mdcowboy
06-10 07:42 PM
sent it to my friends too..this bill is ridiculous!:mad:
wallpaper 300 Love Letters
ssingh92
02-18 08:17 PM
I dont think it will be passed. They included so many things initially. After discussion they will drop the thing one after another.
There are two sections related to us.
TITLE V--LEGALIZATION FOR LONG-TERM RESIDENTS
TITLE VII--EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRATION
If this bill passed then it will create one grand huge backlog for all countries and for all category of immigration. WHY?? Because for Title V they will ask for proof and then again finger printing for FBI check and I dont know home many paper work. If they simply increase the GC #s it will work for us. We already have completed the paper work and standing in Q.
There are two sections related to us.
TITLE V--LEGALIZATION FOR LONG-TERM RESIDENTS
TITLE VII--EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRATION
If this bill passed then it will create one grand huge backlog for all countries and for all category of immigration. WHY?? Because for Title V they will ask for proof and then again finger printing for FBI check and I dont know home many paper work. If they simply increase the GC #s it will work for us. We already have completed the paper work and standing in Q.
spicy_guy
07-13 06:38 PM
August 2010 Visa Bulletin – EB-2 and EB-3 Substantial Forward Movement (http://www.cilawgroup.com/news/2010/07/13/august-2010-visa-bulletin-%E2%80%93-eb-2-and-eb-3-substantial-forward-movement/)
"
Forward Movement Is Temporary
Note that the substantial forward movement does not indicate a trend; instead, the last two visa bulletins� forward movement was to ensure that no available visa numbers remain unused due to poor allocation of the unused numbers. We expect that there be some retrogression over the next 1-3 months.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or if we can help you prepare and file your I-485 adjustment application, should your priority date become current.
"
"
Forward Movement Is Temporary
Note that the substantial forward movement does not indicate a trend; instead, the last two visa bulletins� forward movement was to ensure that no available visa numbers remain unused due to poor allocation of the unused numbers. We expect that there be some retrogression over the next 1-3 months.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or if we can help you prepare and file your I-485 adjustment application, should your priority date become current.
"
2011 Love letter in Malayalam0
sriramkalyan
06-10 01:05 PM
I believe passing any law to make Immigrants life easy wont help Politicians in 2010 elections.
I remember Senator John cornyn did try to do some thing about it, but democrat Senators, Republican house was against it. That was before pre- recession. Now with 9.7% unemployment ..Politicians cannot do anything. Anything can happen only on USCIS budget side. Either they have to make Visa Current , new applications & Dollars. Or e rising FEES, Which they did it.
I remember Senator John cornyn did try to do some thing about it, but democrat Senators, Republican house was against it. That was before pre- recession. Now with 9.7% unemployment ..Politicians cannot do anything. Anything can happen only on USCIS budget side. Either they have to make Visa Current , new applications & Dollars. Or e rising FEES, Which they did it.
more...
GCard_Dream
03-18 05:35 PM
If that is the case, I am not sure why China didn't even move a single day. From the example, China should have gotten half of the unused visas. :confused:
This is the post from Ron:
I have to confess error and make a correction. The AC21 legislation changed things far more that I suspected and changed the allocation process from what I had learned previously. In further corresondence with the Visa Office, I've learned that I was wrong about how numbers are moved from worldwide to single state allocations. The following is a direct quote:
Quote:
Employment First Preference example: Annual limit 40,000 - (expected) 25,000 ("rest of world") - 3,300 (China limit) - 3,300 (India limit) = 8,400 unused numbers. Those 8,400 numbers could be made available to China/India applicants without regard to their normal 3,300 per-country limit for that category. But those extra numbers would need to be made available to China/India applicants on an equal basis, and in doing so making sure that the additional number use would not result in the Worldwide annual limit being exceeded. Thus, the same cut-off date for each country since the extra numbers must be made available in priority date order without regard to country.
I apologize for the confusion generated by my earlier remarks
So whatever said in the visa bulletin makes sense.
This is the post from Ron:
I have to confess error and make a correction. The AC21 legislation changed things far more that I suspected and changed the allocation process from what I had learned previously. In further corresondence with the Visa Office, I've learned that I was wrong about how numbers are moved from worldwide to single state allocations. The following is a direct quote:
Quote:
Employment First Preference example: Annual limit 40,000 - (expected) 25,000 ("rest of world") - 3,300 (China limit) - 3,300 (India limit) = 8,400 unused numbers. Those 8,400 numbers could be made available to China/India applicants without regard to their normal 3,300 per-country limit for that category. But those extra numbers would need to be made available to China/India applicants on an equal basis, and in doing so making sure that the additional number use would not result in the Worldwide annual limit being exceeded. Thus, the same cut-off date for each country since the extra numbers must be made available in priority date order without regard to country.
