lskreddy
04-30 03:17 PM
Guiterrez (spelt wrong) was brilliant in stating how screwed the FB system. He was particularly clear on his examples for FB. Kudos to him..
And, they talked about the statute and bulletin mismatch of words...
And, they talked about the statute and bulletin mismatch of words...
wallpaper hayley williams 2011
eers
07-20 02:21 PM
You are forgetting spouses , EB-1 and in some cases 18+ years children.
Also quota in 2001, 2002 and 2003 was 195K and not 65 K
not every h1 guy can or will apply for GC. For example many of this big indian IT companies, with lot of H1s in hand, either dont apply GC for employees or they have very strict policies so that most dont qualify.
I know for sure , coz i am a victims of such situation :)
Also quota in 2001, 2002 and 2003 was 195K and not 65 K
not every h1 guy can or will apply for GC. For example many of this big indian IT companies, with lot of H1s in hand, either dont apply GC for employees or they have very strict policies so that most dont qualify.
I know for sure , coz i am a victims of such situation :)
vunlucky
09-11 10:34 PM
Contributed $100 through google checkout.
Trying to send as many signatures as possible with a day or so.
Trying to send as many signatures as possible with a day or so.
2011 Paramore#39;s Hayley Williams
go_guy123
09-02 01:49 PM
other options? u mean like Canada ?
what life? do u have one? in Canada ? if u have, u wouldn't be on this US immi website posting stupid comments.
sour grapes? feeling like jumped out too quick?
feeling like NA GHAR KA NA GHAT KA ?
:mad:
Way better than EB3-I/H1B in US....actually jumping out was the best thing I did before the GC train wrenk. This site keeps me aware of the latest changes in US immigration. After my wife's cad citizenship I might work in US even. Till then myself and wife...combined earn well
(I do agree as GC in US one can earn even more...I never deny that but GC is a pipe dream for India born)...actually I work incorporated (reduces tax liability)...sponsored my parents's pr few days back.
what life? do u have one? in Canada ? if u have, u wouldn't be on this US immi website posting stupid comments.
sour grapes? feeling like jumped out too quick?
feeling like NA GHAR KA NA GHAT KA ?
:mad:
Way better than EB3-I/H1B in US....actually jumping out was the best thing I did before the GC train wrenk. This site keeps me aware of the latest changes in US immigration. After my wife's cad citizenship I might work in US even. Till then myself and wife...combined earn well
(I do agree as GC in US one can earn even more...I never deny that but GC is a pipe dream for India born)...actually I work incorporated (reduces tax liability)...sponsored my parents's pr few days back.
more...
swo
07-20 06:47 PM
thats one way to look at it. The other way to see this is that:
- given enough people making noise its possible to get DOS/USCIS to make changes and fix things. this has now been proven.
-there is a lot more visibility for EB related issues now, so much better chance of recapture or exemption for spouses from VB calculations etc.
- instead of focus being on filing 485 without visa numbers (which is what IV focussed on for a while) everyone will now focus right at the root of the problem. All 500K are now focussed on solving the main issue.
My friend, there is validity in what you say. I think there is a general shortage of visas, period. That is the root of the issue. However, we did know that going in. So when we get stuck in that situation we have to remember to distinguish between calling for change and demanding it.
Also, with all due respect to IV, I think the thing that most likely led to the USCIS turnaround was not our voices, but rather the fact that a law suit would have revealed SERIOUS rule breaking - particularly with regard to issuing of visas to non-security cleared people. I think the USCIS's fear of dealing with a) discovery during court proceedings and b) potentially huge finanicial damages, were the main motivating factors to the turnaround.
There is no doubt though, that the voices of immigrants did make a difference.
By the way, this morning I wrote to both Senators Cornyn (for) and Clinton (against) in response to their amendment votes yesterday. I thanked him from trying to bring relief and urged her to show more bravery in solving the crisis at a future opportunity. I urge you all to do the same.
- given enough people making noise its possible to get DOS/USCIS to make changes and fix things. this has now been proven.
-there is a lot more visibility for EB related issues now, so much better chance of recapture or exemption for spouses from VB calculations etc.
