zuhail
03-10 04:15 PM
The Visa re-capture issue could be taken immediately after the FOIA issue.
But I guess it would be all up to the IV team to decide the agenda of this organization.
It would be nice to focus all our efforts and time on ONE issue only.
When we start adding other proposals (which only gives us only temporary relief), the main message gets lost invariably.
I think we could set-up a poll as below: (it would give us an idea about the support in this forums to achieve this target:)
Poll:
To ONLY Re-Capture Un-used visa numbers:
I truthfully would pledge:
i) $100 in 15 days
ii) $200 in 15 days
iii) $500 or more in 15 days.
Any one donation NOT to be less than $100 PLEASE.
I believe that the goal of Visa Re-capture is worth more than that even if you are making multiple donations.
But I guess it would be all up to the IV team to decide the agenda of this organization.
It would be nice to focus all our efforts and time on ONE issue only.
When we start adding other proposals (which only gives us only temporary relief), the main message gets lost invariably.
I think we could set-up a poll as below: (it would give us an idea about the support in this forums to achieve this target:)
Poll:
To ONLY Re-Capture Un-used visa numbers:
I truthfully would pledge:
i) $100 in 15 days
ii) $200 in 15 days
iii) $500 or more in 15 days.
Any one donation NOT to be less than $100 PLEASE.
I believe that the goal of Visa Re-capture is worth more than that even if you are making multiple donations.
wallpaper taylor swift yearbook.
srkamath
07-12 10:31 PM
Use of "01" instead of "10" has been common mistake by USCIS. I came across couple of such cases. This is typo error and they will fix it.
i guess i read too much into it........
i guess i read too much into it........
amsgc
12-21 10:35 PM
Lazycis,
For academic info:
You mentioned that 245(k) allows up to 180 "out of status". Does it also cover "unlawful presence"? If not, then what does?
I am getting a bit confused by the terminlogy. I understand that "out of status" impiles: Your I-94 has not expired, but you have violated the terms under which you were admitted.
And "unlawful presence" means you overstayed your I-94, or sneaked in.
Is this correct? Please clarify.
Thanks,
Ams
For academic info:
You mentioned that 245(k) allows up to 180 "out of status". Does it also cover "unlawful presence"? If not, then what does?
I am getting a bit confused by the terminlogy. I understand that "out of status" impiles: Your I-94 has not expired, but you have violated the terms under which you were admitted.
And "unlawful presence" means you overstayed your I-94, or sneaked in.
Is this correct? Please clarify.
Thanks,
Ams
2011 taylor swift hairstyles for
Googler
02-20 02:54 PM
I'd posted elsewhere about my Feb 13, 2008 conversation with the DOS official who sets cutoff dates:
And then there this piece of info from Ron Gotcher posted on Feb 14, 2008
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285
"Last night, at a meeting of the American Immigration Lawyer's Assocation Southern California chapter, Charles Oppenheim spoke. Mr. Oppenheim is the officer within the Visa Office tasked with calculating visa bulletin cutoff dates each month. He offered the following thoughts as to cutoff date movement in the upcoming months:
In April, India and China EB2 will be set at 12/01/2003
EB3 for India and China will slow down for the rest of the fiscal year."
I am riveted by this because I spoke to Oppenheim just the day before this meeting (he referred to it). This was the conversation in which he told me that at present EB-2 India would only get numbers leftover from EB-1 India -- the problem is he doesn't know either exactly how many EB-2 India adjudicated applications there are in any specific PD range -- so every month he makes wild guesses, with the intent of using up visas. So I guess at least as of 2/14/08 he thought moving the date to 12/1/03 would more than mop up whatever was leftover from EB-1 India. Given the end of the FBI boondoggle (the effects of which have not been quantified by Oppenheim or USCIS) I'd predict that even a date in early 2002 would be good enough to mop up. Let us see if he changes his mind by mid March.
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
And then there this piece of info from Ron Gotcher posted on Feb 14, 2008
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285
"Last night, at a meeting of the American Immigration Lawyer's Assocation Southern California chapter, Charles Oppenheim spoke. Mr. Oppenheim is the officer within the Visa Office tasked with calculating visa bulletin cutoff dates each month. He offered the following thoughts as to cutoff date movement in the upcoming months:
In April, India and China EB2 will be set at 12/01/2003
EB3 for India and China will slow down for the rest of the fiscal year."