I apologize for the confusion generated by my earlier remarks
So whatever said in the visa bulletin makes sense.
hopefullegalimmigrant
06-12 06:04 PM
Sent
more...
GooblyWoobly
01-18 12:53 AM
xyzgc. I agree with your risk assessment personally. However, the risk aversion threshold is an individual thing. Some people never drive on the fast lane, and some people jump off a cliff tied to a rope. So, IMHO, it's unfair to say something is stupid and foolish. It's just that somebody might just like to live a little more dangerously than you are (and reap more benefits if things go well).
IMHO, what is stupid is doing something and not knowing/understanding the risk. :rolleyes:
IMHO, what is stupid is doing something and not knowing/understanding the risk. :rolleyes:
2010 Tags: Funny, Love, Letter,
delax
07-14 07:14 PM
Murthy sent the letter after LOGICLIFE declared that something GOOD is likely or on the way.... IV is doing the job and she is getting the fruit (money)by just publishing it. When the lawsuit issue came up she took U-turn saying its AILA's job...
When i first came to US , i worked with a guy who used to Publish the results of my hardwork without even mentioning my name and get promotion. When i went to him for my promotion he said this year's promotion quota has exhausted .
Anyway i left that company and those kind thiefs ( who steal credit for other work) long back but the distressing memory of exploitation hasn't left my mind.
To a few of my misguided friends who seem to not understand the distinction between a lobbying outfit whose goal is to change existing law to better suit reality and a law firm whose goal is to work within existing law. As self-proclaimed proponents of "Gandhigiri" - I see its principles not being applied when dealing with each other. Is Gandhigiri meant only to show USCIS. Would the Mahatma have said the same things mentioned above before asking himself a few questions. I dont think we can question the motives and intention of anybody before fully knowing the facts. As a client of Murthy Law Firm here is a fact:
On her call last week for her clients, she mentioned that the Murthy Law Firm is one of the biggest financial contributor to AILF - who by the way are ready to file the class action lawsuit. If the lawsuit is successfull and given AILF's funding source - will you exclude yourself from the potential benefit because Murthy's funds were used to support the litigation - who's piggybacking now.
Again - Its not one against the other - Please bear in mind the DUE PROCESS of LAW has been violated by USCIS resulting in a curtailment of your substantive rights (EAD, Parole, AC21 etc). I would not care who fights on my behalf so long as the outcome is to correct the earlier mistake.
If you feel that she does not work for immigrants you have no locus standi to avail of ANY BENEFIT from the lawsuit and as a true proponent of "Gandhigiri" you should VOLUNTARILY exclude yourself from any such potential benefit. :)
I know the Mahatma would have done the same thing.
When i first came to US , i worked with a guy who used to Publish the results of my hardwork without even mentioning my name and get promotion. When i went to him for my promotion he said this year's promotion quota has exhausted .
Anyway i left that company and those kind thiefs ( who steal credit for other work) long back but the distressing memory of exploitation hasn't left my mind.
To a few of my misguided friends who seem to not understand the distinction between a lobbying outfit whose goal is to change existing law to better suit reality and a law firm whose goal is to work within existing law. As self-proclaimed proponents of "Gandhigiri" - I see its principles not being applied when dealing with each other. Is Gandhigiri meant only to show USCIS. Would the Mahatma have said the same things mentioned above before asking himself a few questions. I dont think we can question the motives and intention of anybody before fully knowing the facts. As a client of Murthy Law Firm here is a fact:
On her call last week for her clients, she mentioned that the Murthy Law Firm is one of the biggest financial contributor to AILF - who by the way are ready to file the class action lawsuit. If the lawsuit is successfull and given AILF's funding source - will you exclude yourself from the potential benefit because Murthy's funds were used to support the litigation - who's piggybacking now.
Again - Its not one against the other - Please bear in mind the DUE PROCESS of LAW has been violated by USCIS resulting in a curtailment of your substantive rights (EAD, Parole, AC21 etc). I would not care who fights on my behalf so long as the outcome is to correct the earlier mistake.
If you feel that she does not work for immigrants you have no locus standi to avail of ANY BENEFIT from the lawsuit and as a true proponent of "Gandhigiri" you should VOLUNTARILY exclude yourself from any such potential benefit. :)
I know the Mahatma would have done the same thing.
more...
Mr. Brown
03-10 04:29 PM
Hello,
I strongly suggest that we focus our time and efforts on a single and achievable target in this calendar year 2009.
