samay
07-14 07:09 AM
Dear Sir / Madam,
I am currently on OPT which is valid till July 2009. Also, my H1-B is approved through a company X starting oct 2008. Currently I got a job with company Y on my OPT. Can I continue to work on my OPT with company Y till July 2009? OR Do I need to transfer my H1B to company Y to be able to continue to work after Oct 2008?
Regards
Swetha.
You do need to transfer your H-1 B to company Y in order to work after Oct.2008.
I am currently on OPT which is valid till July 2009. Also, my H1-B is approved through a company X starting oct 2008. Currently I got a job with company Y on my OPT. Can I continue to work on my OPT with company Y till July 2009? OR Do I need to transfer my H1B to company Y to be able to continue to work after Oct 2008?
Regards
Swetha.
You do need to transfer your H-1 B to company Y in order to work after Oct.2008.
wallpaper The loving couple Tia Mowry
Legal
07-22 02:12 PM
Here's an Apr-2006 EB2-I approval posted today on Murthy forum:
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=1474093861&m=8351049171
suspect he is spreading rumor. not clear what his country of chargeability is, since he did not respond to this question.
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=1474093861&m=8351049171
suspect he is spreading rumor. not clear what his country of chargeability is, since he did not respond to this question.
drirshad
07-03 07:59 PM
Can IV try for a Bridge Legislation ...................
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Bridge Legislation Update
HLG is still actively seeking Bridge Legislation. The purpose of the bridge is to provide a short-term fix to the current retrogression problem for Schedule A occupations. As many readers are aware we are one of the founding members of the Coalition to Improve Healthcare Staffing. The CTIHS is pleased to announce that in June it retained two prominent Washington lobbyists and consultants. The lobbyists are working 24/7, along with the AHA, to seek this goal.
If any immigration attorneys and/or healthcare stakeholders wish to participate in this effort and contribute funds to the effort, they should contact Chris Musillo (cmusillo@hammondlawfirm.com).
The biggest hurdle we have right now is general “immigration malaise” in Congress; no one wants to talk immigration at this point. Congress is on a short break for the American Independence Day. Many of the staffing companies and hospitals that make up the CTIHS have meetings set up with their Congressmen and Senators this week.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Bridge Legislation Update
HLG is still actively seeking Bridge Legislation. The purpose of the bridge is to provide a short-term fix to the current retrogression problem for Schedule A occupations. As many readers are aware we are one of the founding members of the Coalition to Improve Healthcare Staffing. The CTIHS is pleased to announce that in June it retained two prominent Washington lobbyists and consultants. The lobbyists are working 24/7, along with the AHA, to seek this goal.
If any immigration attorneys and/or healthcare stakeholders wish to participate in this effort and contribute funds to the effort, they should contact Chris Musillo (cmusillo@hammondlawfirm.com).
The biggest hurdle we have right now is general “immigration malaise” in Congress; no one wants to talk immigration at this point. Congress is on a short break for the American Independence Day. Many of the staffing companies and hospitals that make up the CTIHS have meetings set up with their Congressmen and Senators this week.
2011 wallpaper Tia Mowry Announces
chanduv23
09-04 08:06 AM
Please stop this unnecessary useless discussion here. And I am not "_truefacts". Folks, just like how u do IT or medicine, for politicians - politics is a career. They do whatever they can to be in power and in developing countries like India where unfortunately, corrpution still exists. Corrpution exists everywhere in different forms. Don't we all pay for EAD and AP every year because our country is retrogressed? Don't we all pay for MTR when we do everything based on law?
One has to accpept the reality and live with it and try to bring about the change within one's parameters.
People can argue just for the sake of arguements - but the reality is that we are all in it together. If there is an issue that affects all of us, it affects all of us - period. We can argue and counter argue but unless we all get on the same page and understand that there needs to be a solution rather than trask talk, things are not going to change for us.
Lets concentrate on what we are in this organization for.
One has to accpept the reality and live with it and try to bring about the change within one's parameters.
People can argue just for the sake of arguements - but the reality is that we are all in it together. If there is an issue that affects all of us, it affects all of us - period. We can argue and counter argue but unless we all get on the same page and understand that there needs to be a solution rather than trask talk, things are not going to change for us.
Lets concentrate on what we are in this organization for.
more...
gcdreamer05
07-17 11:50 AM
Hi Attorney,
My friend has an I-140 EB3 priority date oct 2005 approved and he had filed for 485 during july 2007.
He also has another approved LC under EB2 category and he has to file I-140 now.
In August 2008, the EB2 priority date becomes current for him since if he interfiles he would get oct 2005 on his new I-140.
Since he would be porting his EB3 PD to EB2 I-140, is it allowed that now in august he can file both I-140 & I-485 along with porting PD request.
or should he only file I-140 with porting request alone.
Does USCIS still allow concurrent filing and in this scenario can he file concurrently.
