nojoke
10-20 01:36 AM
nojoke dont get emotional. we have no bone to pick with either obama or mcccain. We are talking about who is better for eb immigrants, so either you talk about what obama can offer or has offered to eb immigrants, unfortunately you cannot because obama is anti eb immigrants, so you are spewing the democratic talking points here and changing the topic. This is not a political site please dont bring politics here and concentrate on eb policies of the candidates.
Do you all ever wonder why 1996 to 2000 was great and the economy never went to quite the 2000 levels? It is because of useless wars and getting the job shipped to other countries. That is the republican agenda. If you think you will have a better chance of green card under Republican rule, you are sadly mistaken. The economy will continue to go down, while there will be another Iran war to turn the attention from problems with economy. We need someone who can think clear and be steady. It doesn't matter if the republicans have pro immigration stance or not. The economy is going to dictate if companies are going to keep us employed here. You need to see the bigger picture.
Moreover it is during the democratic president that immigration got relaxed. At one point the H1 quota was raised to 200 thousand. It takes 8 or more years to get green card under republican rule. It wasn't the case during clinton years. Before you say that it is the house/senate that decides immigration policies, republican had control from 2000 to 2006. What has been done that has our chances improved?
If the topic posted is political, then the discussion is bound to get political.
Do you all ever wonder why 1996 to 2000 was great and the economy never went to quite the 2000 levels? It is because of useless wars and getting the job shipped to other countries. That is the republican agenda. If you think you will have a better chance of green card under Republican rule, you are sadly mistaken. The economy will continue to go down, while there will be another Iran war to turn the attention from problems with economy. We need someone who can think clear and be steady. It doesn't matter if the republicans have pro immigration stance or not. The economy is going to dictate if companies are going to keep us employed here. You need to see the bigger picture.
Moreover it is during the democratic president that immigration got relaxed. At one point the H1 quota was raised to 200 thousand. It takes 8 or more years to get green card under republican rule. It wasn't the case during clinton years. Before you say that it is the house/senate that decides immigration policies, republican had control from 2000 to 2006. What has been done that has our chances improved?
If the topic posted is political, then the discussion is bound to get political.
wallpaper Beautiful 10.
needhelp!
09-26 11:04 AM
This should be made an URGENT action item!! I hope everyone on IV mails the editors about this glaring error. How COULD they get it wrong?? Did they not visit the IV website before writing this article? Did they not read the press release?? This looks intentional to me.
Here is the article, and the link to email the editor is at the bottom of the article:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/25/smbusiness/h1b_cap.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2007092606
Here is the article, and the link to email the editor is at the bottom of the article:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/25/smbusiness/h1b_cap.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2007092606
CADude
07-23 11:17 PM
is she using her own FAQ? USCIS FAQ has different question at Q9.
So does my lawyer per the FAQ she sent earlier:
Q9: My adjustment was already filed. Do I have to re-file now?
A: No. If the adjustment was already filed, USCIS will retain and formally accept the filing.
So does my lawyer per the FAQ she sent earlier:
Q9: My adjustment was already filed. Do I have to re-file now?
A: No. If the adjustment was already filed, USCIS will retain and formally accept the filing.
2011 christina aguilera album.
kartikiran
04-09 03:44 PM
Hey Pappu,
What do you conclude of this? Their has to be some rational reason behind them not moving EB2I, it is hard to grasp that they are still working on 2004-2005 PD's. Is their something we can do bring them in more transparency.
I believe earlier they screwed up and now they are on apposite extreme end, scrutinizing every element.
On the same note, Kumarc123, it is hard to see them working with 2001 EB3-India category for more than 5 years. 245(i) or not...still 5 years...how about that.
Anyway, my point is let us leave predictions. USCIS gave their predictions way back in their Jan 2010 bulletin. Maybe we all should stick with what dates they gave us than we trying to predict.
Now another venting, more calculations, more uproar everything will continue for 1 more week from our members...:rolleyes:
What do you conclude of this? Their has to be some rational reason behind them not moving EB2I, it is hard to grasp that they are still working on 2004-2005 PD's. Is their something we can do bring them in more transparency.
I believe earlier they screwed up and now they are on apposite extreme end, scrutinizing every element.
On the same note, Kumarc123, it is hard to see them working with 2001 EB3-India category for more than 5 years. 245(i) or not...still 5 years...how about that.
