kaisersose
09-18 11:15 PM
I had to reluctantly stay away from the rally due to a brand new baby at home, but I sure hope to be part of future efforts.
And I totally agree that Legal is the keyword. Most Americans are not clear about Legals v Illegals and lump them together. Of course, some just do not care and do not see a need to differentiate between the two. They would just like to see Asian and South Asian folks get out of the country.
And I also am not in favor of asking for an increase in GC quota. Instead I am in favor of not counting spouse and kids against the quota. This itself will effectively inrease the quota to over 350K per year. Directly asking for quota increase always leaves a bad taste for skeptics and will slow down any possible action.
And I totally agree that Legal is the keyword. Most Americans are not clear about Legals v Illegals and lump them together. Of course, some just do not care and do not see a need to differentiate between the two. They would just like to see Asian and South Asian folks get out of the country.
And I also am not in favor of asking for an increase in GC quota. Instead I am in favor of not counting spouse and kids against the quota. This itself will effectively inrease the quota to over 350K per year. Directly asking for quota increase always leaves a bad taste for skeptics and will slow down any possible action.
wallpaper timetables chart up to 100. times table method; times table method. Zadillo
rayoflight
06-15 10:02 AM
I meant can we get a list of all the states the emails have been sent by all the members.
The mail will only be sent to your US Senators from your state.
The mail will only be sent to your US Senators from your state.
grinch
03-06 11:28 PM
Here's a WIP of my almost completed entry :
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/grinchvader/f1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/grinchvader/f3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/grinchvader/f2.jpg
*gonna post in drawing and design
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/grinchvader/f1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/grinchvader/f3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/grinchvader/f2.jpg
*gonna post in drawing and design
2011 timetables chart up to 100. Timetables chart 1-12
Rb_newsletter
04-09 06:39 PM
i don't..... becoz i' not in sarah palin brigade of mindless freaks who have to find someone to blame others for the sake of it..... we live in a complicated world..... just becoz we applied with uscis..... & just becoz they've to approve applications..... it doesn't mean
backlogs & delays is uscis fault..... the least amongst us can easily figure out that the problem is with the congress, not with cis.....
y the hell do u blame cis...... r they not allocating 140K per year..... what more do u want from them....... oh well...... for the sarah palin brigade on this forum i'm now an outcast.....
- the problem is with the congress, not with cis
Congress did not ask USCIS/DOS to subtract dependent visa numbers from 140K. If USCIS/DOS excludes dependent numbers from 140k, congress cannot question that because law doesn't mandate to include the dependent numbers in 140K.
-y the hell do u blame cis...... r they not allocating 140K per year
If USCIS/DOS doesn't agree to change their administration policy to exclude dependent visas from 140K after seeing our backlog, then who else do we have to blame.
Yes they are allocating 140K per year. But to who? In my view to the same applicant; one for primary applicant, another for his spouse, another for his kid, ....
Most of us here are 'keyboard ninjas'. Only very few contribute in actions and that contribution is hidden under donor forums. Without awareness of the good things happening, these keyboard-ninjas are not going to contribute in actions.
We all understand that blaming is not going to help anyone. But what else to do.
backlogs & delays is uscis fault..... the least amongst us can easily figure out that the problem is with the congress, not with cis.....
y the hell do u blame cis...... r they not allocating 140K per year..... what more do u want from them....... oh well...... for the sarah palin brigade on this forum i'm now an outcast.....
- the problem is with the congress, not with cis
Congress did not ask USCIS/DOS to subtract dependent visa numbers from 140K. If USCIS/DOS excludes dependent numbers from 140k, congress cannot question that because law doesn't mandate to include the dependent numbers in 140K.
-y the hell do u blame cis...... r they not allocating 140K per year
If USCIS/DOS doesn't agree to change their administration policy to exclude dependent visas from 140K after seeing our backlog, then who else do we have to blame.
Yes they are allocating 140K per year. But to who? In my view to the same applicant; one for primary applicant, another for his spouse, another for his kid, ....
Most of us here are 'keyboard ninjas'. Only very few contribute in actions and that contribution is hidden under donor forums. Without awareness of the good things happening, these keyboard-ninjas are not going to contribute in actions.
We all understand that blaming is not going to help anyone. But what else to do.
more...
pd052009
03-21 11:24 AM
^^^^
jonty_11
07-11 03:41 PM
Previously, the policy was that all worldwide numbers would fall down into worldwide third and then from there, fall across to the countries impacted by retrogression (i.e. India, China). The policy was recently clarified and today the unused numbers are allocated within the same preference classification.
