pooja_34
12-20 01:01 PM
Good to hear that NY consulate is responsive. Houston and SF never answer the phone !!!
I am very happy with the customer services of New York Indian Consulate. All our passport renewals (4 during last 3 years) happened in a timely fashion and that too thru post without any personal visit. Whenever I e-mailed them with a question, I received answers promptly. I called them to know about status and received precise replies.
I am very happy with the customer services of New York Indian Consulate. All our passport renewals (4 during last 3 years) happened in a timely fashion and that too thru post without any personal visit. Whenever I e-mailed them with a question, I received answers promptly. I called them to know about status and received precise replies.
wallpaper short haircuts for girls with
rbms
04-01 11:03 PM
Sent both fax
Any update on no. of fax sent. - Just curious.
I think whey you try to send fax, it says how many faxes are sent so far. After that no info. If anybody is sending the fax, can you just update how many #10 and #11 were sent.
Any update on no. of fax sent. - Just curious.
I think whey you try to send fax, it says how many faxes are sent so far. After that no info. If anybody is sending the fax, can you just update how many #10 and #11 were sent.
asdcrajnet
07-17 10:57 AM
Here is for some one who cannot see. I deleted the content saved by IE addons...then I got the new dates
TEXAS
-----
I-90 Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card Initial issuance or replacement January 13, 2007
I-102 Application for Replacement/Initial Nonimmigrant Arrival/Departure Record Initial issuance or replacement of a Form I-94 April 14, 2007
I-129 Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker H-1B - Specialty occupation - Visa to be issued abroad May 15, 2007
I-129 Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker H-1B - Specialty occupation - Change of status in the U.S. May 15, 2007
I-129 Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker H-1B - Specialty occupation - Extension of stay in the U.S. May 15, 2007
I-129 Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker H-2A - Temporary workers June 30, 2007
I-129 Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker H-2B - Other temporary workers June 15, 2007
I-129 Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker H-3 - Temporary trainees May 15, 2007
I-129 Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker E - Treaty traders and investors May 15, 2007
I-129 Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker L - Intracompany transfers June 15, 2007
I-129 Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker Blanket L May 15, 2007
I-129 Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker O - Extraordinary ability May 15, 2007
I-129 Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker P - Athletes, artists, and entertainers May 15, 2007
I-129 Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker Q - Cultural exchange visitors and exchange visitors participating in the Irish Peace process May 15, 2007
I-129 Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker R - Religious occupation May 15, 2007
I-129 Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker TN - North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) professional May 15, 2007
I-131 Application for Travel Document All other applicants for advance parole April 14, 2007
I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker Extraordinary ability January 13, 2007
I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker Outstanding professor or researcher January 13, 2007
I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker Multinational executive or manager January 13, 2007
I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker Schedule A Nurses January 13, 2007
I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker Advanced degree or exceptional ability January 13, 2007
I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker Advanced degree or exceptional ability requesting a National Interest Waiver January 13, 2007
I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker Skilled worker or professional January 13, 2007
I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker Unskilled worker January 13, 2007
I-360 Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant All other special immigrants October 04, 2006
I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or to Adjust Status Employment-based adjustment applications August 07, 2006
I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or to Adjust Status Based on grant of asylum more than 1 year ago August 01, 2004
I-526 Immigrant Petition By Alien Entrepreneur For use by an entrepreneur who wishes to immigrate to the United States January 13, 2007
I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status Change of status to H or L dependents April 14, 2007
I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status Change status to the F or M academic or vocational student categories April 14, 2007
I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status Change Status to the J exchange visitor category April 14, 2007
I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status All other change of status applications April 14, 2007
I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status Extension of stay for H and L dependents April 14, 2007
I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status Extension of Stay for F or M academic or vocational students April 14, 2007
I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status Extension of Stay for J exchange visitors April 14, 2007
I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status All other extension applications April 14, 2007
I-612 Application for Waiver of the Foreign Residence Requirement Application for a waiver of the 2-year foreign residence requirement based on exceptional hardship or persecution August 19, 2006
I-751 Petition to Remove the Conditions on Residence Removal of lawful permanent resident conditions (spouses of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents January 13, 2007
I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Based on a request by a qualified F-1 academic student. [(c)(3)] April 28, 2007
I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Based on a pending asylum application [(c)(8)] June 16, 2007
I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Based on a pending I-485 adjustment application [(c)(9)] April 28, 2007
I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Based on TPS for Honduras/Nicaragua [(c)(19), (a)(12)] April 28, 2007
I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Based on TPS for El Salvador [(c)(19)(a)(12)] April 28, 2007
