Sunx_2004
03-12 10:21 AM
I do not believe that one person (Pappu) should be held responsible for whatever going on You should not blame Pappu alone.
However, I agree that donor forum proved to be disastrous and driving people away from IV. Someone in core team should do analysis on how much it helped the IV cause and whether it should exist going forward. Lack of transparency is clearly hurting IV cause.
IV needs to OPEN ITS BOOKS
And show DONORS where their money is going? Where is the sponsors money going? and what is this ORGANIZATION planning to do. IF not, one these days they will find themselves in a audit and public scrutiny.
Any yes people who says open your eyes? Have you got your GC? EAD is only a means and not the destination
PAPU, you need to explain to all IV members and disclose the books and what you are doing as IV head, and dont give me the bull, of we are working, you want our support, we want clarity and real action.
However, I agree that donor forum proved to be disastrous and driving people away from IV. Someone in core team should do analysis on how much it helped the IV cause and whether it should exist going forward. Lack of transparency is clearly hurting IV cause.
IV needs to OPEN ITS BOOKS
And show DONORS where their money is going? Where is the sponsors money going? and what is this ORGANIZATION planning to do. IF not, one these days they will find themselves in a audit and public scrutiny.
Any yes people who says open your eyes? Have you got your GC? EAD is only a means and not the destination
PAPU, you need to explain to all IV members and disclose the books and what you are doing as IV head, and dont give me the bull, of we are working, you want our support, we want clarity and real action.
wallpaper graphic banners vector
waitnwatch
07-13 11:30 AM
Reading through this thread I find this intense debate about the value and intentions of Murthy's letter.
Let's first deal with the value part: This letter could be from any one of us or anybody else from Timbuktu. Why does this letter have any special significance except that the DHS secretary may read it because Murthy and the secretary are alumni of the same institution (see how carefully this part is added to the letter for our consumption). Now this feeds into the intention part. Even if Murthy wrote a letter to the DHS Secretary why did she have to publicize it on her website (except for the gullible among us to take notice). Generally publicized letters have value if they are from some influential policy maker or lawmaker. In this case Murthy is neither and so her letter does not add or subtract any value to this debate. So we are left with the question of who gains by publicizing this letter. Your guess is as good as mine.
Ultimately I am left wondering why this thread was started in the first place except to garner cheap publicity. Do we really have so much time on our hands?
Let's first deal with the value part: This letter could be from any one of us or anybody else from Timbuktu. Why does this letter have any special significance except that the DHS secretary may read it because Murthy and the secretary are alumni of the same institution (see how carefully this part is added to the letter for our consumption). Now this feeds into the intention part. Even if Murthy wrote a letter to the DHS Secretary why did she have to publicize it on her website (except for the gullible among us to take notice). Generally publicized letters have value if they are from some influential policy maker or lawmaker. In this case Murthy is neither and so her letter does not add or subtract any value to this debate. So we are left with the question of who gains by publicizing this letter. Your guess is as good as mine.
Ultimately I am left wondering why this thread was started in the first place except to garner cheap publicity. Do we really have so much time on our hands?
sodh
07-23 04:15 PM
I don't know. Whole thing is confused. My lawyer is so confident and we applied with out, lets see...
Employment verification letter is the proof that you are still employed with the employer who filed your GC, Employment offer letter is that the same employer from whom you got your gc approved and your I-140 approved has an employment offer after the USCIS approves your GC. Hope this helps.
Employment verification letter is the proof that you are still employed with the employer who filed your GC, Employment offer letter is that the same employer from whom you got your gc approved and your I-140 approved has an employment offer after the USCIS approves your GC. Hope this helps.
2011 Vector Fire Banner
abhijitp
07-24 05:20 PM
I have RN since i filed in June.
I deleted my original post since you answered:-) thanks!
This brings up an interesting possibility for me. My first I-140 has been approved over email (awaiting physical receipt), although the Successor in Interest I-140 is pending.
Does the I-140 receipt always contain the A#? I will have to wait to see the physical receipt notice!
I deleted my original post since you answered:-) thanks!
This brings up an interesting possibility for me. My first I-140 has been approved over email (awaiting physical receipt), although the Successor in Interest I-140 is pending.
Does the I-140 receipt always contain the A#? I will have to wait to see the physical receipt notice!
more...
ak77
09-10 02:06 PM
I found another link. Not sure if its the right one ?
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN_wm.aspx
Yes this one is working for me...but iam also not sure its the right one or not.
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN_wm.aspx
Yes this one is working for me...but iam also not sure its the right one or not.