Can you provide the source of this info? a link or something?
Can you provide the source of this info? a link or something?
more...
sprash
01-30 02:35 PM
Wow! Thanks a lot for posting such detailed RFE information. This really helps a lot in understanding what I may be asked.
My GC sponsoring employer revoked my H1 last year itself. I could see the change in status back then itself within a month of having left them. Nothing happenned after that. I got a new H1 from my (then) new employer and things continued as before. This employer has not yet revoked my H1 (from what I can see) and its probably because they are almost going under. There are less than 25 people left in the company so I doubt that they will have spent the money to go and revoke all the H1s of the folks they laid off.
Maybe its like someone suggested - USCIS is pre-processing my 485 based on received date since I mailed my app very early on in July 2007.
Yes, I believe thats what they might be doing - preprocessing. There was no obvious 'trigger' event that caused RFE on my case either. They raised these RFEs even though I had not changed my sponsoring employer or transferred my h1b. I have a feeling they preprocessed mine too.
I don't mean to scare you (just prepare you for the worst) --- you might want to talk to some desi consultants and make an arrangement that in case the RFE is employment verification, they give you pay stubs from the time you were laid off. As you can see from my RFE, you might need to show your recent paystubs and employment verification. Yes, it will be a financial loss for you, but without these I believe your case can get rejected (gurus correct me if I'm wrong!).
Again I am is just hypothesizing your situation, your case might be entirely different. This is 'just in case'.....
My GC sponsoring employer revoked my H1 last year itself. I could see the change in status back then itself within a month of having left them. Nothing happenned after that. I got a new H1 from my (then) new employer and things continued as before. This employer has not yet revoked my H1 (from what I can see) and its probably because they are almost going under. There are less than 25 people left in the company so I doubt that they will have spent the money to go and revoke all the H1s of the folks they laid off.
Maybe its like someone suggested - USCIS is pre-processing my 485 based on received date since I mailed my app very early on in July 2007.
Yes, I believe thats what they might be doing - preprocessing. There was no obvious 'trigger' event that caused RFE on my case either. They raised these RFEs even though I had not changed my sponsoring employer or transferred my h1b. I have a feeling they preprocessed mine too.
I don't mean to scare you (just prepare you for the worst) --- you might want to talk to some desi consultants and make an arrangement that in case the RFE is employment verification, they give you pay stubs from the time you were laid off. As you can see from my RFE, you might need to show your recent paystubs and employment verification. Yes, it will be a financial loss for you, but without these I believe your case can get rejected (gurus correct me if I'm wrong!).
Again I am is just hypothesizing your situation, your case might be entirely different. This is 'just in case'.....
2010 timetables chart up to 100. guns timetables chart 1 20
gc28262
03-10 03:27 PM
Before taking up any agenda, check with IV core whether it is the right time.
If it was the right time, why wouldn't IV core initiate any action items when members are so willing to take up those ?
If it was the right time, why wouldn't IV core initiate any action items when members are so willing to take up those ?
more...
gangadhargs
12-25 12:35 PM
I got my reply from USCIS today. The receipt number is NRC2008072623.
hair timetables chart up to 100. 100; 100. coal. Sep 15, 04:49 PM
nomi
12-12 10:38 AM
We have asked an immigration lawyer this question. Someone even quoted all the sections of INA and CFR(code of federal regulations) to make the point -- that you can have regulation changed to file 485.
The lawyer was of the opinion that you need change in INA to be able to file 485 when dates are not current. It cannot be done with administrative changes.
Well... then I should not drop my Candian Immigration.
The lawyer was of the opinion that you need change in INA to be able to file 485 when dates are not current. It cannot be done with administrative changes.
Well... then I should not drop my Candian Immigration.
more...
NKR
03-17 10:16 AM
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
EB2 India PD came only up till April 2004 before it retrogressed. There is no way anybody whose PD is between April to Sept 2004 could have applied before July 2007. They might have applied only in July 2007 when USCIS made EB2 PD current by mistake.
EB2 India PD came only up till April 2004 before it retrogressed. There is no way anybody whose PD is between April to Sept 2004 could have applied before July 2007. They might have applied only in July 2007 when USCIS made EB2 PD current by mistake.
hot timetables chart up to 100. bus timetable cartoon 1; bus timetable cartoon 1
BharatPremi
03-12 02:06 PM
BharatPremi,
So you gave up H1B and moved onto EAD? Is it because the new employer is not interested in H1B transfer or some other reason?