I-765 Application for Employment Authorization All other applications for employment authorization April 28, 2007
I-817 Application for Family Unity Benefits Voluntary departure under the family unity program January 13, 2007
I-824 Application for Action on an Approved Application or Petition To request further action on an approved application or petition January 13, 2007
I-829 Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions Removal of lawful permanent resident conditions (immigrant investors) January 13, 2007
I-829 Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions Removal of lawful permanent resident conditions (immigrant investors) based on PL107-273 January 13, 2007
TEXAS
-----
I-90 Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card Initial issuance or replacement January 13, 2007
I-102 Application for Replacement/Initial Nonimmigrant Arrival/Departure Record Initial issuance or replacement of a Form I-94 April 14, 2007
I-129 Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker H-1B - Specialty occupation - Visa to be issued abroad May 15, 2007
I-129 Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker H-1B - Specialty occupation - Change of status in the U.S. May 15, 2007
I-129 Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker H-1B - Specialty occupation - Extension of stay in the U.S. May 15, 2007
I-129 Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker H-2A - Temporary workers June 30, 2007
I-129 Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker H-2B - Other temporary workers June 15, 2007
I-129 Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker H-3 - Temporary trainees May 15, 2007
I-129 Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker E - Treaty traders and investors May 15, 2007
I-129 Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker L - Intracompany transfers June 15, 2007
I-129 Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker Blanket L May 15, 2007
I-129 Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker O - Extraordinary ability May 15, 2007
I-129 Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker P - Athletes, artists, and entertainers May 15, 2007
I-129 Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker Q - Cultural exchange visitors and exchange visitors participating in the Irish Peace process May 15, 2007
I-129 Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker R - Religious occupation May 15, 2007
I-129 Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker TN - North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) professional May 15, 2007
I-131 Application for Travel Document All other applicants for advance parole April 14, 2007
I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker Extraordinary ability January 13, 2007
I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker Outstanding professor or researcher January 13, 2007
I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker Multinational executive or manager January 13, 2007
I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker Schedule A Nurses January 13, 2007
I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker Advanced degree or exceptional ability January 13, 2007
I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker Advanced degree or exceptional ability requesting a National Interest Waiver January 13, 2007
I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker Skilled worker or professional January 13, 2007
I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker Unskilled worker January 13, 2007
I-360 Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant All other special immigrants October 04, 2006
I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or to Adjust Status Employment-based adjustment applications August 07, 2006
I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or to Adjust Status Based on grant of asylum more than 1 year ago August 01, 2004
I-526 Immigrant Petition By Alien Entrepreneur For use by an entrepreneur who wishes to immigrate to the United States January 13, 2007
I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status Change of status to H or L dependents April 14, 2007
I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status Change status to the F or M academic or vocational student categories April 14, 2007
I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status Change Status to the J exchange visitor category April 14, 2007
I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status All other change of status applications April 14, 2007
I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status Extension of stay for H and L dependents April 14, 2007
I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status Extension of Stay for F or M academic or vocational students April 14, 2007
I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status Extension of Stay for J exchange visitors April 14, 2007
I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status All other extension applications April 14, 2007
I-612 Application for Waiver of the Foreign Residence Requirement Application for a waiver of the 2-year foreign residence requirement based on exceptional hardship or persecution August 19, 2006
I-751 Petition to Remove the Conditions on Residence Removal of lawful permanent resident conditions (spouses of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents January 13, 2007
I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Based on a request by a qualified F-1 academic student. [(c)(3)] April 28, 2007
I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Based on a pending asylum application [(c)(8)] June 16, 2007
I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Based on a pending I-485 adjustment application [(c)(9)] April 28, 2007
I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Based on TPS for Honduras/Nicaragua [(c)(19), (a)(12)] April 28, 2007
I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Based on TPS for El Salvador [(c)(19)(a)(12)] April 28, 2007
I-765 Application for Employment Authorization All other applications for employment authorization April 28, 2007
I-817 Application for Family Unity Benefits Voluntary departure under the family unity program January 13, 2007
I-824 Application for Action on an Approved Application or Petition To request further action on an approved application or petition January 13, 2007
I-829 Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions Removal of lawful permanent resident conditions (immigrant investors) January 13, 2007
I-829 Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions Removal of lawful permanent resident conditions (immigrant investors) based on PL107-273 January 13, 2007
2011 short hairstyles for lack
gc_relief
03-26 11:36 AM
That means if u doesn't have a job don't drive:D
more...