What happens to his earlier 485, does he need to withdraw it or how does it work. He is still working on his h1b now.
What will happen to the EAD which was recieved but not yet used. For the new 485 will he get a new EAD or how does EAD depend on changes to 485.
Please clarify.
Thanks.
My friend has an I-140 EB3 priority date oct 2005 approved and he had filed for 485 during july 2007.
He also has another approved LC under EB2 category and he has to file I-140 now.
In August 2008, the EB2 priority date becomes current for him since if he interfiles he would get oct 2005 on his new I-140.
Since he would be porting his EB3 PD to EB2 I-140, is it allowed that now in august he can file both I-140 & I-485 along with porting PD request.
or should he only file I-140 with porting request alone.
Does USCIS still allow concurrent filing and in this scenario can he file concurrently.
What happens to his earlier 485, does he need to withdraw it or how does it work. He is still working on his h1b now.
What will happen to the EAD which was recieved but not yet used. For the new 485 will he get a new EAD or how does EAD depend on changes to 485.
Please clarify.
Thanks.
nk2
09-23 11:53 AM
This is a good idea. I will send the emails.
more...
hpandey
05-01 07:54 PM
[QUOTE=Originally Posted by Keeme
Pandey - I no longer wonder why Mulayam/Mayavati/ Lalu and Paswan rule in UP & Bihar.QUOTE]
Keemy this itself shows how intolerant you are . On one side you are trying to profess the cause of people from your community from a different country and on the other hand trying to denigrate people from another region from your own country .
Just because my handle is Pandey you assumed that I am from UP , Bihar and look and behave like the great Mulayam and Lalu and Paswan.
For your information I have never been to UP or Bihar in my life except once as a tourist nor my parents .
Your love for Srilankan Tamils seems to be a lot more than your love for your own countrymen.
Everyone else can decide what you are.
As for me I am an Indian - nothing else nothing more.
To Ms. Rambha - When India interfered in East Pakistan to create Bangladesh don't for a moment believe it was to save the Bangladeshis from suffering . Please read the full war history. In any case we are paying the price for that with more terrorists coming from Bangladesh.
We have paid the price for Srilanka also with IPKF soldiers getting killed in 1987 and then LTTE killing our beloved PM.
Peace.. I am out ..no more postings on this thread where people from my own country write words of hate for me out of their love for foreigners .
Pandey - I no longer wonder why Mulayam/Mayavati/ Lalu and Paswan rule in UP & Bihar.QUOTE]
Keemy this itself shows how intolerant you are . On one side you are trying to profess the cause of people from your community from a different country and on the other hand trying to denigrate people from another region from your own country .
Just because my handle is Pandey you assumed that I am from UP , Bihar and look and behave like the great Mulayam and Lalu and Paswan.
For your information I have never been to UP or Bihar in my life except once as a tourist nor my parents .
Your love for Srilankan Tamils seems to be a lot more than your love for your own countrymen.
Everyone else can decide what you are.
As for me I am an Indian - nothing else nothing more.
To Ms. Rambha - When India interfered in East Pakistan to create Bangladesh don't for a moment believe it was to save the Bangladeshis from suffering . Please read the full war history. In any case we are paying the price for that with more terrorists coming from Bangladesh.
We have paid the price for Srilanka also with IPKF soldiers getting killed in 1987 and then LTTE killing our beloved PM.
Peace.. I am out ..no more postings on this thread where people from my own country write words of hate for me out of their love for foreigners .
2010 Tia Mowry Wedding: cf314242
_TrueFacts
09-03 11:40 PM
We cannot judge when some one who is no more. No court will punish any one after death. If he is bad, he will face the final JUDGEMENT with every one.
That's is what YSR has met with, what you call final Judgment. His head, legs chopped. In our language we call Kukka Chavu.
That's is what YSR has met with, what you call final Judgment. His head, legs chopped. In our language we call Kukka Chavu.
more...
hopefulgc
05-29 09:25 AM
Seems like Mr. charles is full of shit. He is sounding "informed" but i don't think they know what the real numbers are....YET. It showed inadvertently, when he said "based on the Eb3 demand for the rest of the year". Hello.. EB3 is unavailable.
I mean what do you expect him to do when you corner him and start asking him questions. He is gonna have to throw numbers out there to make himself look informed and intelligent and on top of his game.
The sad part is he is going to now set the VBs as he stated here to validate his erroneous statements.
1. Employment-Based Visa Number Movement and Predictions
I mean what do you expect him to do when you corner him and start asking him questions. He is gonna have to throw numbers out there to make himself look informed and intelligent and on top of his game.
The sad part is he is going to now set the VBs as he stated here to validate his erroneous statements.
1. Employment-Based Visa Number Movement and Predictions
hair 2010 Tia Mowry, who is 7
desi3933
06-16 04:33 PM
Where did you get that 80k number? You think 80k is good salary for that job, someone else may say 65k, I may say 90k. The salary, among other things, is determined by market forces. If you can't find enough people with xyz then company will be forced to offer more.
