varshadas
11-29 03:41 PM
My PD is Oct 2002 - EB3.
140 cleared.
I can be reached at varshadas@hotmail.com
We need to have a conference call between us and then go and meet whoever we have to.
We have to be very clear on what we have to talk about and must bring the issues to light in a way that will have a lasting effect on the listener.
140 cleared.
I can be reached at varshadas@hotmail.com
We need to have a conference call between us and then go and meet whoever we have to.
We have to be very clear on what we have to talk about and must bring the issues to light in a way that will have a lasting effect on the listener.
wallpaper Bodybuilding Poster
alex99
10-29 07:47 AM
^^^^^^^^^^
tjayant
11-20 07:08 PM
Here is my advice to folks trying to jump job just for $$$, even if the GC situation is bad , money should never be the only factor in moving for another job, plan long term , actually from what I know only startups have good opening but highly unstable so it is a catch 22 for most of the folks, I would suggest if you are in fortune 500 companies and the job is boring and salary is bad stick with it for 2 more years , if you cannot get the GC in the next 1-2 years I dont think you will ever get it, this is applicable for folks who applied GC during 2003/2004, 3+2=5years , for folks who has applied for GC after 2004 you can do what you want !!., here again look for favorable environment, Govt's change and policy change so make hay while the sun shine !!, so if the policy is favorable even if the job is bad but you can get the GC in 1-2 year i would stick with that company, because you will never know what will happen after 2 years , It looks to me like we might be in a cusp of policy change similar to 1999/2000, if you miss this boat you may have to wait for another 6-7 years. But again if my understanding is correct America is like a ocean and there is room for everyone , so no one need to be scared of GC etc, every one will get it in some form or other eventually , it is only a matter of time. As far myself iam still waiting for LC, but never really bothered about GC during my 9+ years stay , I just did what I wanted , but after 9 years I would like to move to a startup but controlling myself with the above logic !!!, But one good thing about waiting for GC is it made me a better person personally in learning ton's of stuff valuable for long run. so there is always pluses, everybody wants to be a Pirate (do what we wanted like jump job's at the fist obstacle/temptation $$$) but sometimes it is good to be controlled by external factors to get the best of ourselfs.
2011 odybuilding poster
paskal
07-03 03:51 PM
I did not read in detail this debate ..but I can say that many qualified and experienced people will not agree for the above ..esp if they have kids who go to school. for e.g. ..for me to do the above is not possible at all.
at the maximum, youngsters will do this once ..to get some American experience.
just imagine what the kid has to go through for such cases ..do schooling here for 4 years ..do schooling in India (find a school )..then the kid has to learn several languages, new system etc etc ..then comeback here and start school..almost impossible
and I think many sensible people will not do the above ..relocating to their own country or to go to a country (like canada) is much much better in these cases.
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.
at the maximum, youngsters will do this once ..to get some American experience.
just imagine what the kid has to go through for such cases ..do schooling here for 4 years ..do schooling in India (find a school )..then the kid has to learn several languages, new system etc etc ..then comeback here and start school..almost impossible
and I think many sensible people will not do the above ..relocating to their own country or to go to a country (like canada) is much much better in these cases.
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.
more...
webm
04-29 09:00 AM
I opened the mailbox at home this evening and to my complete surprise -- the physical card! Sudden burst of efficiency at USCIs, 6 days from approval to actual delivery of card.
Good luck to everyone else!
Enjoy the Green on hand!!
Good luck to everyone else!
Enjoy the Green on hand!!
Positive
11-11 08:25 AM
At the minimum legal action will force someone to look into what is going on here. I don't think that AILA is going to partner with us in this initiative.
more...
alex99
10-25 11:19 AM
Please participate in EB3 Poll
2010 Bodybuilder with Hands on Hips
waitingGC
01-16 06:21 PM
I just got the word from our treasurer that the IRS has approved Immigration Voice as a non-profit organization of 501 (C) (4) type.