Also, my I140 was approved in 2006 and I1485 filed in July last year (both with a large, well-known company). If I change employers now and work using EAD, are there any major issues that can arise? Like furnishing of audit reports, etc?
I tried to keep H1 but finally I had to gave it up as "For critical positions we hire EAD/GC holders- US Citizens only and thus we can not allow H1 transfer for this position".
I do not see any problem in your case based on the information what you gave here. Large companies - So must be having 3 years Audit reports - perhaps available publicly (In my case that is the case -- so virtually no risk).If you get new job offer letter with "Same job description" as one under which your gC filed - no problem - No gap in pay stubs .. Then go ahead and we will welcome you to EAD club.
So you gave up H1B and moved onto EAD? Is it because the new employer is not interested in H1B transfer or some other reason?
Also, my I140 was approved in 2006 and I1485 filed in July last year (both with a large, well-known company). If I change employers now and work using EAD, are there any major issues that can arise? Like furnishing of audit reports, etc?
I tried to keep H1 but finally I had to gave it up as "For critical positions we hire EAD/GC holders- US Citizens only and thus we can not allow H1 transfer for this position".
I do not see any problem in your case based on the information what you gave here. Large companies - So must be having 3 years Audit reports - perhaps available publicly (In my case that is the case -- so virtually no risk).If you get new job offer letter with "Same job description" as one under which your gC filed - no problem - No gap in pay stubs .. Then go ahead and we will welcome you to EAD club.
more...
house Timetable+chart+up+to+100
coopheal
04-11 04:00 PM
This was not inferred from Mexico EB3. I was explaining why EB3 Mexico became unavailable. Any category becoming U is nothing alarming. It just means there are no more visas available for that category for that year.
As for April 2001, it is the dreaded date for EB3-I India. The reason being all 245(i) applicants had a PD of April-2001 or earlier. If you haven't read 245(i) and its impact on EB3-I, please educate yourself regarding 245(i).
any category of EB3 or EB2 type going unavailable in May bulletin is alarming.
Most of us were under assumption that USCIS/DOS were keeping tight control on number of applications available..... USCIS and DOS has not given any other reason to believe otherwise...
However, this assumption proves wrong for Mexico and hence could turn out to be wrong for India as well. This has severe consequences on the VB dates movements...
It would mean DOS is actually approving lot more (double/triple the monthly rate) EB3-I applications and these applications are coming from Consulate Processing and those unaccounted for application in field offices.
so when most of us would be expecting EB3-I to be mid Oct or Nov it could turn unavailable.....
As for April 2001, it is the dreaded date for EB3-I India. The reason being all 245(i) applicants had a PD of April-2001 or earlier. If you haven't read 245(i) and its impact on EB3-I, please educate yourself regarding 245(i).
any category of EB3 or EB2 type going unavailable in May bulletin is alarming.
Most of us were under assumption that USCIS/DOS were keeping tight control on number of applications available..... USCIS and DOS has not given any other reason to believe otherwise...
However, this assumption proves wrong for Mexico and hence could turn out to be wrong for India as well. This has severe consequences on the VB dates movements...
It would mean DOS is actually approving lot more (double/triple the monthly rate) EB3-I applications and these applications are coming from Consulate Processing and those unaccounted for application in field offices.
so when most of us would be expecting EB3-I to be mid Oct or Nov it could turn unavailable.....
tattoo timetables chart up to 100. of the times Chart up to
abhijitp
07-24 12:16 AM
Pappu, Others:
My lawyer confirmed they were "unable to" include the Employment Verification Letter along with the AOS/ EAD/ AP packet that was submitted in time to reach USCIS on July 2.
What are my options now? If you have any insight please let me know.
I was wondering about doing one or both of the following two things:
1. Send Employment Verification Letter even before Receipt Notice is received for I-485. This is likely to be lost in the mess that it is now, but does not hurt trying!
2. Prepare and send another I-485 with all documents including Employment Verification Letter. Even if this is not recommended by some lawyers, I would think this is better than simply relying on the "common" practice of issuing an RFE instead of outright rejecting the I-485.
Thanks!
My lawyer confirmed they were "unable to" include the Employment Verification Letter along with the AOS/ EAD/ AP packet that was submitted in time to reach USCIS on July 2.
What are my options now? If you have any insight please let me know.