As long as there are people who are ready to work on salary 52k (example), employer will not pay 70k. As long as employer is following all the legal requirements, no one can dictate salary for the job.
I agree that the employer will pay the salary that is consummate with the market. No well meaning employer will undercut to save a few pennies at the risk of losing out on quality.
What if the market pay scales are distorted through pervasive fraud ? If you look at it from an employer's view, it gets murkier. Believe it or not, low cost always signal lower quality. Trust me this is marketing 101. Google low cost and the perceptive signals. It is truly tough for the employer to trust the low cost employee's skillset.
Now the distortion comes into play when outsourcing companies flout rules and undercut the market through pervasive fraud. Like other industries such as manufacturing/agriculture etc, IT wages are destined to decline but not at this rate. The acceleration in the decline of wages is perpetuated by these scum outsourcing companies. If the decline in wages were let to decline at the speed of market, then it gives talented people time to upgrade skills or move to other industries without having to sacrifice quality of living. So per your argument, yes the end employer is following the rules by employing people from the outsourcing company because the employer does not know or looks the other way of the outsourcing company committing pervasive fraud. Oh BTW that 80K number was just to highlight that the L1s should be paid high too. It was not based on any scientific or statistical evidence.
>> I agree that the employer will pay the salary that is consummate with the market.
I am glad we are on the same page on this. It is employer who decides how much to pay. Employee decides whether to take the offer or not. Simple.
>> Now the distortion comes into play when outsourcing companies flout rules and undercut the market through pervasive fraud.
Well, you can report the fraudulent activity. If one is wronged, he/she has option of legal route and claiming punitive damages.
>> The acceleration in the decline of wages is perpetuated by these scum outsourcing companies. If the decline in wages were let to decline at the speed of market, then it gives talented people time to upgrade skills or move to other industries without having to sacrifice quality of living.
If my employer pays me less salary, I have option to move to another job. Just like my employer has option to fire me and replace with another qualified worker. Again, unless otherwise, I assume all actions are legal. I don't know about you, but when I came to USA, nobody give me assurance or guarantee that this job is future will pay me at least xx k per year so as to maintain quality of life. Here, two person of equal talent, could be earning 60k and 120k per year. It depends on your skill set, how do you sell yourself, and luck. An example - I have backgound both in Comp Science and Finance, so I look for opportunities where I can use both of them for effective leverage. If you think that I didn't face outsourcing challage or was not given pink slip, then you are wrong. As most professionals, I have seen good days and not-so-good days.
>> Oh BTW that 80K number was just to highlight that the L1s should be paid high too.
With your admission, it is employer's choice on how much to pay. As long as law is followed, you or I can NOT decide on anyone else's salary.
>> For the most part it is if it were left to market forces. Employers, rationally, would only want as much as talent for the price they pay. Most importantly, employers would be willing to go the extra mile to sponsor green cards only if they perceive that the immigrant employee would add value both in the present and the future.
Bad things do happen. Projects get cancelled as Customer is no longer interested. Employer wants to move from Chicago to Dallas, that may prompt employee to look elsewhere. Some employers do not process green card at all (It happened to me, a Big Bank was not processing Green Cards in 1999). You assume all good and rosy will happen to guenine employers and good employees.
>> Now again, when I say employers, I mean the genuine employers and not the fly by night consulting body shops or the outsourcing companies.
Just as some employers with permanent positions are not good, there are some employers in Consulting and Outsourcing world that may be good. Let USCIS and other agencies determine who are genuine employers or not.
>> I strongly believe that EB based GC for a very large part is built on merit. You may see sme cases wherein some ordinary people getting green cards. They, in my opinion , are mostly from these body shops who got "lucky". Cant believe I am using that word !!!
No sir. It is employer-employment based. If you don't have employer to back your I-140, how will get green card. Do you know there is a category - Eb3 skilled worker, where benefiery does not even need bachelor degree. What do you think, those people are "lucky". If so, please take your arguement to Senators and USCIS to restict GC for "merit based" only. Until then, as long as one is getting green card, as per current law, (again as per current law), who are we to complain?
GC is not IIT-JEE exam where there is only one classification. Clear the exam and get the admission. There are varoius categories from EB-1 (Rocket Scientist) to EB-4 (Priest). This is not one-size-fits-all.
We need to look at issues faced by EB based community from a distance and without the glasses of issues faced personally by us. Until then, it is fight that one is more deserving than the other.
.
As long as there are people who are ready to work on salary 52k (example), employer will not pay 70k. As long as employer is following all the legal requirements, no one can dictate salary for the job.
I agree that the employer will pay the salary that is consummate with the market. No well meaning employer will undercut to save a few pennies at the risk of losing out on quality.