Until now, it was pending approval. Now Immigration Voice is a non-profit for sure and this means that we do not pay taxes on the income. This also means that no volunteers can get paid compensations for the work done.
Immigration Voice will file the tax return as a non-profit and hopefully, that will remove doubts from some members/visitors that all the money is spent only on advocacy(lobbying) and website maintenance and no one is personally profiting from this effort.
This is a big relief for us and now its time to file taxes.
I actually don't think this is the main concern of many people who have not contributed. I have talked with many friends who got stuck with their GC applications regarding IV and urged them to contribute. However, not many of them were very passionate about this. They just simply believed that they could not achieve their GCs faster with IV's effort than without. $20 per month is not a big deal for them. But without any confidence and hope, they did not even want to bother to register and contribute. Most of my friends are EB2 with PD 2004 or later. Some who have filed 485s see no sign for SKIL being passed and are fine with their APs and EADs. Those who have not filed their 485 truly believe that they could file their 485s in about 2 years and got used to this waiting.
So I think maybe we can let people know what IV has achieved in the past one year(not just how many members or how much money IV has achieved..., but things really matter to people) and inspire them.
Until now, it was pending approval. Now Immigration Voice is a non-profit for sure and this means that we do not pay taxes on the income. This also means that no volunteers can get paid compensations for the work done.
Immigration Voice will file the tax return as a non-profit and hopefully, that will remove doubts from some members/visitors that all the money is spent only on advocacy(lobbying) and website maintenance and no one is personally profiting from this effort.
This is a big relief for us and now its time to file taxes.
I actually don't think this is the main concern of many people who have not contributed. I have talked with many friends who got stuck with their GC applications regarding IV and urged them to contribute. However, not many of them were very passionate about this. They just simply believed that they could not achieve their GCs faster with IV's effort than without. $20 per month is not a big deal for them. But without any confidence and hope, they did not even want to bother to register and contribute. Most of my friends are EB2 with PD 2004 or later. Some who have filed 485s see no sign for SKIL being passed and are fine with their APs and EADs. Those who have not filed their 485 truly believe that they could file their 485s in about 2 years and got used to this waiting.
So I think maybe we can let people know what IV has achieved in the past one year(not just how many members or how much money IV has achieved..., but things really matter to people) and inspire them.
more...
sat0207
04-27 09:23 AM
Immigration Security Checks
�How and Why the Process Works
Background All applicants for a U.S. immigration benefit are subject to criminal and national security background checks to ensure they are eligible for that benefit. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Federal agency that oversees immigration benefits, performs checks on every applicant, regardless of ethnicity, national origin or religion. Since 2002, USCIS has increased the number and scope of relevant background checks, processing millions of security checks without incident. However, in some cases, USCIS customers and immigrant advocates have expressed frustration over delays in processing applications, noting that individual customers have waited a year or longer for the completion of their adjudication pending the outcome of security checks. While the percentage of applicants who find their cases delayed by pending background checks is relatively small, USCIS recognizes that for those affected individuals, the additional delay and uncertainty can cause great anxiety. Although USCIS cannot guarantee the prompt resolution of every case, we can assure the public that applicants are not singled out based on race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. USCIS strives to balance the need for timely, fair and accurate service with the need to ensure a high level of integrity in the decision-making process. This fact sheet outlines the framework of the immigration security check process, explaining its necessity, as well as factors contributing to delays in resolving pending cases. Why USCIS Conducts Security Checks USCIS conducts security checks for all cases involving a petition or application for an immigration service or benefit. This is done both to enhance national security and ensure the integrity of the immigration process. USCIS is responsible for ensuring that our immigration system is not used as a vehicle to harm our nation or its citizens by screening out people who seek immigration benefits improperly or fraudulently. These security checks have yielded information about applicants involved in violent crimes, sex crimes, crimes against children, drug trafficking and individuals with known links to terrorism. These investigations require time, resources, and patience and USCIS recognizes that the process is slower for some customers than they would like. Because of that, USCIS is working closely with the FBI and other agencies to speed the background check process. However, USCIS will never grant an immigration service or benefit before the required security checks are completed regardless of how long those checks take.