I was wondering about doing one or both of the following two things:
1. Send Employment Verification Letter even before Receipt Notice is received for I-485. This is likely to be lost in the mess that it is now, but does not hurt trying!
2. Prepare and send another I-485 with all documents including Employment Verification Letter. Even if this is not recommended by some lawyers, I would think this is better than simply relying on the "common" practice of issuing an RFE instead of outright rejecting the I-485.
Thanks!
more...
pictures timetables chart up to 100.
bang
03-08 10:17 PM
Please let me know who wants to travel .. i can book a ticket for you ... please reply with your details i will contact you
dresses multiplication chart 1 100
glus
01-16 07:18 AM
Signed up for $20 per month. That's all I can do now. Hope that it will help.
Regards,
Regards,
more...
makeup timetables chart up to 100
sands_14
09-23 10:03 AM
I e-filed my EAD and AP;but when I sent the supporting documentation to the PO Box in Mesquite,Texas;it was not delivered on Friday,a notice was left.I am very anxious if it comes back.Is there a Phone Number I can call to ask them Reason for Non-delivery;what should I do???Is there an address different from the PO Box where I can FEDEX
girlfriend hairstyles chart to up 100
sathyaraj
03-07 12:16 PM
I have sent the required employment letter to my HR. Let me see whrther they will sign it or not. I am hoping for the best. I have waited long to change my employer. It have been with them for almost 7 yrs. I am hoping for a big change.
The funny thing is that they are doing my H1B transfer, but still worried about this letter. The HR contact I have does not have much idea about these H1b/Gc process. He gets scared for everything.
Hopefully everything would work out well.
♠
The funny thing is that they are doing my H1B transfer, but still worried about this letter. The HR contact I have does not have much idea about these H1b/Gc process. He gets scared for everything.
Hopefully everything would work out well.
♠
hairstyles timetables chart up to 100.
desi3933
02-11 12:03 PM
The visa numbers reported as used for FY 2009 is 141,020 from http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09...ort_TableV.pdf
This was the response i got from Ron Gotcher.
"The employment based category is entitled to use the "unused" family based numbers from the previous year. Last year, the quota for EB was the base of 140,000, plus another 13,000 shifted over from FB. Unfortunately, the CIS failed once again to approve enough cases to use up the entire available quota."
If this is true, we have lost a lot of visas last year.
Now with aprox. 10,000 visas shifted from FB, we should hope they use about 150,000 (140,000 + 10,000) this year.
Is there a way to confirm this? We got to do something to resolve this problem
As per this link
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf
Page 6, the total number of family based visas (that are subject to numerical limitations) is 226,105. Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. So, family based visa numbers were fully used.
So where is 13,000 unused family numbers for FY2008 that should have been available for employment based visa numbers for FY2009?
__________________
Not a legal advice.
This was the response i got from Ron Gotcher.
"The employment based category is entitled to use the "unused" family based numbers from the previous year. Last year, the quota for EB was the base of 140,000, plus another 13,000 shifted over from FB. Unfortunately, the CIS failed once again to approve enough cases to use up the entire available quota."
If this is true, we have lost a lot of visas last year.
Now with aprox. 10,000 visas shifted from FB, we should hope they use about 150,000 (140,000 + 10,000) this year.
Is there a way to confirm this? We got to do something to resolve this problem
As per this link
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf
Page 6, the total number of family based visas (that are subject to numerical limitations) is 226,105. Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. So, family based visa numbers were fully used.
So where is 13,000 unused family numbers for FY2008 that should have been available for employment based visa numbers for FY2009?
__________________
Not a legal advice.
desigirl
02-16 09:05 AM
Which airport should members be looking to book the tickets to? Baltimore, Dulles or Reagan? Which is the closest to the Capitol Hill or which airport has the easy public transportation access to Capitol Hill. I would like to go ahead and buy the air tickets.
Thanks.
Thanks.
dummgelauft
08-21 12:51 PM
I did not marry the man I was engaged to. I came here initially for ONE month and was approved at the airport customs terminal to stay that long. When I got here, it was for a visit with my fiance only. Unfortunately, things did not work out and we broke it off. Thank God! However, I was staying with his uncle and aunt, and they had a disabled man in the house. HE turned out to be my sponsor when they asked me to care for him while they were doing long haul trucking. I agreed to do this and we immediately contacted USCIS to get instructions on what needed to be filed first. With that information in hand, we filed everything they requested. All the stuff on the RFE I received has never been mentioned before now and if it had, it would have been filed along with the rest. There are tons of applications, how is one supposed to know what to file and when if there are no specific instructions? I have gone through all the copies we have of all the required applications and I still do not see anything where all these other forms were to be filed along with the I-485.