I am riveted by this because I spoke to Oppenheim just the day before this meeting (he referred to it). This was the conversation in which he told me that at present EB-2 India would only get numbers leftover from EB-1 India -- the problem is he doesn't know either exactly how many EB-2 India adjudicated applications there are in any specific PD range -- so every month he makes wild guesses, with the intent of using up visas. So I guess at least as of 2/14/08 he thought moving the date to 12/1/03 would more than mop up whatever was leftover from EB-1 India. Given the end of the FBI boondoggle (the effects of which have not been quantified by Oppenheim or USCIS) I'd predict that even a date in early 2002 would be good enough to mop up. Let us see if he changes his mind by mid March.
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
more...
go_guy123
10-05 09:49 PM
Guys,
Just an update..I quit the company and joined small consulting firm. Got the project, labor approved, h1b approved (filed in premium) and prewailing wage determination will be started from next week.damn, i should ve done this 4 yrs back. these guys r fast. Never join as fulltime employee if you dont have green card
Congratulations...did you get the client letter to satisfy the new Employer-Employee relationship requirement. Was your H1B approved for just the duration of the project.
Just an update..I quit the company and joined small consulting firm. Got the project, labor approved, h1b approved (filed in premium) and prewailing wage determination will be started from next week.damn, i should ve done this 4 yrs back. these guys r fast. Never join as fulltime employee if you dont have green card
Congratulations...did you get the client letter to satisfy the new Employer-Employee relationship requirement. Was your H1B approved for just the duration of the project.
.aspx "images dresses Taylor Swift is")
anjs
08-10 09:56 PM
I am in for this.
anjs
anjs
more...
boppana99
09-26 11:17 AM
Just sent an email that the rally was to put forward the delays enforced by USCIS for the green cards and not for the H-1B cap increase. Gave the IV link to check for the rally facts.
2010 taylor swift hairstyles for
Aah_GC
04-25 10:33 AM
Am just curious to know how many of you (approved ones) used AC21 portability and if there were any ramifications. Would be great to know what the experience was and can help the rest of us.
more...
rambo45
09-26 02:56 PM
I got a similar reply as above from CNN
hair taylor swift back to december
spicy_guy
07-12 05:56 PM
:)Anything can be done without an attorney....the issue arises if USCIS or DOl comes back with a question. Best thing is to put in some money, pay an attorney and let them handle it.
Most of the immigration stuff is simple if everything is clean....but you never know.
Why pay for an attorney unless your case is complicated?
Its straightforward and you can do it on your own.
Again, if your case is a bit different and needs a lot of documentation, you would need an attorney.
Most of the immigration stuff is simple if everything is clean....but you never know.
Why pay for an attorney unless your case is complicated?
Its straightforward and you can do it on your own.
Again, if your case is a bit different and needs a lot of documentation, you would need an attorney.
more...
willwin
03-17 03:12 PM
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.
But when that happens, I guess, guys in CP wil get their interview scheduled (as long as their PD is current; no RD date concept there) as the queue in CP is not as long. Correct?
But when that happens, I guess, guys in CP wil get their interview scheduled (as long as their PD is current; no RD date concept there) as the queue in CP is not as long. Correct?
hot Taylor Swift Love Story Cover.
Pending
04-08 01:24 PM
I did contact Senator/Congress persons, and it it didn't help the FBI does not repond to congresional inquirie concerning name check.
All eyes are focused on the immigration bill at this point, so expect no help.
I am pending name check since 2002.
All eyes are focused on the immigration bill at this point, so expect no help.
I am pending name check since 2002.
more...
house Taylor Swift went sleek,
prioritydate
12-20 08:59 PM
That's just another proof. A person who accumulated more than 180 days of unlawful presense is inadmissible into the US (at least for 3 years).
Wow! I would have gotten a shock of my life!!
Wow! I would have gotten a shock of my life!!
tattoo images dresses Taylor Swift is
p_kumar
02-21 11:31 AM
thanks for your responses. its just like stock market. who knows what will happen.
more...
pictures her horsey teeth (since
inskrish
08-16 12:59 AM
September bulletin was out today..Wondering why there was no thread yet on IV..EB2 india shows visa number available with a cutoff date of APRIL 2004
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3761.html
Sorry, you are late to the party.:)
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3761.html
Sorry, you are late to the party.:)
dresses Car Insurance taylor lautner
Positive
11-11 08:25 AM
At the minimum legal action will force someone to look into what is going on here. I don't think that AILA is going to partner with us in this initiative.
more...
makeup the apr ,teeth before and
485Mbe4001
07-11 03:35 PM
thanks. now wonder EB3 -I is screwed. I just need to apply in EB2.
