antony
03-25 10:48 AM
Thanks Administrator2. I will email my home number and you guys can call me after 5.30 PM EST.
My director called me again and told me that since I have already applied for my GC, they are ready to keep me as a contractor for 1 year so that I can have my GC and join them. I told her that my Labor certification wont complete by then and there are 2-3 more processes after that. They are really surprised to hear that GC for qualified ppl takes 5-8 years...
My director called me again and told me that since I have already applied for my GC, they are ready to keep me as a contractor for 1 year so that I can have my GC and join them. I told her that my Labor certification wont complete by then and there are 2-3 more processes after that. They are really surprised to hear that GC for qualified ppl takes 5-8 years...
wallpaper Japanese Girls in Bikini,
lecter
August 2nd, 2005, 11:43 PM
Mats is on the money for sure. A 350D or a D70s (or D50) with a kit lens will make your millenia.
I bought a 20D as a backup, knock about camera for Africa. It's a good wee beast. But not in your budget range. But it's the obvious next step.
We can hardly wait for the ** which is ##MP and ##fps.
hehe
Rob
I bought a 20D as a backup, knock about camera for Africa. It's a good wee beast. But not in your budget range. But it's the obvious next step.
We can hardly wait for the ** which is ##MP and ##fps.
hehe
Rob
KbK
04-09 11:50 PM
Hi friends
I am sure lot of applicants are hold up in labor certification at Backlog Processing Centers. The implication of this delay are; even if the current bill is passed and all the provisions in the current bill are implemented, still it will be of NO USE to the applicants who are awaiting labor certification.
The other option is to apply through PERM and try to get certification quickly. But the catch here is, if the PERM application is approved then the original labor application is cancelled and priority date would become 2006. For example, if someone's application is pending since year 2002 and now if that person applies through PERM and if it gets approved within three months then that person would loose the priority date of 2002 and will have a priority date of 2006. If the green card numbers are not current then it would be a big disadvantage.
On the other hand if someone had applied through PERM in 2004 and his/her labor is approved then, with this new proposed bill, there is a good chance that he/she might get green card immediately because priority dates would have moved up to 2004. The reason I think this is a possibility is because, the quota numbers are going to increase substantially and BPC is very slow in approving labor certification. Hence there is a good chance that priority dates would move up fast.
If this happens then people who had applied earlier and waited for such a long time, will be at very big disadvantage.
I propose that we should request for change in law to allow existing applicants to apply through PERM and keep the old priority dates even after the application is approved.
This will not only help all of us but also help the authorities; as it would reduce the work load on BPC.
Friends at the end, may I request you to please send your thoughts on this?
Thanks
I am sure lot of applicants are hold up in labor certification at Backlog Processing Centers. The implication of this delay are; even if the current bill is passed and all the provisions in the current bill are implemented, still it will be of NO USE to the applicants who are awaiting labor certification.
The other option is to apply through PERM and try to get certification quickly. But the catch here is, if the PERM application is approved then the original labor application is cancelled and priority date would become 2006. For example, if someone's application is pending since year 2002 and now if that person applies through PERM and if it gets approved within three months then that person would loose the priority date of 2002 and will have a priority date of 2006. If the green card numbers are not current then it would be a big disadvantage.
On the other hand if someone had applied through PERM in 2004 and his/her labor is approved then, with this new proposed bill, there is a good chance that he/she might get green card immediately because priority dates would have moved up to 2004. The reason I think this is a possibility is because, the quota numbers are going to increase substantially and BPC is very slow in approving labor certification. Hence there is a good chance that priority dates would move up fast.
If this happens then people who had applied earlier and waited for such a long time, will be at very big disadvantage.
I propose that we should request for change in law to allow existing applicants to apply through PERM and keep the old priority dates even after the application is approved.
This will not only help all of us but also help the authorities; as it would reduce the work load on BPC.
Friends at the end, may I request you to please send your thoughts on this?