To ensure that immigration benefits are given only to eligible applicants, USCIS adopted background security check procedures that address a wide range of possible risk factors. Different kinds of applications undergo different levels of scrutiny. USCIS normally uses the following three background check mechanisms but maintains the authority to conduct other background investigations as necessary:
� The Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS)
Name Check� IBIS is a multiagency effort with a central system that combines information from multiple agencies, databases and system interfaces to compile data relating to national security risks, public safety issues and other law enforcement concerns. USCIS can quickly check information from these multiple government agencies to determine if the information in the system affects the adjudication of the case. Results of an IBIS check are usually available immediately. In some cases, information found during an IBIS check will require further investigation. The IBIS check is not deemed completed until all eligibility issues arising from the initial system response are resolved.
� FBI Fingerprint Check�FBI fingerprint checks are conducted for many applications. The FBI fingerprint check provides information relating to criminal background within the United States. Generally, the FBI forwards responses to USCIS within 24-48 hours. If there is a record match, the FBI forwards an electronic copy of the criminal history (RAP sheet) to USCIS. At that point, a USCIS adjudicator reviews the information to determine what effect it may have on eligibility for the benefit. Although the vast majority of inquiries yield no record or match, about 10 percent do uncover criminal history (including immigration violations). In cases involving arrests or charges without disposition, USCIS requires the applicant to provide court certified evidence of the disposition. Customers with prior arrests should provide complete information and certified disposition records at the time of filing to avoid adjudication delays or denial resulting from misrepresentation about criminal history. Even expunged or vacated convictions must be reported for immigration purposes.
� FBI Name Checks�FBI name checks are also required for many applications. The FBI name check is totally different from the FBI fingerprint check. The records maintained in the FBI name check process consist of administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel and other files compiled by law enforcement. Initial responses to this check generally take about two weeks. In about 80 percent of the cases, no match is found. Of the remaining 20 percent, most are resolved within six months. Less than one percent of cases subject to an FBI name check remain pending longer than six months. Some of these cases involve complex, highly sensitive information and cannot be resolved quickly. Even after FBI has provided an initial response to USCIS concerning a match, the name check is not complete until full information is obtained and eligibility issues arising from it are resolved. For most applicants, the process outlined above allows USCIS to quickly determine if there are criminal or security related issues in the applicant�s background that affect eligibility for immigration benefits. Most cases proceed forward without incident. However, due to both the sheer volume of security checks USCIS conducts, and the need to ensure that each applicant is thoroughly screened, some delays on individual applications are inevitable. Background checks may still be considered pending when either the FBI or relevant agency has not provided the final response to the background check or when the FBI or agency has provided a response, but the response requires further investigation or review by the agency or USCIS. Resolving pending cases is time-consuming and labor-intensive; some cases legitimately take months or evenseveral years to resolve. Every USCIS District Office performs regular reviews of the pending caseload to determine when cases have cleared and are ready to be decided. USCIS does not share information about the records match or the nature or status of any investigation with applicants or their representatives.
