- Kourtney Kardashian said she
- kourtney-kardashian-balenciaga
- Pregnant « Kourtney Kardashian
- Kourtney Kardashian spotted
- Pregnant Kourtney Kardashian
- kourtney-kardashian-press-
- Kourtney Kardashian Shows Off
- Kourtney Kardashian pregnant
- Pregnant Kourtney Kardashian
- Kourtney Kardashian pregnant
- kourtney kardashian pregnant style. kourtney kardashian pregnant
- Kourtney+kardashian+pregnancy+style Baby kourtney kardashian dec middle
- Kourtney Kardashian Shops
- Being pregnant doesn#39;t mean
- Kourtney Kardashian: I#39;m Tired
- Kourtney Kardashian
- Kourtney Kardashian, who
- Kourtney gained 40 pounds
- Of course, Kourtney showed off
images Kourtney Kardashian pregnant 
wallpaper Kourtney Kardashian said she
2011 kourtney-kardashian-balenciaga
more...
more...
2010 Pregnant « Kourtney Kardashian
more...
hair Kourtney Kardashian spotted
more...
hot Pregnant Kourtney Kardashian
more...
house Kourtney Kardashian, who
tattoo kourtney-kardashian-press-
more...
pictures Kourtney Kardashian Shows Off
dresses Kourtney+kardashian+pregnancy+style Baby kourtney kardashian dec middle
more...
makeup Pregnant Kourtney Kardashian
girlfriend Being pregnant doesn#39;t mean
hairstyles kourtney kardashian pregnant style. kourtney kardashian pregnant
Lucky7
12-13 05:59 AM
I sent a letter earlier this year to one of my Senators here in CA regarding my 2001 LC and the result i got was that the senators secretary checked my case with USICS and sent a letter stating that my green card was approved 2003.
For somebody who is still waiting for LC recruitment instructions this was a total waste of time and money ( donated $5000. to Senator).
Next week my attorney and i and his other LC DBEC clients are going to try and make an appointment with DOL and see if they will comply.
Number 1 point we shall pursue is to make a $5000.00 premium processing for all DBEC pending LC and have guranteed adjudication in 120 days for all LC with current PD.
This way all clients with current PD will obvouisly pay $5000.00 and DBEC can use the extra funds for remaining cases.
For somebody who is still waiting for LC recruitment instructions this was a total waste of time and money ( donated $5000. to Senator).
Next week my attorney and i and his other LC DBEC clients are going to try and make an appointment with DOL and see if they will comply.
Number 1 point we shall pursue is to make a $5000.00 premium processing for all DBEC pending LC and have guranteed adjudication in 120 days for all LC with current PD.
This way all clients with current PD will obvouisly pay $5000.00 and DBEC can use the extra funds for remaining cases.
wallpaper Kourtney Kardashian said she
jcmenon
07-24 09:31 AM
I totally agree with you. Lets go allout for this. We have to convince this first to IV core to take this up with priority then only we can pursue this with USCIS.
McLuvin
03-12 01:55 PM
finally the bulletin has been posted in the DOS website...
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
2011 kourtney-kardashian-balenciaga
logiclife
02-13 12:49 PM
It is an item on the organization's agenda.
Both for USCIS and BECs to show some transparency. More posts mean more attention, but the posts are made by 800 members and majority of them are stuck in Dallas and Philly BECs or waiting for 485 to be filed so that they can get portability benefit beyond 6th year.
That is much more important than speed of 485 processing. It is on the agenda of the org but the reason you dont see those posts is because its not a problem yet for the majority on this forum. That's just how it works. First things first. You dont find people on student visas worried about Labor backlogs coz they need to find H1 first. You dont find people stuck in labor worried about retrogression coz they need to get their labor approved first without which retrogression or no-retrogression makes no difference to them.
I agree with your idea and understand that USCIS handling of 485 is a serious issue, just trying to explain why you dont see too many posts here for that issue.