EndlessWait
02-12 04:02 PM
Its like what NAZIS did to Jews.. Cmon this is America, lets post this to President Obama's website
more...
permfiling
11-08 06:14 PM
Congrats ! How long did it take for CPO email since u recieved the 485 , I-797 and which service center
Guys,
Today I spent around $300 to start medical exam report. I've to still to do lab work and may need x-ray. I was working with my swollen arm and got this message..
Your Case Status: Card/ Document Production On September 22, 2010 we mailed the document to the address we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.
-----
Now I have to wait.. I will skip tomorrow's lab :rolleyes: and talk to my attorney. Confused yet happy
Guys,
Today I spent around $300 to start medical exam report. I've to still to do lab work and may need x-ray. I was working with my swollen arm and got this message..
Your Case Status: Card/ Document Production On September 22, 2010 we mailed the document to the address we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.
-----
Now I have to wait.. I will skip tomorrow's lab :rolleyes: and talk to my attorney. Confused yet happy
2010 Tech Banner Free Vector Design
gc_on_demand
03-11 09:25 AM
If we put the word H1B in the Visa Re-capturing bill, the bill would be doomed. As few have rightly pointed out, it would be taken out of context probably advertised and interpreted as increasing H1B visas.
If we put the words, eliminating per country limits, it would doomed. The CNN headlines would scream "Indians and Chinese are coming".
If we put any changes to the current requirements of I-485 filing, it would be interpreted as diluting the existing laws to import more cheap foreign workers faster. The anti-immigration forces would be all over it like a monkey on a cupcake.
If we keep it simple : Re-capturing unused visa numbers for Employment Based Categories for Foreign Born Professionals already employed in the US legally and in the queue for Permanent Residency, we have a high chance of success.
IV team please start the fund raising for re-capturing visa numbers. Thanks.
Some anti immigrants are ready to kill our bill. If we introduce at time nothing is going to happen . Even it may kill CIR and that is what Anti wants.. This guy is encouraging people to push for recapture which will die soon. Why he didnot update profile. Even if he is good member he should pledge 25 $.
If we put the words, eliminating per country limits, it would doomed. The CNN headlines would scream "Indians and Chinese are coming".
If we put any changes to the current requirements of I-485 filing, it would be interpreted as diluting the existing laws to import more cheap foreign workers faster. The anti-immigration forces would be all over it like a monkey on a cupcake.
If we keep it simple : Re-capturing unused visa numbers for Employment Based Categories for Foreign Born Professionals already employed in the US legally and in the queue for Permanent Residency, we have a high chance of success.
IV team please start the fund raising for re-capturing visa numbers. Thanks.
Some anti immigrants are ready to kill our bill. If we introduce at time nothing is going to happen . Even it may kill CIR and that is what Anti wants.. This guy is encouraging people to push for recapture which will die soon. Why he didnot update profile. Even if he is good member he should pledge 25 $.
more...
hibworker
05-23 05:52 PM
You hear about the 1 crore offers that IIM students get from top American companies? Well, they are kicked out of the job in 1 year and then join Infosys or Wipro. Not because they are not brilliant but because their conversational skills are terrible and so is their language.
Really - and what anecdotal / statistical evidence do you have to make such claims?
I agree that typical MBA jobs require more human interaction than an IT/engineering job and hence it is important to understand the host culture in which you operate - but making claims that IIM grads get kicked out after a year are BS.
Really - and what anecdotal / statistical evidence do you have to make such claims?
I agree that typical MBA jobs require more human interaction than an IT/engineering job and hence it is important to understand the host culture in which you operate - but making claims that IIM grads get kicked out after a year are BS.
hair winter anners in vector .
natrajs
07-06 05:33 PM
Got approval emails yesterday.
PD Feb 2004
EB2 India
LC Approved 8/10/06
140 Approved 2/12/07
485 Filed on 6/27/07 NSC
Congrats and Best Wishes
PD Feb 2004
EB2 India
LC Approved 8/10/06
140 Approved 2/12/07
485 Filed on 6/27/07 NSC
Congrats and Best Wishes
more...
rajmehrotra
09-11 10:56 AM
http://www.asianjournal.com/?c=201&a=29863
"In a move to fix America�s broken immigration system, the House Subcommittee on Immigration approved H.R. 5882, a bipartisan legislation introduced by Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and James Sensenbrenner (R-WI)."
"In a move to fix America�s broken immigration system, the House Subcommittee on Immigration approved H.R. 5882, a bipartisan legislation introduced by Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and James Sensenbrenner (R-WI)."
hot 8- Free Web Banner Vector Art
ramus
07-03 03:07 PM
bump.
more...
house Free Banner design vector
return_to_india
10-10 05:42 PM
It is unreasonable to carry a passport at all times when you are living here. What happens if you leave it behind in the grocery store by mistake or leave it in the cab or something? I think the issue reported by the OP is more relevant close to the border. Nobody asks for your passport in Vegas or Denver.
