smuggymba
07-20 10:34 AM
IV could not even collect 20K in the Washington DC drive. I hardly saw EB3 folks contributing (based on my observation, I might be wrong so take it easy). If every EB3 person contributes 50USD, it will be enough to run a campaign. Action is the key, not posting in forums. Hope we get out of this EB2 vs EB3 and as focus on visa recapture.
wallpaper Lady GaGa Dressed Somewhat
indyanguy
09-26 12:58 PM
By Self employment, do you mean working on 1099 or by starting a business and working for it?
Per my lawyer,
1. USCIS does not mandate that you must inform when you invoke AC21. You can inform them if and when you get RFE.
2. I strongly believe that we should not accept job offers that is not related to the job you originally applied for. My lawyer says it is usually vague and if USCIS determines other wise I will be in trouble. And for the same reason I am hesitant to accept very good employee offer from my current client.
3. Self employment is ok as long as the requirements are met and that is what is I am doing now.
Per my lawyer,
1. USCIS does not mandate that you must inform when you invoke AC21. You can inform them if and when you get RFE.
2. I strongly believe that we should not accept job offers that is not related to the job you originally applied for. My lawyer says it is usually vague and if USCIS determines other wise I will be in trouble. And for the same reason I am hesitant to accept very good employee offer from my current client.
3. Self employment is ok as long as the requirements are met and that is what is I am doing now.
senthil1
07-07 09:24 PM
This reply shows that because no visa is available they cannot accept the applications. If courts find any mistake Judge may order to correct the procedure. It is tough for courts to order USCIS to accept I485 when Visa number is not available. In case court dismisses the lawsuit then DOS and USCIS will make those happenings in July as a precedence. It needs to be seen how the drama unfolds
On CNBC:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/19634804/site/14081545/page/2/
BARTIROMO: Let me ask you a question on immigration. Lawyers are planning a class action suit right now over the State Department's offer of visas to highly skilled immigrants last month, even though the Department of Citizenship said there were no more visas available. What happened?
Dr. RICE: Well, this was a case in which for--at a certain point in time, we'd not filled the entire quota for these special immigrant visas. And made an announcement of that. But when they were filled, we had to cut it off at that point. There's a ceiling that's set every year and when that ceiling was reached, then we couldn't issue the visas any longer. But we're prepared to talk to people about what happened here. If there were problems in communication then those should be looked at. But it's pretty simple. We operate under a particular ceiling, and when that ceiling is filled, then we have to--we have to live within it.
BARTIROMO: And unfortunately, aren't these the exact type of people, very highly skilled, some physicians, that America wants to attract?
Dr. RICE: Well, it goes back to the point that I--that I made. A lot of people want to come to the United States. People will skills want to come to the United States. I'm a very big believer in having those people come to the United States, because the truth of the matter is, we don't, ourselves, produce enough of that skilled labor. We need to work on the educational front to make sure that we are producing us the numbers of engineers and the numbers of software people and the numbers of physicians that we need.
Dr. RICE: But we need immigration as well. The ceilings have been set. They are not ceilings that we set, they're set in the--they're set by statute, and I know that there are many who would like to see them raised, but that's a--that's a matter for the administration and Congress.
************************************************** ********
Something to chew over -- this is a Secretary of State who won't even admit to major blunders in Iraq, she is not about to admit they screwed up on this.
On CNBC:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/19634804/site/14081545/page/2/
BARTIROMO: Let me ask you a question on immigration. Lawyers are planning a class action suit right now over the State Department's offer of visas to highly skilled immigrants last month, even though the Department of Citizenship said there were no more visas available. What happened?
Dr. RICE: Well, this was a case in which for--at a certain point in time, we'd not filled the entire quota for these special immigrant visas. And made an announcement of that. But when they were filled, we had to cut it off at that point. There's a ceiling that's set every year and when that ceiling was reached, then we couldn't issue the visas any longer. But we're prepared to talk to people about what happened here. If there were problems in communication then those should be looked at. But it's pretty simple. We operate under a particular ceiling, and when that ceiling is filled, then we have to--we have to live within it.
BARTIROMO: And unfortunately, aren't these the exact type of people, very highly skilled, some physicians, that America wants to attract?
Dr. RICE: Well, it goes back to the point that I--that I made. A lot of people want to come to the United States. People will skills want to come to the United States. I'm a very big believer in having those people come to the United States, because the truth of the matter is, we don't, ourselves, produce enough of that skilled labor. We need to work on the educational front to make sure that we are producing us the numbers of engineers and the numbers of software people and the numbers of physicians that we need.
Dr. RICE: But we need immigration as well. The ceilings have been set. They are not ceilings that we set, they're set in the--they're set by statute, and I know that there are many who would like to see them raised, but that's a--that's a matter for the administration and Congress.
