willwin
07-28 01:35 PM
I am reading about 16th century stuff here in this thread.
Let us go back to 10,000 B.C or further back (ice age or if possible even before).
Was there any gods (known to us) then (any religion for that matter)?
Gods came in to existence with human civilization. Initially as an answer to all things that were 'unknown' to human beings and then later as a 'tool' to insist discipline (in their own understanding as to what discipline is) among human beings.
We talk about Iran, Iraq, afghanistan wars, bomb blasts in India, poverty in places like somalia and in all of these INCIDENTS millions of innocents died/die. What are/were the 'Gods' doing? Can They not stop this from happening?
They won't. Because these are started by human beings and unless we stop it won't stop. Now don't direct me to a book or a PDF. Answer me straight.
Human beings are the most cruel/selfish creatures on earth. We are animals - well worse than them - social animals. This thread does not make any sense.
We are talking about our 'beliefs' here and that is decided by so many factors. Million people will have million different beliefs.
Let us go back to 10,000 B.C or further back (ice age or if possible even before).
Was there any gods (known to us) then (any religion for that matter)?
Gods came in to existence with human civilization. Initially as an answer to all things that were 'unknown' to human beings and then later as a 'tool' to insist discipline (in their own understanding as to what discipline is) among human beings.
We talk about Iran, Iraq, afghanistan wars, bomb blasts in India, poverty in places like somalia and in all of these INCIDENTS millions of innocents died/die. What are/were the 'Gods' doing? Can They not stop this from happening?
They won't. Because these are started by human beings and unless we stop it won't stop. Now don't direct me to a book or a PDF. Answer me straight.
Human beings are the most cruel/selfish creatures on earth. We are animals - well worse than them - social animals. This thread does not make any sense.
We are talking about our 'beliefs' here and that is decided by so many factors. Million people will have million different beliefs.
wallpaper Sony Ericsson Xperia X8 Mini
ajaykk
07-11 09:35 PM
My PD is 06/27/06..should I feel happy or fingers x'd or just lucky....
SunnySurya
07-03 09:28 PM
May I suggest the following reservations:
20% Other Backward Countries (OBC)
15% Scheduled Countries (SC)
15% Scheduled Territories (ST)
5% Kins of the armed forces
Remaining 55% for Highly Skilled people
20% Other Backward Countries (OBC)
15% Scheduled Countries (SC)
15% Scheduled Territories (ST)
5% Kins of the armed forces
Remaining 55% for Highly Skilled people
2011 Sony Ericsson Xperia X8
singhsa3
03-04 12:54 PM
By the in PA they don't give you Drivers License if you are on EAD if your EAD validity is less than a year.
more...
perm2gc
02-02 08:18 PM
It is sad that none of these desi sites have come forward to help us put our ads on their sites. None has helped us in our cause, even though they are run by immigrants like us who were at one time waiting in line for their greencards. Now after getting their greencard they do not want to help the cause but instead want to make money from it. If any such site owner is reading this post and desires to help by posting our ad on your site, contact us.
Thank you for your effort to post IV messages on various websites.
1
could you do a search on yahoo groups, msn groups, google groups on greencard, immigration, legal immigration etc and see if those groups have many members and it is not an anti immigrant group from its intro. Then join them and start posting IV messages in them. You will find hundreds of groups. Each post will send emails to all its members.
i have already done that.I found only few groups that are active and have more members.I have posted in them.
2
There are several groups in yahoo, msn, google that belong to alumni of IITs, IIMs etc and a lot of their members are in USA. you can post messages in those forums too.
I didn't try that ,they may be moderated .i will give a shot.
3
Go through my thread- ideas to increase publicity of IV from last page to first page (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=694) . You will find several sites and ideas to post IV messages online.
IV is grateful for your tireless effort posting messages. While all others lost their steam, you have continued your mission. We recognize your efforts and hope some others will join you to help.
I will also explore the thread and post.
Will post the links as i find a place to post.
Thank you for your effort to post IV messages on various websites.