Anyway, my point is let us leave predictions. USCIS gave their predictions way back in their Jan 2010 bulletin. Maybe we all should stick with what dates they gave us than we trying to predict.
Now another venting, more calculations, more uproar everything will continue for 1 more week from our members...:rolleyes:
more...
imneedy
05-06 04:57 PM
I dont think we should relay on their 15 months time line. Its too late. I am sure in coming 15 months whole immigration system will be changed. May be we will see point based system or something different. And at that time information will be no use. They are smart that is why they gave us 15 months. They will wait for 12 months to Congress to do something and then if nothing happen they will write SQL query in last 3 months.
gc_on_demand, did you or anyone else here got similar letter?
gc_on_demand, did you or anyone else here got similar letter?
ghost
08-12 07:22 AM
what is the percentage you are looking ? 50 -50 ?I know thousands of people who can write a check for 10K to support any law that can give them a GC in the next 3-6 months..
Here is the thing: We all can write 10K checks to get a GC in next 3-6 months but things don't work that way...small persistent steps lead to assured success...see if you can get the people you know sign up for a 6 USD per week recurring donation, it takes 5 minutes of their time.
This is like having one subway sandwich per week for 6 months, the key is to do it persistently every week/month. Thanks!
Here is the thing: We all can write 10K checks to get a GC in next 3-6 months but things don't work that way...small persistent steps lead to assured success...see if you can get the people you know sign up for a 6 USD per week recurring donation, it takes 5 minutes of their time.
This is like having one subway sandwich per week for 6 months, the key is to do it persistently every week/month. Thanks!
more...
pv2715
07-13 10:24 AM
It is not a contradiction to the previous statement.
Cut-off-date = 1 ==> PDs before 1st can file (i.e mar-01 cut-off date mean pds till apr-30 can file)
Cut-off-date = 8 ==> PDs before 8 can file (i.e pds 1 to 7 since they are in one bucket)
Cut-off-date = 15 ==> PDs before 15 can file (specifically pds in bucket 8-14 can file)
etc...
Hope it helps. As others predicted, I really think the numbers will not move back. You will get your GC soon.
Yagw,
I understand this is a mute point of debate for most of us and I am trying to clarify a statement made in the PDF document for the benefit of people whose PDs fall under these days. Under the operational guidelines issued, it appears that any PD that falls under days 1-7 of calendar month falls under the cutoff day 1 and so on.
Cut-off-date = 1 ==> PDs before 1st can file (i.e mar-01 cut-off date mean pds till apr-30 can file)
Cut-off-date = 8 ==> PDs before 8 can file (i.e pds 1 to 7 since they are in one bucket)
Cut-off-date = 15 ==> PDs before 15 can file (specifically pds in bucket 8-14 can file)
etc...
Hope it helps. As others predicted, I really think the numbers will not move back. You will get your GC soon.
Yagw,
I understand this is a mute point of debate for most of us and I am trying to clarify a statement made in the PDF document for the benefit of people whose PDs fall under these days. Under the operational guidelines issued, it appears that any PD that falls under days 1-7 of calendar month falls under the cutoff day 1 and so on.
2010 Christina Aguilera Keeps
lazycis
12-21 10:03 PM
lazycis,
According to 245(k), does it mean that "unauthorized stay" (or stay with expired I-94) of more than 1 year is wiped out if a nonimmigrant went out of the country, entered back with a new I-94 and maintained legal status ever since? He/she should not have any problems in adjusting status with 485?
I like your insight into immigration policies and the way you express them.
Thanks.
8 USC 1182(a)(9)(B) Aliens unlawfully present
(ii) Construction of unlawful presence For purposes of this paragraph, an alien is deemed to be unlawfully present in the United States if the alien is present in the United States after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General or is present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.
Unlawful presence is different from out of status.
The period for unlawful presence begins on:
1) The expiration date* of the visa "status" document (I-94 Arrival/Departure Card), or
2) status violation, determined by an immigration judge, or
3) status violation, determined by the USCIS during the course of adjudicating a benefit application.
245(k) allows up to 180 days of "out of status".
If a person overstays (expired I-94) more than one year, leaves and re-enters within 10 years, it will be a problem for I-485 (if the USCIS finds about it, of course). More likely it will result in removal proceedings and permanent bar to reentry to the US. The only exception is if that person has an immediate relative who is a US citizen (see 8 USC 1255(i)).
So the moral of the story is to never leave the US until you get a green card if you accumulated more than 180 days of unlawful presence.