Nothing was done illegally. He filed the application on my behalf, signed, sealed and delivered it himself. I did not do this on my own, I just signed whatever I was required to sign, he did the rest.
If all of this was illegal, then why was I not informed of this nearly 6 years ago when we filed the first application? Seems a bit odd that if I was illegal and they know where I am and who I live with that they wouldn't be quick to throw me out, but they have not done so.
My former fiance has nothing to do with this, I never intended to stay here when I first came, it was merely a visit but circumstances were such that I was needed at a moment's notice so we filed the necessary paperwork as quickly as possible and thought we were doing the right thing. No one has ever said otherwise until now and I think that is rather unfair to spring it all on me at this point and expect me to get it all done within 30 days. I know I am not the only applicant out there and I realize there is a huge backlog of other applications, I'm not that stupid to think that they will make me a priority, but one measly letter informing me that I was here illegally sometime over a 6 year period is not asking to much is it? Why would they send me all the other Notices of Action if I was here illegally and they knew it?
Something is terribly screwed up and I guess I have no choice but to find an attorney who can deal with this mess.
Okay, It is still a bit fuzzy, but lot clearer than your initial post. Almost all of us here on this forum are professionally qualified Employment Based applicants, with fairly straightforward, albeit extremently slow moving cases. Nearly all of us have been sponsored by our employers and we make sure that we are legal, in this country, every day of the year.
Now, coming to your case.
I am certain this "disabled man" you are caring for, had all good intentions, but he screwed up royally. You can not just "apply for a I-485". There has to be a basis from one of the following
(1) Family based
(2) Employment based
(3) Humanitarian / Refugee
(4) Diversity Based
It is still not clear, what CATEGORY he applied for you under.
(a) Can not be family based (you are not his spouse, child, sibling etc)
(b) You CERTAINLY DO NOT qualify under Employment based application.
(c) You absolutey CAN NOT apply under Refugee or Diversity (Canadians are shut out of diversity visa quota)
So, it is now time to stop pretending that you "were needed here". Nobody is indispensible.
Get your self back in to Cananda and work towards building your life back up.
Bon fin semaine!!
Nothing was done illegally. He filed the application on my behalf, signed, sealed and delivered it himself. I did not do this on my own, I just signed whatever I was required to sign, he did the rest.
If all of this was illegal, then why was I not informed of this nearly 6 years ago when we filed the first application? Seems a bit odd that if I was illegal and they know where I am and who I live with that they wouldn't be quick to throw me out, but they have not done so.
My former fiance has nothing to do with this, I never intended to stay here when I first came, it was merely a visit but circumstances were such that I was needed at a moment's notice so we filed the necessary paperwork as quickly as possible and thought we were doing the right thing. No one has ever said otherwise until now and I think that is rather unfair to spring it all on me at this point and expect me to get it all done within 30 days. I know I am not the only applicant out there and I realize there is a huge backlog of other applications, I'm not that stupid to think that they will make me a priority, but one measly letter informing me that I was here illegally sometime over a 6 year period is not asking to much is it? Why would they send me all the other Notices of Action if I was here illegally and they knew it?
Something is terribly screwed up and I guess I have no choice but to find an attorney who can deal with this mess.
Okay, It is still a bit fuzzy, but lot clearer than your initial post. Almost all of us here on this forum are professionally qualified Employment Based applicants, with fairly straightforward, albeit extremently slow moving cases. Nearly all of us have been sponsored by our employers and we make sure that we are legal, in this country, every day of the year.
Now, coming to your case.
I am certain this "disabled man" you are caring for, had all good intentions, but he screwed up royally. You can not just "apply for a I-485". There has to be a basis from one of the following
(1) Family based
(2) Employment based
(3) Humanitarian / Refugee
(4) Diversity Based
It is still not clear, what CATEGORY he applied for you under.
(a) Can not be family based (you are not his spouse, child, sibling etc)
(b) You CERTAINLY DO NOT qualify under Employment based application.
(c) You absolutey CAN NOT apply under Refugee or Diversity (Canadians are shut out of diversity visa quota)
So, it is now time to stop pretending that you "were needed here". Nobody is indispensible.
Get your self back in to Cananda and work towards building your life back up.
Bon fin semaine!!