What if the market pay scales are distorted through pervasive fraud ? If you look at it from an employer's view, it gets murkier. Believe it or not, low cost always signal lower quality. Trust me this is marketing 101. Google low cost and the perceptive signals. It is truly tough for the employer to trust the low cost employee's skillset.
Now the distortion comes into play when outsourcing companies flout rules and undercut the market through pervasive fraud. Like other industries such as manufacturing/agriculture etc, IT wages are destined to decline but not at this rate. The acceleration in the decline of wages is perpetuated by these scum outsourcing companies. If the decline in wages were let to decline at the speed of market, then it gives talented people time to upgrade skills or move to other industries without having to sacrifice quality of living. So per your argument, yes the end employer is following the rules by employing people from the outsourcing company because the employer does not know or looks the other way of the outsourcing company committing pervasive fraud. Oh BTW that 80K number was just to highlight that the L1s should be paid high too. It was not based on any scientific or statistical evidence.
>> I agree that the employer will pay the salary that is consummate with the market.
I am glad we are on the same page on this. It is employer who decides how much to pay. Employee decides whether to take the offer or not. Simple.
>> Now the distortion comes into play when outsourcing companies flout rules and undercut the market through pervasive fraud.
Well, you can report the fraudulent activity. If one is wronged, he/she has option of legal route and claiming punitive damages.
>> The acceleration in the decline of wages is perpetuated by these scum outsourcing companies. If the decline in wages were let to decline at the speed of market, then it gives talented people time to upgrade skills or move to other industries without having to sacrifice quality of living.
If my employer pays me less salary, I have option to move to another job. Just like my employer has option to fire me and replace with another qualified worker. Again, unless otherwise, I assume all actions are legal. I don't know about you, but when I came to USA, nobody give me assurance or guarantee that this job is future will pay me at least xx k per year so as to maintain quality of life. Here, two person of equal talent, could be earning 60k and 120k per year. It depends on your skill set, how do you sell yourself, and luck. An example - I have backgound both in Comp Science and Finance, so I look for opportunities where I can use both of them for effective leverage. If you think that I didn't face outsourcing challage or was not given pink slip, then you are wrong. As most professionals, I have seen good days and not-so-good days.
>> Oh BTW that 80K number was just to highlight that the L1s should be paid high too.
With your admission, it is employer's choice on how much to pay. As long as law is followed, you or I can NOT decide on anyone else's salary.
>> For the most part it is if it were left to market forces. Employers, rationally, would only want as much as talent for the price they pay. Most importantly, employers would be willing to go the extra mile to sponsor green cards only if they perceive that the immigrant employee would add value both in the present and the future.
Bad things do happen. Projects get cancelled as Customer is no longer interested. Employer wants to move from Chicago to Dallas, that may prompt employee to look elsewhere. Some employers do not process green card at all (It happened to me, a Big Bank was not processing Green Cards in 1999). You assume all good and rosy will happen to guenine employers and good employees.
>> Now again, when I say employers, I mean the genuine employers and not the fly by night consulting body shops or the outsourcing companies.
Just as some employers with permanent positions are not good, there are some employers in Consulting and Outsourcing world that may be good. Let USCIS and other agencies determine who are genuine employers or not.
>> I strongly believe that EB based GC for a very large part is built on merit. You may see sme cases wherein some ordinary people getting green cards. They, in my opinion , are mostly from these body shops who got "lucky". Cant believe I am using that word !!!
No sir. It is employer-employment based. If you don't have employer to back your I-140, how will get green card. Do you know there is a category - Eb3 skilled worker, where benefiery does not even need bachelor degree. What do you think, those people are "lucky". If so, please take your arguement to Senators and USCIS to restict GC for "merit based" only. Until then, as long as one is getting green card, as per current law, (again as per current law), who are we to complain?
GC is not IIT-JEE exam where there is only one classification. Clear the exam and get the admission. There are varoius categories from EB-1 (Rocket Scientist) to EB-4 (Priest). This is not one-size-fits-all.
We need to look at issues faced by EB based community from a distance and without the glasses of issues faced personally by us. Until then, it is fight that one is more deserving than the other.
.
more...
Macaca
07-03 09:50 PM
age out situations for children too ....I think that affects lot of people too..I am single and dont have kids :D
I don't know about it. Anyone with details should post summary.
I think it is not relevent for EAD/AP but we can use it when we need it
I don't know about it. Anyone with details should post summary.
I think it is not relevent for EAD/AP but we can use it when we need it
hot tia mowry pregnant.
dskhabra
01-13 02:01 PM
One important point from the document: If employer can not directly control/supervise his employee's work and then H1B new petition/extension may not be approved.
more...
house Pregnant Tia Mowry on
suresh73
04-20 10:12 AM
I am working for Company A and company B wanted to provide me with pre-approved labor of EB2 category with priority date in July 2002. The Company B's pre-approved EB2 labor was for a Master degree with salary of 80K. I have only bachelor Degree but with more than 8 years of experience in IT. My I-140 has been approved with the present employer company A but it is EB3.