- instead of focus being on filing 485 without visa numbers (which is what IV focussed on for a while) everyone will now focus right at the root of the problem. All 500K are now focussed on solving the main issue.
My friend, there is validity in what you say. I think there is a general shortage of visas, period. That is the root of the issue. However, we did know that going in. So when we get stuck in that situation we have to remember to distinguish between calling for change and demanding it.
Also, with all due respect to IV, I think the thing that most likely led to the USCIS turnaround was not our voices, but rather the fact that a law suit would have revealed SERIOUS rule breaking - particularly with regard to issuing of visas to non-security cleared people. I think the USCIS's fear of dealing with a) discovery during court proceedings and b) potentially huge finanicial damages, were the main motivating factors to the turnaround.
There is no doubt though, that the voices of immigrants did make a difference.
By the way, this morning I wrote to both Senators Cornyn (for) and Clinton (against) in response to their amendment votes yesterday. I thanked him from trying to bring relief and urged her to show more bravery in solving the crisis at a future opportunity. I urge you all to do the same.
shilpianand
08-10 05:49 PM
NSC processed our case and we mail that on june 30th , uscis recd. the same on 2-july-07
our recd. number starts from LIN 072275####
our recd. number starts from LIN 072275####
more...
Green.Tech
06-17 02:55 PM
..willing to contribute today?
2010 Haley-williams-cosmo-cover-may
ajju
08-13 09:01 PM
What they are calling HEAVY DEMAND from EB-3 when it has been unavailable for the last two months and before that it was stuck in 2001. There are a whole lot of visas going to EB-2 people who filed in 2006 just two years back . If a person who filed in 2001 can't get his GC
I think they are talking about EB3 Mexico... Doesn't make any sense for EB3-India as it has already been unavailable.. so what does heavy load signifies... I am positive EB3-I will open up... may be more retrogressed than last availability.. but it will be available on Oct 1...
I think they are talking about EB3 Mexico... Doesn't make any sense for EB3-India as it has already been unavailable.. so what does heavy load signifies... I am positive EB3-I will open up... may be more retrogressed than last availability.. but it will be available on Oct 1...
more...
geesee
09-12 10:59 AM
Liked the calculator idea! Count me in..
One qns - how are we planning to catch media's attention? It was easier during flower campagin as flowers were clearly visible in fedex/ups trucks.. But the calculators would be inside a box...
One qns - how are we planning to catch media's attention? It was easier during flower campagin as flowers were clearly visible in fedex/ups trucks.. But the calculators would be inside a box...
hair hayley williams 2011
sanjeev_2004
09-28 10:17 PM
USCIS don’t understand how desperately we need GC to get rid of these Middle client suckers. We are counting every day and they are just careless about their job.
more...
desi485
11-14 05:36 PM
It's call reseach topic.. We have to find some USCIS support documents for each case. We need some earlier USCIS decisions for each senarios/theories.
RG provided few supporting CIS rules in earlier post and seems logical. But not sure if RG or RK is right.
It's confusing indeed.
One of IV members 'lazycis' (he is a knowledgable & senior member) also mentioned this, which exactly matches with what RG said:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=301999&postcount=16
so I am sure there are some provisions. I hope 'lazycis' will provide some more info if he sees this post.
Edit: Chandu - please click this link to read on RG's forums. (http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6461)
RG provided few supporting CIS rules in earlier post and seems logical. But not sure if RG or RK is right.
It's confusing indeed.
One of IV members 'lazycis' (he is a knowledgable & senior member) also mentioned this, which exactly matches with what RG said:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=301999&postcount=16
so I am sure there are some provisions. I hope 'lazycis' will provide some more info if he sees this post.
Edit: Chandu - please click this link to read on RG's forums. (http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6461)
hot hayley williams 2011 cosmo.
gsc999
03-17 09:33 PM
All tax payers are eligible(atleast mostly)
folks like Bayarea07 are plain and stupid
--
Lets not be so harsh. Bayarea07, thought he had a valid concern, although it is not true.