1
could you do a search on yahoo groups, msn groups, google groups on greencard, immigration, legal immigration etc and see if those groups have many members and it is not an anti immigrant group from its intro. Then join them and start posting IV messages in them. You will find hundreds of groups. Each post will send emails to all its members.
i have already done that.I found only few groups that are active and have more members.I have posted in them.
2
There are several groups in yahoo, msn, google that belong to alumni of IITs, IIMs etc and a lot of their members are in USA. you can post messages in those forums too.
I didn't try that ,they may be moderated .i will give a shot.
3
Go through my thread- ideas to increase publicity of IV from last page to first page (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=694) . You will find several sites and ideas to post IV messages online.
IV is grateful for your tireless effort posting messages. While all others lost their steam, you have continued your mission. We recognize your efforts and hope some others will join you to help.
I will also explore the thread and post.
Will post the links as i find a place to post.
Saralayar
03-09 06:48 PM
Both 1A and 2A category for Family Based (sons, daughters, spouse - of citizens and green card holders) has better dates (15th Aug 02, 15th Aug 2004) than EB-2 India, and EB-3 India.
This is so preposterous, words cannot even begin to describe this absurdity.
So those of us who have been in U.S. for almost a decade, have been contributing to this society, and have held our life in constant limbo, are being given a lower priority than those who are still back in their own country and living a happy life and who can now immigrate to U.S. based on family immigration.
Do the lawmakers have no common sense left atall??
Check my threads on Citizenship. Ask for citizenship directly if you are living here for more than a decade...
This is so preposterous, words cannot even begin to describe this absurdity.
So those of us who have been in U.S. for almost a decade, have been contributing to this society, and have held our life in constant limbo, are being given a lower priority than those who are still back in their own country and living a happy life and who can now immigrate to U.S. based on family immigration.
Do the lawmakers have no common sense left atall??
Check my threads on Citizenship. Ask for citizenship directly if you are living here for more than a decade...
more...
HOPE_GC_SOON
11-20 05:05 PM
Hi LWPD
Thanks for your Posting of this URL.
The URL is no more active and please help me forwarding the specified .pdf file either a PM to me or please attach the same to your reply.
Alternatively, if you can describe the path on USCIS site, that would be of great help.. I doubt they still hold that .pdf file on site. If you had downloaded this .pdf file. Please help the Team.
Thanks
You guys won't believe how glad I am to read a few posts here where some people are standing up for themselves and refusing to take bullshit from certain lousy employers. This will send a message to those kinds of employers that they can't use the immigration system and treat employees like shit while continuing to profit from these hard-working people.
abc, just one suggestion for you. If you can, hold off until your I-140 gets approved. Once that happens, your 2003 priority date will stick and you can take it with you ( USCIS internal I-140 adjudication manual for your reference ... http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrel...h22_091206R.pdf )
I wish you all the best with your life.
lwpd
Thanks for your Posting of this URL.
The URL is no more active and please help me forwarding the specified .pdf file either a PM to me or please attach the same to your reply.
Alternatively, if you can describe the path on USCIS site, that would be of great help.. I doubt they still hold that .pdf file on site. If you had downloaded this .pdf file. Please help the Team.
Thanks
You guys won't believe how glad I am to read a few posts here where some people are standing up for themselves and refusing to take bullshit from certain lousy employers. This will send a message to those kinds of employers that they can't use the immigration system and treat employees like shit while continuing to profit from these hard-working people.
abc, just one suggestion for you. If you can, hold off until your I-140 gets approved. Once that happens, your 2003 priority date will stick and you can take it with you ( USCIS internal I-140 adjudication manual for your reference ... http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrel...h22_091206R.pdf )
I wish you all the best with your life.
lwpd
2010 Sony Ericsson Xperia X8
same_old_guy
07-09 04:47 PM
And we are not in deep shit right now ???? Where have you been all the time ?
Why are you so scared ? Is it because you think USCIS wil do harm to you and others ? Well, what the hell it was doing while allocating all the quota in 15 days to avoid the rush ?
I wish USCIS would get down on it's knee and issue an apologies to all those people it's screwed over !