Both for USCIS and BECs to show some transparency. More posts mean more attention, but the posts are made by 800 members and majority of them are stuck in Dallas and Philly BECs or waiting for 485 to be filed so that they can get portability benefit beyond 6th year.
That is much more important than speed of 485 processing. It is on the agenda of the org but the reason you dont see those posts is because its not a problem yet for the majority on this forum. That's just how it works. First things first. You dont find people on student visas worried about Labor backlogs coz they need to find H1 first. You dont find people stuck in labor worried about retrogression coz they need to get their labor approved first without which retrogression or no-retrogression makes no difference to them.
I agree with your idea and understand that USCIS handling of 485 is a serious issue, just trying to explain why you dont see too many posts here for that issue.
more...
zuhail
03-10 03:58 PM
I never supported the Idea of sending pizza, Burger or Briyani to anyone. If you are not aware, last year there was a bill introduced by congresswoman Loe. There was a huge outcry and number USA used that very effectively and that bill never took off.
This is the best option but this is not the right time when the un employment rate is 8.1 percent. Read the other thread about removing country cap issue. The core is not supporting that also because of the current market and economy situation.
All our applications are based on our Employment-- We are already employed and filed our petitions for legal permanent residency. How on earth would that affect the un-employment rate? We would continue to work in jobs in US until our I-485 gets approved. Just because delaying our approvals does not increase/decrease the un-employment rate. I am fully aware of the legislations introduced by the Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren. There were too many legislative bills in her agenda.
We would succeed if we just focus a single item-- Visa Recapturing and NO other business.
By the way Mr.snathan, are you an administrative member of the IV team?.
This is the best option but this is not the right time when the un employment rate is 8.1 percent. Read the other thread about removing country cap issue. The core is not supporting that also because of the current market and economy situation.
All our applications are based on our Employment-- We are already employed and filed our petitions for legal permanent residency. How on earth would that affect the un-employment rate? We would continue to work in jobs in US until our I-485 gets approved. Just because delaying our approvals does not increase/decrease the un-employment rate. I am fully aware of the legislations introduced by the Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren. There were too many legislative bills in her agenda.
We would succeed if we just focus a single item-- Visa Recapturing and NO other business.
By the way Mr.snathan, are you an administrative member of the IV team?.
sayantan76
08-23 11:10 AM
Hi, I hope somebody helps in my dilemma.
I am currently on an L1A visa. I heard that my main office (where I am now working) is closing the foreign office where I come from. Based on L1 requirements and facts, it states that once the subsidiary closes, my L1 becomes invalid. Given this, the company is willing to sponsor my green card as soon as possible. It will probably still take a year before the subsidiary officially closes. What are my options? If they have to close the company while my green card is being process, would it be cancelled ?
Thanks.
i am not a lawyer -so get expert opinion.....
but the logic of L1A becoming instantly invalid for someone already in US office if the foreign office closes does not sound logical, even by USCIS standards. I would suggest taking a good 2nd opinion.
Also - if you are in L1A - you should technically qualify for EB-1 which is current for all countries and if that category applies to your situation - you would not need to go through Labor Cert - a couple of friends of mine got their GC in less than 90 days using the EB1 route.
All the best!
I am currently on an L1A visa. I heard that my main office (where I am now working) is closing the foreign office where I come from. Based on L1 requirements and facts, it states that once the subsidiary closes, my L1 becomes invalid. Given this, the company is willing to sponsor my green card as soon as possible. It will probably still take a year before the subsidiary officially closes. What are my options? If they have to close the company while my green card is being process, would it be cancelled ?
Thanks.
i am not a lawyer -so get expert opinion.....
but the logic of L1A becoming instantly invalid for someone already in US office if the foreign office closes does not sound logical, even by USCIS standards. I would suggest taking a good 2nd opinion.
Also - if you are in L1A - you should technically qualify for EB-1 which is current for all countries and if that category applies to your situation - you would not need to go through Labor Cert - a couple of friends of mine got their GC in less than 90 days using the EB1 route.