Previously, the policy was that all worldwide numbers would fall down into worldwide third and then from there, fall across to the countries impacted by retrogression (i.e. India, China). The policy was recently clarified and today the unused numbers are allocated within the same preference classification.
Previously, the policy was that all worldwide numbers would fall down into worldwide third and then from there, fall across to the countries impacted by retrogression (i.e. India, China). The policy was recently clarified and today the unused numbers are allocated within the same preference classification.
girlfriend 2010 Taylor Swift at Arrowhead
sasi1234
04-10 09:47 AM
First off, you are looking for a bodyshop. A consulting shop. You would be the consultant if you are hired they would be the consulting firm.
There is a website called http://www.desicrunch.com/ (Desi Crunch) that as reviews of most of Indian Consulting shops. Reviews are posted by individuals themselves so they would be reliable.
Loved desi crunch..especially the tips that you gave for consultants..they make more sense!!
There is a website called http://www.desicrunch.com/ (Desi Crunch) that as reviews of most of Indian Consulting shops. Reviews are posted by individuals themselves so they would be reliable.
Loved desi crunch..especially the tips that you gave for consultants..they make more sense!!
hairstyles Ugh, that ugly gap between my
dontcareanymore
07-29 01:35 PM
please let me know how to close the thread. I do not want divide IV.
Don't worry.You have no chance ...........(..........of dividing IV)
IV is ROCK SOLID :):)
.
.
.
.
.
.........
No...... Just joking.
It is already divided and you have no chance of dividing it any further. Look at EB2 Vs. EB3 posts with I am better than you attitude and EBX-I vs ROW posts.
Your thread is just a punching bag :) All had fun giving their 2 cents and this is my 2 cents.
Don't worry.You have no chance ...........(..........of dividing IV)
IV is ROCK SOLID :):)
.
.
.
.
.
.........
No...... Just joking.
It is already divided and you have no chance of dividing it any further. Look at EB2 Vs. EB3 posts with I am better than you attitude and EBX-I vs ROW posts.
Your thread is just a punching bag :) All had fun giving their 2 cents and this is my 2 cents.
sat0207
04-27 09:23 AM
Immigration Security Checks
�How and Why the Process Works
Background All applicants for a U.S. immigration benefit are subject to criminal and national security background checks to ensure they are eligible for that benefit. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Federal agency that oversees immigration benefits, performs checks on every applicant, regardless of ethnicity, national origin or religion. Since 2002, USCIS has increased the number and scope of relevant background checks, processing millions of security checks without incident. However, in some cases, USCIS customers and immigrant advocates have expressed frustration over delays in processing applications, noting that individual customers have waited a year or longer for the completion of their adjudication pending the outcome of security checks. While the percentage of applicants who find their cases delayed by pending background checks is relatively small, USCIS recognizes that for those affected individuals, the additional delay and uncertainty can cause great anxiety. Although USCIS cannot guarantee the prompt resolution of every case, we can assure the public that applicants are not singled out based on race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. USCIS strives to balance the need for timely, fair and accurate service with the need to ensure a high level of integrity in the decision-making process. This fact sheet outlines the framework of the immigration security check process, explaining its necessity, as well as factors contributing to delays in resolving pending cases. Why USCIS Conducts Security Checks USCIS conducts security checks for all cases involving a petition or application for an immigration service or benefit. This is done both to enhance national security and ensure the integrity of the immigration process. USCIS is responsible for ensuring that our immigration system is not used as a vehicle to harm our nation or its citizens by screening out people who seek immigration benefits improperly or fraudulently. These security checks have yielded information about applicants involved in violent crimes, sex crimes, crimes against children, drug trafficking and individuals with known links to terrorism. These investigations require time, resources, and patience and USCIS recognizes that the process is slower for some customers than they would like. Because of that, USCIS is working closely with the FBI and other agencies to speed the background check process. However, USCIS will never grant an immigration service or benefit before the required security checks are completed regardless of how long those checks take.