Recapturing unused visa numbers from the last two decades would help us eliminate the retrogression issue. Other changes like Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Eliminating per country limits etc would require a leap of faith in the political process and it is unlikely to be achieved in this calendar year. The economy, unemployment rates, health care etc are bound to dominate the legislative agenda this year.
I suggest writing a petition or letter to the White House and the administrative offices strongly urging them to recapture the unused visa numbers.
I think we should follow the KISS ("Keep it Simple, Stupid") Principle to achieve this target.
If we add any other immigration provisions, it would increase the complexity of the legislation and it is bound to fail.
Could the administrators of this forum please consider my suggestion of focusing on recapturing the visa numbers and assign this task the highest priority.
By re-capturing the visa numbers, we are not asking for any change in the immigration laws. We are simply asking to use the visa numbers that had been lost due to inefficient processing by the USCIS.
Let us start preparing a petition and create a dedicated fund to achieve this goal of visa number recapturing.
Thank you.
Great thought about being focussed on one topic that doesn't even need a "reform"!Simplest solution to the retrogression problem I have heard so far.
I strongly suggest that we focus our time and efforts on a single and achievable target in this calendar year 2009.
Recapturing unused visa numbers from the last two decades would help us eliminate the retrogression issue. Other changes like Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Eliminating per country limits etc would require a leap of faith in the political process and it is unlikely to be achieved in this calendar year. The economy, unemployment rates, health care etc are bound to dominate the legislative agenda this year.
I suggest writing a petition or letter to the White House and the administrative offices strongly urging them to recapture the unused visa numbers.
I think we should follow the KISS ("Keep it Simple, Stupid") Principle to achieve this target.
If we add any other immigration provisions, it would increase the complexity of the legislation and it is bound to fail.
Could the administrators of this forum please consider my suggestion of focusing on recapturing the visa numbers and assign this task the highest priority.
By re-capturing the visa numbers, we are not asking for any change in the immigration laws. We are simply asking to use the visa numbers that had been lost due to inefficient processing by the USCIS.
Let us start preparing a petition and create a dedicated fund to achieve this goal of visa number recapturing.
Thank you.
Great thought about being focussed on one topic that doesn't even need a "reform"!Simplest solution to the retrogression problem I have heard so far.
hair found love letter page “won”
varshadas
01-02 10:37 AM
Hi Guys,
I was out last week. I am back now. Last time when we had a conference call, we decided to post flyers about immigration voice in our local communities and also getting in touch with the local newspapers. Since everyone is back from the holidays now, lets have a conference call next Wednesday. Till then, please post as many flyers as possible to increase IV's awareness.
Thanks,
Varsha
I was out last week. I am back now. Last time when we had a conference call, we decided to post flyers about immigration voice in our local communities and also getting in touch with the local newspapers. Since everyone is back from the holidays now, lets have a conference call next Wednesday. Till then, please post as many flyers as possible to increase IV's awareness.
Thanks,
Varsha
more...
vandanaverdia
09-10 04:26 PM
I am in line for the green card for years & the wait is endless..... This is my chance to ease me....
Come join hands....
Come join hands....
hot love letters, part 1
kaella
06-11 10:43 AM
Just did it.
more...
house love letters that she says
delhiboy
12-17 11:34 PM
Just need a place to vent and share my frustration with this system.
I came to US 12 years ago for undergrad. Got a good job with a fortune 500 company, been with the same company for 8 years. Did my Masters and MBA part time.
Company filed paper work for GC under EB3 in 2002, but the system was too slow and I decided to take a new role. Had to re-file another appication since i took a new role, but this time in EB2 in '04. 4 years have passed and both applications have only cleared labor.
Not sure when this wait will end. I do hope that this wait and patience is worth it for all of us.
I do hope we see some miracle in 2007.
I came to US 12 years ago for undergrad. Got a good job with a fortune 500 company, been with the same company for 8 years. Did my Masters and MBA part time.
Company filed paper work for GC under EB3 in 2002, but the system was too slow and I decided to take a new role. Had to re-file another appication since i took a new role, but this time in EB2 in '04. 4 years have passed and both applications have only cleared labor.
Not sure when this wait will end. I do hope that this wait and patience is worth it for all of us.
I do hope we see some miracle in 2007.
tattoo Best and Most Funny Pakistani
pdjune2003
12-17 03:59 PM
PD June 2003, EB3
I-140 Approved
485 applied on 8/8/07
AP, EAD Received
FP Done
I-140 Approved
485 applied on 8/8/07
AP, EAD Received
FP Done
more...
pictures Love Letter
mi2
01-17 03:43 PM
Setup through my bank.