All the best!
more...
return_to_india
10-10 05:42 PM
It is unreasonable to carry a passport at all times when you are living here. What happens if you leave it behind in the grocery store by mistake or leave it in the cab or something? I think the issue reported by the OP is more relevant close to the border. Nobody asks for your passport in Vegas or Denver.
I would advise US govt. to build a system where officers can verify legality by checking the biometrics ( some handheld devices that connect to a DB ) , which should free up one to carry documents while on domestic travel. If biometrics cannot be found then proceed to grill on docs.
I would advise US govt. to build a system where officers can verify legality by checking the biometrics ( some handheld devices that connect to a DB ) , which should free up one to carry documents while on domestic travel. If biometrics cannot be found then proceed to grill on docs.
2010 Pregnant « Kourtney Kardashian
memyselfandus
09-18 11:40 PM
I have registered this domain. If needed, please send me PM; I can initiate the transfer process. I have already added a forwarding address to the immigrationvoice.com.
This is my from of contribution.
1. We must immediately change our name to LegalImmigrationVoice.com( LIV.org)...But still Immigrationvoice.org should work....This should be done ASAP...like within next week...Please conduct a poll for this ASAP.
This is my from of contribution.
1. We must immediately change our name to LegalImmigrationVoice.com( LIV.org)...But still Immigrationvoice.org should work....This should be done ASAP...like within next week...Please conduct a poll for this ASAP.
more...
paskal
07-16 06:18 PM
only the media can do this for us
they like exposes' don't they?
now how can we get them interested
would the nyt reporter that wrote a story on Numbers USA be interested in a follwo up on their tactics?
they like exposes' don't they?
now how can we get them interested
would the nyt reporter that wrote a story on Numbers USA be interested in a follwo up on their tactics?
hair Kourtney Kardashian spotted
msgrewal81
02-19 08:17 AM
What do you wish? You need gc the moment you enter the country? If anyone who stays 5 years get green card.That is excellent if legal or illegal immigrant. This is apart from 140K regular quota. This will reduce backlog substantially.
Dude I think you are happy because you are above 5 years here and I feel good for you. For myself, I donot want green card after landing on airport, I just want GC process to be improved for people <5 years. This bill will be just a onetime measure i.e. whoever has 5 years on the day it was enacted gets GC, it is not like if I am here for 5 years even after 2 months of passing the bill i will get GC. So, in all, fight for EB GC goes on and it has to be made easier than what has been done for illegal immigrants with >5year rule. People will <5years should not have to go thru same grind. This bill directly does nothing for EB apart from 'temporarily' taking out people with >5years to decrease backlog. That will be temporary. In fact, in long term, it makes EB difficult.
Again, people with >5years should be happy but not tell people with <5years what to do. We definately need to contact congress and Pres office to improve this bill to make it fair for legal immigrants too.
Dude I think you are happy because you are above 5 years here and I feel good for you. For myself, I donot want green card after landing on airport, I just want GC process to be improved for people <5 years. This bill will be just a onetime measure i.e. whoever has 5 years on the day it was enacted gets GC, it is not like if I am here for 5 years even after 2 months of passing the bill i will get GC. So, in all, fight for EB GC goes on and it has to be made easier than what has been done for illegal immigrants with >5year rule. People will <5years should not have to go thru same grind. This bill directly does nothing for EB apart from 'temporarily' taking out people with >5years to decrease backlog. That will be temporary. In fact, in long term, it makes EB difficult.
Again, people with >5years should be happy but not tell people with <5years what to do. We definately need to contact congress and Pres office to improve this bill to make it fair for legal immigrants too.
more...
ek_bechara
10-15 03:25 PM
I propose Non Co-operation Movement for another flower campaign. I know art imitates life and life imitates art etc. But imitates again and again irritates.
Looks like you have a plan here. Yep.. lets go ahead and irritate the hell out of USCIS and every agency out there.
I'm out of here guys
All the best..