Thanks
2011 Japanese Girls, Modesl Yummy
eager_immi
05-30 02:40 PM
I agree this crappy bill better not pass and is worse than retrogression. It is screwing everyone at the cost of giving amnesty to illegals. It is such a joke I would have never imagined that they would have the balls to do this, but I guess they are all politicians!!!
They'll probably start with what Senate passes. and make some minor amendments.
If it passes the house, conference will be piece of cake.
Our best hope is:
1. When senators return to the constituencies for the memorial day recess, they receive a LOT of negative feedback about CIR and enough number of senators change their minds and vote in -ve and bill fails to make out of the Senate. Likelihood: 10-20%.
2. House of reps votes on this CIR and defeats it. Likelihood: 40-60%.
I hope one way or another, this piece of crap fails and I happily get my GC in another 5-10 years. If it passes, I'll have to pack my bags. Amen.
They'll probably start with what Senate passes. and make some minor amendments.
If it passes the house, conference will be piece of cake.
Our best hope is:
1. When senators return to the constituencies for the memorial day recess, they receive a LOT of negative feedback about CIR and enough number of senators change their minds and vote in -ve and bill fails to make out of the Senate. Likelihood: 10-20%.
2. House of reps votes on this CIR and defeats it. Likelihood: 40-60%.
I hope one way or another, this piece of crap fails and I happily get my GC in another 5-10 years. If it passes, I'll have to pack my bags. Amen.
more...
aardee
08-20 02:50 PM
Hi ,
I got deported from Chicago when I was travelling back from India because I worked at a gas station with out authorization . I had to admit that I worked and I was deported back by flight same evening . They gave me the ticket .
My visa is cancelled and I was told to go back to consulate and get a new visa .
I want to come back and complete my studies as I have only 1 semester left . Please help what what should I do now .
thanks in advance.
RD
I got deported from Chicago when I was travelling back from India because I worked at a gas station with out authorization . I had to admit that I worked and I was deported back by flight same evening . They gave me the ticket .
My visa is cancelled and I was told to go back to consulate and get a new visa .
I want to come back and complete my studies as I have only 1 semester left . Please help what what should I do now .
thanks in advance.
RD
Gravitation
07-23 03:09 PM
I'm surprised that there's no poll on this.
more...
calgirl
05-25 07:50 PM
`(G) Aliens who have earned an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math and have been working in a related field in the United States under a nonimmigrant visa during the 3-year period preceding their application for an immigrant visa under section 203(b).
What does the above statement mean??
So, folks who have an advanced degree from the US are exempt from the cap? Or advanced degree plus 3 yrs of work exp is required?
Here is my reading of the amendment.
If you look at the original bill (S2611) Section 508 reads
SEC. 508. VISAS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH ADVANCED DEGREES.
(a) Aliens With Certain Advanced Degrees Not Subject to Numerical Limitations on Employment Based Immigrants-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 201(b)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(1)), as amended by section 505, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(G) Aliens who have earned an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math and have been working in a related field in the United States under a nonimmigrant visa during the 3-year period preceding their application for an immigrant visa under section 203(b).
`(H) Aliens described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 203(b)(1)(A) or who have received a national interest waiver under section 203(b)(2)(B).
`(I) The spouse and minor children of an alien who is admitted as an employment-based immigrant under section 203(b).'.
**************************************************
Bingaman Amendment 4181 and 4182 on the other hand state
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act the language in Title V Sec. 501 under the heading ``(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN'' is null and void and the following shall be applicable in lien thereof.
``(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN.--
``(A) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), immigrant visas issued on or after October 1, 2004, to spouses and children of employment-based immigrants shall not be counted against the numerical limitation set forth in paragraph (1).
``(B) NUMERICAL LIMITATION.--The total number of visas issued under paragraph (1)(A) and paragraph (2), excluding such visas issued to aliens pursuant to section 245B or section 245C of the Immigration and Nationality Act, may not exceed 650,000 during any fiscal year.