imm_pro
06-12 04:36 PM
So whats going to happen next Thursday..more speakers and a wider audience..?
sheela
02-21 09:20 AM
Sheela,
when did this happen to you? Is it in the recent past or way back, looking at your post, it seems it was way back. Please confirm as lot of us think this is a recent development as we haven't heard anything about this until this thread.
It was in sept 07.
when did this happen to you? Is it in the recent past or way back, looking at your post, it seems it was way back. Please confirm as lot of us think this is a recent development as we haven't heard anything about this until this thread.
It was in sept 07.
more...
labor2003
04-01 06:34 PM
Just sent fax # 10 and 11.
2010 Black Emo Girl Hairstyles 2011
InTheMoment
08-15 02:42 PM
Two things I would like to mention here:
First, a possibilty of an RFE for your laetest Employment Verification only arises when certain red-flags are raised. Among them are:
1.) Address on file (which has changed after filing I-485) is in a different state from the place of employment. Now I am sure the officer knows that DC and Virginia/Maryland or NH and MA are different states but still they can be daily commuter workers sou could be spared.
I have seen more than a bunch of folks getting RFE's for this specific reason.
2.) Long time (upto the discretion of the CAO..but I feel it is more than 18 months) has passed since the I-485 has filed.
3.) Any other history of excessive job-hopping.
Please pitch in if you know any other substantive reason.
Second,
For the job description from the new employer: I would say put whatever the new employer says but make sure ...for sure to copy paste two related sentences from your old job desc. into the new one to be the first bullets in the description.
I had changed jobs using AC21, used EAD, moved to a different state (5-6 states apart, i.e not a daily commuter) had a slightly different job title. Oh I was so sure that I would get an RFE ...I made sure I sent the AC21 docs against the advise of my attorney (he wanted CIS to send the RFE, made no sense as that would have literally wasted time and my money ;))...and did all the things that I just said about the new EVL...and got the I-485 approved without any issues.
Go ahead and make the best of AC21!:)
First, a possibilty of an RFE for your laetest Employment Verification only arises when certain red-flags are raised. Among them are:
1.) Address on file (which has changed after filing I-485) is in a different state from the place of employment. Now I am sure the officer knows that DC and Virginia/Maryland or NH and MA are different states but still they can be daily commuter workers sou could be spared.
I have seen more than a bunch of folks getting RFE's for this specific reason.
2.) Long time (upto the discretion of the CAO..but I feel it is more than 18 months) has passed since the I-485 has filed.
3.) Any other history of excessive job-hopping.
Please pitch in if you know any other substantive reason.
Second,
For the job description from the new employer: I would say put whatever the new employer says but make sure ...for sure to copy paste two related sentences from your old job desc. into the new one to be the first bullets in the description.
I had changed jobs using AC21, used EAD, moved to a different state (5-6 states apart, i.e not a daily commuter) had a slightly different job title. Oh I was so sure that I would get an RFE ...I made sure I sent the AC21 docs against the advise of my attorney (he wanted CIS to send the RFE, made no sense as that would have literally wasted time and my money ;))...and did all the things that I just said about the new EVL...and got the I-485 approved without any issues.
