kaisersose
05-13 03:42 PM
One interesting point that came out of that recent hearing.
PD movement results in both 485 approvals + new 485 filings. CIS blames backlogs partly due to the policy that allows 485 filing whenever PDs are current. if PD movement results in 5 approvals, it also results in 10 new 485 filings and thus a backlog is built over which they have no control.
So in their opinion, PD movement should only control approvals & 485 filings should be controlled separately. If this happens, there would no backlogs and no one will ask them any questions or drag them to court for hearings!
PD movement results in both 485 approvals + new 485 filings. CIS blames backlogs partly due to the policy that allows 485 filing whenever PDs are current. if PD movement results in 5 approvals, it also results in 10 new 485 filings and thus a backlog is built over which they have no control.
So in their opinion, PD movement should only control approvals & 485 filings should be controlled separately. If this happens, there would no backlogs and no one will ask them any questions or drag them to court for hearings!
wallpaper Costume anne hathaway is bane
saimrathi
07-19 02:19 PM
EB 2 LC Certified June 2007
Mar 2005 PD
Reached NSC on 7/2/07 at 7.33am
Filed I-140 & 485 concurrently
Checks not cashed yet.
Let us poll here only for Nebraska Service Center 02-July filers and find stats to estimate the timeline
Mar 2005 PD
Reached NSC on 7/2/07 at 7.33am
Filed I-140 & 485 concurrently
Checks not cashed yet.
Let us poll here only for Nebraska Service Center 02-July filers and find stats to estimate the timeline
shana04
02-23 09:39 AM
Hi All,
I filed my I485 in 08/05 and my labor date is 07/05 in perm. My I140 got approved in 2007.
I was in bench for around 6 months in 2008 starting from Jan 1st to 06/20th. I took full time position in last week of 06/08 and continuing in the same job. I got RFE on my I485 and asked for employment verification in 12/09. My attorney replied with presnt employment letter and applied for AC21 also at the same time. Now i got another RFE asking for last 5 years employment letter, w-2 forms and tax returns.
Can some one please let me know how i can handle the period that i was in bench in 2008.
Thanks,
Chandra.
Facts:
Labor: July 2005
485 File Date: Aug 2005
I 140 Approve Date: <Mon> 2007
On Bench: Jan 2008 to Jun 20th 2008
Working with new employer since: June <last week> 2008
RFE: Dec 2009 (for EVL) filed AC21
second RFE on last 5 yr employement, W2 and Tax returns
Instead of Assumtions, answer the following questions may be others can give some guidance before you talk to your attorney
Questions:
1. When did you start using EAD
2. If you were on H1 before Jun 2008, then did you file taxes for the appropriate amount for 2008. if not you have an option of tax amendement and you can talk to your previous employer and if he does not agree you can file a case on him and he has to do back wages and that if fine according to law.
If you filed taxes appropriate to 2008 then you are just fine
talk to your attorney about back wages and he can send a letter to your previous employer or you can talk to your previous employer in case you missed taxes in 2008 assuming you were on H1 else if you have used EAD for half the period then you should be able to show taxes for first half.
Please provide all the facts before some one can help
good luck and keep posted with updates
I filed my I485 in 08/05 and my labor date is 07/05 in perm. My I140 got approved in 2007.
I was in bench for around 6 months in 2008 starting from Jan 1st to 06/20th. I took full time position in last week of 06/08 and continuing in the same job. I got RFE on my I485 and asked for employment verification in 12/09. My attorney replied with presnt employment letter and applied for AC21 also at the same time. Now i got another RFE asking for last 5 years employment letter, w-2 forms and tax returns.
Can some one please let me know how i can handle the period that i was in bench in 2008.
Thanks,
Chandra.
Facts:
Labor: July 2005
485 File Date: Aug 2005
I 140 Approve Date: <Mon> 2007
On Bench: Jan 2008 to Jun 20th 2008
Working with new employer since: June <last week> 2008
RFE: Dec 2009 (for EVL) filed AC21
second RFE on last 5 yr employement, W2 and Tax returns
Instead of Assumtions, answer the following questions may be others can give some guidance before you talk to your attorney
Questions:
1. When did you start using EAD
2. If you were on H1 before Jun 2008, then did you file taxes for the appropriate amount for 2008. if not you have an option of tax amendement and you can talk to your previous employer and if he does not agree you can file a case on him and he has to do back wages and that if fine according to law.