�How and Why the Process Works
Background All applicants for a U.S. immigration benefit are subject to criminal and national security background checks to ensure they are eligible for that benefit. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Federal agency that oversees immigration benefits, performs checks on every applicant, regardless of ethnicity, national origin or religion. Since 2002, USCIS has increased the number and scope of relevant background checks, processing millions of security checks without incident. However, in some cases, USCIS customers and immigrant advocates have expressed frustration over delays in processing applications, noting that individual customers have waited a year or longer for the completion of their adjudication pending the outcome of security checks. While the percentage of applicants who find their cases delayed by pending background checks is relatively small, USCIS recognizes that for those affected individuals, the additional delay and uncertainty can cause great anxiety. Although USCIS cannot guarantee the prompt resolution of every case, we can assure the public that applicants are not singled out based on race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. USCIS strives to balance the need for timely, fair and accurate service with the need to ensure a high level of integrity in the decision-making process. This fact sheet outlines the framework of the immigration security check process, explaining its necessity, as well as factors contributing to delays in resolving pending cases. Why USCIS Conducts Security Checks USCIS conducts security checks for all cases involving a petition or application for an immigration service or benefit. This is done both to enhance national security and ensure the integrity of the immigration process. USCIS is responsible for ensuring that our immigration system is not used as a vehicle to harm our nation or its citizens by screening out people who seek immigration benefits improperly or fraudulently. These security checks have yielded information about applicants involved in violent crimes, sex crimes, crimes against children, drug trafficking and individuals with known links to terrorism. These investigations require time, resources, and patience and USCIS recognizes that the process is slower for some customers than they would like. Because of that, USCIS is working closely with the FBI and other agencies to speed the background check process. However, USCIS will never grant an immigration service or benefit before the required security checks are completed regardless of how long those checks take.
To ensure that immigration benefits are given only to eligible applicants, USCIS adopted background security check procedures that address a wide range of possible risk factors. Different kinds of applications undergo different levels of scrutiny. USCIS normally uses the following three background check mechanisms but maintains the authority to conduct other background investigations as necessary:
� The Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS)
Name Check� IBIS is a multiagency effort with a central system that combines information from multiple agencies, databases and system interfaces to compile data relating to national security risks, public safety issues and other law enforcement concerns. USCIS can quickly check information from these multiple government agencies to determine if the information in the system affects the adjudication of the case. Results of an IBIS check are usually available immediately. In some cases, information found during an IBIS check will require further investigation. The IBIS check is not deemed completed until all eligibility issues arising from the initial system response are resolved.
� FBI Fingerprint Check�FBI fingerprint checks are conducted for many applications. The FBI fingerprint check provides information relating to criminal background within the United States. Generally, the FBI forwards responses to USCIS within 24-48 hours. If there is a record match, the FBI forwards an electronic copy of the criminal history (RAP sheet) to USCIS. At that point, a USCIS adjudicator reviews the information to determine what effect it may have on eligibility for the benefit. Although the vast majority of inquiries yield no record or match, about 10 percent do uncover criminal history (including immigration violations). In cases involving arrests or charges without disposition, USCIS requires the applicant to provide court certified evidence of the disposition. Customers with prior arrests should provide complete information and certified disposition records at the time of filing to avoid adjudication delays or denial resulting from misrepresentation about criminal history. Even expunged or vacated convictions must be reported for immigration purposes.
� FBI Name Checks�FBI name checks are also required for many applications. The FBI name check is totally different from the FBI fingerprint check. The records maintained in the FBI name check process consist of administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel and other files compiled by law enforcement. Initial responses to this check generally take about two weeks. In about 80 percent of the cases, no match is found. Of the remaining 20 percent, most are resolved within six months. Less than one percent of cases subject to an FBI name check remain pending longer than six months. Some of these cases involve complex, highly sensitive information and cannot be resolved quickly. Even after FBI has provided an initial response to USCIS concerning a match, the name check is not complete until full information is obtained and eligibility issues arising from it are resolved. For most applicants, the process outlined above allows USCIS to quickly determine if there are criminal or security related issues in the applicant�s background that affect eligibility for immigration benefits. Most cases proceed forward without incident. However, due to both the sheer volume of security checks USCIS conducts, and the need to ensure that each applicant is thoroughly screened, some delays on individual applications are inevitable. Background checks may still be considered pending when either the FBI or relevant agency has not provided the final response to the background check or when the FBI or agency has provided a response, but the response requires further investigation or review by the agency or USCIS. Resolving pending cases is time-consuming and labor-intensive; some cases legitimately take months or evenseveral years to resolve. Every USCIS District Office performs regular reviews of the pending caseload to determine when cases have cleared and are ready to be decided. USCIS does not share information about the records match or the nature or status of any investigation with applicants or their representatives.