Go ahead and make the best of AC21!:)
more...
gc_on_demand
11-03 06:05 PM
It is high time, we support this initiative from Senator Menendez.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/1624351-bill-s0185-active-again-please-call-your-senators-for-support.html#post2013464
"It seems that the bill S 1085 (the Reuniting Families Act (RFA) has become active again. I received e-mails from Senator Menedez and Senator Lautenberg talking about the bill. Senator Menendex mentioned the recapture employment-based visas that haven't been used in past years so that they may be used in future years. Among other things, he also mentioned that he will continue to address the concerns of employment-based visas in the context of comprehensive immigration reform. He is the sponsor of the S 1085 bill.
Senetor Lautenberg mentioned "Under current immigration law, employment-based immigration is limited to 140,000 visas, or green cards, per year. The process for obtaining employment-based visas can take years to complete, causing many of these visas to go unused. There is also an annual per-country limit that caps at seven percent the number of employment-based immigrants that can come from any one country. In some instances, this per-country cap causes employers to consider country of origin, not talent, when hiring foreign workers.
A bill has been introduced in the Senate that would address some of these delays and caps. The “Reuniting American Families Act” (S. 1085) would recapture unused employment-based visas from prior years. This bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security to issue any unused visas from Fiscal Years 1992-2007 and in the future roll over any unused visas from one year to the next. It would also increase the per-country cap for employment-based visas to ten percent of the annual total."
It seems that Senator Menendez is doing a lot of work to bring relief to all immigrants including employment based. It may be brought in the lame-duck session in December.
Please call your Senators to co-sponsor/support this bill."
Check it out :
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/1624351-bill-s0185-active-again-please-call-your-senators-for-support.html
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/1624351-bill-s0185-active-again-please-call-your-senators-for-support.html#post2013464
"It seems that the bill S 1085 (the Reuniting Families Act (RFA) has become active again. I received e-mails from Senator Menedez and Senator Lautenberg talking about the bill. Senator Menendex mentioned the recapture employment-based visas that haven't been used in past years so that they may be used in future years. Among other things, he also mentioned that he will continue to address the concerns of employment-based visas in the context of comprehensive immigration reform. He is the sponsor of the S 1085 bill.
Senetor Lautenberg mentioned "Under current immigration law, employment-based immigration is limited to 140,000 visas, or green cards, per year. The process for obtaining employment-based visas can take years to complete, causing many of these visas to go unused. There is also an annual per-country limit that caps at seven percent the number of employment-based immigrants that can come from any one country. In some instances, this per-country cap causes employers to consider country of origin, not talent, when hiring foreign workers.
A bill has been introduced in the Senate that would address some of these delays and caps. The “Reuniting American Families Act” (S. 1085) would recapture unused employment-based visas from prior years. This bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security to issue any unused visas from Fiscal Years 1992-2007 and in the future roll over any unused visas from one year to the next. It would also increase the per-country cap for employment-based visas to ten percent of the annual total."
It seems that Senator Menendez is doing a lot of work to bring relief to all immigrants including employment based. It may be brought in the lame-duck session in December.
Please call your Senators to co-sponsor/support this bill."
Check it out :
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/1624351-bill-s0185-active-again-please-call-your-senators-for-support.html
hair short hairstyles for girls
bandya
04-01 06:03 PM
Sent both faxes 10 and 11 - State KS.
more...
mbawa2574
07-10 08:57 AM
I think we should go after him. Every time he calls us cheap labor. He opposes employment based green cards as well as H1b. In a sense , he hates Indians.
He fuels the rumors against our cause. See his video below :-
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fx--jNQYNgA
Everyone who opposes High Skilled Immigration is his friend. So I don't see any reason to refrain from going after this retarded soul. Expose him, blog against him. Take off his cover and let the world know , what a big communist liar he is.
He fuels the rumors against our cause. See his video below :-
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fx--jNQYNgA
Everyone who opposes High Skilled Immigration is his friend. So I don't see any reason to refrain from going after this retarded soul. Expose him, blog against him. Take off his cover and let the world know , what a big communist liar he is.
hot 2010 Asian Hairstyles Trends
guyfromsg
09-09 05:50 PM
----
I booked it real early, like a month ahead. No worries. I am sure there are a tons of places still around.
See you in DC
Though the website says sold out, I called just now and got a queen room for 109+tax for one night 17th. Thanks for the help.