If you filed taxes appropriate to 2008 then you are just fine
talk to your attorney about back wages and he can send a letter to your previous employer or you can talk to your previous employer in case you missed taxes in 2008 assuming you were on H1 else if you have used EAD for half the period then you should be able to show taxes for first half.
Please provide all the facts before some one can help
good luck and keep posted with updates
2011 Sexy Ladies in Catwoman
dagabaaj
12-17 02:57 PM
we have professional lobbyists. and they cost the erath.
and that is why we need contributions. as long people "don't believe" we don't succeed. it's up to you, it's your issue as much as mine. professionals cost a lot of money, and this thread is quibbling over 20 and 50 bucks. anyway who is the knight on the white horse coming to rescue us? it's just us buddy, and we have to do our best. i like your analytical thinking. we need you to join in and help. any number of volunteers is less imho...
.....if ppl want to contribute lesser amounts all they need to do is find some like minded friends pooling their resources and making it into a big one time contribution. I have tried to convince some of guys I know over here but to no avail....less said the better...also tried using the charm of a good bottle of scotch to do the job...no good.....but we need to keep trying......bickering will not lead us anywhere....
and that is why we need contributions. as long people "don't believe" we don't succeed. it's up to you, it's your issue as much as mine. professionals cost a lot of money, and this thread is quibbling over 20 and 50 bucks. anyway who is the knight on the white horse coming to rescue us? it's just us buddy, and we have to do our best. i like your analytical thinking. we need you to join in and help. any number of volunteers is less imho...
.....if ppl want to contribute lesser amounts all they need to do is find some like minded friends pooling their resources and making it into a big one time contribution. I have tried to convince some of guys I know over here but to no avail....less said the better...also tried using the charm of a good bottle of scotch to do the job...no good.....but we need to keep trying......bickering will not lead us anywhere....
more...
vbkris77
03-27 10:15 AM
How about we will bet for/against predictions and let all the proceedings go to IV???
rbharol
10-13 02:30 AM
The silicon link does not work. Have they removed the article???
Originally Posted by tdasara
http://management.silicon.com/careers/0,39024671,39163118,00.htm
send your comments to--
editorial@silicon.com
Will Sturgeon
==========
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514810
----
write to
letters@thecrimson.com
Originally Posted by tdasara
http://management.silicon.com/careers/0,39024671,39163118,00.htm
send your comments to--
editorial@silicon.com
Will Sturgeon
==========
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514810
----
write to
letters@thecrimson.com
more...
mallu
06-15 08:08 PM
Bottomline is they do not want to give us Greencard just use us and fool us. I am sure this 485 being current is big melodramatic thing.
I don't know how many years i have to wait to get out of namecheck. Golden years going by ...
I don't know how many years i have to wait to get out of namecheck. Golden years going by ...
2010 CATWOMAN ANNE HATHAWAY COSTUME
kak1978
08-10 11:18 PM
May be the Law firm signed up for the bulletin email and they got it through email. Did anyone here subscribe to the email?
more...
vparam
09-20 02:02 AM
I wonder why the bulletine prediction has not started....it used to be fun...
hair anne hathaway catwoman
roseball
02-06 03:50 PM
Vinod,
This is the thread that was created by administrator.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/1059335-announcement-iv-would-like-to-help-with-ac21-cases.html#post1409417
You can try posting there or you can contact administrator.
Do keep us in the loop on what happens.
I would also check if your original GC sponsoring employer (Company A) is not involved in any fraud investigations by USCIS. In which case, USCIS can revoke an approved I-140 without any notice on the basis of fraud, which would automatically lead to your I-485 denial. I-140 online status may or may not change in such cases. Your case being in extended review is raising some flags. Do you know anything about the kind of extended review that was going on. Your lawyer on file, as well as you should get a copy of the notice. Make sure no communication was sent to the lawyer from Company A. Sometimes USCIS does not update the lawyer information even though a new G-28 is submitted. You will have to just wait for the denial notice. Send an email to info at immigrationvoice dot com so IV can get in touch with you to help.
This is the thread that was created by administrator.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/1059335-announcement-iv-would-like-to-help-with-ac21-cases.html#post1409417
You can try posting there or you can contact administrator.