Why are you so scared ? Is it because you think USCIS wil do harm to you and others ? Well, what the hell it was doing while allocating all the quota in 15 days to avoid the rush ?
I wish USCIS would get down on it's knee and issue an apologies to all those people it's screwed over !
more...
Ramba
07-04 07:25 PM
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. Former INS or current USCIS�s functions and operations were not questionable and not known to public till ombudsman office was established. Ombudsman has helped customers and keep helping to improve efficiency of CIS. Ombudsman main concern (or goal) have been over the 4 years are
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The �documentarily qualified 485 applications� mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made �current� for all EB categories. This is how they determine �current� or �over-subscribed� and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered �Current.�
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be �oversubscribed� and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories �current� for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories �current� ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of �current� there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making �current� for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as �current� in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The �documentarily qualified 485 applications� mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made �current� for all EB categories. This is how they determine �current� or �over-subscribed� and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered �Current.�
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be �oversubscribed� and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories �current� for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories �current� ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of �current� there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making �current� for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as �current� in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
hair J10 PLI Xperia X10 mini
sanju
04-04 03:32 PM
keep dreaming ,
1) H1B based on market ( will never happen ) , how ever hiking it to some
rational number like 100K to 130K is a good possibility.
2) reform GC process so that after working for 5 years, with one company
one should be able to get green card without delay, this would be more
meanigful as it will demonstrate that the poners really has a full time job
as oppose to somebody just buying green card without ever
working for a company.
thanks
And why are we disucssing H1b increase/decrease issue again?????
1) H1B based on market ( will never happen ) , how ever hiking it to some
rational number like 100K to 130K is a good possibility.
2) reform GC process so that after working for 5 years, with one company
one should be able to get green card without delay, this would be more
meanigful as it will demonstrate that the poners really has a full time job
as oppose to somebody just buying green card without ever
working for a company.
thanks
And why are we disucssing H1b increase/decrease issue again?????
more...
thepaew
05-12 03:20 PM
Hi
I do not know your particular situation, but I know something about MBA programs. There are some things that you need to keep in mind. An MBA degree is not a silver bullet. It comes with a huge opportunity cost. But, let us assume that you have done your research and have arrived at the conclusion that an MBA education is the best option to further your career.
1. A lot of value from the MBA degree comes from networking and group-work. I do not know how the online programs handle this. But at my company, we would not consider someone with an online degree for most MBA-level openings.
2.There are excellent part-time options available.
3. If cost is a major issue, you can evaluate the local state universities in your area.
I wish you the best of luck. Feel free to reach out to me via PM if you want more advice.
BR
thepaew, right, I understand IB needs from top-10..it was more of "I wish I had" stuff..I am not serious on that.
Coming to why "online" ? Because I cant go fulltime on college (I have to quit my job...means no salary for 2 years...not possible..I am not that filthy rich :D)
moreover there is increased trend in acceptance of online MBA as major universities are coming online now.
I do not know your particular situation, but I know something about MBA programs. There are some things that you need to keep in mind. An MBA degree is not a silver bullet. It comes with a huge opportunity cost. But, let us assume that you have done your research and have arrived at the conclusion that an MBA education is the best option to further your career.
1. A lot of value from the MBA degree comes from networking and group-work. I do not know how the online programs handle this. But at my company, we would not consider someone with an online degree for most MBA-level openings.
2.There are excellent part-time options available.
3. If cost is a major issue, you can evaluate the local state universities in your area.
I wish you the best of luck. Feel free to reach out to me via PM if you want more advice.
BR
thepaew, right, I understand IB needs from top-10..it was more of "I wish I had" stuff..I am not serious on that.
Coming to why "online" ? Because I cant go fulltime on college (I have to quit my job...means no salary for 2 years...not possible..I am not that filthy rich :D)
moreover there is increased trend in acceptance of online MBA as major universities are coming online now.
hot Sony Ericsson unveils
unseenguy
05-26 11:05 PM
Just carry a copy of I-94 or EAD with you all the time. Just keep it stapled to your insurance or in your wallet and forget about it.
more...
house Sony-Ericsson-Xperia-X8-with-
GCNaseeb
10-12 09:20 PM
See signature
tattoo KÄLLA: Sony Ericsson
[uber]
03-11 10:39 PM
when is the poll gonna be set up?
more...
pictures Sony Ericsson Xperia X8
deepimpact
09-10 01:53 PM
If USCIS wants to do another JULY 2007 they never learnt their lession. With the Quarterly/annual quota I dont think USCIS legally can make EB2 current. I hate another JULY 2007 for sure.