Did anybody notice this in the IRS communication that was sent out to taxpayers:
For taxpyers, the amount of money will be "reduced" or " completely phased out" for individuals making adjusted gross income or more than $75K ( or more than $150 if married and filing jointly).
How about that?
folks like Bayarea07 are plain and stupid
--
Lets not be so harsh. Bayarea07, thought he had a valid concern, although it is not true.
Did anybody notice this in the IRS communication that was sent out to taxpayers:
For taxpyers, the amount of money will be "reduced" or " completely phased out" for individuals making adjusted gross income or more than $75K ( or more than $150 if married and filing jointly).
How about that?
more...
house Credit: Cosmopolitan magazine
Michael chertoff
12-14 06:40 PM
Dear Friends,
What about if some of us will go for hunger strike in front of USCIC building? may be the will listen to us then.
please dont give reds if you dont like it, just ignore it. man I am very frustrated with the situation.
MC
What about if some of us will go for hunger strike in front of USCIC building? may be the will listen to us then.
please dont give reds if you dont like it, just ignore it. man I am very frustrated with the situation.
MC
tattoo Hayley Williams does
Milind123
09-12 05:29 PM
Hi IV members,
Thanks for all the work and effort put into making the life of many simple.
Just made a small contribution from my side
Details
$100 from paypal Receipt ID: 0140-0216-9540-2146
Thanks
-Ska
Way to go first post and a contribution.
Thanks for all the work and effort put into making the life of many simple.
Just made a small contribution from my side
Details
$100 from paypal Receipt ID: 0140-0216-9540-2146
Thanks
-Ska
Way to go first post and a contribution.
more...
pictures hayley williams 2011 pics.
sheela
08-13 04:53 PM
Signature has all relevant information.
Congrats: I feel better after seeing your posting. Mine too was received by R William at 7.55 on 7/2. May be it is on way too
Congrats: I feel better after seeing your posting. Mine too was received by R William at 7.55 on 7/2. May be it is on way too
dresses Hayley Williams On The Cover
B0ka
03-13 11:02 AM
I am a bit curious. How did you manage to stay in same company for 7 years. Or did you do labor transfer or changed company using EAD/AP.
Surprisingly, I have been with my employer since 2000. With all the economic issues going on in 2000/2001 it took us 2 years to file my labor.
Surprisingly, I have been with my employer since 2000. With all the economic issues going on in 2000/2001 it took us 2 years to file my labor.
more...
makeup Hayley Williams is
apb
09-16 12:52 AM
Bump
girlfriend Hayley Williams and Peter Som
chocolate
06-03 03:39 PM
Well this is very confusing.
What if a person files the I-140 after May 15th and his/her I-140 is approved. Later assume that I-485 date becomes current for that particular person (before Oct 2008), he/she files for the AOS/I-485 (before Oct 2008). While the I-485 petition is pending the date Oct 2008 comes what happens then? Will this nulify the filed I-140?
Thanks
My labor was approved 8 months ago. Although i submitted all the documents to my attorney 5 months ago My employer is yet to file. the fact is i am eligible to file for 140/485/ead/ap. So now i am stuck. Will this affect me.Thanks in advance.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
What if a person files the I-140 after May 15th and his/her I-140 is approved. Later assume that I-485 date becomes current for that particular person (before Oct 2008), he/she files for the AOS/I-485 (before Oct 2008). While the I-485 petition is pending the date Oct 2008 comes what happens then? Will this nulify the filed I-140?
