yabadaba
09-10 12:10 PM
So are you coming then?
Thanks.
yes
Thanks.
yes
wallpaper long hair styles for men with
gc_on_demand
11-12 03:24 PM
Under the regulation No reference to Calendar year. It mentions explicitly calendar quarter.
Immigration and Nationality Act: Section ACT 202 - Numerical Limitation to any single foreign state under Sec. 202. [8 U.S.C. 1152]
(3) Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
(B) LIMITING FALL ACROSS FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (e)- In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 203(b) exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 203(b)consistent with subsection (e) (determined without regard to this paragraph),in applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 203(b).
Isn't there a limit of 27% of visas per quarter per country per calendar year ? If that limit is there then who will take precedence ? Quarterly Spill over or that limit ?
To me I think DOS is doing 27% quota limit for first 3 quarters then they are doing spill over so there is no quarterly spill. What if they will show us that there is a limit per quarter in law and they have to follow it. Is it something like deadlock. that trying to follow one law breaks another one.
What if we end up getting response that there is some action needed from Lawmakers to correct law..
just random thoughts.
Immigration and Nationality Act: Section ACT 202 - Numerical Limitation to any single foreign state under Sec. 202. [8 U.S.C. 1152]
(3) Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
(B) LIMITING FALL ACROSS FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (e)- In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 203(b) exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 203(b)consistent with subsection (e) (determined without regard to this paragraph),in applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 203(b).
Isn't there a limit of 27% of visas per quarter per country per calendar year ? If that limit is there then who will take precedence ? Quarterly Spill over or that limit ?
To me I think DOS is doing 27% quota limit for first 3 quarters then they are doing spill over so there is no quarterly spill. What if they will show us that there is a limit per quarter in law and they have to follow it. Is it something like deadlock. that trying to follow one law breaks another one.
What if we end up getting response that there is some action needed from Lawmakers to correct law..
just random thoughts.
jgh_res
07-05 12:38 PM
My background: I am a desi. I contributed around 300$ or so. I filed my 485 couple of years ago. So I am not that desperate.
Onething about desi's I figured out over a long time, they dont mind spending zillion dollars for attorney fees, USCIS fees, whatever fees. But they really mind paying 20$/month towards IV or anything, if there is a way they can get it for free.
What an epitome of hypocrisy? Non Profit org working towards GC alleviatoon and needs resources for lobbying. Yeah! The Blue skies are showering green on IV every day. How about us working for a Non profit org or EDU for free? They all serve noble causes. Dont they?
Onething about desi's I figured out over a long time, they dont mind spending zillion dollars for attorney fees, USCIS fees, whatever fees. But they really mind paying 20$/month towards IV or anything, if there is a way they can get it for free.
What an epitome of hypocrisy? Non Profit org working towards GC alleviatoon and needs resources for lobbying. Yeah! The Blue skies are showering green on IV every day. How about us working for a Non profit org or EDU for free? They all serve noble causes. Dont they?
2011 long hair styles for men with
scorpion00
06-08 06:02 PM
so no spill over from EB2 ROW which is current ,to India and China EB2.
I guess many folks were having high hopes for this in the last quarter.
I guess many folks were having high hopes for this in the last quarter.
more...
sri1309
09-10 08:45 PM
Personally for me, why do I need the citizenship?
1) My parents don't want to come and live here.
2) How do I tell my future children that this country is the best country for them when it screwed their dad or gave him secondary treatment for 8-10 yrs when I spent here.
3) How do I "love" this country with a true mind knowing it did not give me the same opportunity it gave to immigrants from other countries? How do I digest the fact that europeans, mexicans, filipinos etc are getting preferential work related immigrant visas ahead of me? and I would still pledge my allegiance to this country knowing I have not been treated fairly?
You see there are more moral and ethical questions to be answered. I have made my money here. I could almost retire in India with this much money in next 5-10 years.
Hi,
I agree and disagree with you. We came here for the good things this country has to offer. And we may have got, as you mentioned some of them.. money etc., for some people its quality eductaion, for some more research etc etc.. And we dont like some unfortunate things like the one we are all upset about. Its the department thats broken we are all upset about and not the country as such. I know how you feel, but I am sure we all agree we are frustrated with the immigration department. We must do something to fix it. Cant just sit quite, when illegals come in millions and ask for citizenship again and get it too. I think that happened in 86 or sometime around. We must highlight ourselves before its too late.
