spicy_guy
08-11 05:57 PM
Again, as I mentioned, we are jumping all over the board with different ideas and opinions. This leads to no where. Someone who has good understanding of USCIS / DOS / Govt procedures should come up with an agenda and move forward from there. We'll need to work with IV leadership team too. (At this time, I don't think they are even looking into this effort, as understandably they have other goals in hand). However, we should approach them with concrete plan of action.
Everyone is willing to Donate $$$. But for what? What are we going to spend that money on?
We need focused efforts.
Lets join hands and maybe the OP can take the lead in preparing the agenda / plan of action.
What say you guys?
Bottom line: I believe we can do! Of course, we need to procure support from multiple sources like some of the ideas mentioned by the posters CompleteAmerica, Talking to senators on Aug 15th, etc.
Everyone is willing to Donate $$$. But for what? What are we going to spend that money on?
We need focused efforts.
Lets join hands and maybe the OP can take the lead in preparing the agenda / plan of action.
What say you guys?
Bottom line: I believe we can do! Of course, we need to procure support from multiple sources like some of the ideas mentioned by the posters CompleteAmerica, Talking to senators on Aug 15th, etc.
wallpaper -snowboarding-wallpaper
BharatPremi
03-17 02:19 PM
Based on your assumptions, it would take around 2 years to reach Dec 2003 for EB3-India.
# of visas required = 5000 or 6000 * 1.75 = 8750 or 10, 500
# of visas available = 5000
# years of wait until Dec 2003 = 1.75 to 2.1 years.
Right. But here USCIS plays its villain role. What happens is USCIS moves clock ahead depending upon last month's "demand." We always think stramline logic.. USCIS does not work that way. It will kick PD to x date for an example Dec 2002. Now at the same time it will keep RD at say for example july 2001..Now it will keep some files eating dust in Name check so end effect is "Some" will get their gC. So next month, seeing this "demand" USCIS will kick PD further.. same game.. I believe at some level it decides seeing it reaching to "3500" limit put a break. So in reality what happen is even though USCIS kicks PD ahead not "all applicants with valid PD" get their GC. If they are unlucky enough to stuck in name check or RD is not being current, they will again wait for years for next kicking cycle start from April 2001.
# of visas required = 5000 or 6000 * 1.75 = 8750 or 10, 500
# of visas available = 5000
# years of wait until Dec 2003 = 1.75 to 2.1 years.
Right. But here USCIS plays its villain role. What happens is USCIS moves clock ahead depending upon last month's "demand." We always think stramline logic.. USCIS does not work that way. It will kick PD to x date for an example Dec 2002. Now at the same time it will keep RD at say for example july 2001..Now it will keep some files eating dust in Name check so end effect is "Some" will get their gC. So next month, seeing this "demand" USCIS will kick PD further.. same game.. I believe at some level it decides seeing it reaching to "3500" limit put a break. So in reality what happen is even though USCIS kicks PD ahead not "all applicants with valid PD" get their GC. If they are unlucky enough to stuck in name check or RD is not being current, they will again wait for years for next kicking cycle start from April 2001.
rajuram
03-10 09:04 PM
I agree, when will the right time to recapture visa numbers???
We did not do it in the last government,
we did not do it when the economy was good,
did not do it when they were wanting ways for new people to buy houses,
did not do it in july 2007,
THERE WILL NEVER BE A RIGHT TIME, NEVER
Of all 4 the proposals made by vbkris77,
I would just stick with one and only one:
RE-CAPTURING VISA NUMBERS.
If we add any other item like re validating H1B inside US,accountability for USCIS etc, the message would bound to get lost. It will get bogged down by the details of implementing the other proposals. The devil is always in the details.
I think we need to stick to single target of visa re-capturing (with no mention of the word H1B in the legislation). There should be no crap about H1B workers stealing jobs nor granting pardon for illegals. Visa re-capture is for educated foreign-born professionals currently employed in US.
Many ask if this is the right time. When will be the right time?. Are we asking anything that has not been already granted by the law?. These past visa numbers have been already approved by the law but not used by the USCIS.
The time is RIGHT NOW.
It is interesting why IV team is not taking up this one item and start fund raising.
May be the team has some valid reasons for not doing so. I could only guess.
But waiting for the right time to take up this agenda of re-capturing visa numbers is not a valid reason. That is totally hopeless.
We did not do it in the last government,
we did not do it when the economy was good,
did not do it when they were wanting ways for new people to buy houses,
did not do it in july 2007,
THERE WILL NEVER BE A RIGHT TIME, NEVER
Of all 4 the proposals made by vbkris77,
I would just stick with one and only one:
RE-CAPTURING VISA NUMBERS.
If we add any other item like re validating H1B inside US,accountability for USCIS etc, the message would bound to get lost. It will get bogged down by the details of implementing the other proposals. The devil is always in the details.
I think we need to stick to single target of visa re-capturing (with no mention of the word H1B in the legislation). There should be no crap about H1B workers stealing jobs nor granting pardon for illegals. Visa re-capture is for educated foreign-born professionals currently employed in US.
