SunnySurya
07-28 12:08 PM
In my case, you are the Judge , Jury and the excutioner.
In your case, it will be the government and legal system of the USA and actually there is law preventing such things. So I was not kidding.
The transcripts on this thread will serve as a record, if need be..
And what about giving your IP address to authorities because you incited my religious feelings?
In your case, it will be the government and legal system of the USA and actually there is law preventing such things. So I was not kidding.
The transcripts on this thread will serve as a record, if need be..
And what about giving your IP address to authorities because you incited my religious feelings?
wallpaper Mark Zuckerberg
tjayant
11-20 07:08 PM
Here is my advice to folks trying to jump job just for $$$, even if the GC situation is bad , money should never be the only factor in moving for another job, plan long term , actually from what I know only startups have good opening but highly unstable so it is a catch 22 for most of the folks, I would suggest if you are in fortune 500 companies and the job is boring and salary is bad stick with it for 2 more years , if you cannot get the GC in the next 1-2 years I dont think you will ever get it, this is applicable for folks who applied GC during 2003/2004, 3+2=5years , for folks who has applied for GC after 2004 you can do what you want !!., here again look for favorable environment, Govt's change and policy change so make hay while the sun shine !!, so if the policy is favorable even if the job is bad but you can get the GC in 1-2 year i would stick with that company, because you will never know what will happen after 2 years , It looks to me like we might be in a cusp of policy change similar to 1999/2000, if you miss this boat you may have to wait for another 6-7 years. But again if my understanding is correct America is like a ocean and there is room for everyone , so no one need to be scared of GC etc, every one will get it in some form or other eventually , it is only a matter of time. As far myself iam still waiting for LC, but never really bothered about GC during my 9+ years stay , I just did what I wanted , but after 9 years I would like to move to a startup but controlling myself with the above logic !!!, But one good thing about waiting for GC is it made me a better person personally in learning ton's of stuff valuable for long run. so there is always pluses, everybody wants to be a Pirate (do what we wanted like jump job's at the fist obstacle/temptation $$$) but sometimes it is good to be controlled by external factors to get the best of ourselfs.
Openarms
10-16 05:09 PM
This is one of the most important issue on this forum that ever taken care. I will do send letter with in couple of days.
2011 mark zuckerberg priscilla chan
nixstor
07-03 02:26 PM
this does happen- for people in the US already. larger companies find it convenient to simply send the employee out for asactly 365 days and then transfer them back. and Viola! you are in the front of the line!
all legal...but one of the various problems that cause the system to be clogged.
I am not debating it whether it can happen at all or not, whether its right or wrong. I should have worded it better in my previous post. It can happen, but not many who are already in the US do this. If it were equally rampant like the labor substitution, EB1 cannot be current for long time. While some one can go this route, they are paying a significant amount of Salary (possibly Spouse's salary as well), Family upheaval for an year and many other things as a premium. Not all people have the chance to do so and can afford to do so, if they have a chance. We are not seeing any clogs in EB1. Are we?
all legal...but one of the various problems that cause the system to be clogged.
I am not debating it whether it can happen at all or not, whether its right or wrong. I should have worded it better in my previous post. It can happen, but not many who are already in the US do this. If it were equally rampant like the labor substitution, EB1 cannot be current for long time. While some one can go this route, they are paying a significant amount of Salary (possibly Spouse's salary as well), Family upheaval for an year and many other things as a premium. Not all people have the chance to do so and can afford to do so, if they have a chance. We are not seeing any clogs in EB1. Are we?
more...
ak27
01-19 09:21 PM
Hello Members,
I was able to attend Tri-State Con Call. These are actionable for us to increase IV membership and awareness..
1. Meet the law members compaign. List of Congress Members is below:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cgi-bin/newseek.cgi?site=ctc&state=nj
2. Media Campaign: Contact major media outlets and try to publish stories about EB Green card issues.
3. Commercials in Theaters playing Hindi movies
4. Distribute flayers on NJ Transit Buses, Trains and Grocery Stores.
It is up to us to get these initiatives going as soon as we can.
I was able to attend Tri-State Con Call. These are actionable for us to increase IV membership and awareness..
1. Meet the law members compaign. List of Congress Members is below:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cgi-bin/newseek.cgi?site=ctc&state=nj
2. Media Campaign: Contact major media outlets and try to publish stories about EB Green card issues.
3. Commercials in Theaters playing Hindi movies
4. Distribute flayers on NJ Transit Buses, Trains and Grocery Stores.
It is up to us to get these initiatives going as soon as we can.