I booked it real early, like a month ahead. No worries. I am sure there are a tons of places still around.
See you in DC
Though the website says sold out, I called just now and got a queen room for 109+tax for one night 17th. Thanks for the help.
more...
house girlfriend short hair styles
alias
04-02 07:22 PM
Thanks all for making it so easy to webfax.
tattoo hairstyles for lack girls
mrdelhiite
07-06 07:44 PM
looks like the synopsis and the newscaster says the complete interview will be broadcast tommorrow
name of the post is "local doctor denied greencard" on main page
-M
name of the post is "local doctor denied greencard" on main page
-M
more...
pictures makeup Short Hairstyles For
GCInThisLife
07-19 12:52 PM
The company filed for her H1B COS which was approved with new I-94. Lot of people with consulting firms especially spouses would be in similar situation and while following the forums, I haven't heard many denials with this reason i.e., joining the employer a little later for H1B approval.
So what are the chances of getting a RFE or denial? Since we already filed for 485, I am not sure if there is anything we can do.
So what are the chances of getting a RFE or denial? Since we already filed for 485, I am not sure if there is anything we can do.
dresses house lack short hairstyle
laborchic
09-19 03:11 PM
Ok, I've seen a lot of threads about go to the rally, actions items, I've reading a lot of guys saying dont ask for your receipt status, dont waste your time etc, etc.
Yes we did the rally we were great with all those signs, and appearing in the Indy TV but...
Question remains open:
1. When are they going to increase the GC quota?
2. When congress id going to do something?
I've the feeling that that's it we made our point but we are still with no GC, waiting receipts..............
Anna 35: You are not serious are you?? You wanted to hand out IV Rally fliers to Congressmen and them to hand you out your greencard.??
Its hardly 24 hours since the rally is over..
Yes we did the rally we were great with all those signs, and appearing in the Indy TV but...
Question remains open:
1. When are they going to increase the GC quota?
2. When congress id going to do something?
I've the feeling that that's it we made our point but we are still with no GC, waiting receipts..............
Anna 35: You are not serious are you?? You wanted to hand out IV Rally fliers to Congressmen and them to hand you out your greencard.??
Its hardly 24 hours since the rally is over..
more...
makeup short hairstyles for lack
mallu
11-30 01:27 PM
http://www.durrani.com/docs/FBI%20Process.pdf
It says some applications will still be delayed . I assume of one is stuck with namecheck where FBI is waiting for response from native country, he will be waiting for eternity. Nowhere it says applications will be approved while the namecheck is pending.
It says some applications will still be delayed . I assume of one is stuck with namecheck where FBI is waiting for response from native country, he will be waiting for eternity. Nowhere it says applications will be approved while the namecheck is pending.
girlfriend beverly-knight-short-hairstyle
se_vnt3
02-27 03:55 PM
My husband and son are being discriminated against for having an Alien wife and mother.
If an Alien deported with drug-related offences of more than 30 grams of Marijuana, like me, solicits a Non-Immigrant Visa to visit in the U.S. at the same time my husband or son solicit an Immigrant Visa for me to remain in the U.S. with them, the Alien will be granted her Non-Immigrant Visa and my husband�s or my son�s request will never be acknowledged.
This is our story: Everything we ever learned from the U.S. about truth and justice is suddenly being deprived of any meaning by the U.S. itself. The hardest part for us is believing that everything we�ve based our lives on � the American way, has no merit.
I was deported from the United States of America on February 18, 2005. I lived there nearly 30 years since I was 20 months old, when my mother crossed the Rio Grande into the country with me illegally. I was given an opportunity to become legal under the NACARA law but was to afraid of being deported like Maricela Soza was under the same law and didn�t go through with the entire process. I have both a husband and a son who are U.S. citizens but I am permanently prohibited by Immigration law from immigrating to the United States, while at the same time I am allowed to visit. Due to my drug-related offence of more than 30 grams of Marijuana. It�s Immigration law�s contradicting policies which I find disturbing.