Many ask if this is the right time. When will be the right time?. Are we asking anything that has not been already granted by the law?. These past visa numbers have been already approved by the law but not used by the USCIS.
The time is RIGHT NOW.
It is interesting why IV team is not taking up this one item and start fund raising.
May be the team has some valid reasons for not doing so. I could only guess.
But waiting for the right time to take up this agenda of re-capturing visa numbers is not a valid reason. That is totally hopeless.
2011 dektop wallpaper
new_horizon
06-10 04:08 PM
Done
more...
maddipati1
01-30 01:39 PM
What I am not understanding is - why are they even looking at my case now? There are 4 years of applicants ahead of me, why cant the USCIS process those applications first?
I have a sickening feeling that this is going to become more and more common in this economic situation. There must a push from above to reduce the backlogs and if they cannot approve the cases they are going to find a way to deny them on some pretext or other.
When did you file ur 485, i mean exact date? If you filed very early during July'07 fiasco, probably they started pre-adjudication process based on the receipt date.
I have a sickening feeling that this is going to become more and more common in this economic situation. There must a push from above to reduce the backlogs and if they cannot approve the cases they are going to find a way to deny them on some pretext or other.
When did you file ur 485, i mean exact date? If you filed very early during July'07 fiasco, probably they started pre-adjudication process based on the receipt date.
amitjoey
11-11 01:49 PM
YES! We can, we should go to court. But time and again, IV Core (I am not one) has evaluated individual issues and told us that we dont have a strong enough case to justify the money involved. If and only IF we have a strong case, we can get media attention, we should spend the money. Otherwise the money is well spent lobbying. We are talking 50k and more.
Do you know how effort intensive taking USCIS to court is. We are talking about complete dedication of our time and resources. We are talking about 10-15 committed IV members spending a minimum of 15 hours every week researching, doing paper work with the lawyers. Also, we would need volunteers to come forward give interviews, appear in court (if need be), travel and stay out of home.
We have trouble getting members go to their local lawmakers office to petition and lobby. Should we not first prove to IV Core that we can come up with 15 committed members and atleast $10k.
I do not want to discourage anyone in going this route, infact I want us to sue USCIS, BUT before we do that we should all first go and meet our lawmakers. Get some attention to the issue, maybe we submit this letter to their offices while we are there.
Do you know how effort intensive taking USCIS to court is. We are talking about complete dedication of our time and resources. We are talking about 10-15 committed IV members spending a minimum of 15 hours every week researching, doing paper work with the lawyers. Also, we would need volunteers to come forward give interviews, appear in court (if need be), travel and stay out of home.
We have trouble getting members go to their local lawmakers office to petition and lobby. Should we not first prove to IV Core that we can come up with 15 committed members and atleast $10k.
I do not want to discourage anyone in going this route, infact I want us to sue USCIS, BUT before we do that we should all first go and meet our lawmakers. Get some attention to the issue, maybe we submit this letter to their offices while we are there.
more...
pappu
01-16 09:44 AM
Thank you Anurakt and others that have signed up. Anurakt I am sure this time our members will take up your challange and make you pay $500
2010 2011 3D Snowboarding wallpaper
bpratap
06-10 06:24 PM
Sent to California Senators
more...
newuser
07-16 05:53 PM
My blood pressure is going up after seeing these false propoganda.
We need to do something about these bxxxxrds.
This type of false propoganda makes my blood boil :mad:
We need to do something about these bxxxxrds.
This type of false propoganda makes my blood boil :mad:
hair Snowboarding wallpaper
styrum
01-18 04:05 PM
Looks like if you already have EAD that can be considered a "certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section". Then you don't need the passport or other forms. Those still on H1B but without EAD then must carry a passport with a valid I-94 detached from I797 and stapled to the passport or the entire I797 with I-94 still attached, or the I485 receipt.
Interesting: Neither I-140 approval nor 485 receipt contain a new I-94. Moreover, I485 receipt explicitly says: "This notice does not grant any immigration status or benefit. it is not even evidence that this case is still pending. It only shows that the application or petition was filed on the date shown." So, if you have filed 485 but don't have an EAD (you haven't requested it or it has not arrived yet) and your H1B I-94 has expired already you can't prove your status! So, EAD is the one and only proof of status! Moreover, even with an EAD but without valid I-94 you may have problem proving your legal immigration status to those oficers who believe a non-resident alien must always have a valid I-94. Any experience proving your legal immigration status in this situation: previous I-94 (most likely H1B) expired, never entered on AP, but have a valid EAD?
Interesting: Neither I-140 approval nor 485 receipt contain a new I-94. Moreover, I485 receipt explicitly says: "This notice does not grant any immigration status or benefit. it is not even evidence that this case is still pending. It only shows that the application or petition was filed on the date shown." So, if you have filed 485 but don't have an EAD (you haven't requested it or it has not arrived yet) and your H1B I-94 has expired already you can't prove your status! So, EAD is the one and only proof of status! Moreover, even with an EAD but without valid I-94 you may have problem proving your legal immigration status to those oficers who believe a non-resident alien must always have a valid I-94. Any experience proving your legal immigration status in this situation: previous I-94 (most likely H1B) expired, never entered on AP, but have a valid EAD?
more...
neoneo
09-26 08:40 PM
Here's a classic example ..