************************************************** ****
Reading S2611 Section 508 in conjunction with SA4811 and SA4812 specifically shows that STEM + 3 applicants as well as their spouses and children are not subject to any caps. On the other had the troubling part is that those not covered by STEM+3 will have 450,000 principal applicant slots and therefore only 200,000 spouse and children slots. This discrepancy arises from the fact that Bingaman multiplied 290,000 by 1.2 to arrive at his figure while S2611 allows for 450,000 principal applicants in the 1st 10 years to remove backlog.
SA 4188 is not currently available for reading and it will be interesting to see what change has been made to the language in 508(a)(1)(G) to allow all STEM +3 to be exempt. It would also be interesting to see whether language in Sec 508(b)(3)(III) has been changed to reflect the changes in 508(a)(1)(G)
Note that if both these sections are changed to allow all STEM+3 then labor certification too becomes easier. Hopefully changes here can provide some relief from Bingaman's torpedo.
I would appreciate comments as my analysis may be wrong.
What does the above statement mean??
So, folks who have an advanced degree from the US are exempt from the cap? Or advanced degree plus 3 yrs of work exp is required?
Here is my reading of the amendment.
If you look at the original bill (S2611) Section 508 reads
SEC. 508. VISAS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH ADVANCED DEGREES.
(a) Aliens With Certain Advanced Degrees Not Subject to Numerical Limitations on Employment Based Immigrants-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 201(b)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(1)), as amended by section 505, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(G) Aliens who have earned an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math and have been working in a related field in the United States under a nonimmigrant visa during the 3-year period preceding their application for an immigrant visa under section 203(b).
`(H) Aliens described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 203(b)(1)(A) or who have received a national interest waiver under section 203(b)(2)(B).
`(I) The spouse and minor children of an alien who is admitted as an employment-based immigrant under section 203(b).'.
**************************************************
Bingaman Amendment 4181 and 4182 on the other hand state
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act the language in Title V Sec. 501 under the heading ``(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN'' is null and void and the following shall be applicable in lien thereof.
``(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN.--
``(A) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), immigrant visas issued on or after October 1, 2004, to spouses and children of employment-based immigrants shall not be counted against the numerical limitation set forth in paragraph (1).
``(B) NUMERICAL LIMITATION.--The total number of visas issued under paragraph (1)(A) and paragraph (2), excluding such visas issued to aliens pursuant to section 245B or section 245C of the Immigration and Nationality Act, may not exceed 650,000 during any fiscal year.
************************************************** ****
Reading S2611 Section 508 in conjunction with SA4811 and SA4812 specifically shows that STEM + 3 applicants as well as their spouses and children are not subject to any caps. On the other had the troubling part is that those not covered by STEM+3 will have 450,000 principal applicant slots and therefore only 200,000 spouse and children slots. This discrepancy arises from the fact that Bingaman multiplied 290,000 by 1.2 to arrive at his figure while S2611 allows for 450,000 principal applicants in the 1st 10 years to remove backlog.
SA 4188 is not currently available for reading and it will be interesting to see what change has been made to the language in 508(a)(1)(G) to allow all STEM +3 to be exempt. It would also be interesting to see whether language in Sec 508(b)(3)(III) has been changed to reflect the changes in 508(a)(1)(G)
Note that if both these sections are changed to allow all STEM+3 then labor certification too becomes easier. Hopefully changes here can provide some relief from Bingaman's torpedo.
I would appreciate comments as my analysis may be wrong.
2010 City Cute Japan Girl PSP
glus
01-20 05:04 PM
Does that mean we are no more after the goal of I-485 provision (attached to appropriation bills in Feb) due to lack of contributions? There has been several posts even in other forums saying that IV has dropped this goal, and I tried quite a few times now to get some form of confirmation/denial from any of the core members, but without any luck yet. Also logiclife's announcement was removed from the home page!!
It does mean that me need more funds. IV has not announced it has dropped the I485 idea. Now a lot depends on us, the members.