U.S. Immigration is concerned with their citizens� welfare but it is denying my husband�s and my son�s requests to have me back by their side for good. Although Immigration law will value my wish to receive admission into the United States. Needless to say I prefer returning, immigrating and remaining in the country by my family�s side. That�s not taking into account the fact that I am still homesick and continue experiencing culture shock in Nicaragua. What the Department of Homeland Security is doing to my family and I is cruel, inhumane and unpatriotic. No free country�s government has any business deciding how families should be formed or whose personal choice is agreeable or not. Like that of my son�s and husband�s choice to overlook my shortcomings and begin our lives over together again.
The 212(d)(3) Waiver allows a visitor�s visa into the U.S. to be issued to an Alien like me if I show evidence of rehabilitation such as becoming a practicing professional with a U.S. job offer. Sometimes with lone proof of a bank savings account, school registration and satisfactory travel record. On the other hand there isn�t one waiver available for United States Citizens who wish to rebuild their lives with an Alien deported for any drug-related offence of more than 30 grams of Marijuana. Not only are my son�s and my husband�s needs being ignored but my needs are being placed before their own. An act I dare name TREASON.
How much more is the United States citizens� welfare secured if an Alien with an undesirable drug history enters the United States merely to visit and not to immigrate? Shouldn�t all United States citizens� needs and rights within and from their country � such as my husband�s and my son�s, come before any Alien�s need or right to receive admission into the U.S., including my own? Also, shouldn�t Family-Based Immigration take first place over �Alien travel� for any reason?
I regret to say it�s these types of injustices with devastating consequences to the recipient�s and his/her immediate relatives� personal lives remaining raveled, much more unacknowledged that play a large role in the cause for conflict concerning disloyalty toward the U.S. and unpopularity of the U.S. among U.S. citizens and foreign nationals inside and outside of the United States. I trust that once this oversight is brought to DHS�s attention they will not knowingly continue punishing my husband and my son for loving me, an Alien who once stumbled while attempting to survive in the U.S..
I�m afraid to imagine how many individuals involved in cases like my family�s and mine go on thinking that the U.S. is a bad country for having the audacity to pass judgment on them. I�ve had to believe there�s a glitch somewhere in immigration law caused by simple human error. I can�t accept that the U.S. I grew to know as a loving, Christian country with caring values is intentionally causing my loved ones and I grief. It goes without saying that as much as the United States has a duty to protect its citizens it also has a duty to be equally diplomatic toward foreigners and not continue persecuting the one or the other long after any condemning sentence has been exacted and executed. I know the United States of America will do right by my son, my husband, me, and the rest of its citizens and foreign nationals in our predicament.
We want the 212(d)(3) Non-Immigrant Visas Waiver made into an Immigrant Visas Waiver for Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens to make sure United States citizens receive competent protection from the Department of Homeland Security and adequate protection from the United States of America.
My husband and son believe a Waiver should be available to me and I believe their Freedom Of Belief civil liberty is being violated because their belief is being discriminated against. My needs are being placed before their own. I am not able to immigrate to the U.S. because immigration law doesn�t allow me a Waiver enabling my husband or son to claim me successfully. If I had a Waiver available to me they wouldn�t have to be at this crossroads making their case public in the courts, therefore their Right To Privacy is also being violated as a result of their belief being discriminated against. I couldn�t live with myself if I don�t speak out, they�re attempting to do the same for me. We don�t want to cause any problems, we just want to move on with our lives.
If an Alien deported with drug-related offences of more than 30 grams of Marijuana, like me, solicits a Non-Immigrant Visa to visit in the U.S. at the same time my husband or son solicit an Immigrant Visa for me to remain in the U.S. with them, the Alien will be granted her Non-Immigrant Visa and my husband�s or my son�s request will never be acknowledged.
This is our story: Everything we ever learned from the U.S. about truth and justice is suddenly being deprived of any meaning by the U.S. itself. The hardest part for us is believing that everything we�ve based our lives on � the American way, has no merit.
I was deported from the United States of America on February 18, 2005. I lived there nearly 30 years since I was 20 months old, when my mother crossed the Rio Grande into the country with me illegally. I was given an opportunity to become legal under the NACARA law but was to afraid of being deported like Maricela Soza was under the same law and didn�t go through with the entire process. I have both a husband and a son who are U.S. citizens but I am permanently prohibited by Immigration law from immigrating to the United States, while at the same time I am allowed to visit. Due to my drug-related offence of more than 30 grams of Marijuana. It�s Immigration law�s contradicting policies which I find disturbing.