If you look at the other threads on this forum you have people against the Durban bill coz it affects F-1 students . There is another section which is against Grassley coz it'll affect Consultants trying to get H1-B. I do understand Grassley's bill can have many implications and need to be opposed, but the focus still has to be towards alleviating the Employment based GC issues.
I don't think CNN is to be faulted that much coz IV itself has lost its focus towards Employment Based Green Cards. period. thats what is started out to be and needs to come back on that track instead of trying to act as a platform for all Legal Immigration issues.
Simply put IV is " EB-1/2/3- related org" ok..ok.. add in those millionaires who put in a million dollars for GC too.
If you look at the other threads on this forum you have people against the Durban bill coz it affects F-1 students . There is another section which is against Grassley coz it'll affect Consultants trying to get H1-B. I do understand Grassley's bill can have many implications and need to be opposed, but the focus still has to be towards alleviating the Employment based GC issues.
I don't think CNN is to be faulted that much coz IV itself has lost its focus towards Employment Based Green Cards. period. thats what is started out to be and needs to come back on that track instead of trying to act as a platform for all Legal Immigration issues.
Simply put IV is " EB-1/2/3- related org" ok..ok.. add in those millionaires who put in a million dollars for GC too.
hot snowboarding wallpaper
gauravster
11-11 12:02 PM
The draft letter looks good. I think, we should also send a copy or new letter to the Ombudsman and to the DOS (as DOS is also involved in how many visas are released).
That way we do not get pushed around.
Good work.
Gaurav
That way we do not get pushed around.
Good work.
Gaurav
more...
house wallpaper of a snowboarder
CSPAvictim
07-09 06:30 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
tattoo 3D Snowboarding wallpaper
singhsa3
07-18 09:54 AM
Please explain Greg's comment,
"We presume some folks are still waiting on their July 2nd cases to be returned and are debating refiling new cases rather than waiting. Unfortunately, there is a risk of not getting the package back before August 17th and some people will need to refile without proof of the earlier filing."
Shouldn't any application rejected on July 2nd have already reached our lawyer's office by now?
Also, if my appliction, filled on July 2nd,reached 11:34 AM CST, has not been returned yet, shouldn't we assume that it will be accepted?
"We presume some folks are still waiting on their July 2nd cases to be returned and are debating refiling new cases rather than waiting. Unfortunately, there is a risk of not getting the package back before August 17th and some people will need to refile without proof of the earlier filing."
Shouldn't any application rejected on July 2nd have already reached our lawyer's office by now?
Also, if my appliction, filled on July 2nd,reached 11:34 AM CST, has not been returned yet, shouldn't we assume that it will be accepted?
more...
pictures Burton Snowboarding Wallpaper.
sledge_hammer
06-19 04:59 PM
Do we use form G-325 or G-325A?
dresses wallpaper, Snowboarding
alex99
04-10 10:35 AM
please participate
more...
makeup Snowboard Wallpaper – Dan
ita
01-31 06:18 PM
Thank you very much for the response. I sent you a PM .
Now do we need to have the pay stubs for all the time to show you are in status or does the W2 amount be sufficient?
Thank you.
>> how do we know what our H1 LCA amount is?
Your employer should provide you a copy of LCA for H1. In addition, your employment letter should mention salary, along with employment terms, and job profile.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
Now do we need to have the pay stubs for all the time to show you are in status or does the W2 amount be sufficient?
Thank you.
>> how do we know what our H1 LCA amount is?
Your employer should provide you a copy of LCA for H1. In addition, your employment letter should mention salary, along with employment terms, and job profile.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
girlfriend Snowboarding Wallpapers
gc_wow
03-09 12:37 PM
why did row eb3 gone back 2 years?
hairstyles Snowboarding Wallpaper
tikka
07-03 10:49 PM
http://digg.com/politics/Rep_Lofgren_Issues_Statement_on_Updated_Visa_Bulle tin
sreedhar
03-16 12:51 PM
My Friend...Applied his Labor on EB-2 in MAR 2005. His labor approved and applied I-140 & I-485 in AUG 2007. His I-140 Got approved. He said his lawyer accidentally filed his I-140 in EB-3. Because his I-140 approved notice Type has the message like "Skilled Worker or Professional, Sec. 203(b) (3) (A) (i) or (ii)". Is this is true....? Thanks for early reply.
varshadas
02-08 08:23 PM
Its OK either way. Everyone is not needed. It does not matter if you are not from the district. If you can't make it, don't sweat it. Hemal is coming. Two of us should be OK.
Btw, what happened to the flyer distribution at Metropark?
Thanks,
Varsha
Btw, what happened to the flyer distribution at Metropark?
Thanks,
Varsha
No comments:
Post a Comment