However if a person left and was allowed to re-enter, there is a chance that a person did not accumulated unlawful presence to trigger re-entry ban. Refer to this CIS memo for details regarding "period of authorized stay".
http://www.mnllp.com/GOVbcisnOOSunlawful0403.pdf
According to 245(k), does it mean that "unauthorized stay" (or stay with expired I-94) of more than 1 year is wiped out if a nonimmigrant went out of the country, entered back with a new I-94 and maintained legal status ever since? He/she should not have any problems in adjusting status with 485?
I like your insight into immigration policies and the way you express them.
Thanks.
8 USC 1182(a)(9)(B) Aliens unlawfully present
(ii) Construction of unlawful presence For purposes of this paragraph, an alien is deemed to be unlawfully present in the United States if the alien is present in the United States after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General or is present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.
Unlawful presence is different from out of status.
The period for unlawful presence begins on:
1) The expiration date* of the visa "status" document (I-94 Arrival/Departure Card), or
2) status violation, determined by an immigration judge, or
3) status violation, determined by the USCIS during the course of adjudicating a benefit application.
245(k) allows up to 180 days of "out of status".
If a person overstays (expired I-94) more than one year, leaves and re-enters within 10 years, it will be a problem for I-485 (if the USCIS finds about it, of course). More likely it will result in removal proceedings and permanent bar to reentry to the US. The only exception is if that person has an immediate relative who is a US citizen (see 8 USC 1255(i)).
So the moral of the story is to never leave the US until you get a green card if you accumulated more than 180 days of unlawful presence.
However if a person left and was allowed to re-enter, there is a chance that a person did not accumulated unlawful presence to trigger re-entry ban. Refer to this CIS memo for details regarding "period of authorized stay".
http://www.mnllp.com/GOVbcisnOOSunlawful0403.pdf
more...
reddymjm
08-10 01:51 PM
I am in for it.
hair Christina Aguilera- Beautiful
dvb123
02-03 10:03 AM
I cannot post the company name here because it maybe a copyright issue. A consulting company advertises ROW guys/gals to join their company .It tells a story about a ROW guy who worked in a fortune 500 company for 5 years but they did not file a green card for him. He joined SAGA and got his green card immediately and the whole process from PERM - GC card took less than 9 months.
I think his perm got cleared in less than 3 months and he must have filed i-140/i-485 concurrently. Thus he must have got a GC in 9 months.
Congratulations to XYZ for receiving his Green Card from XYZ as well. XYZ had applied for his labor on 1/30/2007 and received his final Green Card approval on 9/13/2007- that is less than 9 months. His case was filed under the EB2 category. He is a citizen on South America who was working for IBM for 5 years and was no where with his Green Card with the them. He then made a transition to XYZ and we filed his case immediately and today his final stage, I-485, has been approved as well.
I think his perm got cleared in less than 3 months and he must have filed i-140/i-485 concurrently. Thus he must have got a GC in 9 months.
Congratulations to XYZ for receiving his Green Card from XYZ as well. XYZ had applied for his labor on 1/30/2007 and received his final Green Card approval on 9/13/2007- that is less than 9 months. His case was filed under the EB2 category. He is a citizen on South America who was working for IBM for 5 years and was no where with his Green Card with the them. He then made a transition to XYZ and we filed his case immediately and today his final stage, I-485, has been approved as well.
more...
mallu
02-16 03:00 PM
2006 census
Total population of India,china, mexico and Philipines = about 40 % of world population
India - 17% of world Population
China- 20% of world population
Mexico- 1.7
Phillipines-1.3 %
------------
Ttl 40 % of world population.
so theres a reason behind this quota. Its not divide and rule.
Excluding US (4.3) , ICMP Still comprise of 35.7 % of world total
What is the % of chinese, Indians in USA ?
Total population of India,china, mexico and Philipines = about 40 % of world population
India - 17% of world Population
China- 20% of world population
Mexico- 1.7
Phillipines-1.3 %
------------
Ttl 40 % of world population.
so theres a reason behind this quota. Its not divide and rule.
Excluding US (4.3) , ICMP Still comprise of 35.7 % of world total
What is the % of chinese, Indians in USA ?
hot Christina Aguilera says her
boreal
04-22 01:54 PM
Decipher and GSC999 have totally contradictory opinions . Not sure whom to believe here .:D . There seems to have been 2 sets of opinons here of the members who attended the rally.