Looks like you have a plan here. Yep.. lets go ahead and irritate the hell out of USCIS and every agency out there.
I'm out of here guys
All the best..
hot Pregnant Kourtney Kardashian
tonyHK12
04-01 09:19 AM
/\/\/\
more...
house Kourtney Kardashian, who
unitednations
12-21 10:48 PM
This is from Murthy chat.
Question: If in the past I have been out of H1B status for 6 months (I-94 not expired), is this going to hurt my GC (or any new petitions to change / extend / adjust status)?
Answer: A person who fails to maintain status for over 180 days may have a problem obtaining the approval of the I-485, which allows a maximum of 180 days for one to be out of status under Section 245(k) of the INA, unless the person is covered under 245(i) of the INA. Sometimes, though, the fault of the employer in not paying the salary while the person is considered an employee may not pose a problem but at other times it may pose a problem. Not having pay stubs will certainly adversely impact the ability to obtain an extension or change of status from the USCIS. Jun-20-2005.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
I had written about this in the past. When I went for local office interview; he had requested all w2's and tax returns from my initial entry shown on g-325( LAST ADDRESS OUTSIDE USA FOR MORE THEN ONE YEAR) which was 1999.
It said prove that you maintained status on each entry.
Now: i didn't have any issues but I was pretty upset that officer was going way outside the law and testing periods that he wasn't supposed to. My date of last entry before filing 485 was December 2002 and he was requesting 1999-2006.
I did inform him that he wasn't supposed to ask for this as it was outside the law. However; what I gathered is that although 245k does have some significant protection for everyone; uscis tries to go other ways in catching/snagging you. Another link was provided in this link where a person listed an employer on his g-325a but he was on bench and never got paid. USCIS was trying to deny his 485 due to fraud. Fraud overrules 24k any time.
Therefore; uscis uses many different avenues to get at other aspects; especially to get you to lie, cover up, mislead in things you don't need to but inadvertently do because you think it is problematic when it really wasn't.
The feeling i got from my interview is that is what he was exactly trying to do.
Question: If in the past I have been out of H1B status for 6 months (I-94 not expired), is this going to hurt my GC (or any new petitions to change / extend / adjust status)?
Answer: A person who fails to maintain status for over 180 days may have a problem obtaining the approval of the I-485, which allows a maximum of 180 days for one to be out of status under Section 245(k) of the INA, unless the person is covered under 245(i) of the INA. Sometimes, though, the fault of the employer in not paying the salary while the person is considered an employee may not pose a problem but at other times it may pose a problem. Not having pay stubs will certainly adversely impact the ability to obtain an extension or change of status from the USCIS. Jun-20-2005.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
I had written about this in the past. When I went for local office interview; he had requested all w2's and tax returns from my initial entry shown on g-325( LAST ADDRESS OUTSIDE USA FOR MORE THEN ONE YEAR) which was 1999.
It said prove that you maintained status on each entry.
Now: i didn't have any issues but I was pretty upset that officer was going way outside the law and testing periods that he wasn't supposed to. My date of last entry before filing 485 was December 2002 and he was requesting 1999-2006.
I did inform him that he wasn't supposed to ask for this as it was outside the law. However; what I gathered is that although 245k does have some significant protection for everyone; uscis tries to go other ways in catching/snagging you. Another link was provided in this link where a person listed an employer on his g-325a but he was on bench and never got paid. USCIS was trying to deny his 485 due to fraud. Fraud overrules 24k any time.
Therefore; uscis uses many different avenues to get at other aspects; especially to get you to lie, cover up, mislead in things you don't need to but inadvertently do because you think it is problematic when it really wasn't.
The feeling i got from my interview is that is what he was exactly trying to do.
tattoo kourtney-kardashian-press-
saketkapur
10-16 03:30 PM
sent.........
more...
pictures Kourtney Kardashian Shows Off
eb3_nepa
07-05 01:37 PM
1) You can VIEW the forums ONLY if you are a REGISTERED member (that part is FREE).