To ensure that immigration benefits are given only to eligible applicants, USCIS adopted background security check procedures that address a wide range of possible risk factors. Different kinds of applications undergo different levels of scrutiny. USCIS normally uses the following three background check mechanisms but maintains the authority to conduct other background investigations as necessary:
� The Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS)
Name Check� IBIS is a multiagency effort with a central system that combines information from multiple agencies, databases and system interfaces to compile data relating to national security risks, public safety issues and other law enforcement concerns. USCIS can quickly check information from these multiple government agencies to determine if the information in the system affects the adjudication of the case. Results of an IBIS check are usually available immediately. In some cases, information found during an IBIS check will require further investigation. The IBIS check is not deemed completed until all eligibility issues arising from the initial system response are resolved.
� FBI Fingerprint Check�FBI fingerprint checks are conducted for many applications. The FBI fingerprint check provides information relating to criminal background within the United States. Generally, the FBI forwards responses to USCIS within 24-48 hours. If there is a record match, the FBI forwards an electronic copy of the criminal history (RAP sheet) to USCIS. At that point, a USCIS adjudicator reviews the information to determine what effect it may have on eligibility for the benefit. Although the vast majority of inquiries yield no record or match, about 10 percent do uncover criminal history (including immigration violations). In cases involving arrests or charges without disposition, USCIS requires the applicant to provide court certified evidence of the disposition. Customers with prior arrests should provide complete information and certified disposition records at the time of filing to avoid adjudication delays or denial resulting from misrepresentation about criminal history. Even expunged or vacated convictions must be reported for immigration purposes.
� FBI Name Checks�FBI name checks are also required for many applications. The FBI name check is totally different from the FBI fingerprint check. The records maintained in the FBI name check process consist of administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel and other files compiled by law enforcement. Initial responses to this check generally take about two weeks. In about 80 percent of the cases, no match is found. Of the remaining 20 percent, most are resolved within six months. Less than one percent of cases subject to an FBI name check remain pending longer than six months. Some of these cases involve complex, highly sensitive information and cannot be resolved quickly. Even after FBI has provided an initial response to USCIS concerning a match, the name check is not complete until full information is obtained and eligibility issues arising from it are resolved. For most applicants, the process outlined above allows USCIS to quickly determine if there are criminal or security related issues in the applicant�s background that affect eligibility for immigration benefits. Most cases proceed forward without incident. However, due to both the sheer volume of security checks USCIS conducts, and the need to ensure that each applicant is thoroughly screened, some delays on individual applications are inevitable. Background checks may still be considered pending when either the FBI or relevant agency has not provided the final response to the background check or when the FBI or agency has provided a response, but the response requires further investigation or review by the agency or USCIS. Resolving pending cases is time-consuming and labor-intensive; some cases legitimately take months or evenseveral years to resolve. Every USCIS District Office performs regular reviews of the pending caseload to determine when cases have cleared and are ready to be decided. USCIS does not share information about the records match or the nature or status of any investigation with applicants or their representatives.
�How and Why the Process Works
Background All applicants for a U.S. immigration benefit are subject to criminal and national security background checks to ensure they are eligible for that benefit. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Federal agency that oversees immigration benefits, performs checks on every applicant, regardless of ethnicity, national origin or religion. Since 2002, USCIS has increased the number and scope of relevant background checks, processing millions of security checks without incident. However, in some cases, USCIS customers and immigrant advocates have expressed frustration over delays in processing applications, noting that individual customers have waited a year or longer for the completion of their adjudication pending the outcome of security checks. While the percentage of applicants who find their cases delayed by pending background checks is relatively small, USCIS recognizes that for those affected individuals, the additional delay and uncertainty can cause great anxiety. Although USCIS cannot guarantee the prompt resolution of every case, we can assure the public that applicants are not singled out based on race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. USCIS strives to balance the need for timely, fair and accurate service with the need to ensure a high level of integrity in the decision-making process. This fact sheet outlines the framework of the immigration security check process, explaining its necessity, as well as factors contributing to delays in resolving pending cases. Why USCIS Conducts Security Checks USCIS conducts security checks for all cases involving a petition or application for an immigration service or benefit. This is done both to enhance national security and ensure the integrity of the immigration process. USCIS is responsible for ensuring that our immigration system is not used as a vehicle to harm our nation or its citizens by screening out people who seek immigration benefits improperly or fraudulently. These security checks have yielded information about applicants involved in violent crimes, sex crimes, crimes against children, drug trafficking and individuals with known links to terrorism. These investigations require time, resources, and patience and USCIS recognizes that the process is slower for some customers than they would like. Because of that, USCIS is working closely with the FBI and other agencies to speed the background check process. However, USCIS will never grant an immigration service or benefit before the required security checks are completed regardless of how long those checks take.