I would advise US govt. to build a system where officers can verify legality by checking the biometrics ( some handheld devices that connect to a DB ) , which should free up one to carry documents while on domestic travel. If biometrics cannot be found then proceed to grill on docs.
I would advise US govt. to build a system where officers can verify legality by checking the biometrics ( some handheld devices that connect to a DB ) , which should free up one to carry documents while on domestic travel. If biometrics cannot be found then proceed to grill on docs.
tattoo Heart Banner Vector Graphics
Ramba
07-04 07:25 PM
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. Former INS or current USCIS�s functions and operations were not questionable and not known to public till ombudsman office was established. Ombudsman has helped customers and keep helping to improve efficiency of CIS. Ombudsman main concern (or goal) have been over the 4 years are
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The �documentarily qualified 485 applications� mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made �current� for all EB categories. This is how they determine �current� or �over-subscribed� and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered �Current.�
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be �oversubscribed� and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories �current� for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories �current� ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of �current� there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making �current� for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as �current� in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The �documentarily qualified 485 applications� mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made �current� for all EB categories. This is how they determine �current� or �over-subscribed� and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered �Current.�
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be �oversubscribed� and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories �current� for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories �current� ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of �current� there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making �current� for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as �current� in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
more...
pictures scroll anner vector
diptam
06-30 07:24 PM
So that it boosts up peoples who are similarly disappointed as i was last evening from 6 thru 9 PM ...
July bulletin is still C and no one can stop us from Mailing/ Posting !!
Good Job Diptam !!,
Rumuors are rumors most of the times.Whatver be the situation u drove positively and finally made it to reach on time whatever the sitution would b on monday!
Though these announcements,rumours tensed u up,u really did a great job in finishing and submitting it !Thats the spirit!
-vaishu
July bulletin is still C and no one can stop us from Mailing/ Posting !!
Good Job Diptam !!,
Rumuors are rumors most of the times.Whatver be the situation u drove positively and finally made it to reach on time whatever the sitution would b on monday!
Though these announcements,rumours tensed u up,u really did a great job in finishing and submitting it !Thats the spirit!
-vaishu
dresses View similar vector graphics
shivaz90
07-13 01:01 PM
Please come out of the caves - people.
I did not want to be hard on people who have a different opinion - its the level of frustration when educated professionals like you and me are still debating about someone's intentions - when ultimately each of these help in our goal.
Take our freedom struggle for example - Netaji fought the Brits in his won way, Gandhi fought the english in his own way , so did hundreds of other fighters - did we cast doubt on thier intentions ( actually yes - some people do cast doubt on each of the freedom fighters intentions!). It actually helped that the Brits faced enormous pressure from different sides and had to leave the country. May be its an extreme example - but in the case of Murthy's message - why are we to think that her intentions are really cheap publicity and even if it is - what is it going to buy her? Bharath Ratna or some more additional clients? I am sure she's not going to get the former - but the latter, she's well within her rights to publicize if it meant to get her few more clients.
I did not want to be hard on people who have a different opinion - its the level of frustration when educated professionals like you and me are still debating about someone's intentions - when ultimately each of these help in our goal.
Take our freedom struggle for example - Netaji fought the Brits in his won way, Gandhi fought the english in his own way , so did hundreds of other fighters - did we cast doubt on thier intentions ( actually yes - some people do cast doubt on each of the freedom fighters intentions!). It actually helped that the Brits faced enormous pressure from different sides and had to leave the country. May be its an extreme example - but in the case of Murthy's message - why are we to think that her intentions are really cheap publicity and even if it is - what is it going to buy her? Bharath Ratna or some more additional clients? I am sure she's not going to get the former - but the latter, she's well within her rights to publicize if it meant to get her few more clients.
more...
makeup Swirly anner vector vector
rajuseattle
07-14 05:31 PM
ajthakur,
You should have wait for at least 6 months before switching jobs.
You can talk to the attorney who can give you some advice on AC-21.
Per Ac-21 provisions you r very safe if you switch jobs after 180 days, even without letting USCIS know about it. Yours is a different situation as you switched job just 1 month after filing I-485, and it could be difficult for any attorney to make AC-21 arguments in your favour.
Your best bet if USCIS let you do the AC-21 switching and use the employment letter from the new EMployer who is sponsoring your H1B visa, if u dont respond to this RFE they may very well deny your I-485, remember the I-485 is dependent for at least 180 days on the underlying I-140 petition filed by the GC sponsoring employer, after 180 days you are free to take new job position in the similar field with same salary mentioned in your approved LC or salary greater than the one on aprroved LC.