************************************************** ********
Something to chew over -- this is a Secretary of State who won't even admit to major blunders in Iraq, she is not about to admit they screwed up on this.
2011 More Lady Gaga
krish2006
09-24 08:18 AM
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..
In Your example, Is B working for the same company or different company in 2010. As you know experience working for the same company does not count towards EB2. B has to take another job at a different company to qualify for EB2. Am I correct in this?
(unless the title and job description totally different in 2010 for B)
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..
In Your example, Is B working for the same company or different company in 2010. As you know experience working for the same company does not count towards EB2. B has to take another job at a different company to qualify for EB2. Am I correct in this?
(unless the title and job description totally different in 2010 for B)
more...
morchu
05-08 02:36 PM
:) my point was, regulations and interpretations are meant for the exact situation. Anyway I am also done in this topic. I have no personal interest on either EB-quota or FB-quota (why am i even here... nhaa?).
Thanks for a healthy discussion though.
we are talking about inclusion logic here. Not the exclusion logic.
Thanks for a healthy discussion though.
we are talking about inclusion logic here. Not the exclusion logic.
GCBy3000
05-03 05:12 PM
With Sen Cornyn Bill, I do not think PD should be current to file AOS.
more...
dtekkedil
07-06 04:50 PM
Does IV Core have a say on sending flowers??
how about sending it to Michael Chertoff and Condelezza Rice??
IV core cannot "officially" endorse this... We are on our own.
As for sending flowers to Chertoff or Rice - It is good but let us stick with one person for now (Emilio). Unless you are willing to send to all three :). It will seem like there is more unity amongst us if we send more "number" of flowers.
how about sending it to Michael Chertoff and Condelezza Rice??
IV core cannot "officially" endorse this... We are on our own.
As for sending flowers to Chertoff or Rice - It is good but let us stick with one person for now (Emilio). Unless you are willing to send to all three :). It will seem like there is more unity amongst us if we send more "number" of flowers.
2010 LADY GAGA NORMAL
mygoodluck
08-13 03:53 PM
Guys
Just saw my cheque cashed.. I think it got transferred over to TSC. I sent to NSC on Jul 2. And yes i had LUD in my I-140 as 7/28
can you tell by the images of cashed checks that were they cashed by TSC or NSC... or any kind of SRC# or LIN# on them to indicated whether it was cashed by TSC or NSC?
Just saw my cheque cashed.. I think it got transferred over to TSC. I sent to NSC on Jul 2. And yes i had LUD in my I-140 as 7/28
can you tell by the images of cashed checks that were they cashed by TSC or NSC... or any kind of SRC# or LIN# on them to indicated whether it was cashed by TSC or NSC?
more...
Kushal
04-22 06:20 PM
Hi Admin,
Please close this thread untill we can plan and do some help to Mehul's family. Its really painful and not sure how just sympathy is going to help them.
How many of you ready to donate if we raise fund to help Mehul's family?
please create a thread for donation and let us know...
Please close this thread untill we can plan and do some help to Mehul's family. Its really painful and not sure how just sympathy is going to help them.
How many of you ready to donate if we raise fund to help Mehul's family?
please create a thread for donation and let us know...
hair Lady GaGa#39;s manager says
saketkapur
03-18 11:27 AM
Had opened my 2nd SR on March 1st....asked to call back on April 3rd if still no notices........:o
more...
PD_Dec2002
07-07 09:44 PM
This is what my lawyer mailed us today (I have always had good service from him):
In my very initial thoughts, on July 2 and July 3, I believed the lawsuit had no chance; but in following this more closely and doing my own research, I think increasingly that the lawsuit has merit. USCIS and DOS appear to have violated various of its internal rules and arguably actual statutes and regulations in handling all this.
Not that I am holding my breath, but just wanted pass it on....
That's nice to hear. Can he guess what would be the likely outcome? If the judge just takes USCIS/DOS to task then it doesn't help us.
1. Will they make the July visa bulletin current again?
2. If not, will they allow everyone to file for EAD and AP?
3. If neither #1 nor #2, will there be any financial reimbursement?
Regards,
Jayant
In my very initial thoughts, on July 2 and July 3, I believed the lawsuit had no chance; but in following this more closely and doing my own research, I think increasingly that the lawsuit has merit. USCIS and DOS appear to have violated various of its internal rules and arguably actual statutes and regulations in handling all this.
Not that I am holding my breath, but just wanted pass it on....
That's nice to hear. Can he guess what would be the likely outcome? If the judge just takes USCIS/DOS to task then it doesn't help us.
1. Will they make the July visa bulletin current again?
2. If not, will they allow everyone to file for EAD and AP?
3. If neither #1 nor #2, will there be any financial reimbursement?
Regards,
Jayant
hot lady-gaga-normal
kondur_007
07-28 02:08 PM
As I mentioned in my previous post in this thread, I am now posting information that explains why this "horizontal" spill occurred and no amount of campaign will reverse it (other than change in law).