Is there any possibility to take advantage of the company B's pre-approved EB2 labor certificate considering more than 5 years of experience as a qualification though it requires a Master degree.
Thank you.
Is there any possibility to take advantage of the company B's pre-approved EB2 labor certificate considering more than 5 years of experience as a qualification though it requires a Master degree.
Thank you.
tattoo Tamera Mowry and Adam Housley
immi_twinges
07-10 11:37 AM
Its pathetic that people have to start all over again.
If necessary .. will do and are not afraid.
But we should bring byeusa story to medias attention.
Otherwise jerks like Lou Dobbs utter nonsense which make general people believe that Immigrants over stay and become illegals if they do not GC in time:mad:
If necessary .. will do and are not afraid.
But we should bring byeusa story to medias attention.
Otherwise jerks like Lou Dobbs utter nonsense which make general people believe that Immigrants over stay and become illegals if they do not GC in time:mad:
more...
pictures PHOTO: Tia Mowry #39;Embraces the
lazycis
02-14 12:58 PM
Galvez v. Howerton 503 F. Supp. 35, 39 (C.D. Cal. 1980)
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1838094&postcount=14843
"Plaintiffs herein allege that officials of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have engaged in affirmative misconduct in failing to process their applications for adjustment of status to that of permanent resident aliens. They seek a court order compelling the defendants to issue them appropriate visa numbers."
"Where there has been affirmative misconduct on the part of the INS, the United States may be estopped to deny the availability of visas to those otherwise eligible but for the government's acts. See Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Hibi, 414 U.S. 5, 8-9, 94 S. Ct. 19, 21-22, 38 L. Ed. 2d 7 (1973); see also Villena v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 622 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1980) (en banc); Santiago v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 526 F.2d 488, 492-93 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 971, 96 S. Ct. 2167, 48 L. Ed. 2d 794 (1976). The central inquiry here is the determination whether or not the conduct of the INS, including the failure of the INS officials to understand the applicable law, the improper rejection of plaintiffs' visa applications on two occasions, and the ensuing delay, constitute affirmative misconduct.
It is the duty of the agency to inform itself of the law which Congress has authorized it to enforce. The INS admits that its personnel were not familiar with the current statute applicable to plaintiffs' visa eligibility and thus erred in returning [**8] the plaintiffs' applications on the basis of a misinterpretation of the relevant law. This failure to act in accordance with law is an aspect of the agency's affirmative misconduct which the Court cannot overlook. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. � 706(2)(A) (agency action to be set aside where "not in accordance with law").
Another aspect of the present misconduct relates to the agency's failure to fulfill a statutory duty. The INS has a statutory obligation to issue visas to qualified applicants to the full extent of the annual quota limits established by Congress. 6 The legislative history of the Immigration & Naturalization Act indicates that this duty has not been left to agency discretion, see S.Rep. No. 748, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. reprinted in (1965) U.S.Code Cong. & [*39] Ad.News, pp. 3328, 3337-38, but is obligatory upon the agency. "
"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and defendants' [**14] Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. The Court orders the defendant Secretary of State to issue A.T. Cortes and E. Cortes Fifth Preference visa numbers and to charge them to the 1979 visa allotments"
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1838094&postcount=14843
"Plaintiffs herein allege that officials of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have engaged in affirmative misconduct in failing to process their applications for adjustment of status to that of permanent resident aliens. They seek a court order compelling the defendants to issue them appropriate visa numbers."
"Where there has been affirmative misconduct on the part of the INS, the United States may be estopped to deny the availability of visas to those otherwise eligible but for the government's acts. See Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Hibi, 414 U.S. 5, 8-9, 94 S. Ct. 19, 21-22, 38 L. Ed. 2d 7 (1973); see also Villena v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 622 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1980) (en banc); Santiago v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 526 F.2d 488, 492-93 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 971, 96 S. Ct. 2167, 48 L. Ed. 2d 794 (1976). The central inquiry here is the determination whether or not the conduct of the INS, including the failure of the INS officials to understand the applicable law, the improper rejection of plaintiffs' visa applications on two occasions, and the ensuing delay, constitute affirmative misconduct.
It is the duty of the agency to inform itself of the law which Congress has authorized it to enforce. The INS admits that its personnel were not familiar with the current statute applicable to plaintiffs' visa eligibility and thus erred in returning [**8] the plaintiffs' applications on the basis of a misinterpretation of the relevant law. This failure to act in accordance with law is an aspect of the agency's affirmative misconduct which the Court cannot overlook. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. � 706(2)(A) (agency action to be set aside where "not in accordance with law").