1) My parents don't want to come and live here.
2) How do I tell my future children that this country is the best country for them when it screwed their dad or gave him secondary treatment for 8-10 yrs when I spent here.
3) How do I "love" this country with a true mind knowing it did not give me the same opportunity it gave to immigrants from other countries? How do I digest the fact that europeans, mexicans, filipinos etc are getting preferential work related immigrant visas ahead of me? and I would still pledge my allegiance to this country knowing I have not been treated fairly?
You see there are more moral and ethical questions to be answered. I have made my money here. I could almost retire in India with this much money in next 5-10 years.
Hi,
I agree and disagree with you. We came here for the good things this country has to offer. And we may have got, as you mentioned some of them.. money etc., for some people its quality eductaion, for some more research etc etc.. And we dont like some unfortunate things like the one we are all upset about. Its the department thats broken we are all upset about and not the country as such. I know how you feel, but I am sure we all agree we are frustrated with the immigration department. We must do something to fix it. Cant just sit quite, when illegals come in millions and ask for citizenship again and get it too. I think that happened in 86 or sometime around. We must highlight ourselves before its too late.
zuhail
03-10 03:49 PM
Of all 4 the proposals made by vbkris77,
I would just stick with one and only one:
RE-CAPTURING VISA NUMBERS.
If we add any other item like re validating H1B inside US,accountability for USCIS etc, the message would bound to get lost. It will get bogged down by the details of implementing the other proposals. The devil is always in the details.
I think we need to stick to single target of visa re-capturing (with no mention of the word H1B in the legislation). There should be no crap about H1B workers stealing jobs nor granting pardon for illegals. Visa re-capture is for educated foreign-born professionals currently employed in US.
Many ask if this is the right time. When will be the right time?. Are we asking anything that has not been already granted by the law?. These past visa numbers have been already approved by the law but not used by the USCIS.
The time is RIGHT NOW.
It is interesting why IV team is not taking up this one item and start fund raising.
May be the team has some valid reasons for not doing so. I could only guess.
But waiting for the right time to take up this agenda of re-capturing visa numbers is not a valid reason. That is totally hopeless.
I would just stick with one and only one:
RE-CAPTURING VISA NUMBERS.
If we add any other item like re validating H1B inside US,accountability for USCIS etc, the message would bound to get lost. It will get bogged down by the details of implementing the other proposals. The devil is always in the details.
I think we need to stick to single target of visa re-capturing (with no mention of the word H1B in the legislation). There should be no crap about H1B workers stealing jobs nor granting pardon for illegals. Visa re-capture is for educated foreign-born professionals currently employed in US.
Many ask if this is the right time. When will be the right time?. Are we asking anything that has not been already granted by the law?. These past visa numbers have been already approved by the law but not used by the USCIS.
The time is RIGHT NOW.
It is interesting why IV team is not taking up this one item and start fund raising.
May be the team has some valid reasons for not doing so. I could only guess.
But waiting for the right time to take up this agenda of re-capturing visa numbers is not a valid reason. That is totally hopeless.
more...
grinch
03-11 10:33 PM
Yes we are soulty!!
Thanks bluesun, I'll try it out
Thanks bluesun, I'll try it out
2010 long hairstyles for men with
gcbeku
08-10 03:35 PM
I think this is a brilliant idea and might even fly esp because it still preserves USCIS/DOS EB caste system while providin some relief to the EB3s.
While porting is still an option, it is in EB3 filers' interest to push forward on this idea.
I feel frustrated at some peoples' unwillingness to admit that EB3 needs IV's help now more than ever. They are saying that nothing much can be done for EB3, as INS merely corrected its wrong interpretation in visa allocation
But, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
While porting is still an option, it is in EB3 filers' interest to push forward on this idea.
I feel frustrated at some peoples' unwillingness to admit that EB3 needs IV's help now more than ever. They are saying that nothing much can be done for EB3, as INS merely corrected its wrong interpretation in visa allocation
But, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
more...