hair Bodybuilding Posters: Child
lazycis
12-20 08:53 PM
Phew! I didn't know that I was out of status for an year. As I dig deep, I came to know how much trouble I am in now. If hope and pray that I wouldn't receive any RFE at the time when IO review my application. I didn't had any problem till now.
Again, you were not of status. Do not worry, nobody will ask you for 6-7 years of paystubs :)
Again, you were not of status. Do not worry, nobody will ask you for 6-7 years of paystubs :)
more...
komaragiri
08-29 05:52 PM
This is totally wate of time. Please delete this thread.
Let's not discuss on who is best and who is worst. Focus on the future action items for IV. Discuss more about those items, so that we all can get out of this mess and live happily.
Let's not discuss on who is best and who is worst. Focus on the future action items for IV. Discuss more about those items, so that we all can get out of this mess and live happily.
hot Bodybuilding Poster 13quot; x 20quot;
immi_seeker
08-16 12:50 AM
September bulletin was out today..Wondering why there was no thread yet on IV..EB2 india shows visa number available with a cutoff date of APRIL 2004
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3761.html
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3761.html
more...
house odybuilder poster/
alisa
01-27 12:39 PM
Arghhh!!!! I didn't want to start this.
Lets hope things change to improve your situation in conjunction with improving my situation, and not at the expense of it.
Well Alisa,
Do you think its fair to discriminate someone based on their country of birth with all else being equal ?
Lets hope things change to improve your situation in conjunction with improving my situation, and not at the expense of it.
Well Alisa,
Do you think its fair to discriminate someone based on their country of birth with all else being equal ?
tattoo Bodybuilder in Sash Premium Poster
andy garcia
01-25 10:39 AM
And hoping that some more data, some more pointers, and some more information comes out of this thread, before it dies.
Data and estimates and links to websites needed for estimating when a PD would become current.
Can you re-estimate the new dates. Using this data
******* EB Pref*******EB3
FY**|*Total*|INDIA | *Total* |India
2000|107,024| 15888| 049,736| 05567
2001|179,195| 41720| 086,058| 16405
2002|174,968| 41919| 088,555| 17428
2003|082,137| 20818| 046,613| 10680
2004|155,330| 39496| 085,969| 19962
2005|246,877| 47160| 129,070| 23399
2006|?????????TBP in the near future ???????
THis are the number of visas issued for each fiscal year since FY 2000 for the EB preference.
They are under this link:DOS Visa Statistics (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html)
andy
Data and estimates and links to websites needed for estimating when a PD would become current.
Can you re-estimate the new dates. Using this data
******* EB Pref*******EB3
FY**|*Total*|INDIA | *Total* |India
2000|107,024| 15888| 049,736| 05567
2001|179,195| 41720| 086,058| 16405
2002|174,968| 41919| 088,555| 17428
2003|082,137| 20818| 046,613| 10680
2004|155,330| 39496| 085,969| 19962
2005|246,877| 47160| 129,070| 23399
2006|?????????TBP in the near future ???????
THis are the number of visas issued for each fiscal year since FY 2000 for the EB preference.
They are under this link:DOS Visa Statistics (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html)
andy
more...
pictures Favourite Bodybuilding Posters
nixstor
07-04 09:44 PM
Please stop posting this on every thread. In one line you are just spamming. We all visit Attorney Oh's website often. He does not need any publicity
immigration-law.com
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
immigration-law.com
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
dresses by: odybuilding posters,
H1Girl
03-09 12:38 PM
...
Wonder why India EB3 is lagging so far behind and virtually crawling at a snail's pace.