Another aspect of the present misconduct relates to the agency's failure to fulfill a statutory duty. The INS has a statutory obligation to issue visas to qualified applicants to the full extent of the annual quota limits established by Congress. 6 The legislative history of the Immigration & Naturalization Act indicates that this duty has not been left to agency discretion, see S.Rep. No. 748, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. reprinted in (1965) U.S.Code Cong. & [*39] Ad.News, pp. 3328, 3337-38, but is obligatory upon the agency. "
"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and defendants' [**14] Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. The Court orders the defendant Secretary of State to issue A.T. Cortes and E. Cortes Fifth Preference visa numbers and to charge them to the 1979 visa allotments"
dresses pictures Pregnant Tia Mowry on
longq
02-13 02:17 PM
Further division is not good.
I was on record that DOS/USCIS misallocated visas in 2005. India received much more in eb3 then what they were entitled to. In fact, India, China, Mexico and Phillipines should have not gone over their 7% as a whole of the 250,000 greencards available. Because of this; dos/uscis learned their lesson and started to follow the law appropriately.
I did say that if in 2006 any country went above their limit of 7% then it would cause a lawsuit which I would be a part of. However, there would be some negative outcomes from it. UScIS/DOS behaviour could only change going forward. They could revoke the greencards issued in 2005 for people who went over the 7% limit (uscis has upto 5 years to rescind greencard if approved by mistake) but they would not get re-allocated because there is no carryover from one year to the next in the current law. Only outcome would be to change it going forward. As I've said in the past; people were spoiled at the laziness of DOS/USCIS. Retrogression and the visa allocation should have happened a long time ago.
Again wrong information by you and trying to hide background or historical information. Either USDOS/USCIS has not mismanaged the numbers in 2005. Claiming India and China was given more than they entitled to is wrong . They (DOS) did everything right till 2005. Now only they are violating. One has to study the historical issues before 1999. Before 1999, both India and China (both EB2 and EB3) were retrogressed heavily and backlogged. However ROW was current in all EB catagories. There was no retrogression in ROW. It was always current before 1999.
For example, here is March 1999 VB
All Charge-
ability Areas CHINA-
Except Those mainland
Listed born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
Employment-
Based
1st C 22JAN98 C C C
2nd C 08SEP96 08SEP97 C C
3rd C 01JAN95 08FEB96 C C
As a part of AC21 act in 2000, the unused numbers (about 100,000) were recaptured to eliminate the backlogs in EB categories. The reason was this recapture to remove retrogression in India and China, as because that was only two countries backlogged at that point.
After that ac21 law, there were additional 100,000 visas available apart from 140,000 visas every year. DOS has given 100,000 additional visas to USCIS in 2000 itself to consume it. Because of USCIS slowness/inefficiency in processing 485s between 1999 and 2004, they even did not have processed the yearly quota. Therefore the recaptured visas were remain unused for 5 years because of USCIS inefficiency. Therefore, at some point, it has to be consumed. Therefore USCIS did backlog elimination drive in 2005 (6 months processing of 485s ) to use all the recaptured visas. The original intension to remove backlogs in India and China. That was done by USCIS. USCIS can not hold that recaptured numbers for ever (by imposing 7% limit in India and China) how the future demands will be in EB3-ROW. Far example, if ROW demands 200,000 EB3 visas in year 2020, USCIS/DOS can not hold that AC21 numbers (that were recaptured in 2000) for ROW to be consumed in 2020, by imposing 7% limit. No one can anticipate future demands.
Theoretically speaking those numbers belongs (AC21 recaptured numbers came only from EB1 and EB2 pool) belongs to EB1 and EB2 category. EB3 never gave any unused numbers in previous years. Ideally speaking, those numbers should have been issued to EB2 category first to eliminate backlogs in EB2 then only to EB3 ROW. Infact, all the ac21 numbers were used to eliminate retro in EB3 only. In 2005 they issed only 44,000 EB2 compare to about 150,000 visas in EB3. This is big injustice to EB2 India and China.
Bottom line is EB3-ROW is enjoying with the expense of EB2 India and China.
I was on record that DOS/USCIS misallocated visas in 2005. India received much more in eb3 then what they were entitled to. In fact, India, China, Mexico and Phillipines should have not gone over their 7% as a whole of the 250,000 greencards available. Because of this; dos/uscis learned their lesson and started to follow the law appropriately.
I did say that if in 2006 any country went above their limit of 7% then it would cause a lawsuit which I would be a part of. However, there would be some negative outcomes from it. UScIS/DOS behaviour could only change going forward. They could revoke the greencards issued in 2005 for people who went over the 7% limit (uscis has upto 5 years to rescind greencard if approved by mistake) but they would not get re-allocated because there is no carryover from one year to the next in the current law. Only outcome would be to change it going forward. As I've said in the past; people were spoiled at the laziness of DOS/USCIS. Retrogression and the visa allocation should have happened a long time ago.
