to go for visa stamping and get I-94 card at the border.
Thank you united nation. You views/inputs are very valuable. Regards.
Since his 140 is approved then he is not subject to the quota. However; he could just wait or file another h-1b with another comany. If he asks for I-94 card then uscis could ask for maintaining status. He is in what is considered a "bridge period". that is when I-94 card expires; you are legally here but if you fle an h-1b with another company then they shouldn't approve the second h-1b until the first one is approved (uscis doesn't always do this). Sometimes they approve the second one. However; if the first one gets denied then you wuld not be considered in "status" from date I-94 card expired until second companies h-1b got approved with I-94 card (would have greencard implications later).
He could just file an h-1b with another company in premium (do not ask for I-94 card). If/when uscis approves it then he would have to go for visa stamping and get I-94 card at the border.
Thank you united nation. You views/inputs are very valuable. Regards.
tattoo short hair trendy styles
immigration07
05-01 11:52 PM
If you don't agree. Speak out A#####e.
even if yu have got a red dot for some stupid reason I was strongly tempted to give yu ared dot for this reply. If not let the administrators give yu one................
even if yu have got a red dot for some stupid reason I was strongly tempted to give yu ared dot for this reply. If not let the administrators give yu one................
more...
pictures Rockabilly Men#39;s Hair
franklin
07-10 03:42 AM
nobody has talked about a rally in LA... maybe infront of the Federal building in Westwood... I can initiate if I have couple of more volunteers to help me. If we have this rally on July 28, we will have ample time to arrange for people, etc...
I suggest you join the SoCal state chapter, they seem to be interested in doing something as well
I suggest you join the SoCal state chapter, they seem to be interested in doing something as well
dresses house rockabilly hairstyles
bigboy007
07-04 04:55 PM
BHai log : when some of my friends called USCIS they said they are NOT going to return the Files FOR NOW , i dont know why and what for . SO if somebody receives the files (which i dont think is going to happen so quickly though) please let us know asap.
more...
makeup Rockabilly Hairstyles
immigrationvoice1
03-26 10:04 AM
Wanted to know what the members here think of the probability of receiving RFE from USCIS to find out whether the applicant is still in a "same or similar" job when the time comes to adjudicate cases for for EB3 India.
I ask this because in a poll conducted in a separate thread, it seems the number of people waiting for their GCs are more with PDs before Dec 2004 than after that date.
When the dates become current again for these people, do you think USCIS will be sending RFEs to get the employment information for every single of them ? Is there is a percentage from the pending applications that they pick for RFE, assuming all applicants who changed employers DID NOT notify USCIS when they changed jobs OR is it completely up to the whims of the adjudicating officer to send an RFE ?
There are several people I know who changed employers with EAD, never notified USCIS and got their GCs without any RFE. Trying to understand whether USCIS will think twice before sending RFEs for everyone as the number of applicants waiting with PDs of 2004 and earlier are huge now than ever before. Won't it be too overwhelming for them to issue RFEs to all and manage their responses?
I ask this because in a poll conducted in a separate thread, it seems the number of people waiting for their GCs are more with PDs before Dec 2004 than after that date.
When the dates become current again for these people, do you think USCIS will be sending RFEs to get the employment information for every single of them ? Is there is a percentage from the pending applications that they pick for RFE, assuming all applicants who changed employers DID NOT notify USCIS when they changed jobs OR is it completely up to the whims of the adjudicating officer to send an RFE ?
There are several people I know who changed employers with EAD, never notified USCIS and got their GCs without any RFE. Trying to understand whether USCIS will think twice before sending RFEs for everyone as the number of applicants waiting with PDs of 2004 and earlier are huge now than ever before. Won't it be too overwhelming for them to issue RFEs to all and manage their responses?
girlfriend Rockabilly Hairstyles, Pinup
mattresscoil
11-18 12:17 PM
Done
Email sent to
Senator George LeMieux (R-FL)
Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Representative Ander Crenshaw (R-FL 4th)
Email sent to
Senator George LeMieux (R-FL)
Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Representative Ander Crenshaw (R-FL 4th)
hairstyles choppy long hairstyles
malaGCPahije
03-26 10:38 AM
EB3-India with PD 2003 and before - Most will be out by December 2008 -
Perhaps 10% may still rot in NC further.
EB3-India with PD JAN 2004 - DEC 2004 - Most will be out by August 2009
Perhaps 20% may still rot in NC
further.
EB3-India with PD JAN 2005 - April 2005 - Most will be out by April 2010
Perhaps 5% may still rot in NC
further.
EB3-India May 2005 Onwards - Can not predict - It is good to look for other
options and that option certainly MUST not
be switching to EB2
BharatPremi, I hope your predictions are either met or excelled. I will pray for the happiness for your future 7 generation :-). After waiting for so many years, even 2009 does not sound that bad. I know I have no right to complain since many in EB3 have been waiting for years before me.
I also agree that porting to EB2 is not easy. A couple of my friends had their PERM labor itself rejected. I think waiting it out in EB3 may not turn out to be that bad. Or I do hope so....
Perhaps 10% may still rot in NC further.
EB3-India with PD JAN 2004 - DEC 2004 - Most will be out by August 2009
Perhaps 20% may still rot in NC
further.
EB3-India with PD JAN 2005 - April 2005 - Most will be out by April 2010
Perhaps 5% may still rot in NC
further.
EB3-India May 2005 Onwards - Can not predict - It is good to look for other
options and that option certainly MUST not
be switching to EB2
BharatPremi, I hope your predictions are either met or excelled. I will pray for the happiness for your future 7 generation :-). After waiting for so many years, even 2009 does not sound that bad. I know I have no right to complain since many in EB3 have been waiting for years before me.
I also agree that porting to EB2 is not easy. A couple of my friends had their PERM labor itself rejected. I think waiting it out in EB3 may not turn out to be that bad. Or I do hope so....
pd052009
02-01 02:20 PM
Contributed $100.00/-
zoooom
07-19 07:39 PM
Done
Also..How can we let other members know that a thread like this exists...
Also..How can we let other members know that a thread like this exists...
No comments:
Post a Comment