G
It does mean that me need more funds. IV has not announced it has dropped the I485 idea. Now a lot depends on us, the members.
G
more...
amitga
03-21 10:38 AM
Please see my answers below.
I'm on H4. I have got an offer from a company and they will do my H1
I have few questions
1)How easy it is to transfer H1's to another company? What documents I need?
The process of trasfer is same as applying new H1. Only thing you need paystubs from the existing employer to trasfer H1.
2)Is it possible to convert back to h4? I have 2 kids so I might have to convert back to H4 from h1 if I cannot take the stress.
what documents do I need?Do I need to go out of US for this?
H1 to H4 trasfer is also possible, but again pay stubs are required.
3)Once back on H4, and in future If I want to get back on h1, Am I subject to cap?
Yes you will be subject to cap.
I'm on H4. I have got an offer from a company and they will do my H1
I have few questions
1)How easy it is to transfer H1's to another company? What documents I need?
The process of trasfer is same as applying new H1. Only thing you need paystubs from the existing employer to trasfer H1.
2)Is it possible to convert back to h4? I have 2 kids so I might have to convert back to H4 from h1 if I cannot take the stress.
what documents do I need?Do I need to go out of US for this?
H1 to H4 trasfer is also possible, but again pay stubs are required.
3)Once back on H4, and in future If I want to get back on h1, Am I subject to cap?
Yes you will be subject to cap.
hair japanese girl wallpaper.
SNLive999
06-16 06:05 PM
When I met IO at the Boston District USCIS, She typed in my 485 receipt # or A # on her system and looked at my file and said they already have my finger prints and she said why did you get FP notices again. She again looked at my file for few seconds and then she has written code 2 on our second(new) set of FP notices and asked us to give code 2 prints on scheduled date. ( Actually uscis requested code 3 on our new FP notices )
She also said If Boston USCIS Application Support Center(ASC) takes our code 2 FP's then it is fine, otherwise if they say they already have our code 3 prints and refuse to take them again, the IO asked me to take a infopass and contact them again, so that boston distric office can make a phone call to ASC and sort out the issue.
I did not apply for online EAD why do they need our code 2 finger prints. ??
She also said If Boston USCIS Application Support Center(ASC) takes our code 2 FP's then it is fine, otherwise if they say they already have our code 3 prints and refuse to take them again, the IO asked me to take a infopass and contact them again, so that boston distric office can make a phone call to ASC and sort out the issue.
I did not apply for online EAD why do they need our code 2 finger prints. ??
more...
overhere
07-18 08:28 AM
So it means I can apply in August as I am qualified to apply in July. How about my PD? Will it be August since I applied in August? For schedule A, the PD is the I-140 receipt date.
yes, i think so. your pd will definitely be august if you're going to file your 140 and 485 in august (before the 17th). don't forget to file ead (765) and ap (131) together with the 140 and 485.
yes, i think so. your pd will definitely be august if you're going to file your 140 and 485 in august (before the 17th). don't forget to file ead (765) and ap (131) together with the 140 and 485.
hot Japanese Baby Girl Wallpaper
aaaa4321
08-24 11:47 PM
Does anyone have an idea about this week receipt update as it is not out yet.
Please advice.
Please advice.
more...
house Sexy Japanese Girl
franklin
03-26 07:53 PM
Thanks Franklin, I got your PM. I am ready to get involved. Please PM me the documents.
Not sure if or how to PM docs - PM me your email if you like and I can forward them
Not sure if or how to PM docs - PM me your email if you like and I can forward them
tattoo City Cute Japan Girl
modvik
07-17 03:12 PM
Congratulations to you! Must be a big burden off your chest.
I have a question: how would I know whether my process is past the name check or not. I got FP done last december (2005). No updates on the USCIS website for me since then and the 800 number gives a canned message and you cannot get to talk to a real person there.
Am I hysteric or what?
Any ways here is the flash.
My case has been approved and got the so called Magic e-mails stating that the cards have been order
for me and the spouse.