Imm_Exploited
03-15 09:52 PM
I wonder who wants to take credit for the elimination of the labor substitution provision that has been (mis) used by the immigrant community as well as some employers. Labor substitution was one of the reasons for the back and forth of priority dates movement. Thankfully, effective July 2007, the labor substitution rule has been eliminated.
The immigration system was more of screwed-up one till March 2005 (not that it is no more a screwed-up system now) when the PERM was introduced. With the introduction of PERM, the priority dates were common for EB labor certification nation-wide. Prior to March 2005, we had a screwed-up policy of state-wise labor-certification backlog where those who filed from states like Maine or Nebraska had an advantage of getting not only the approval of labor certification (form ETA 750-A/750-B or ETA 9089) faster but also having the Green Card in hand much sooner than those who filed from other states.
Though the introduction of PERM, removal of labor-substitution, and the 180-day rule for name check have noteworthy and life-saving benefits for immigrants, there needs to be more transparency from DOS/USCIS on how the EB GCs are allotted or wasted unused.
IE
The immigration system was more of screwed-up one till March 2005 (not that it is no more a screwed-up system now) when the PERM was introduced. With the introduction of PERM, the priority dates were common for EB labor certification nation-wide. Prior to March 2005, we had a screwed-up policy of state-wise labor-certification backlog where those who filed from states like Maine or Nebraska had an advantage of getting not only the approval of labor certification (form ETA 750-A/750-B or ETA 9089) faster but also having the Green Card in hand much sooner than those who filed from other states.
Though the introduction of PERM, removal of labor-substitution, and the 180-day rule for name check have noteworthy and life-saving benefits for immigrants, there needs to be more transparency from DOS/USCIS on how the EB GCs are allotted or wasted unused.
IE
hair long mens hairstyle.
transpass
04-10 12:07 PM
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
more...
pcs
11-10 09:06 PM
Guys..
I have been watching and participating in this drama for a long time....
We must go to court for the correct interpretation and enforcement of UNUSED VISA from ROW / undersubscribed catagories. THERE IS NO CASE FOR EVEN WAITING FOR ONE QUARTER. 20,000 VISA are available unused at a given time, they should ALL be immediately allocated to the guys in the Q.
This will benefit all EB 2 / EB 3
We really should not have any debate about loosing the case etc... Let us try and loose the case... At least , we will have the satisfaction of trying...
If your are with me please respond to this thread
We MUST take the advantage of low VISA usage in this recession and cut the line by tens of thousand
I have been watching and participating in this drama for a long time....
We must go to court for the correct interpretation and enforcement of UNUSED VISA from ROW / undersubscribed catagories. THERE IS NO CASE FOR EVEN WAITING FOR ONE QUARTER. 20,000 VISA are available unused at a given time, they should ALL be immediately allocated to the guys in the Q.
This will benefit all EB 2 / EB 3
We really should not have any debate about loosing the case etc... Let us try and loose the case... At least , we will have the satisfaction of trying...
If your are with me please respond to this thread
We MUST take the advantage of low VISA usage in this recession and cut the line by tens of thousand
hot girlfriend Hair Style Round
nixstor
07-05 03:11 PM
But I have been using murthy forums - which are free for a long long time...even before IV came along....talking abt quality...same kinda ppl post there....dont see any diff....
I'm sure IV is doing a great job on something....but please do a little research before asserting that this is the only immigration forum in the world...
Dont mean to start a p***ing contest here.... those who want to and can pay shd pay....but thinking that ppl will pay for the forums is not really a solution.
No offense either. You cannot compare Murthy/Khanna forums with IV's. As long as you see IV just as a forum, you would not be able to make any distinction between IV & murthy/khanna forums. As I replied in another post, Murthy/Khanna get "invaluable" publicity that translates into clients shelling out $$$ in the long run. I hope you understand the difference.
I'm sure IV is doing a great job on something....but please do a little research before asserting that this is the only immigration forum in the world...
Dont mean to start a p***ing contest here.... those who want to and can pay shd pay....but thinking that ppl will pay for the forums is not really a solution.