Good job IV!
Good job IV!
dresses The Anti-Love Letter
kpchal2
07-18 12:17 PM
hi tapukakababa, the number is for the national customer service center but you mentioned you called the nebraska service center. so did u ask them to transfer to that service center or ???. i would like to talk to those guys and see what they did wityh my application. i guess we already had a painful ride and if it does not yield the right fruit then it really hurts us bad.
more...
makeup Love Letters
crazyghoda
01-30 03:17 PM
Ok now I am very very confused :confused:
Your statement mentions that the 485 does not cover out of status from last non-immigrant visa entry to 485 filing. I have always been working during that time. No issues. After filing 485, I exited and reentered twice using my H1. Last entry was in March 2008 I think. After that, I changed employers using AC21 and got my H1 transferred so I was still on an H1 status. Finally I departed the US in Dec 2008 for vacation while still on H1 status with an active job. I got laid off while I was out of the US.
Now, at that time I had a stamped H1 as well as an AP. I could have used either. However, I felt that using the H1 would be wrong as I no longer had a job with the H1 employer. So I decided to brave the secondary inspections and entered on AP. Since then I have been looking for a job.
My question is - Is the time I havent been working considered as Out of Status?
Your statement mentions that the 485 does not cover out of status from last non-immigrant visa entry to 485 filing. I have always been working during that time. No issues. After filing 485, I exited and reentered twice using my H1. Last entry was in March 2008 I think. After that, I changed employers using AC21 and got my H1 transferred so I was still on an H1 status. Finally I departed the US in Dec 2008 for vacation while still on H1 status with an active job. I got laid off while I was out of the US.
Now, at that time I had a stamped H1 as well as an AP. I could have used either. However, I felt that using the H1 would be wrong as I no longer had a job with the H1 employer. So I decided to brave the secondary inspections and entered on AP. Since then I have been looking for a job.
My question is - Is the time I havent been working considered as Out of Status?
girlfriend dresses Writing a Love Letter
vgayalu
07-25 12:12 PM
Dear Friends,
What is availability means available for persons applied before cut of dates? or not at all available like present Eb2.
A Person can apply only when visa's are available. For example right now there are no Visas for EB2. So no one can apply for I 485 under EB2 category. But when visas are available like EB3 why do not we apply. Cut off dates are USCIS created ones for their work conveninece by allowing few applicants . It is not law. There is no such hard and fast law stating that the applicants having priority dates before cut off dates can only apply for I 485. Just USCIS can issue a Circular to allow I 485 against to visa dates.
If it is really a law then they should say aome thing about the method of calculating cut off dates.
Why do not we write atleast a letter to allow to apply I 485 when visas are avaible by ignoring USCIS defined cut off dates.
Please discuss with senior attorneys and DHS and DGS officials.
With regards,
vgayalu
What is availability means available for persons applied before cut of dates? or not at all available like present Eb2.
A Person can apply only when visa's are available. For example right now there are no Visas for EB2. So no one can apply for I 485 under EB2 category. But when visas are available like EB3 why do not we apply. Cut off dates are USCIS created ones for their work conveninece by allowing few applicants . It is not law. There is no such hard and fast law stating that the applicants having priority dates before cut off dates can only apply for I 485. Just USCIS can issue a Circular to allow I 485 against to visa dates.
If it is really a law then they should say aome thing about the method of calculating cut off dates.
Why do not we write atleast a letter to allow to apply I 485 when visas are avaible by ignoring USCIS defined cut off dates.
Please discuss with senior attorneys and DHS and DGS officials.
With regards,
vgayalu
hairstyles Best and Most Funny Pakistani
EkAurAaya
09-26 10:09 AM
I sent an email too and asked the editor to contact info@immigrationvoice.org for more information on why the rally was conducted (to clear up backlog of already filed petitions for green cards and not h1b increase)
sivakumar
02-22 11:57 AM
Hi Friends,
I have a question regarding the new ruling that states that if your Name check is pending for more than 180 days and your PD is current then you I-485 will be approved.
In my case I-485 was filed on 23 june 2007, FP was done on 12Aug 2007, got EAD on 23september 2007.
Since I had a RFE on I-140 it finally got approved on 25th October 2007.
NOW MY QUESTION IS AT WHAT POINT DOES USCIS SEND APPLICATION FOR NAME CHECK? Why I am asking this question is becase I want to calculate the 180 day period. will it be after finger prinitng (e.g 12august07) or after 1-140 got approved (e.g 25october07).
I am under EB2 caterory from India. My priority date is 12 March 2003.
As there is a feeling that the April visa might have 12/01/2003 as the priority date.