Here is the "series of unfortunate events" :
1.
EB3/TSC
PD: Sometime in 1998
Stuck at labor for three years. Finally cleared in 2000 a month after I was let go.
2. Joined different company in 2001. Encore!!!. Filed GC again in 2001. This time I chose EB2
thought I would save some time.
3. Thanks to the political gimmics, stuck at labor again for three years finally cleared in 2004
4. Elated with the good news, applied i-140 & I-485 in 2004.
5. I-140 cleared without any hitches got EAD too. Expected i-485 to clear with in reasonable
amount of time.
6. Wait!!!, there it goes... the dreaded namecheck stopped it for another two years.
Following is the chronological order:
EB2/TSC
PD : October 17, 2001
LCl : January 7, 2004
RD I140/485 : May 28, 2004
EAD : July 26, 2004
FP Notice Date : February 1, 2005
FP Done : March 22, 2005
I140l : February 11, 2005
Namecheck initiated: June 2004
Namecheck cleared: June 2006.
I-485 cleared and cards ordered: July 2006.
Here is what I did to get out of namecheck:
1. e-mail to FBI on monthly basis
2. Snail mail to FBI, OMBUDSMAN on monthly basis
3. FAX to FBI on monthly basis
3. Involved congressman. Congressman's office contacted USCIS, but did not want to get involved with
FBI directly
4. Involved Senators. Senator's office contacted USCIS, but did not want to get involved with
FBI directly. One senator never even responded
5 got FOPIA.
6. Made the attorney to contact USCIS officially
7. Started the group "namechektracker" on yahoo groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/namechecktracker/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/namechecktracker/)
and almost filed WOM. Only thing left is to send the papers.
8. Tried some contacts with USCIS despite the "NO" from the attorney and the employer.
Just tried some personal mails to USCIS director FBI et all.
Not sure what really worked. Some one from DOJ took time to call me and informed that my
name check got cleared.
moral: Keep your eyes/ears open. DO NOT JUST BELIEVE the words of your attorney.
try the above steps and hope for the best.
Thanks to the forum members!!! I learnt lot from your experience.
I will still be around on this forum and will try to help as much as I can
I have a question: how would I know whether my process is past the name check or not. I got FP done last december (2005). No updates on the USCIS website for me since then and the 800 number gives a canned message and you cannot get to talk to a real person there.
Am I hysteric or what?
Any ways here is the flash.
My case has been approved and got the so called Magic e-mails stating that the cards have been order
for me and the spouse.
Here is the "series of unfortunate events" :
1.
EB3/TSC
PD: Sometime in 1998
Stuck at labor for three years. Finally cleared in 2000 a month after I was let go.
2. Joined different company in 2001. Encore!!!. Filed GC again in 2001. This time I chose EB2
thought I would save some time.
3. Thanks to the political gimmics, stuck at labor again for three years finally cleared in 2004
4. Elated with the good news, applied i-140 & I-485 in 2004.
5. I-140 cleared without any hitches got EAD too. Expected i-485 to clear with in reasonable
amount of time.
6. Wait!!!, there it goes... the dreaded namecheck stopped it for another two years.
Following is the chronological order:
EB2/TSC
PD : October 17, 2001
LCl : January 7, 2004
RD I140/485 : May 28, 2004
EAD : July 26, 2004
FP Notice Date : February 1, 2005
FP Done : March 22, 2005
I140l : February 11, 2005
Namecheck initiated: June 2004
Namecheck cleared: June 2006.
I-485 cleared and cards ordered: July 2006.
Here is what I did to get out of namecheck:
1. e-mail to FBI on monthly basis
2. Snail mail to FBI, OMBUDSMAN on monthly basis
3. FAX to FBI on monthly basis
3. Involved congressman. Congressman's office contacted USCIS, but did not want to get involved with
FBI directly
4. Involved Senators. Senator's office contacted USCIS, but did not want to get involved with
FBI directly. One senator never even responded
5 got FOPIA.