No offense either. You cannot compare Murthy/Khanna forums with IV's. As long as you see IV just as a forum, you would not be able to make any distinction between IV & murthy/khanna forums. As I replied in another post, Murthy/Khanna get "invaluable" publicity that translates into clients shelling out $$$ in the long run. I hope you understand the difference.
more...
house long hair styles for men with
vjkypally
03-18 05:05 PM
Its sad ROW EB3 from 06 is worried that EB2 India 03 are getting their GC's.And some are plannin to sue??????
tattoo long hairstyles for men with
prioritydate
12-22 12:51 AM
You should've thought about this that whole year that you were goofin' off! Why are you bringing this up at this late juncture, anyway? Your PD is Dec, 2004. What makes you your petition will trigger an RFE for not working during 2001? You raise a very perplexing and contradicting query...
I wasn't goofin off, by choice. I had no option but wait and pray that my employer would find a job for me. I had every reason to bother at his stage, because I invested so much time and money to file my GC. Natually, I am bothered because you never know what USCIS would ask; they are always ready to pull the carpet underneath you. What if IO ask me to prove that I am not out of status ? would I be able to show the proof? No! I can't...
I wasn't goofin off, by choice. I had no option but wait and pray that my employer would find a job for me. I had every reason to bother at his stage, because I invested so much time and money to file my GC. Natually, I am bothered because you never know what USCIS would ask; they are always ready to pull the carpet underneath you. What if IO ask me to prove that I am not out of status ? would I be able to show the proof? No! I can't...
more...
pictures Tags: long hair styles for
suriajay12
02-19 06:56 AM
How exactly are illegals going to prove that they have been here for more than 5 years?
I think this is a good one. It supports legal immigrants.
I dont agreee with this dvb guy. 5 years legally is lots of time. And I now know people who are 10-15 years here. He will want to say the same tthing even in that case. Instead learn to rationalize and make sure if one thinks one is eligivle, then see how one can get included.crab behavior, the one at bottom pulls down the one thats climbing up. Finally both end at dinner table.
I think this is a good one. It supports legal immigrants.
I dont agreee with this dvb guy. 5 years legally is lots of time. And I now know people who are 10-15 years here. He will want to say the same tthing even in that case. Instead learn to rationalize and make sure if one thinks one is eligivle, then see how one can get included.crab behavior, the one at bottom pulls down the one thats climbing up. Finally both end at dinner table.
dresses long hairstyles for men with
CSPAvictim
07-10 05:38 PM
Note: Administrators/Moderators, please move this post to the appropriate thread, or delete it if this has already been posted elsewhere.
Source: http://www.murthy.com
Update on AILF's Legal Action Center Visa Bulletin Litigation (Updated 7/10/07) Posted 2:45pm
The response has been so strong that currently we do not need any more potential plaintiffs who submitted an adjustment application for receipt in July, unless the individuals have an unusual situation or especially compelling facts, such as an aging-out child. At this time, we also would like to hear from the �non-filers� -- people who did not and do not plan to submit an adjustment application for receipt in July but would have done so �but for� the DOS and USCIS actions. These individuals will represent a separate class of plaintiffs. And we�d like to hear from more �other worker� adjustment applicants who applied in June, even if they have not yet received a rejection notice. These individuals will represent a separate class as well.
If the lawsuit is successful (and we fully expect it will be), the court will certify classes, and all people who meet the class descriptions will receive the relief the court orders. The class members will not need to �sign up� with AILF to enjoy those rights.
Regarding �non-filers� � As our July 7 InfoNet update explained, and as we explain in our FAQ, we will include a class of people who would have submitted their adjustment applications for receipt in July, �but for� the government�s actions. The government may try to, or the court may want to treat this class differently from the class of people who submitted applications for receipt in July. Our aim is to do the best possible for both groups.
How soon will we file the law suit? Very soon. It is not easy or quick to prepare class action litigation involving numerous people and numerous claims, but we are working quickly because of the urgency of these events for so many people.
Injunction? AILF knows many people want a quick resolution, as do we. A temporary or ill-conceived order might create more chaos and confusion than we saw in late June / early July. And the government presumably would immediately appeal, creating even more confusion about whether applications were being accepted. By contrast, we intend to seek an injunction that will be forward-looking and will not create another crisis situation for AILA members or the government.