2) You can POST replies to people's questions only if you are a REGISTERED member (again this part is FREE).
3) HOWEVER, you can start a NEW Thread ONLY IF you are a PAID member (the minimum fee should be $10 - $20)
2) You can POST replies to people's questions only if you are a REGISTERED member (again this part is FREE).
3) HOWEVER, you can start a NEW Thread ONLY IF you are a PAID member (the minimum fee should be $10 - $20)
dresses Kourtney+kardashian+pregnancy+style Baby kourtney kardashian dec middle
alterego
09-10 06:15 PM
Actually even the Brits. have a rule in their immigration process stating that if you have spent a total of 10 yrs in that country, that alone is a basis for a PR card there. Citizenship is another 1 yr after that(there is currently some debate about making it 2 mainly over spousal PR cards). This rule is based on the premise that if you have been part of the society for that length of time then you have contributed sufficiently to warrant peership. So by this score, many of those who posted that they have been here since earlier than 1999 would have been eligible even absent the employers assistance.
Given that we have been tax paying, law abiding and patiently waiting through a bureaucratic system that has to date not approved 500K visas that they could have, we have a legitimate grouse to any fair minded person. We have contributed tremendously through our purchasing power and in many other ways to this economy.
As it stands however the system is mainly screwing EB India. Ideally they should start up a Country caps for H1b visas also. Only then will the foolishness of per country quotas for EMPLOYMENT BASED immigration be fully apparent. I see potentially another example of this "managed overflow" system at work here.
It seems likely on the Oct. VB that EB3 ROW would have been afforded a much more generous PD than EB2I. Based on the USCIS's assertion that henceforth spillover will be horizontal before vertical, the presumption can then be that EB3ROW would basically be limited to 28% of 140K, on that basis and recent retrogression for EB3ROW, those numbers should be used up rapidly. I'll bet that this will not happen. A whole lot of "managing" is going on.
Given that we have been tax paying, law abiding and patiently waiting through a bureaucratic system that has to date not approved 500K visas that they could have, we have a legitimate grouse to any fair minded person. We have contributed tremendously through our purchasing power and in many other ways to this economy.
As it stands however the system is mainly screwing EB India. Ideally they should start up a Country caps for H1b visas also. Only then will the foolishness of per country quotas for EMPLOYMENT BASED immigration be fully apparent. I see potentially another example of this "managed overflow" system at work here.
It seems likely on the Oct. VB that EB3 ROW would have been afforded a much more generous PD than EB2I. Based on the USCIS's assertion that henceforth spillover will be horizontal before vertical, the presumption can then be that EB3ROW would basically be limited to 28% of 140K, on that basis and recent retrogression for EB3ROW, those numbers should be used up rapidly. I'll bet that this will not happen. A whole lot of "managing" is going on.
more...
makeup Pregnant Kourtney Kardashian
justAnotherFile
07-24 01:23 PM
The law 245 (c) clearly states that the status of the applicant may be adjusted to that of permanent resident only if the visa number is available.
Nowhere does it state that the application for adjustment of status can be accepted only if visa number is available.
This must lie within the discretion of the USCIS but will need some lobbying because of no precedent of invoking it.
This is similar to the H1-B issue, previously apllication were accepted only on Oct 1, if the current year visas ran out. The USCIS made a policy change to accept applications for the next year starting April 1 in order to alleviate some problems regarding status etc.
Those of who who are inetersted in pursuing this furhter should write a 2-3 line question to USCIS in the below link. If there are enough questions on the same issue we may elicit a response.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask
we can plan further action later.
Nowhere does it state that the application for adjustment of status can be accepted only if visa number is available.
This must lie within the discretion of the USCIS but will need some lobbying because of no precedent of invoking it.
This is similar to the H1-B issue, previously apllication were accepted only on Oct 1, if the current year visas ran out. The USCIS made a policy change to accept applications for the next year starting April 1 in order to alleviate some problems regarding status etc.