6. Made the attorney to contact USCIS officially
7. Started the group "namechektracker" on yahoo groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/namechecktracker/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/namechecktracker/)
and almost filed WOM. Only thing left is to send the papers.
8. Tried some contacts with USCIS despite the "NO" from the attorney and the employer.
Just tried some personal mails to USCIS director FBI et all.
Not sure what really worked. Some one from DOJ took time to call me and informed that my
name check got cleared.
moral: Keep your eyes/ears open. DO NOT JUST BELIEVE the words of your attorney.
try the above steps and hope for the best.
Thanks to the forum members!!! I learnt lot from your experience.
I will still be around on this forum and will try to help as much as I can
more...
pictures but Sweet girls, Japanese
txh1b
09-14 03:43 PM
Get back on H1b ASAP and do not wait for the Appeal decision. Have them file for a CP H1b approval if not EOS and get a visa and return back on H1b. Your EAD is invalid and you need $$$ to fight a case and remain in status.
Good Luck!
Good Luck!
dresses Japanese Girls - Sweet Sexy
flex
10-02 02:56 PM
There's a tile based pac man fla on my site - check it out.
more...
makeup japan girl 320x480 free
saileshdude
03-25 11:10 PM
On March 12 2009 I got an query on my I-485.
Requesting discrepancy in the labor applied on Nov'7 2002 and present working place.
My company(abc ltd) applied labor on Nov'07 2002 while I was working at the clients(xyz) place in Los Angeles.
I got my I-140 approved on Feb'15 2006, while I was with the same client(xyz) at that time.
On Dec'04 2006 I moved to Detroit, started working with different client.
RFE goes like this.
The Documentation submitted with your application and/or a review of service records indicate that you no longer reside in the same state or geographical location as the underlying form i-140 immigration petitioner and /or job location specified by your intended permanent employer.
There fore submit a currently dated letter from your original form I-140 employer which which address this discrepancy.
I am still working with the same employer who filed my labor certification.
Any gurus who can suggest me on the query would be greatly appreciated.
As per yates AC21 memo, job location should not be a problem. Also refer to murthy's FAQ on AC21. Your attorney should respond as per this memo.
Requesting discrepancy in the labor applied on Nov'7 2002 and present working place.
My company(abc ltd) applied labor on Nov'07 2002 while I was working at the clients(xyz) place in Los Angeles.
I got my I-140 approved on Feb'15 2006, while I was with the same client(xyz) at that time.
On Dec'04 2006 I moved to Detroit, started working with different client.
RFE goes like this.
The Documentation submitted with your application and/or a review of service records indicate that you no longer reside in the same state or geographical location as the underlying form i-140 immigration petitioner and /or job location specified by your intended permanent employer.
There fore submit a currently dated letter from your original form I-140 employer which which address this discrepancy.
I am still working with the same employer who filed my labor certification.
Any gurus who can suggest me on the query would be greatly appreciated.
As per yates AC21 memo, job location should not be a problem. Also refer to murthy's FAQ on AC21. Your attorney should respond as per this memo.
girlfriend Jap idol Japanese girl
drirshad
10-12 08:09 PM
This vaccination is for ladies only and in age group 11 to 26, that really means only 5% of Indians will be effected with the wait times we have been looking at.
hairstyles Japanese Gravure Girl - Emiko
solaris27
05-18 08:35 AM
I did it myself.
Don't waste money for any lawyers .
its very simple .
Don't waste money for any lawyers .
its very simple .
newhandle
03-06 11:48 PM
bump. How should I approach my AOS given my case above?
vishwak
02-11 01:18 PM
You need to verify what they are feeling and why they are filling in forms.
Should have knowledge of process and you should be fine with any Attorney.
Unless you go to THE CHEAPEST ATTORNEY who never has experience in handling tough scenarios.
Should have knowledge of process and you should be fine with any Attorney.
Unless you go to THE CHEAPEST ATTORNEY who never has experience in handling tough scenarios.