Thanks
My labor was approved 8 months ago. Although i submitted all the documents to my attorney 5 months ago My employer is yet to file. the fact is i am eligible to file for 140/485/ead/ap. So now i am stuck. Will this affect me.Thanks in advance.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
hairstyles cosmo Hayley+williams+2011
java_jaggu
06-02 08:33 PM
Canadian_Dream, I think your interpretation is wrong..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 (2) PENDING AND APPROVED PETITIONS AND APPLICATIONS.�Petitions
41 for an employment-based visa filed for classification under
42 section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Immigration and Nationality
43 Act (as such provisions existed prior to the enactment of this
44 section) that were filed prior to the date of the introduction of
265
1 the [Insert title of Act] and were pending or approved at the
2 time of the effective date of this section, shall be treated as if
3 such provision remained effective and an approved petition may
4 serve as the basis for issuance of an immigrant visa. Aliens with
5 applications for a labor certification pursuant to section
6 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall
7 preserve the immigrant visa priority date accorded by the date
8 of filing of such labor certification application.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think what AILA, our core group and other attorneys are trying to say is that as long as you filed before May 15, 2007 you will be fine regardless of whether your petition is pending or approved. There is no dispute about this point. Any applications that were filed after May 15, 2007 will become null and void the day this bill is signed by the president to make it a law. The 'effective date' ( Oct 1, 2008 ) does not apply for applications filed after May 15, 2007. I will be glad if you can prove me wrong :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 (2) PENDING AND APPROVED PETITIONS AND APPLICATIONS.�Petitions
41 for an employment-based visa filed for classification under
42 section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Immigration and Nationality
43 Act (as such provisions existed prior to the enactment of this
44 section) that were filed prior to the date of the introduction of
265
1 the [Insert title of Act] and were pending or approved at the
2 time of the effective date of this section, shall be treated as if
3 such provision remained effective and an approved petition may
4 serve as the basis for issuance of an immigrant visa. Aliens with
5 applications for a labor certification pursuant to section
6 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall
7 preserve the immigrant visa priority date accorded by the date
8 of filing of such labor certification application.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think what AILA, our core group and other attorneys are trying to say is that as long as you filed before May 15, 2007 you will be fine regardless of whether your petition is pending or approved. There is no dispute about this point. Any applications that were filed after May 15, 2007 will become null and void the day this bill is signed by the president to make it a law. The 'effective date' ( Oct 1, 2008 ) does not apply for applications filed after May 15, 2007. I will be glad if you can prove me wrong :)
JazzByTheBay
09-29 07:43 AM
Except, Franklin is not from a retrogressed country.... :)
jazz
But I think franklin posted earlier that she got her GC when the priority dates are not current. And shows about 5 EB3s from India got approvals during September whos PDs are on or after 2003.Do you think USCIS might have requested the visa number for their cases when their PD was current?
jazz
But I think franklin posted earlier that she got her GC when the priority dates are not current. And shows about 5 EB3s from India got approvals during September whos PDs are on or after 2003.Do you think USCIS might have requested the visa number for their cases when their PD was current?
fuzzy logic
07-18 03:32 PM
Hi everyone!
I just realized that USCIS has made a mistake in I-140 approval notice. My labor and I-140 application was for EB-3. However, my lawyer made a mistake in checking EB-2 box instead of EB-3 box in the I-140 application. All other description and details were for EB-3.
USCIS also sent an RFE to know whether the application is for EB-2 or EB-3. My lawyer promptly responded that it was an honest mistake and the application was for EB-3.
Just today I realized that despite our response to RFE, USCIS gave and approval notice of I-140 for EB-2 and not EB-3.
I don't know, if my lawyer has noticed this mistake yet. I want to apply for AOS now and don't want to draw my employer / lawyer attention to it as I don't know what their reaction will be.
Can any one please advice me if this will have any adverse implication down the line? I am concerned as the approval is inconsistent with the labor approval that was with the intention of filing under EB-3. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
I just realized that USCIS has made a mistake in I-140 approval notice. My labor and I-140 application was for EB-3. However, my lawyer made a mistake in checking EB-2 box instead of EB-3 box in the I-140 application. All other description and details were for EB-3.
USCIS also sent an RFE to know whether the application is for EB-2 or EB-3. My lawyer promptly responded that it was an honest mistake and the application was for EB-3.
Just today I realized that despite our response to RFE, USCIS gave and approval notice of I-140 for EB-2 and not EB-3.
I don't know, if my lawyer has noticed this mistake yet. I want to apply for AOS now and don't want to draw my employer / lawyer attention to it as I don't know what their reaction will be.
Can any one please advice me if this will have any adverse implication down the line? I am concerned as the approval is inconsistent with the labor approval that was with the intention of filing under EB-3. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!