Oh well!! Some things are going on in the background too and i was one of those ppl that shifted from the first group (disappointed) to the second group (optimistic) after talking with Aman. So, if you are not sure which group you are falling into, try calling someone in the core group.
Oh well!! Some things are going on in the background too and i was one of those ppl that shifted from the first group (disappointed) to the second group (optimistic) after talking with Aman. So, if you are not sure which group you are falling into, try calling someone in the core group.
more...
house Christina Aguilera is up to
mariner5555
03-10 07:21 AM
dude, i was being funny. which part of the smiley didn't you get?
I have been resisting to get dragged into this, but I have to post! Not only are you incapable of understanding humor, but you are totally incompetent in understanding plain English.
I never wrote dirty linen is "writing the fact that we have to wait for years and years" or "having the poll" either. singhsa3 is trying his best to make a case that all of us who are "waiting for years and years" have the potential to buy houses, and therefore give us GCs. Dirty linen is when people like me and Pegasus503 offer our contrasting views (and get red-dotted by immature posters who cannot have a civil debate) AND the media thinks these IV folks are not even in agreement on this subject. This to me would be detrimental to singhsa3's efforts and thus I wrote let's not bicker/argue/wash dirty linen about whether we agree with singhsa3's idea or not.
As far as your advice "if you are not convinced then stay out of the way", take a cold shower, dude. I was the first to delete my post and asked others to do the same so this would benefit singhsa3's campaign. If your miniscule brain cannot fathom my posts, ignore them and help singhsa3 out instead. And yes, while you are growing up, do resist the urge to add those red-dots......that's not getting you your green card any faster.
Kutra ..who the heck has the time to read yr senseless humor - it doesnt matter if you put a smiley face next to it. this is a serious issue and using senseless humor does not help ..I wont argue too much nor do I want to get into personal fight ..so I will stop. btw ..I dont have time to give you red dots nor do I care for them. what is sad is that if we cannot capitalize in some way the fact that many many of us are not buying houses (made by American workers BTW), cars, home improvement items etc etc ..then there is little chance that any other campaign will ever work
I have been resisting to get dragged into this, but I have to post! Not only are you incapable of understanding humor, but you are totally incompetent in understanding plain English.
I never wrote dirty linen is "writing the fact that we have to wait for years and years" or "having the poll" either. singhsa3 is trying his best to make a case that all of us who are "waiting for years and years" have the potential to buy houses, and therefore give us GCs. Dirty linen is when people like me and Pegasus503 offer our contrasting views (and get red-dotted by immature posters who cannot have a civil debate) AND the media thinks these IV folks are not even in agreement on this subject. This to me would be detrimental to singhsa3's efforts and thus I wrote let's not bicker/argue/wash dirty linen about whether we agree with singhsa3's idea or not.
As far as your advice "if you are not convinced then stay out of the way", take a cold shower, dude. I was the first to delete my post and asked others to do the same so this would benefit singhsa3's campaign. If your miniscule brain cannot fathom my posts, ignore them and help singhsa3 out instead. And yes, while you are growing up, do resist the urge to add those red-dots......that's not getting you your green card any faster.
Kutra ..who the heck has the time to read yr senseless humor - it doesnt matter if you put a smiley face next to it. this is a serious issue and using senseless humor does not help ..I wont argue too much nor do I want to get into personal fight ..so I will stop. btw ..I dont have time to give you red dots nor do I care for them. what is sad is that if we cannot capitalize in some way the fact that many many of us are not buying houses (made by American workers BTW), cars, home improvement items etc etc ..then there is little chance that any other campaign will ever work
tattoo Christina Aguilera Burlesque
amsgc
07-04 08:04 PM
Legal,
The 700K number is from the Ombudsman's report. He speculated that if the VB was made current, the there would be that many people eligible to apply in the two to three months.
The 700K number is from the Ombudsman's report. He speculated that if the VB was made current, the there would be that many people eligible to apply in the two to three months.
more...
pictures Christina Aguilera Albums
BharatPremi
03-12 08:49 AM
It is safe that your I40 be approved but not necessary.