Do keep us in the loop on what happens.
I would also check if your original GC sponsoring employer (Company A) is not involved in any fraud investigations by USCIS. In which case, USCIS can revoke an approved I-140 without any notice on the basis of fraud, which would automatically lead to your I-485 denial. I-140 online status may or may not change in such cases. Your case being in extended review is raising some flags. Do you know anything about the kind of extended review that was going on. Your lawyer on file, as well as you should get a copy of the notice. Make sure no communication was sent to the lawyer from Company A. Sometimes USCIS does not update the lawyer information even though a new G-28 is submitted. You will have to just wait for the denial notice. Send an email to info at immigrationvoice dot com so IV can get in touch with you to help.
more...
vpa_2009
03-17 09:44 PM
You all are right that we should not divide ourselves on EB2 and EB3 basis. But it is true that there is no hope for EB3 unless the point is raised for it in IV drive. EB3 is a hopeless case. People are so frustated since they are unable to decide about their future. Let's do something for it too.
hot Anne Hathaway Ruins
indyanguy
01-21 11:58 PM
So, what are the options for EB3-I? It appears that porting to EB2 will be more difficult moving forward due to difficulties in getting PERM approved especially for IT professions.
If the recapture of unused visas does happen, what is the estimate on how much EB3I would move?
If the recapture of unused visas does happen, what is the estimate on how much EB3I would move?
more...
house Anne Hathaway to play Catwoman
Humhongekamyab
01-15 03:07 PM
I went through the Federal Firearm Law and here is what I found:
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person�
(5) who, being an alien�
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(y) Provisions Relating to Aliens Admitted Under Nonimmigrant Visas.�
(1) Definitions.� In this subsection�
(A) the term �alien� has the same meaning as in section 101(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(3)); and
(B) the term �nonimmigrant visa� has the same meaning as in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)).
(2) EXCEPTIONS: Subsections (d)(5)(B), (g)(5)(B), and(s)(3)(B)(v)(II) do not apply to any alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa, if that alien is:
(A) admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes or is in possession of a hunting license or permit lawfully issued in the United States;
(B) an official representative of a foreign government who is:
(i) accredited to the United States Government or the Government's mission to an international organization having its headquarters in the United States;or
(ii) en route to or from another country to which that alien is accredited;
101(a)(3) The term "alien" means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
101(a)(26) The term "nonimmigrant visa" means a visa properly issued to an alien as an eligible nonimmigrant by a competent officer as provided in this Act.
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person�
(5) who, being an alien�
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(y) Provisions Relating to Aliens Admitted Under Nonimmigrant Visas.�
(1) Definitions.� In this subsection�
(A) the term �alien� has the same meaning as in section 101(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(3)); and
(B) the term �nonimmigrant visa� has the same meaning as in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)).
(2) EXCEPTIONS: Subsections (d)(5)(B), (g)(5)(B), and(s)(3)(B)(v)(II) do not apply to any alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa, if that alien is:
(A) admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes or is in possession of a hunting license or permit lawfully issued in the United States;
(B) an official representative of a foreign government who is:
(i) accredited to the United States Government or the Government's mission to an international organization having its headquarters in the United States;or
(ii) en route to or from another country to which that alien is accredited;
101(a)(3) The term "alien" means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
101(a)(26) The term "nonimmigrant visa" means a visa properly issued to an alien as an eligible nonimmigrant by a competent officer as provided in this Act.
tattoo Anne Hathaway Ruins
rick_rajvanshi
08-13 06:49 PM
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/files/ead_guideline.pdf
Read the second last question
Read the second last question
more...
pictures Anne Hathaway Injures Her Butt
alterego
10-05 09:25 PM
Hey guys, Our collective voices worked.
We got a partial correction on their on line article at the bottom which was just added after our e mails started hitting their inboxes. It is good that they realised their error. A pity it did not make it into their print edition.
See at the bottom under Amplification.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/10/05/republican-candidates-rev-up-for-economic-debate/
We got a partial correction on their on line article at the bottom which was just added after our e mails started hitting their inboxes. It is good that they realised their error. A pity it did not make it into their print edition.