To ensure that immigration benefits are given only to eligible applicants, USCIS adopted background security check procedures that address a wide range of possible risk factors. Different kinds of applications undergo different levels of scrutiny. USCIS normally uses the following three background check mechanisms but maintains the authority to conduct other background investigations as necessary:
� The Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS)
Name Check� IBIS is a multiagency effort with a central system that combines information from multiple agencies, databases and system interfaces to compile data relating to national security risks, public safety issues and other law enforcement concerns. USCIS can quickly check information from these multiple government agencies to determine if the information in the system affects the adjudication of the case. Results of an IBIS check are usually available immediately. In some cases, information found during an IBIS check will require further investigation. The IBIS check is not deemed completed until all eligibility issues arising from the initial system response are resolved.
� FBI Fingerprint Check�FBI fingerprint checks are conducted for many applications. The FBI fingerprint check provides information relating to criminal background within the United States. Generally, the FBI forwards responses to USCIS within 24-48 hours. If there is a record match, the FBI forwards an electronic copy of the criminal history (RAP sheet) to USCIS. At that point, a USCIS adjudicator reviews the information to determine what effect it may have on eligibility for the benefit. Although the vast majority of inquiries yield no record or match, about 10 percent do uncover criminal history (including immigration violations). In cases involving arrests or charges without disposition, USCIS requires the applicant to provide court certified evidence of the disposition. Customers with prior arrests should provide complete information and certified disposition records at the time of filing to avoid adjudication delays or denial resulting from misrepresentation about criminal history. Even expunged or vacated convictions must be reported for immigration purposes.
� FBI Name Checks�FBI name checks are also required for many applications. The FBI name check is totally different from the FBI fingerprint check. The records maintained in the FBI name check process consist of administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel and other files compiled by law enforcement. Initial responses to this check generally take about two weeks. In about 80 percent of the cases, no match is found. Of the remaining 20 percent, most are resolved within six months. Less than one percent of cases subject to an FBI name check remain pending longer than six months. Some of these cases involve complex, highly sensitive information and cannot be resolved quickly. Even after FBI has provided an initial response to USCIS concerning a match, the name check is not complete until full information is obtained and eligibility issues arising from it are resolved. For most applicants, the process outlined above allows USCIS to quickly determine if there are criminal or security related issues in the applicant�s background that affect eligibility for immigration benefits. Most cases proceed forward without incident. However, due to both the sheer volume of security checks USCIS conducts, and the need to ensure that each applicant is thoroughly screened, some delays on individual applications are inevitable. Background checks may still be considered pending when either the FBI or relevant agency has not provided the final response to the background check or when the FBI or agency has provided a response, but the response requires further investigation or review by the agency or USCIS. Resolving pending cases is time-consuming and labor-intensive; some cases legitimately take months or evenseveral years to resolve. Every USCIS District Office performs regular reviews of the pending caseload to determine when cases have cleared and are ready to be decided. USCIS does not share information about the records match or the nature or status of any investigation with applicants or their representatives.
pmb76
03-16 02:56 AM
You are now "a more frustrated fool". Your desparation shows what you really are.
desi485, These desi employers can make a Eb-2 out of any damn fool. It is these dishonest employers and plus the individuals who want to take a shortcut even though they do not qualify for Eb-2.
I have been in this country for 10 years now. Have a Masters degree from a top school and am still stuck in this process. I hate it when some stupid commerce graduate or diploma holder from India cuts the line and qualifies for Eb-2. Not to mention the evil people who do labor substitution. Did your friend have a Masters degree to qualify for EB-2 ? He probably managed it through some desi firm.
So I am right in criticizing interfilers coz they DO NOT deserve EB-2. Interfilers go to HELL !!
desi485, These desi employers can make a Eb-2 out of any damn fool. It is these dishonest employers and plus the individuals who want to take a shortcut even though they do not qualify for Eb-2.
I have been in this country for 10 years now. Have a Masters degree from a top school and am still stuck in this process. I hate it when some stupid commerce graduate or diploma holder from India cuts the line and qualifies for Eb-2. Not to mention the evil people who do labor substitution. Did your friend have a Masters degree to qualify for EB-2 ? He probably managed it through some desi firm.
So I am right in criticizing interfilers coz they DO NOT deserve EB-2. Interfilers go to HELL !!
No comments:
Post a Comment