In theory you are right. But practically Very big corporations/companies have recently started a practice not to hire a person on EAD if I-140 is not clearly approved. Why? Lawyers advise them to do so. I have been hired by very prestigious company recently of course on EAD and first thing they wanted to make a check was on whether I have I-140 approved or not. Secondly they ask if I could submit 3 years audit report for "previous employer". That could make sense to me as it was a clear hint that they wanted to check whether I am coming from good financial based company or not... Why? The reason is that if that would not have been the case then there could be the chance of denying I-140 although it was approved. At least in my network of friends I am the third person who experienced this level of scrutiny before hiring on EAD. The reason is simple. They do not want to hire a guy who can not work at some time of the initial period due to I-140 related problems. So bottom line, I-140 approval is must nowadays for working in big corporations with EAD.
In theory you are right. But practically Very big corporations/companies have recently started a practice not to hire a person on EAD if I-140 is not clearly approved. Why? Lawyers advise them to do so. I have been hired by very prestigious company recently of course on EAD and first thing they wanted to make a check was on whether I have I-140 approved or not. Secondly they ask if I could submit 3 years audit report for "previous employer". That could make sense to me as it was a clear hint that they wanted to check whether I am coming from good financial based company or not... Why? The reason is that if that would not have been the case then there could be the chance of denying I-140 although it was approved. At least in my network of friends I am the third person who experienced this level of scrutiny before hiring on EAD. The reason is simple. They do not want to hire a guy who can not work at some time of the initial period due to I-140 related problems. So bottom line, I-140 approval is must nowadays for working in big corporations with EAD.
dresses Christina Aguilera holds the
WillIWin?
07-24 01:36 PM
If I-140 has been certified OR application has already been submitted, then maybe you DO need a employment letter - to prove that the job is still available.
If I-140 and 485 are being submitted concurrently, then OBVIOUSLY there is a job offer (thats part of the reason the I-140 is filed by company) and maybe the employment letter is not required.
My thoughts.
With the new form available on uscis web site.
It clearly says the documents to be attached to 485 and it says employment letter as initial evidence.
So we should attach it . If not now, then you will get RFE. Why to get RFE ?
If I-140 and 485 are being submitted concurrently, then OBVIOUSLY there is a job offer (thats part of the reason the I-140 is filed by company) and maybe the employment letter is not required.
My thoughts.
With the new form available on uscis web site.
It clearly says the documents to be attached to 485 and it says employment letter as initial evidence.
So we should attach it . If not now, then you will get RFE. Why to get RFE ?
more...
makeup Christina Aguilera: eautiful
sbindval
07-03 03:57 PM
Contributed $100
Google Order #761841760391920
Google Order #761841760391920
girlfriend Christina Aguilera – Bionic
logiclife
04-20 07:05 PM
Hi,
Is there something you need to show for entry at the event ?
Sorry if it is a dumb question..:confused: .I just joined today..
- Naresh
No you dont need to show anything. Just be there on time...
Is there something you need to show for entry at the event ?
Sorry if it is a dumb question..:confused: .I just joined today..
- Naresh
No you dont need to show anything. Just be there on time...
hairstyles Christina Aguilera lyrics
greyhair
09-09 02:36 PM
With republican House there is zero chance of anything happening on any kind of immigration bill. Nothing other than border security will be taken up. It will be best to kiss good bye to GC dreams if republicans win the House.
nixstor
07-03 12:38 PM
There have been cases of folks using L1 A Visa. Big outsourcing companies (US & Indian- Does not matter) routinely file for L1 A (intra company transferee - Managerial) when the person is clearly not performing managerial job. Once on L1 A, folks can file for EB1 and get a GC very soon as it is mostly current. I have seen cases in the past like this. I do not know the status now, as DOL is coming down heavily with audits on PERM applicants. This is one area where only deserving people need to be awarded. This post is not to blame anyone, but people do use this Grey area I suppose to their benefit.
AFAIK, this does not work for people who are already in the US. One has to work in their native or different county to be eligible for the EB1 managerial position here. Some one might have sneaked away this way at some time. But this is definitely not happening on a large scale as EB1 is current for all countries for quite some time. If a lot of folks are getting away, EB1 cannot be current for long time.
AFAIK, this does not work for people who are already in the US. One has to work in their native or different county to be eligible for the EB1 managerial position here. Some one might have sneaked away this way at some time. But this is definitely not happening on a large scale as EB1 is current for all countries for quite some time. If a lot of folks are getting away, EB1 cannot be current for long time.
sam_hoosier
12-13 04:05 PM
You can get a colleague who has worked with you in the old company to give you an experience letter on his letterhead, and that will work for GC purposes.
No comments:
Post a Comment