U.S. Immigration is concerned with their citizens� welfare but it is denying my husband�s and my son�s requests to have me back by their side for good. Although Immigration law will value my wish to receive admission into the United States. Needless to say I prefer returning, immigrating and remaining in the country by my family�s side. That�s not taking into account the fact that I am still homesick and continue experiencing culture shock in Nicaragua. What the Department of Homeland Security is doing to my family and I is cruel, inhumane and unpatriotic. No free country�s government has any business deciding how families should be formed or whose personal choice is agreeable or not. Like that of my son�s and husband�s choice to overlook my shortcomings and begin our lives over together again.
The 212(d)(3) Waiver allows a visitor�s visa into the U.S. to be issued to an Alien like me if I show evidence of rehabilitation such as becoming a practicing professional with a U.S. job offer. Sometimes with lone proof of a bank savings account, school registration and satisfactory travel record. On the other hand there isn�t one waiver available for United States Citizens who wish to rebuild their lives with an Alien deported for any drug-related offence of more than 30 grams of Marijuana. Not only are my son�s and my husband�s needs being ignored but my needs are being placed before their own. An act I dare name TREASON.
How much more is the United States citizens� welfare secured if an Alien with an undesirable drug history enters the United States merely to visit and not to immigrate? Shouldn�t all United States citizens� needs and rights within and from their country � such as my husband�s and my son�s, come before any Alien�s need or right to receive admission into the U.S., including my own? Also, shouldn�t Family-Based Immigration take first place over �Alien travel� for any reason?
I regret to say it�s these types of injustices with devastating consequences to the recipient�s and his/her immediate relatives� personal lives remaining raveled, much more unacknowledged that play a large role in the cause for conflict concerning disloyalty toward the U.S. and unpopularity of the U.S. among U.S. citizens and foreign nationals inside and outside of the United States. I trust that once this oversight is brought to DHS�s attention they will not knowingly continue punishing my husband and my son for loving me, an Alien who once stumbled while attempting to survive in the U.S..
I�m afraid to imagine how many individuals involved in cases like my family�s and mine go on thinking that the U.S. is a bad country for having the audacity to pass judgment on them. I�ve had to believe there�s a glitch somewhere in immigration law caused by simple human error. I can�t accept that the U.S. I grew to know as a loving, Christian country with caring values is intentionally causing my loved ones and I grief. It goes without saying that as much as the United States has a duty to protect its citizens it also has a duty to be equally diplomatic toward foreigners and not continue persecuting the one or the other long after any condemning sentence has been exacted and executed. I know the United States of America will do right by my son, my husband, me, and the rest of its citizens and foreign nationals in our predicament.
We want the 212(d)(3) Non-Immigrant Visas Waiver made into an Immigrant Visas Waiver for Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens to make sure United States citizens receive competent protection from the Department of Homeland Security and adequate protection from the United States of America.
My husband and son believe a Waiver should be available to me and I believe their Freedom Of Belief civil liberty is being violated because their belief is being discriminated against. My needs are being placed before their own. I am not able to immigrate to the U.S. because immigration law doesn�t allow me a Waiver enabling my husband or son to claim me successfully. If I had a Waiver available to me they wouldn�t have to be at this crossroads making their case public in the courts, therefore their Right To Privacy is also being violated as a result of their belief being discriminated against. I couldn�t live with myself if I don�t speak out, they�re attempting to do the same for me. We don�t want to cause any problems, we just want to move on with our lives.
hairstyles short hairstyles for lack
smsthss
06-12 11:10 AM
Is there a link online for that???
longq
12-20 03:41 PM
Hello IV and its core members,
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (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.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (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.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
H1bslave
11-19 03:47 PM
Your idea is marvelous, I totally agree, if not five years, make it eight or ten years but should have something like that. I don�t know how easy/hard is to get this implemented. But we could try for at least some relief once a person finishes a decade in this country.
The best thing to ask for is a "time factor".
The best thing to ask for is a "time factor".