If this is repetition of what has already been discussed elsewhere on the site, I apologize.
First, let me point out when and how the interpretation changed:
Following is from immigration-information.com site (Ron Gotcher):
�Last week, I wrote to Charles Oppenheim of the State Department, asking several specific questions. This morning, I had a long talk with him, when he very graciously called to respond to the questions I e-mailed him earlier. In the course of our discussion, I learned a great deal about the present backlog situation and what is being done about it. First, let me deal with the questions I had asked.
Mr. Oppenheim explained that while the Visa Office initially took the view that visa numbers had to fall down into employment third preference before the could fall across to the individual country quotas, but after further review, additional legislation, and consultation with Congress, they concluded that they have to allocate the fall across within individual preference petitions first.�
Direct link to above post:
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5456
Some more information from Ron Gotcher�s site can be found at following link
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5703
Now, let�s look at the actual law on this (above is only the interpretation from Mr Oppenheim, following is the actual text of the law: (my comment is in italics)
8 CFR Sec 202(a)
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS-
(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 (read as under that EB category: if it is EB1, it goes to EB1 and if it is EB2 it goes to EB2) shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
Read the entire Sec 202 (a) here:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe
A glimpse of Sec 203(b) is:
b) Preference Allocation for Employment-Based Immigrants. - Aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 201(d) for employment-based immigrants in a fiscal year shall be allotted visas as follows:
(1) Priority workers. - Visas shall first be made available in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (4) and (5), to qualified immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): �.
Please read the entire section 203(b) here:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe
So, in nutshell:
1. The law is actually clear on this.
2. Now Mr. Oppenheim has interpreted it correctly as well.
3. It don�t think we can convince anyone to change the interpretation (because interpretation appears to be correct. If it was interpreted differently in past, then that was a mistake).
4. The only way to deal with it is to CHANGE THE LAW.
5. More importantly, push for bills to increase overall numbers (recapture, STEM exemption) etc�
6. The big picture: All these is likely to look completely different once CIR comes in, and we need to include our agenda in CIR that would benefit every category for several years to come (not just my GC or your GC).
If this is repetition of what has already been discussed elsewhere on the site, I apologize.
First, let me point out when and how the interpretation changed:
Following is from immigration-information.com site (Ron Gotcher):
�Last week, I wrote to Charles Oppenheim of the State Department, asking several specific questions. This morning, I had a long talk with him, when he very graciously called to respond to the questions I e-mailed him earlier. In the course of our discussion, I learned a great deal about the present backlog situation and what is being done about it. First, let me deal with the questions I had asked.
Mr. Oppenheim explained that while the Visa Office initially took the view that visa numbers had to fall down into employment third preference before the could fall across to the individual country quotas, but after further review, additional legislation, and consultation with Congress, they concluded that they have to allocate the fall across within individual preference petitions first.�
Direct link to above post:
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5456
Some more information from Ron Gotcher�s site can be found at following link
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5703
Now, let�s look at the actual law on this (above is only the interpretation from Mr Oppenheim, following is the actual text of the law: (my comment is in italics)
8 CFR Sec 202(a)
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS-
(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 (read as under that EB category: if it is EB1, it goes to EB1 and if it is EB2 it goes to EB2) shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
Read the entire Sec 202 (a) here:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe
A glimpse of Sec 203(b) is:
b) Preference Allocation for Employment-Based Immigrants. - Aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 201(d) for employment-based immigrants in a fiscal year shall be allotted visas as follows:
(1) Priority workers. - Visas shall first be made available in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (4) and (5), to qualified immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): �.
Please read the entire section 203(b) here:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe
So, in nutshell:
1. The law is actually clear on this.
2. Now Mr. Oppenheim has interpreted it correctly as well.
3. It don�t think we can convince anyone to change the interpretation (because interpretation appears to be correct. If it was interpreted differently in past, then that was a mistake).
4. The only way to deal with it is to CHANGE THE LAW.
5. More importantly, push for bills to increase overall numbers (recapture, STEM exemption) etc�
6. The big picture: All these is likely to look completely different once CIR comes in, and we need to include our agenda in CIR that would benefit every category for several years to come (not just my GC or your GC).
more...
house Lady Gaga Looks
akhilmahajan
02-13 02:18 PM
Bump...............
tattoo Lady Gaga is known as quot;Lady
desiguy22042
09-23 09:42 PM
Hi rc0878,
I just checked the notice and there is no priority date on mine. It is left blank.
I wonder if it is printed for ANYONE.
Quick question for thosewho have already recieved their receipt notice????
What does the priority date column say on your receipt notices? I mean does it show the actual priority date or is blank????
I just checked the notice and there is no priority date on mine. It is left blank.