I wouldn't wonder...It's all supply and demand. We have to understand that...
Wonder why India EB3 is lagging so far behind and virtually crawling at a snail's pace.
I wouldn't wonder...It's all supply and demand. We have to understand that...
more...
makeup 34 Of The Best Bodybuilding
Abhinaym
07-03 12:01 PM
I admit, it seems discriminatory to say you can't get your GC now because you're from this country or that country but these "high volume" countries have created the current back log through their sheer numbers and sometimes multiple applications, not the system. The system is fair to ALL and for some group to say that it isn't fair because all of that group isn't getting what they want is unjust to the rest of us. I knew I would be pounced upon when I submitted my original post and it only proves my point of personal agendas; sometimes I wonder what the "I" in "IV" really stands for? Don't be so arrogant as to believe that your higher education should give you more rights than others - that doesn't fly with me! I am frustrated with this forum because of this arrogance and I may not visit too much longer!
I do have one question for all of you who are in favor of eliminating the per country limit; do you support an eventual road to citizenship for the large group of people who dominate the "other side" of immigration? If you don't, some may think you hipocritical to want the rules changed for yourselves!
Ridiculous, nobody ever mentioned education here. Did any one here mention higher education at all?
You want to get ahead of me in the line just because where I was born even if we're equally qualified, and you're calling me arrogant???
Yes, our countries are 'high volume', how does it matter? Who are you blaming for what? Now what, you want to be commended and applauded for your countries' low population? :D LOL!
Why is it so unjust to wait your turn?
BS! IV has done so much for all immigrants and not just Indians. You should get your facts straight here. Besides this is a thread created for this purpose, there are plenty of threads which help you, if you ignore all of those and make your opinions on this you're being obnoxious. Also, the number of people in support of this petition is a tiny proportion of IV'ers. So stop stereotyping man, it is showing.
You say that we applicants are to blame for our countries' populations? I.e. we're responsible for circumstances that happened before our birth? Could you get any more ridiculous please?
I hope you begin to understand who is sounding arrogant here.
I do have one question for all of you who are in favor of eliminating the per country limit; do you support an eventual road to citizenship for the large group of people who dominate the "other side" of immigration? If you don't, some may think you hipocritical to want the rules changed for yourselves!
Ridiculous, nobody ever mentioned education here. Did any one here mention higher education at all?
You want to get ahead of me in the line just because where I was born even if we're equally qualified, and you're calling me arrogant???
Yes, our countries are 'high volume', how does it matter? Who are you blaming for what? Now what, you want to be commended and applauded for your countries' low population? :D LOL!
Why is it so unjust to wait your turn?
BS! IV has done so much for all immigrants and not just Indians. You should get your facts straight here. Besides this is a thread created for this purpose, there are plenty of threads which help you, if you ignore all of those and make your opinions on this you're being obnoxious. Also, the number of people in support of this petition is a tiny proportion of IV'ers. So stop stereotyping man, it is showing.
You say that we applicants are to blame for our countries' populations? I.e. we're responsible for circumstances that happened before our birth? Could you get any more ridiculous please?
I hope you begin to understand who is sounding arrogant here.
girlfriend Bodybuilder in Wrestling
gc_in_30_yrs
07-17 10:48 AM
Sanjay,
I did not find Point Number 2 in their website that you mentioned here. Can you post link to it? It may be that they removed it now, or you might understood something differently.
thanks.
gc_in_30_yrs.
Following up on the NYTimes article about the NumbersUSA group, I visited their website and saw that they have a free FAX program where they can easily send faxes to their senators.
One of their fax letters is below, which is a complete mis-representation of truth - look at point #2.
================================
Dear [This fax will go to Your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative ]
I oppose any increase in the annual H-1B visa cap, including those in the SKIL Act. I am counting on you to oppose it.