Ramba
07-09 07:44 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
more...
meera_godse
01-30 02:13 PM
thanks. Found a few reviews on desicrunch. but very few.
2010 In legal papers, Zuckerberg
thirdworldman
02-17 10:20 PM
I've never used it, but Blender 3d is free, and from what I've seen, there's a pretty nice set of tools there...blender3d.com
more...
Ramba
07-14 10:02 PM
--
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
Have you read the USCIS question? If not, read few times to understand how your interpretation is wrong.
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.
The bottom line is if his approved 140 is not revoked with in 180 days of filing the 485, his 485 is still valid even if ported the job with in a month after filing 485.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as you say the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
Have you read the USCIS question? If not, read few times to understand how your interpretation is wrong.
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.
The bottom line is if his approved 140 is not revoked with in 180 days of filing the 485, his 485 is still valid even if ported the job with in a month after filing 485.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as you say the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
hair Priscilla Chan Mark Zuckerberg
anjs
08-10 09:56 PM
I am in for this.
anjs
anjs
more...
inthehole
07-18 12:12 PM
hi tapukakababa, can you please provide me with a number for USCIS nebraska SC. I would like to talk to them as well.
Phone Number: 1-800-375-5283
Options 1, 2, 2, 6, 2, 2, 1 (For english)
Phone Number: 1-800-375-5283
Options 1, 2, 2, 6, 2, 2, 1 (For english)
hot Mark Zuckerberg Priscilla Chan
snathan
03-11 09:19 PM
If we put the word H1B in the Visa Re-capturing bill, the bill would be doomed. As few have rightly pointed out, it would be taken out of context probably advertised and interpreted as increasing H1B visas.
If we put the words, eliminating per country limits, it would doomed. The CNN headlines would scream "Indians and Chinese are coming".
If we put any changes to the current requirements of I-485 filing, it would be interpreted as diluting the existing laws to import more cheap foreign workers faster. The anti-immigration forces would be all over it like a monkey on a cupcake.
If we keep it simple : Re-capturing unused visa numbers for Employment Based Categories for Foreign Born Professionals already employed in the US legally and in the queue for Permanent Residency, we have a high chance of success.
IV team please start the fund raising for re-capturing visa numbers. Thanks.
Before starting new fund raising...do you consider to contribute for the current drive.
If we put the words, eliminating per country limits, it would doomed. The CNN headlines would scream "Indians and Chinese are coming".
If we put any changes to the current requirements of I-485 filing, it would be interpreted as diluting the existing laws to import more cheap foreign workers faster. The anti-immigration forces would be all over it like a monkey on a cupcake.
If we keep it simple : Re-capturing unused visa numbers for Employment Based Categories for Foreign Born Professionals already employed in the US legally and in the queue for Permanent Residency, we have a high chance of success.
IV team please start the fund raising for re-capturing visa numbers. Thanks.
Before starting new fund raising...do you consider to contribute for the current drive.
more...
house Priscilla Chan. Zuckerberg
Canuck
02-14 08:10 PM
This is the exact reason why USCIS has a country quota system ensuring ROW folks do not have to compete with OVERSUBSCRIBED countries.
What WILL NOT happen? - Removal of per country quota for EB Visas!!
Why are you in favour of per country quotas, having been born in an oversubscribed country? Are you a glutton for punishment? Do you enjoy waiting 6 years more than an equally qualified counterpart from another country who moves onto bigger and better jobs while you rot in the same position and pay grade for years?
Per country rationing is discriminatory for EB migration. The best jobs should go to the best people, regardless of national origin, race, or religion - this basic principle is enshrined in employment law, but when it comes to EB migration, it is disregarded! It is not about "giving everyone an equal chance" - this is not a charity, this is a business, and in business, only the best and the brightest get those jobs.
What WILL NOT happen? - Removal of per country quota for EB Visas!!
Why are you in favour of per country quotas, having been born in an oversubscribed country? Are you a glutton for punishment? Do you enjoy waiting 6 years more than an equally qualified counterpart from another country who moves onto bigger and better jobs while you rot in the same position and pay grade for years?
Per country rationing is discriminatory for EB migration. The best jobs should go to the best people, regardless of national origin, race, or religion - this basic principle is enshrined in employment law, but when it comes to EB migration, it is disregarded! It is not about "giving everyone an equal chance" - this is not a charity, this is a business, and in business, only the best and the brightest get those jobs.
tattoo +girlfriend+priscilla+chan
looivy
01-24 03:34 PM
IV members,
We need to come up with some great ideas like "flower campaign". Something that will mobilize IV members.