They can make a category current when Demand < Supply. So once all I-485s prior to 2007 are approved the monthly demand data they publish will show demand Prior to CY2011 = 200. So unless they use approved I-140 to determine demand , DOS will make the dates current(even if for 1 month). As long as USCIS uses pending I-485 data to determine demand, the July 2007 fiasco will keep on repeating every 3-4 years. The key here is to have USCIS provide the actual demand (people with approved I-140s). It was mentioned somewhere that the current USCIS database is not capable of sorting the I-140s by country of chargebility and hence the I-140 data can't be used to determine per country demand.
They can make a category current when Demand < Supply. So once all I-485s prior to 2007 are approved the monthly demand data they publish will show demand Prior to CY2011 = 200. So unless they use approved I-140 to determine demand , DOS will make the dates current(even if for 1 month). As long as USCIS uses pending I-485 data to determine demand, the July 2007 fiasco will keep on repeating every 3-4 years. The key here is to have USCIS provide the actual demand (people with approved I-140s). It was mentioned somewhere that the current USCIS database is not capable of sorting the I-140s by country of chargebility and hence the I-140 data can't be used to determine per country demand.
dresses sony ericsson xperia x8 mini.
reddymjm
12-20 04:29 PM
He did not pay you. Thats all. don't worry about it. Even I know people who got GC's even with a real degree I mean completed degree even from INdia. Its all LUCK.
more...
makeup Sony Ericsson tok en X10 Mini
feedfront
09-21 12:23 PM
Hi Guys,
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
Don't worry too much, just follow the instructions and respond. Well, I will suggest to use your current employer and their attorney as paperword will be smooth, efficient and fast.
You can hold your H1 transfer for a week or two till you don't respond.
I think your attorney (whoever you pick to work on RFE) will definitely mention AC-21 to keep it issueless.
I have also switched my employer and not filed AC-21. I've been sent RFE and that's what my attorney will do (I assume). I had asked him before (after switching job) if I needed to file AC21 letter. He said it's not mandatory and added that it can be handled if any RFEs are issued. Well, I did not send AC21 because he was asking for fee and I did not want to DIY project on such important. He's my previous employer's attorney.
I think for these RFEs you don't need great attorney as case is not complex. I think anything will work as long as you've not misused any GC's requirements.
Good Luck!
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
Don't worry too much, just follow the instructions and respond. Well, I will suggest to use your current employer and their attorney as paperword will be smooth, efficient and fast.
You can hold your H1 transfer for a week or two till you don't respond.
I think your attorney (whoever you pick to work on RFE) will definitely mention AC-21 to keep it issueless.
I have also switched my employer and not filed AC-21. I've been sent RFE and that's what my attorney will do (I assume). I had asked him before (after switching job) if I needed to file AC21 letter. He said it's not mandatory and added that it can be handled if any RFEs are issued. Well, I did not send AC21 because he was asking for fee and I did not want to DIY project on such important. He's my previous employer's attorney.
I think for these RFEs you don't need great attorney as case is not complex. I think anything will work as long as you've not misused any GC's requirements.
Good Luck!
girlfriend Sony Ericsson XPERIA X10 Mini
rajuseattle
07-14 07:41 PM
ajthakur,
competant attorneys knows the language of the AC-21 draft in your situation and they will be able to anser RFEs in an appropriate manner.
If you feel u can simply send the EVL letter yourself and not disclose any facts about the change in employment, then good luck.
This is not at all trying to scare you, but u r almost on the verge of being approved, why taking chances on USCIS.
Lot of the times immigration cases are successful due to good representation and that's where competent attorneys scored well comapre to average attorney.