Again wrong information by you and trying to hide background or historical information. Either USDOS/USCIS has not mismanaged the numbers in 2005. Claiming India and China was given more than they entitled to is wrong . They (DOS) did everything right till 2005. Now only they are violating. One has to study the historical issues before 1999. Before 1999, both India and China (both EB2 and EB3) were retrogressed heavily and backlogged. However ROW was current in all EB catagories. There was no retrogression in ROW. It was always current before 1999.
For example, here is March 1999 VB
All Charge-
ability Areas CHINA-
Except Those mainland
Listed born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
Employment-
Based
1st C 22JAN98 C C C
2nd C 08SEP96 08SEP97 C C
3rd C 01JAN95 08FEB96 C C
As a part of AC21 act in 2000, the unused numbers (about 100,000) were recaptured to eliminate the backlogs in EB categories. The reason was this recapture to remove retrogression in India and China, as because that was only two countries backlogged at that point.
After that ac21 law, there were additional 100,000 visas available apart from 140,000 visas every year. DOS has given 100,000 additional visas to USCIS in 2000 itself to consume it. Because of USCIS slowness/inefficiency in processing 485s between 1999 and 2004, they even did not have processed the yearly quota. Therefore the recaptured visas were remain unused for 5 years because of USCIS inefficiency. Therefore, at some point, it has to be consumed. Therefore USCIS did backlog elimination drive in 2005 (6 months processing of 485s ) to use all the recaptured visas. The original intension to remove backlogs in India and China. That was done by USCIS. USCIS can not hold that recaptured numbers for ever (by imposing 7% limit in India and China) how the future demands will be in EB3-ROW. Far example, if ROW demands 200,000 EB3 visas in year 2020, USCIS/DOS can not hold that AC21 numbers (that were recaptured in 2000) for ROW to be consumed in 2020, by imposing 7% limit. No one can anticipate future demands.
Theoretically speaking those numbers belongs (AC21 recaptured numbers came only from EB1 and EB2 pool) belongs to EB1 and EB2 category. EB3 never gave any unused numbers in previous years. Ideally speaking, those numbers should have been issued to EB2 category first to eliminate backlogs in EB2 then only to EB3 ROW. Infact, all the ac21 numbers were used to eliminate retro in EB3 only. In 2005 they issed only 44,000 EB2 compare to about 150,000 visas in EB3. This is big injustice to EB2 India and China.
Bottom line is EB3-ROW is enjoying with the expense of EB2 India and China.
more...
makeup cory hardrict and tia mowry wedding photos. Tia-Mowry-Cory-Hardrict.
we_r_d_world
07-30 02:08 AM
Here is the story (in a free book format) of a big Shot (I believe he was emerald ) who went broke while doing amway (MUST READ BEFORE DOING AMWAY)
http://www.transgallaxys.com/~emerald/files/MerchantsOfDeception.pdf
Since you are in bay area I will reply to you. I don't need to see his tax papers, as long I can see mine. IF you are happy with your thinking so be it...stay where you are...and you can google froogle whatever you want. You will find your like minded people there too.
I don't need to share my thoughts here...its like talking to anti-immigrants on legal/illegal immigration.
Peace OUT!!
@Kaushal,
I read theis book (Thanks Bayarea07) took me 2 days to complete.......Very touching, mindblowing. Got lot of lingo out of the book...
Please read it...it has "negative" in it, lot of "lazy" people in there......
Wakeup...don't ruin your family's future for few dollars. Spend time with your family and Enjoy with your family...... Please.!!!
Give me Red, see if I care!!!
http://www.transgallaxys.com/~emerald/files/MerchantsOfDeception.pdf
Since you are in bay area I will reply to you. I don't need to see his tax papers, as long I can see mine. IF you are happy with your thinking so be it...stay where you are...and you can google froogle whatever you want. You will find your like minded people there too.
I don't need to share my thoughts here...its like talking to anti-immigrants on legal/illegal immigration.
Peace OUT!!
@Kaushal,
I read theis book (Thanks Bayarea07) took me 2 days to complete.......Very touching, mindblowing. Got lot of lingo out of the book...
Please read it...it has "negative" in it, lot of "lazy" people in there......
Wakeup...don't ruin your family's future for few dollars. Spend time with your family and Enjoy with your family...... Please.!!!
Give me Red, see if I care!!!
girlfriend pregnant actress Tia Mowry
alisa
02-13 01:44 PM
Are you suggesting that IV's efforts would increase the wait times for ROW?
What incentive does ROW have to work with IV then?
It has been repeated 'Ad Nauseam' times. IVs agenda includes all of these -
1) Increasing GC numbers
2) Recapturing numbers and instituting permanent Rollover mechanisms
3) Eliminate country quotas.
IV understands that removing just the country quota will impact ROW badly if visa numbers are not increased in tandem. Hence you always see the three points being proposed together. These 3 have to go together. A compromise between ROW and oversubscribed countries.