Those of who who are inetersted in pursuing this furhter should write a 2-3 line question to USCIS in the below link. If there are enough questions on the same issue we may elicit a response.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask
we can plan further action later.
girlfriend Being pregnant doesn#39;t mean
Imigrait
01-30 03:39 PM
No. This is NOT what I said.
Filing for I-485 covers out of status covers in most cases and it does not cover out of status from last admission to the date of I-485 filing.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
I see your point. Thanks a lot again.
Filing for I-485 covers out of status covers in most cases and it does not cover out of status from last admission to the date of I-485 filing.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
I see your point. Thanks a lot again.
hairstyles kourtney kardashian pregnant style. kourtney kardashian pregnant
sanjaymk
07-16 05:02 PM
Following up on the NYTimes article about the NumbersUSA group, I visited their website and saw that they have a free FAX program where they can easily send faxes to their senators.
One of their fax letters is below, which is a complete mis-representation of truth - look at point #2.
================================
Dear [This fax will go to Your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative ]
I oppose any increase in the annual H-1B visa cap, including those in the SKIL Act. I am counting on you to oppose it.
Here are just a few reasons why I hope you will oppose the SKIL Act:
(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies.
(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers.
(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.
(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.
The result of the SKIL Act would be to further depress the wages of Americans working in high-tech and scientific fields and to cause additional job displacement for those workers.
Sincerely, [Your Name Will Appear Here]
==============================================
Is there any way we could let the senators know that this is complete lie, misinformation and mis-representation of facts?. We should also let the senators know that the credibility of these organizations are questionable and following the news/faxes from these organizations would in turn put the credibility of these senators at a BIG RISK. We also should let the senators know that these groups are artificially "hiking" up the count by sending in duplicate faxes.
Also, I recommend creating a similar page in IV website, where we can have an automated 1-2-3 STEP fax facility where we can automatically fax a letter to senators. It should be as simple as selecting the state and pressing the Send Fax button. Please let me know if you need any programming help from me.
Thanks,
Sanjay.
One of their fax letters is below, which is a complete mis-representation of truth - look at point #2.
================================
Dear [This fax will go to Your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative ]
I oppose any increase in the annual H-1B visa cap, including those in the SKIL Act. I am counting on you to oppose it.
Here are just a few reasons why I hope you will oppose the SKIL Act:
(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies.
(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers.
(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.
(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.
The result of the SKIL Act would be to further depress the wages of Americans working in high-tech and scientific fields and to cause additional job displacement for those workers.
Sincerely, [Your Name Will Appear Here]
==============================================
Is there any way we could let the senators know that this is complete lie, misinformation and mis-representation of facts?. We should also let the senators know that the credibility of these organizations are questionable and following the news/faxes from these organizations would in turn put the credibility of these senators at a BIG RISK. We also should let the senators know that these groups are artificially "hiking" up the count by sending in duplicate faxes.
Also, I recommend creating a similar page in IV website, where we can have an automated 1-2-3 STEP fax facility where we can automatically fax a letter to senators. It should be as simple as selecting the state and pressing the Send Fax button. Please let me know if you need any programming help from me.
Thanks,
Sanjay.
jonty_11
07-11 01:52 PM
If they want to make money, they no need to say that abt 2 year EAD at all.
And also most of the EAD renewals are free of cost who filed after 30th June 30 2007.
man this is US...here prices of goods are jacked up and then a big SALE sign is posted on the front door....
Same for EAD...hey! will give u 2 year EADs, but only if your PD is not close...and then they make most of ours PDs close to the Cut off date..and Oops...now only 1 year EAD
And also most of the EAD renewals are free of cost who filed after 30th June 30 2007.
man this is US...here prices of goods are jacked up and then a big SALE sign is posted on the front door....
Same for EAD...hey! will give u 2 year EADs, but only if your PD is not close...and then they make most of ours PDs close to the Cut off date..and Oops...now only 1 year EAD
abd
09-14 03:02 PM
Here is detail. i changed job based on AC21 portability. Did not file papers.