Please cosult with a competent immigration attorney and try to make argument using the AC-21...thats your last hope to save your PD.
USCIS will know about your job switching as they have all the information when you transfer your H1B visa and received 3 yr extention. Be truthful here and state that you intent to be employed with the original sponsor, but due to circumstances you were forced to switch the job and your new employer is willing to sponsor your employment and you are in legal status while I-485 is pending since July 2007.
Hope this helps...I am not an attorney, but thought my few cents might help you.
You should have wait for at least 6 months before switching jobs.
You can talk to the attorney who can give you some advice on AC-21.
Per Ac-21 provisions you r very safe if you switch jobs after 180 days, even without letting USCIS know about it. Yours is a different situation as you switched job just 1 month after filing I-485, and it could be difficult for any attorney to make AC-21 arguments in your favour.
Your best bet if USCIS let you do the AC-21 switching and use the employment letter from the new EMployer who is sponsoring your H1B visa, if u dont respond to this RFE they may very well deny your I-485, remember the I-485 is dependent for at least 180 days on the underlying I-140 petition filed by the GC sponsoring employer, after 180 days you are free to take new job position in the similar field with same salary mentioned in your approved LC or salary greater than the one on aprroved LC.
Please cosult with a competent immigration attorney and try to make argument using the AC-21...thats your last hope to save your PD.
USCIS will know about your job switching as they have all the information when you transfer your H1B visa and received 3 yr extention. Be truthful here and state that you intent to be employed with the original sponsor, but due to circumstances you were forced to switch the job and your new employer is willing to sponsor your employment and you are in legal status while I-485 is pending since July 2007.
Hope this helps...I am not an attorney, but thought my few cents might help you.
girlfriend Download anner Vector
abhijitp
08-03 02:25 PM
According to the person I spoke to:
1. I will be issued an RFE if my AOS packet did not contain the EVL
2. Once the A# is issued, that means the application has been accepted, so no outright rejection can happen, however RFEs can be issued at a later date.
1. I will be issued an RFE if my AOS packet did not contain the EVL
2. Once the A# is issued, that means the application has been accepted, so no outright rejection can happen, however RFEs can be issued at a later date.
hairstyles vector banner. Author: gweb
yabadaba
02-21 03:46 PM
pitha...while i bear the frustration of the doors slamming on my face in october 2005 (eb2 was current prior to that) for the sheer fact that i had an incompetent attorney during the initial days when my LC process started.....i would not go far as saying that the porters have "cheated" the system.
The law via Chintakuntla provided that a person with a bachelors degree and 5 years experience is equal to an advanced degree holder.
All the porters are doing is following the law. Its frustrating to people like you and me, but its their right. If i was in their position and the law allowed me to take advantage of a provision of this nature, I would gladly take it.
The law via Chintakuntla provided that a person with a bachelors degree and 5 years experience is equal to an advanced degree holder.
All the porters are doing is following the law. Its frustrating to people like you and me, but its their right. If i was in their position and the law allowed me to take advantage of a provision of this nature, I would gladly take it.
gk_2000
08-10 03:32 PM
I think it will be a lot easier to focus out energies to port ourselves to EB2/EB1.
Most of us would have bachelors + 5 years. So EB2 shouldn't be any problem as long as you are willing to change jobs and the employer is willing to file for GC.
Personally, the next time I'm in a position to drive a hard bergain for a job negotiation (still difficult in the current economic environment) - I will try to shoot for a 1 year foreign assignment -> EB1 route. I still curse myself for letting go of one such opportunity in 2006 becuase I did not want to go to London.
So if anybody knows companies that have started filing for GCs again after the freeze of last year - please let us know.
I think that discussion will be far more productive than any wishful reinterpretation of the law.
Could you elaborate on how this is a "wishful" reinterpretation of the law?
Most of us would have bachelors + 5 years. So EB2 shouldn't be any problem as long as you are willing to change jobs and the employer is willing to file for GC.
Personally, the next time I'm in a position to drive a hard bergain for a job negotiation (still difficult in the current economic environment) - I will try to shoot for a 1 year foreign assignment -> EB1 route. I still curse myself for letting go of one such opportunity in 2006 becuase I did not want to go to London.
So if anybody knows companies that have started filing for GCs again after the freeze of last year - please let us know.
I think that discussion will be far more productive than any wishful reinterpretation of the law.
Could you elaborate on how this is a "wishful" reinterpretation of the law?
conchshell
07-28 11:00 AM
Instead of discussing this matter on IV forum ... please report it to Vishwa Hindu Parishad ( www.vhp.org ) They are actively searching for such issues.
0 comments:
Post a Comment