But some ROW members keep trying to split the movement by opposing removal of country quotas ( which is point 2 in IV agenda) at every possible opportunity. Real way to build a coalition is through compromise. And in a compromise you can't get all you want. Don't expect the majority to heed all your demands.
Be a little appreciative of the sufferings of others. If you think a little extra time you need to spend in the queue is turning you so angry, what goes in the mind of a person who has to spend twice or thrice as much time in the same queue, for no fault of his/hers?
Don't BS on 'diversity'. There is already a 'diversity visa' which Indians & Chinese cannot use. Want to come under diversity? Apply in the lottery. Be a little humane and think about the suffering of others. May be you'll see the light. You are not going to win many friends by alleging "an agenda by some country". It's preposturous, laughable and Dobbsian ( like Lou Dobbs alleged "invasion by Mexicans")
What incentive does ROW have to work with IV then?
It has been repeated 'Ad Nauseam' times. IVs agenda includes all of these -
1) Increasing GC numbers
2) Recapturing numbers and instituting permanent Rollover mechanisms
3) Eliminate country quotas.
IV understands that removing just the country quota will impact ROW badly if visa numbers are not increased in tandem. Hence you always see the three points being proposed together. These 3 have to go together. A compromise between ROW and oversubscribed countries.
But some ROW members keep trying to split the movement by opposing removal of country quotas ( which is point 2 in IV agenda) at every possible opportunity. Real way to build a coalition is through compromise. And in a compromise you can't get all you want. Don't expect the majority to heed all your demands.
Be a little appreciative of the sufferings of others. If you think a little extra time you need to spend in the queue is turning you so angry, what goes in the mind of a person who has to spend twice or thrice as much time in the same queue, for no fault of his/hers?
Don't BS on 'diversity'. There is already a 'diversity visa' which Indians & Chinese cannot use. Want to come under diversity? Apply in the lottery. Be a little humane and think about the suffering of others. May be you'll see the light. You are not going to win many friends by alleging "an agenda by some country". It's preposturous, laughable and Dobbsian ( like Lou Dobbs alleged "invasion by Mexicans")
hairstyles Tamera Mowry Wedding Gown
grupak
02-13 12:24 PM
For those who do not see the unfairness because of country of origin, here is a scenario:
Your colleague and friend work in the same company as you, have similar qualification. Both of you apply for the GC around the same time, you get it years maybe decade sooner and can move onto a higher position, maybe better job. Your friend is still stuck at the same position even though he has been a good worker and should have been promoted in an ideal situation.
We are here not because of our country of origin but because of our employment. So, lets not get into 'us' and 'them'. We are all skilled-employees, and that's what IV represents.
A system that holds back employees for years because of country of origin instead of job performance is clearly broken. IV is fighting to fix it.
(1) Increasing the visa numbers and (2) removing/increasing cap is only the solution.
Your colleague and friend work in the same company as you, have similar qualification. Both of you apply for the GC around the same time, you get it years maybe decade sooner and can move onto a higher position, maybe better job. Your friend is still stuck at the same position even though he has been a good worker and should have been promoted in an ideal situation.
We are here not because of our country of origin but because of our employment. So, lets not get into 'us' and 'them'. We are all skilled-employees, and that's what IV represents.
A system that holds back employees for years because of country of origin instead of job performance is clearly broken. IV is fighting to fix it.
(1) Increasing the visa numbers and (2) removing/increasing cap is only the solution.
vikki76
05-10 04:33 PM
Australia is backup option for me. For various personal reasons-I didn't chose Canada.
Cons of immigration to Canada
-Weather
-Dependency on US
-not very diverse society
Pros of Australia
-Weather
-Trading partners with N America,Europe,Asia
-Very very diverse society with east europeans,south east asians
As for job scene,I am thinking that both are almost same, but in Australia,indian firms have a major presence.It is cheaper to open an office in Melbourne than in Bangalore!.
Cons of immigration to Canada
-Weather
-Dependency on US
-not very diverse society
Pros of Australia
-Weather
-Trading partners with N America,Europe,Asia
-Very very diverse society with east europeans,south east asians
As for job scene,I am thinking that both are almost same, but in Australia,indian firms have a major presence.It is cheaper to open an office in Melbourne than in Bangalore!.
EkAurAaya
07-10 11:41 AM
Dude you just gave me goose bumps! You should forward your heart felt note to media outlets!
I sincerely wish you the best! God Bless! Good luck with everything...
At least you wont have to worry about "visa-status" "legal/illegal" "H1b" "H4" Labor Cert" i140" i485" EAD" AP"... F$#% that! :D
I sincerely wish you the best! God Bless! Good luck with everything...
At least you wont have to worry about "visa-status" "legal/illegal" "H1b" "H4" Labor Cert" i140" i485" EAD" AP"... F$#% that! :D
No comments:
Post a Comment