Please note that it is imprevative that timely response is necessary to ensure continued processing as visa is currently available for your case.
A review of service record indicate that a form I-129 peition was filed on your behalf by "Previous Employer COmpany Name" was revioked on September X, 2009 . Therefore it appears you are no longer empployed by intended employer according to form I-140 immigration visa petition filed on your behalf.
Please submit a list describing your employment history since your last lawful admission to US. This list should include name and location of each employer, job title, and duties, educational /training requirements, dates you held each position and salary/wage paid. The list should be supported by documenary evidence which establishes your employment history.
Additionaly,you must submit a currently dated letter from your intended permanent employer,describing your present job duties and positioin on origanization, your proffered position(if different from current) , the date you beagn employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter should be in original and signed by an executive or office of the organized who is authorized to make an offer for employment.The letter should indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment-based visa petition (or labor petition) continues to exist.
Important: if you will no longer be employed by the original form I-140 petitioner, you may still be eligible to adjust the status under the visa portabilit provisions of section 106(c) of the Americal Competitiveness in the 21st Century act(AC21). Public Law 106-313. This legislatin permits certain adjustment applicamts to chnage employers without filing a new immigrant visa petition, provided they are
The beneficiary of an immigrant petition approved under section 204(a)(1)(F) of the Act (previously 204(a((1)(D)) and
The application for adjustment has been pending for more thna 180 days and
the new permanent position is in same or similar occupational classification as original employment.
If you cliam such eligibilty, submit a letter frm new permanent employer, describing your present job duties and postion in organizatiom your proffered position(if different from current) , the date you beagn employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter should be in original and signed by an executive or office of the organized who is authorized to make an offer for employment.The letter should indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment-based visa petition (or labor petition) continues to exist.
:) Working with attorneys to get the papers ready....
Please note that it is imprevative that timely response is necessary to ensure continued processing as visa is currently available for your case.
A review of service record indicate that a form I-129 peition was filed on your behalf by "Previous Employer COmpany Name" was revioked on September X, 2009 . Therefore it appears you are no longer empployed by intended employer according to form I-140 immigration visa petition filed on your behalf.
Please submit a list describing your employment history since your last lawful admission to US. This list should include name and location of each employer, job title, and duties, educational /training requirements, dates you held each position and salary/wage paid. The list should be supported by documenary evidence which establishes your employment history.
Additionaly,you must submit a currently dated letter from your intended permanent employer,describing your present job duties and positioin on origanization, your proffered position(if different from current) , the date you beagn employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter should be in original and signed by an executive or office of the organized who is authorized to make an offer for employment.The letter should indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment-based visa petition (or labor petition) continues to exist.
Important: if you will no longer be employed by the original form I-140 petitioner, you may still be eligible to adjust the status under the visa portabilit provisions of section 106(c) of the Americal Competitiveness in the 21st Century act(AC21). Public Law 106-313. This legislatin permits certain adjustment applicamts to chnage employers without filing a new immigrant visa petition, provided they are
The beneficiary of an immigrant petition approved under section 204(a)(1)(F) of the Act (previously 204(a((1)(D)) and
The application for adjustment has been pending for more thna 180 days and
the new permanent position is in same or similar occupational classification as original employment.
If you cliam such eligibilty, submit a letter frm new permanent employer, describing your present job duties and postion in organizatiom your proffered position(if different from current) , the date you beagn employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter should be in original and signed by an executive or office of the organized who is authorized to make an offer for employment.The letter should indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment-based visa petition (or labor petition) continues to exist.
:) Working with attorneys to get the papers ready....
Post Title
→kourtney kardashian pregnant style
Post URL
→http://leyleetattoos.blogspot.com/2011/06/kourtney-kardashian-pregnant-style.html
Visit Leylee Tattoo for Daily Updated Leylee Tattoo