I have suffered myself a lot due to incompetent attorney who almost killed my labor certification process while in BEC by not responding to the DoL 45- day letter in time.
Afterall its upto you, if you are confident you can answer RFE, go ahead and do it, noone on this IV forum is forcing you to hire any attorney services.
competant attorneys knows the language of the AC-21 draft in your situation and they will be able to anser RFEs in an appropriate manner.
If you feel u can simply send the EVL letter yourself and not disclose any facts about the change in employment, then good luck.
This is not at all trying to scare you, but u r almost on the verge of being approved, why taking chances on USCIS.
Lot of the times immigration cases are successful due to good representation and that's where competent attorneys scored well comapre to average attorney.
I have suffered myself a lot due to incompetent attorney who almost killed my labor certification process while in BEC by not responding to the DoL 45- day letter in time.
Afterall its upto you, if you are confident you can answer RFE, go ahead and do it, noone on this IV forum is forcing you to hire any attorney services.
hairstyles Xperia X8 vs x10 mini pro
senthil1
06-13 02:08 PM
If the restrictions in H1b comes then I may be impacted also many of my friends and relatives may be impacted. For our personal lives H1b and green card are important if we want to stay in USA. My point is if congress make sure that if I or you will not take any eligible US persons job in USA that is acceptable for me. That will make sure everyone happy
Anyhow we will see what next for CIR and we will do more analysis when it comes.
Senthil1, Pineapple
Please let us not sound harsh and have a bipartisan :D discussion. It is just my statement I do not disagree with neither of you.
Rule 2
You mean Microsoft and Google and other companies want to stop outsourcing. They would not have build a huge team in india if they wanted to do this. The point that you are missing is that they need H1-Bs here because no american born is availabe here to fill those positions.
Read my statement thoroughly.
Big consulting companies(Bearing point....my list will go on) that are plenty in the US who hire and fire H1-B and american born if they cannot find another client for them after few days.
What will happen to these companies .. they have to shut down
Rule 2 will be a disaster for all these companies.
These companies do not go to india to get H1-B's they get them when they come here brought by india Desi companies.
It will be a mess. You might be talking about one company that will never displace and american and will garauntee an employee that he will never be fired once hired : Give me a break.
Anyhow we will see what next for CIR and we will do more analysis when it comes.
Senthil1, Pineapple
Please let us not sound harsh and have a bipartisan :D discussion. It is just my statement I do not disagree with neither of you.
Rule 2
You mean Microsoft and Google and other companies want to stop outsourcing. They would not have build a huge team in india if they wanted to do this. The point that you are missing is that they need H1-Bs here because no american born is availabe here to fill those positions.
Read my statement thoroughly.
Big consulting companies(Bearing point....my list will go on) that are plenty in the US who hire and fire H1-B and american born if they cannot find another client for them after few days.
What will happen to these companies .. they have to shut down
Rule 2 will be a disaster for all these companies.
These companies do not go to india to get H1-B's they get them when they come here brought by india Desi companies.
It will be a mess. You might be talking about one company that will never displace and american and will garauntee an employee that he will never be fired once hired : Give me a break.
actaccord
02-25 09:19 AM
.
harrybond
08-19 03:34 PM
[
JunRN
Senior Member
what's ur reasoning behind ur statement?
QUOTE=JunRN;150114]To understand the Visa bulletin, one must first understand that it is not the USCIS that computes or post VB, it is the DOS. DOS also considers those undergoing consular processing. In this case, the dates are in favor of those doing CP as we all know that most of those who are qualified to apply for AOS have already applied.
Retrogression is a CP-friendly event.[/QUOTE]
JunRN
Senior Member
what's ur reasoning behind ur statement?
QUOTE=JunRN;150114]To understand the Visa bulletin, one must first understand that it is not the USCIS that computes or post VB, it is the DOS. DOS also considers those undergoing consular processing. In this case, the dates are in favor of those doing CP as we all know that most of those who are qualified to apply for AOS have already applied.
Retrogression is a CP-friendly event.[/QUOTE]
No comments:
Post a Comment