Here are just a few reasons why I hope you will oppose the SKIL Act:
(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies.
(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers.
(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.
(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.
The result of the SKIL Act would be to further depress the wages of Americans working in high-tech and scientific fields and to cause additional job displacement for those workers.
Sincerely, [Your Name Will Appear Here]
==============================================
Is there any way we could let the senators know that this is complete lie, misinformation and mis-representation of facts?. We should also let the senators know that the credibility of these organizations are questionable and following the news/faxes from these organizations would in turn put the credibility of these senators at a BIG RISK. We also should let the senators know that these groups are artificially "hiking" up the count by sending in duplicate faxes.
Also, I recommend creating a similar page in IV website, where we can have an automated 1-2-3 STEP fax facility where we can automatically fax a letter to senators. It should be as simple as selecting the state and pressing the Send Fax button. Please let me know if you need any programming help from me.
Thanks,
Sanjay.
I did not find Point Number 2 in their website that you mentioned here. Can you post link to it? It may be that they removed it now, or you might understood something differently.
thanks.
gc_in_30_yrs.
Following up on the NYTimes article about the NumbersUSA group, I visited their website and saw that they have a free FAX program where they can easily send faxes to their senators.
One of their fax letters is below, which is a complete mis-representation of truth - look at point #2.
================================
Dear [This fax will go to Your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative ]
I oppose any increase in the annual H-1B visa cap, including those in the SKIL Act. I am counting on you to oppose it.
Here are just a few reasons why I hope you will oppose the SKIL Act:
(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies.
(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers.
(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.
(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.
The result of the SKIL Act would be to further depress the wages of Americans working in high-tech and scientific fields and to cause additional job displacement for those workers.
Sincerely, [Your Name Will Appear Here]
==============================================
Is there any way we could let the senators know that this is complete lie, misinformation and mis-representation of facts?. We should also let the senators know that the credibility of these organizations are questionable and following the news/faxes from these organizations would in turn put the credibility of these senators at a BIG RISK. We also should let the senators know that these groups are artificially "hiking" up the count by sending in duplicate faxes.
Also, I recommend creating a similar page in IV website, where we can have an automated 1-2-3 STEP fax facility where we can automatically fax a letter to senators. It should be as simple as selecting the state and pressing the Send Fax button. Please let me know if you need any programming help from me.
Thanks,
Sanjay.
hairstyles Bodybuilding Poster
singhsa3
03-04 11:21 AM
I am expectin WSJ to pay a visit. So I changed the first message.
prioritydate
12-20 08:52 PM
No worries for you, if you were inadmissible they would not let you back into the country.
I think so. I went in an out of country 4 times. 2 Indian trips and 2 Canadian trips.
I think so. I went in an out of country 4 times. 2 Indian trips and 2 Canadian trips.
neelu
12-11 05:09 PM
USCIS cannot do anything on the matter. INA is clear on the AOS conditions, one of which is "An immigrant visa is IMMEDIATELY available at time of filing for adjustment of status" (INA 245, 8 USC 1225)
INA should be changed which should be done through a legislative process, not through any rule making.
As I understand the above, the law only says when you can file for AOS (to change which a legislative process is required).
The above still does not throw any more light on the technicality which disallows concurrent filing. Does it?
Was concurrent processing facility removed through a congressional action (legislation)? If not, why is it required to reinstate it?
Is this a valid argument? If it is, then this particular request should be directed towards a body such as USCIS, etc and not the congress.
Any comments?
INA should be changed which should be done through a legislative process, not through any rule making.
As I understand the above, the law only says when you can file for AOS (to change which a legislative process is required).
The above still does not throw any more light on the technicality which disallows concurrent filing. Does it?
Was concurrent processing facility removed through a congressional action (legislation)? If not, why is it required to reinstate it?
Is this a valid argument? If it is, then this particular request should be directed towards a body such as USCIS, etc and not the congress.
Any comments?