See at the bottom under Amplification.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/10/05/republican-candidates-rev-up-for-economic-debate/
dresses AH-Catwoman-sketch4A
johnamit
07-09 02:51 PM
Wake Up
^^^^^^^^^
Wake Up
^^^^^^^^^
Wake Up
more...
makeup Anne Hathaway
hopein07
02-19 04:06 PM
http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/homebus/354-145/354-145.html
girlfriend CATWOMAN COSTUME ANNE HATHAWAY
gsc999
09-22 10:26 PM
Why don't we mail copies of our degree certificates, diplomas and other credentials? They will know who is more educated..Lou Dobbs or us !!!
---
Thanks for your message.
The issue at hand is not to "prove" if you are educationally qualified rather long delays in legal employment based immigration. So sending copies of degree certificates may not convey our message. Also, if we wrap the stoppers in the photo copies of the degrees that might show subtle disrespect to American learning institutions that gave you those degrees. On the contrary, these degrees are to be framed, if you want to. We want positive message e.g. stop reverse brain drain.
Stopper is a good idea because it weaves two ideas very effectively:
- Stop American jobs from off-shoring : use a stopper
- Stop reverse brain "drain" from America to keep America competitive : use stopper
This concept of reverse brain drain is well documented by the recent Kauffman foundation study http://www.kauffman.org/items.cfm?itemID=906
where they mention that 100K high skilled immigrants have left US to go back to India, China and other countries.
---
Thanks for your message.
The issue at hand is not to "prove" if you are educationally qualified rather long delays in legal employment based immigration. So sending copies of degree certificates may not convey our message. Also, if we wrap the stoppers in the photo copies of the degrees that might show subtle disrespect to American learning institutions that gave you those degrees. On the contrary, these degrees are to be framed, if you want to. We want positive message e.g. stop reverse brain drain.
Stopper is a good idea because it weaves two ideas very effectively:
- Stop American jobs from off-shoring : use a stopper
- Stop reverse brain "drain" from America to keep America competitive : use stopper
This concept of reverse brain drain is well documented by the recent Kauffman foundation study http://www.kauffman.org/items.cfm?itemID=906
where they mention that 100K high skilled immigrants have left US to go back to India, China and other countries.
hairstyles Julie Newmar as Catwoman (Los
xyzgc
01-14 08:18 PM
USCIS does not process cases in PD order, because they can't. Thousands of files they receive, are sequenced in order they receive them at Centers. They claim that cases are processed in order they receive them. For them "Receive Date" is not what you see on your receipt, it is the date they physically received the case (thus if case is moved from one center to another, meaningful Receive Date is the date it was recieved by the last center). You see this data online status as "...we received (or transferred) your case on ...".
PD critieria is limited to certain countries only. Therefore, by and large, "cases are processed in order they are received..." works well. However, for India, China etc. where PD cutoff has to be factored, it is used merely to decide to work or skip a file (when seen in the receive date order). If PD cutoff date is very restricted, they will have to skip a lot of cases, which slows them down. That's the reason every July they ask for wider PD cutoff dates so that they can consume a lot of visas, as they don't have to skip that many cases.
This process is a mockery of the PD cutoff dates, but that's how it works. If you sent your case on June 28, 07, with July 2, 07 as the printed Receive Data on your receipt, but the case where it finally rested, was entered in their database on Oct. 28, '07 (with a Notice Date soon thereafter), you case will not be looked at, no matter what the PD cutoff date is, unless all cases received before Oct. 28, '07 have been reviewed.
Disagree, the reason you see lot of cases with (older PDs but later RDs) still awaiting approval is because when the PDs were current these cases were still not ripe (e.g: they were waiting name check clearance).
Some of them became ripe after the visa numbers were assigned to cases with later PDs and the visa numbers got over.
There are multiple queues in the system with a backlog at each queue, so some out of order processing cannot be ruled out.
If a PD of EB2-I 2003 is still pending, its because it was stuck in some other queue before it could even be assigned a visa number and by the time it cleared that queue, the visa numbers were all gone.
Bottomline, if your PD is not current, you won't be assigned a visa number, no matter what and if it is current it doesn't mean you'll immediately be assigned a visa number, unless of course your case has cleared everything else. With the reduction in FBI name check processing time and the BECs, one can hope the process is much more streamlined.
The main problem with USCIS is lack of proper prediction. If there are very few ripe cases currently in the pipeline, they immediately open the window too wide, not understanding is that there is deluge of cases with older PDs that will *soon* become ripe. That is where everything goes wrong - their prediction is either too conservative or too liberal.