I may get it or I might not get it ( depending when FP started)
Please advice,
Thanks a lot in advance and anticipation of an answer :)
Siva.
I have a question regarding the new ruling that states that if your Name check is pending for more than 180 days and your PD is current then you I-485 will be approved.
In my case I-485 was filed on 23 june 2007, FP was done on 12Aug 2007, got EAD on 23september 2007.
Since I had a RFE on I-140 it finally got approved on 25th October 2007.
NOW MY QUESTION IS AT WHAT POINT DOES USCIS SEND APPLICATION FOR NAME CHECK? Why I am asking this question is becase I want to calculate the 180 day period. will it be after finger prinitng (e.g 12august07) or after 1-140 got approved (e.g 25october07).
I am under EB2 caterory from India. My priority date is 12 March 2003.
As there is a feeling that the April visa might have 12/01/2003 as the priority date.
I may get it or I might not get it ( depending when FP started)
Please advice,
Thanks a lot in advance and anticipation of an answer :)
Siva.
nixstor
07-03 05:25 PM
nixstor,
they have considerably raised the bar for EB1 A and EB1 b to discourage people applying, but I suspect that if you run a trend, EB1C is on the rise. I think you might be surprised about how often it does actually happen.
I half expect EB1 to be retrogressed at some point. There is a big backlog of pending !40's in EB1- NSC is running over a year behind.
albertpinto:
it's a whole of 365 days. people do it, i have seen it happen. what makes you think a big multinational has to send you to india? you could go to a european office, your family could stay behind, you could be sent to an english speaking country, kids could be young enough...there are a million ways to deal with this inconveneience when the rewards are clear. even now, people in consulting travel all the time, they are hardly home, so what's the huge difference in being across the pond (you get to travel back, your family gets to travel there)? sure, not for everyone, but when possible, this loophole is very much in use.
Paskal,
It is possible that EB1 C might become unavailable, because you might be looking at it more closer than I am. But I still find it hard to believe that an MNC will just create a phony Managerial position for every Joe Bloggs, an abuse similar to Labor substitution and satellite offices in states where labor processing was fast etc. Lets say an MNC really promoted some one to a position that qualifies for EB1, moves him out and moves him back, it is still by the book and can't be compared to labor sub, which were sold for money. Labor sub by itself is NO crime irrespective of what we think. The rampant abuse of it caused the demise. Same rule applies to some one who goes out and comes back as its all by the rules and no abuse is involved. In responding to the OP, My intention was to say that MNC's do not go to such an extent of creating a Managerial position that do not exist or have an employee do the same work in the name of managerial position. Some companies might have abused it in such way on few occasions, but thats definitely NOT a practice as rampant as Labor Sub's once was. If that were true and as easy as depicted, A lot of people & companies would have done it, by now. We don't need to teach the gamers. They are a step ahead in getting things done, if there is a way.
they have considerably raised the bar for EB1 A and EB1 b to discourage people applying, but I suspect that if you run a trend, EB1C is on the rise. I think you might be surprised about how often it does actually happen.
I half expect EB1 to be retrogressed at some point. There is a big backlog of pending !40's in EB1- NSC is running over a year behind.
albertpinto:
it's a whole of 365 days. people do it, i have seen it happen. what makes you think a big multinational has to send you to india? you could go to a european office, your family could stay behind, you could be sent to an english speaking country, kids could be young enough...there are a million ways to deal with this inconveneience when the rewards are clear. even now, people in consulting travel all the time, they are hardly home, so what's the huge difference in being across the pond (you get to travel back, your family gets to travel there)? sure, not for everyone, but when possible, this loophole is very much in use.
Paskal,
It is possible that EB1 C might become unavailable, because you might be looking at it more closer than I am. But I still find it hard to believe that an MNC will just create a phony Managerial position for every Joe Bloggs, an abuse similar to Labor substitution and satellite offices in states where labor processing was fast etc. Lets say an MNC really promoted some one to a position that qualifies for EB1, moves him out and moves him back, it is still by the book and can't be compared to labor sub, which were sold for money. Labor sub by itself is NO crime irrespective of what we think. The rampant abuse of it caused the demise. Same rule applies to some one who goes out and comes back as its all by the rules and no abuse is involved. In responding to the OP, My intention was to say that MNC's do not go to such an extent of creating a Managerial position that do not exist or have an employee do the same work in the name of managerial position. Some companies might have abused it in such way on few occasions, but thats definitely NOT a practice as rampant as Labor Sub's once was. If that were true and as easy as depicted, A lot of people & companies would have done it, by now. We don't need to teach the gamers. They are a step ahead in getting things done, if there is a way.