I wonder if it is printed for ANYONE.
Quick question for thosewho have already recieved their receipt notice????
What does the priority date column say on your receipt notices? I mean does it show the actual priority date or is blank????
more...
pictures Lady Gaga as close to normal
GCStatus
09-16 05:12 PM
So why doesn't Bharat give you a GC? Funny. BTW everyone is not from Bharat. :D
Hope you are just joking.
By the way, i didnt realise we have non-indians here too
Hope you are just joking.
By the way, i didnt realise we have non-indians here too
dresses OMG: Lady Gaga Looking NORMAL
InTheMoment
11-21 04:03 PM
Dear Mehul,
Just sent you a PM (Private Message). Check it.
take care!
Just sent you a PM (Private Message). Check it.
take care!
more...
makeup lady gaga. Grab This
abhijitp
11-21 05:09 PM
I am shocked after reading this thread and even cried .We will pray for your well-being .Don�t loose your strength and believe in GOD.
Dear Members,
If Mehul needs some financial help can we gather together to help our brother? So that he don�t have think at least on this front. Please suggest senior members/IV.
I second that idea.
We should let Mehul decide, and help him in any way we can!
Dear Members,
If Mehul needs some financial help can we gather together to help our brother? So that he don�t have think at least on this front. Please suggest senior members/IV.
I second that idea.
We should let Mehul decide, and help him in any way we can!
girlfriend Lady Gaga that I like,
designflaw
09-14 04:46 PM
I am aware that I was lucky (BTW, March 07 labor was my second labor. First one rotted in the BEC. And I have been here since '99). However, that doesn't change the fact that there is likely to be a 10+ year wait time for EB3 ROW. Thats my gut-feeling.
I also think that these 10+ year wait times are meaningless. In a few years, there will be some sort of CIR, and a points-based system will be instituted. At that point, there will be no distinction between those who have filed their 485s, and those who haven't.
All that we July07 EB-3 filers (India or ROW), and even EB-2 I/C, have is an EAD card until the CIR happens. If it happens next year, we are all in the same boat. If it happens in 2015, then the July 07 filers have EAD cards until then.
The thing what I don't understand is, after July 2007, the priority dates for EB3-ROW were available. As a matter of fact, look at the this document (http://www.techjargons.com/USCIS_priority_dates.pdf), the priority dates went all the way up to March 2006. So, if there were no more visa's then right after July 2007, how can USCIS continue to make priority dates available?
I also think that these 10+ year wait times are meaningless. In a few years, there will be some sort of CIR, and a points-based system will be instituted. At that point, there will be no distinction between those who have filed their 485s, and those who haven't.
All that we July07 EB-3 filers (India or ROW), and even EB-2 I/C, have is an EAD card until the CIR happens. If it happens next year, we are all in the same boat. If it happens in 2015, then the July 07 filers have EAD cards until then.
The thing what I don't understand is, after July 2007, the priority dates for EB3-ROW were available. As a matter of fact, look at the this document (http://www.techjargons.com/USCIS_priority_dates.pdf), the priority dates went all the way up to March 2006. So, if there were no more visa's then right after July 2007, how can USCIS continue to make priority dates available?
hairstyles gaga2 Uma Lady Gaga Como Você
peer123
06-13 07:27 PM
My one set of checks cleared last friday & other set yet to be cleared. That might be for me or wife, no idea. So I'm waiting.
How are you so sure that your case checks were cashed & not your wife's just curious.
Thanks
GCcomesoon
I thought all the fees are to be paid by the employer then how come you are paying for it, is it still an option or is there any premium processing for 485
How are you so sure that your case checks were cashed & not your wife's just curious.
Thanks
GCcomesoon
I thought all the fees are to be paid by the employer then how come you are paying for it, is it still an option or is there any premium processing for 485
sidd
04-19 07:25 PM
Hi Folks,
Has anyone recently done Canadian Landing with pending 485 and any issues re-entering US with AVR/H1B/Advance Parole?
Any problem with H1-B stamping the same visit as you do Canadian Landing?
Can one apply for a 'Canadian Visitor Visa', while there is a valid (not used) Canadian PR Immigration Visa stamp in your passport?
I would appreciate your replies/experiences.
Thanks.
Has anyone recently done Canadian Landing with pending 485 and any issues re-entering US with AVR/H1B/Advance Parole?
Any problem with H1-B stamping the same visit as you do Canadian Landing?
Can one apply for a 'Canadian Visitor Visa', while there is a valid (not used) Canadian PR Immigration Visa stamp in your passport?
I would appreciate your replies/experiences.
Thanks.
gcspace
09-26 07:53 AM
My wife's application reached NSC July16th R Pitcher, no receipts yet.
Anyone in the same boat ?
Anyone in the same boat ?
No comments:
Post a Comment