However, I disagree that PDs cutoffs are not honored.
PD critieria is limited to certain countries only. Therefore, by and large, "cases are processed in order they are received..." works well. However, for India, China etc. where PD cutoff has to be factored, it is used merely to decide to work or skip a file (when seen in the receive date order). If PD cutoff date is very restricted, they will have to skip a lot of cases, which slows them down. That's the reason every July they ask for wider PD cutoff dates so that they can consume a lot of visas, as they don't have to skip that many cases.
This process is a mockery of the PD cutoff dates, but that's how it works. If you sent your case on June 28, 07, with July 2, 07 as the printed Receive Data on your receipt, but the case where it finally rested, was entered in their database on Oct. 28, '07 (with a Notice Date soon thereafter), you case will not be looked at, no matter what the PD cutoff date is, unless all cases received before Oct. 28, '07 have been reviewed.
Disagree, the reason you see lot of cases with (older PDs but later RDs) still awaiting approval is because when the PDs were current these cases were still not ripe (e.g: they were waiting name check clearance).
Some of them became ripe after the visa numbers were assigned to cases with later PDs and the visa numbers got over.
There are multiple queues in the system with a backlog at each queue, so some out of order processing cannot be ruled out.
If a PD of EB2-I 2003 is still pending, its because it was stuck in some other queue before it could even be assigned a visa number and by the time it cleared that queue, the visa numbers were all gone.
Bottomline, if your PD is not current, you won't be assigned a visa number, no matter what and if it is current it doesn't mean you'll immediately be assigned a visa number, unless of course your case has cleared everything else. With the reduction in FBI name check processing time and the BECs, one can hope the process is much more streamlined.
The main problem with USCIS is lack of proper prediction. If there are very few ripe cases currently in the pipeline, they immediately open the window too wide, not understanding is that there is deluge of cases with older PDs that will *soon* become ripe. That is where everything goes wrong - their prediction is either too conservative or too liberal.
However, I disagree that PDs cutoffs are not honored.
belmontboy
03-15 10:30 PM
[QUOTE=belmontboy;326916]sure prove me wrong.
If you are telling me that VO or IO has access to all criminal records from all 51 states, i can't stop laughing here.
If they have access, why do they even have a section for declaring voluntarily?? to test honesty of the applicant??[/QUOTe..
I do not want to argue with you but can prove you wrong .. Give me your info and I will let u know if u have any records or not. Afet 9/11 all immigration systems are interconnected with the state and federal court records and minute one is arrested his name is there.. 100%...Talk to an attorney in the morning and pm me.. I will explain you how it works..
Let us not shift the focus from the original question and if we do not have any answer let's sit back and let the guy face the consequences and make it an argument to prove who is wrong and right between us..
I pray for you and hope you learn from your mistakes(not you belmont).. May God Bless you..
RV
What are you going to do with my info? run queries on state criminal record database??
or do u have access to database that IO's use??
You have to agree that either of us have the facts to prove the other is wrong. If you have, then Fed's are looking for you :D
If you are telling me that VO or IO has access to all criminal records from all 51 states, i can't stop laughing here.
If they have access, why do they even have a section for declaring voluntarily?? to test honesty of the applicant??[/QUOTe..
I do not want to argue with you but can prove you wrong .. Give me your info and I will let u know if u have any records or not. Afet 9/11 all immigration systems are interconnected with the state and federal court records and minute one is arrested his name is there.. 100%...Talk to an attorney in the morning and pm me.. I will explain you how it works..
Let us not shift the focus from the original question and if we do not have any answer let's sit back and let the guy face the consequences and make it an argument to prove who is wrong and right between us..
I pray for you and hope you learn from your mistakes(not you belmont).. May God Bless you..
RV
What are you going to do with my info? run queries on state criminal record database??
or do u have access to database that IO's use??
You have to agree that either of us have the facts to prove the other is wrong. If you have, then Fed's are looking for you :D
alterego
10-12 06:40 AM
Is there anyone here that truly believes that the legislators will not pass something before the end of the year to recapture the remaining 50K visas left for recapture for schedule A? If yes then this whole argument is kind of null and void. They are not going to leave nurses and PTs high and dry, not with the kind of shortages looming.