Let us not be pessimistic. There are thousand of reasons that one can think of why the new administration may not act soon. But that should not stop us from making our cause being heard. The new adminsitration has been taking many decisions that are not economy related. Economy is their #1 priority but it is not their only priority.
The visa recapture issue has been pending for a long time now (atleast 3 years). Either we continue to wait and suffer and remain frustrated or we take some action. Choice is ours.
PS: Let us be civil. I second using non-accusatory language on this forum.
We need to come up with some great ideas like "flower campaign". Something that will mobilize IV members.
Let us not be pessimistic. There are thousand of reasons that one can think of why the new administration may not act soon. But that should not stop us from making our cause being heard. The new adminsitration has been taking many decisions that are not economy related. Economy is their #1 priority but it is not their only priority.
The visa recapture issue has been pending for a long time now (atleast 3 years). Either we continue to wait and suffer and remain frustrated or we take some action. Choice is ours.
PS: Let us be civil. I second using non-accusatory language on this forum.
more...
pictures mark zuckerberg priscilla chan
hsm2007
09-23 02:18 PM
Hi abd,
Can you share the template of the EVL that you used to respond to the RFE. Also did you mention about the AC21 when responding to the RFE. Please help out as I am in the same state where my dates are current but got an RFE.
Thanks.
The RFE response was received on Monday morning . The status changed as review on Monday night and i got approval email today around 12.00
Can you share the template of the EVL that you used to respond to the RFE. Also did you mention about the AC21 when responding to the RFE. Please help out as I am in the same state where my dates are current but got an RFE.
Thanks.
The RFE response was received on Monday morning . The status changed as review on Monday night and i got approval email today around 12.00
dresses Zuckerberg dog
delhiboy
12-17 11:34 PM
Just need a place to vent and share my frustration with this system.
I came to US 12 years ago for undergrad. Got a good job with a fortune 500 company, been with the same company for 8 years. Did my Masters and MBA part time.
Company filed paper work for GC under EB3 in 2002, but the system was too slow and I decided to take a new role. Had to re-file another appication since i took a new role, but this time in EB2 in '04. 4 years have passed and both applications have only cleared labor.
Not sure when this wait will end. I do hope that this wait and patience is worth it for all of us.
I do hope we see some miracle in 2007.
I came to US 12 years ago for undergrad. Got a good job with a fortune 500 company, been with the same company for 8 years. Did my Masters and MBA part time.
Company filed paper work for GC under EB3 in 2002, but the system was too slow and I decided to take a new role. Had to re-file another appication since i took a new role, but this time in EB2 in '04. 4 years have passed and both applications have only cleared labor.
Not sure when this wait will end. I do hope that this wait and patience is worth it for all of us.
I do hope we see some miracle in 2007.
more...
makeup Priscilla Chan has denied
Aah_GC
06-06 12:26 PM
Received our cards today!
Good luck to the rest of you waiting on your approvals!
Best wishes and congratulations to you and your family!
Good luck to the rest of you waiting on your approvals!
Best wishes and congratulations to you and your family!
girlfriend Mark Zuckerberg Donating
jk999
05-27 09:05 PM
Once I went to Staples to make photocopies of my passport and the lady suggested it is illegal to make photocopies of such documents unless the copy size is at least 50% bigger.
I like the idea anyway given the small details in the passport. So I've been doing that whenever I have to make copies.
This post has been an awakening to me. I have traveled in and out of northern NH numerous times but have never ever had this happen to me. Such incidents renew the reality for me that I am just a temp here.
I like the idea anyway given the small details in the passport. So I've been doing that whenever I have to make copies.
This post has been an awakening to me. I have traveled in and out of northern NH numerous times but have never ever had this happen to me. Such incidents renew the reality for me that I am just a temp here.
hairstyles Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg
snthampi
06-11 12:32 PM
Just sent email to senators.
harish
05-21 11:59 AM
Congrats,
Thanks!
Please keep supporting IV
Of course...that is a no-brainer. :)
Thanks!
Please keep supporting IV
Of course...that is a no-brainer. :)
coopheal
05-06 09:52 PM
Can you please brief us regarding what action IV has taken...
If you had contributed for the FOIA effort you would have known the actions IV has taken in donor forum. Its a shame that people like you dont contribute and have audacity to come back and demand answers.
If you had contributed for the FOIA effort you would have known the actions IV has taken in donor forum. Its a shame that people like you dont contribute and have audacity to come back and demand answers.