Source: http://www.murthy.com
Update on AILF's Legal Action Center Visa Bulletin Litigation (Updated 7/10/07) Posted 2:45pm
The response has been so strong that currently we do not need any more potential plaintiffs who submitted an adjustment application for receipt in July, unless the individuals have an unusual situation or especially compelling facts, such as an aging-out child. At this time, we also would like to hear from the �non-filers� -- people who did not and do not plan to submit an adjustment application for receipt in July but would have done so �but for� the DOS and USCIS actions. These individuals will represent a separate class of plaintiffs. And we�d like to hear from more �other worker� adjustment applicants who applied in June, even if they have not yet received a rejection notice. These individuals will represent a separate class as well.
If the lawsuit is successful (and we fully expect it will be), the court will certify classes, and all people who meet the class descriptions will receive the relief the court orders. The class members will not need to �sign up� with AILF to enjoy those rights.
Regarding �non-filers� � As our July 7 InfoNet update explained, and as we explain in our FAQ, we will include a class of people who would have submitted their adjustment applications for receipt in July, �but for� the government�s actions. The government may try to, or the court may want to treat this class differently from the class of people who submitted applications for receipt in July. Our aim is to do the best possible for both groups.
How soon will we file the law suit? Very soon. It is not easy or quick to prepare class action litigation involving numerous people and numerous claims, but we are working quickly because of the urgency of these events for so many people.
Injunction? AILF knows many people want a quick resolution, as do we. A temporary or ill-conceived order might create more chaos and confusion than we saw in late June / early July. And the government presumably would immediately appeal, creating even more confusion about whether applications were being accepted. By contrast, we intend to seek an injunction that will be forward-looking and will not create another crisis situation for AILA members or the government.
more...
makeup hairstyles for men with round
vandanaverdia
09-12 02:32 PM
You and me together can make a difference...
Lets all stand up together & be heard!!!!
Come to DC!!! GO IV!!!
Help IV help you....
Its now or never...Or else it may be too late....
Lets all stand up together & be heard!!!!
Come to DC!!! GO IV!!!
Help IV help you....
Its now or never...Or else it may be too late....
girlfriend Hairstyle for Round Faces
richi121175
01-17 02:19 PM
I tried to send you something in a private msg but your quota is fullShameless creatures, not even a single guy came and blasted me out for such comments ..! This means that I am telling the truth. You guys don't even have any self dignity left to come and face off with me.
:mad: :mad:
:mad: :mad:
hairstyles long hair styles for men with
Pagal
07-02 01:45 AM
It will only take less then 1 minute of your time to click this link ImmigrationVoice.org - Advocacy -- OPPOSE the Sanders-Grassley-Harkin amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213 which severely hurts Competitiveness, Innovation and creating jobs in America (http://immigrationvoice.capwiz.com/immigrationvoice/issues/alert/?alertid=15130466)
Hello,
Done...this is a neat tool! Makes advocacy fast and efficient!
Hello,
Done...this is a neat tool! Makes advocacy fast and efficient!
qplearn
11-24 11:02 AM
Ok. This is new to me. Can someone confirm if this is true? Is there any link that supports this?
--------
I guess Employer cannot revoke I-140 after 180 days - You may want to check with Immigration Specialist/lawyer
Yes this is correct. If you have an approved I-140 and your I-485 is pending for 180 days, the employer cannot revoke your I-140 unless there is fraud in getting the I-140. If you have done joint filing of the two, if you get your I-140 within 6 months of the joint filing, you can change employers immediately after that. Of course, you can't just go to any employer; it has a to be a similar job.
--------
I guess Employer cannot revoke I-140 after 180 days - You may want to check with Immigration Specialist/lawyer
Yes this is correct. If you have an approved I-140 and your I-485 is pending for 180 days, the employer cannot revoke your I-140 unless there is fraud in getting the I-140. If you have done joint filing of the two, if you get your I-140 within 6 months of the joint filing, you can change employers immediately after that. Of course, you can't just go to any employer; it has a to be a similar job.
sweet23guyin
10-16 10:49 AM
||
No comments:
Post a Comment