rajusk
09-10 04:42 PM
Friends,
I just contributed $100 for the campaign.
I will be there in DC on the 18th. Still debating whether to ride the bus or do a ride share.
I live in the NJ area
Hello friends - Just contributed $100..(Google Order # 265811536249307)
Appreciate all the help & effort IV is doing for us..!! Thanks a ton.!! Will be there in all our might on Sept. 18th...!!! GOD BLESS IV...!!!
I just contributed $100 for the campaign.
I will be there in DC on the 18th. Still debating whether to ride the bus or do a ride share.
I live in the NJ area
Hello friends - Just contributed $100..(Google Order # 265811536249307)
Appreciate all the help & effort IV is doing for us..!! Thanks a ton.!! Will be there in all our might on Sept. 18th...!!! GOD BLESS IV...!!!
wallpaper Search: Derrick
EkAurAaya
04-30 03:15 PM
Hahaha... Oppenheim just got caught in his words by that guy ... yoooooo!
Care to elaborate... for the audio/visually deprived :)
Care to elaborate... for the audio/visually deprived :)
chandsri81
04-27 06:53 AM
Thank you! I have sent them my I-140 and 485 and also past and present EADs to show that this is something that needs to be renewed every 2 years.
Keeping my fingers crossed now..
Keeping my fingers crossed now..
2011 tags: Derrick Rose
john2255
07-21 12:14 AM
That is exactly what I thought as well. Which is why I'm confused by posters ranting about "people who voted against SKIL bill" and getting their knickers in a twist
Correct me if I am wrong, ---but I thought that "This Ammendment" was attached to a defence bill. I dont think that it was the ammendment that was shot down, but the whole defence bill.
Kindly note,
This particular Cornyn amendment (S.Amdt. 2339) offered to attach to H.R. 2669 (College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 ), but the motion was failed due to lack of 5 votes.(55 YEAS and 40 NAYs. Require 3/5 majority) HR.2669 is passed by both Senate and house and sent for conference to resolve the difference between house and senate versions and president is sure to sign the bill and thus would become the law in another few days. This amendment does not have anything to do with defence bill or with SKILL bill. Following is the actions taken by congress of HR 2669.
IF THE AMENDMENT HAD PASSED WE WOULD HAVE GOT ATLEAST 240,000 RECAPTURED, UNUSED VISAS OF PREVIOUS YEARS IN ANOTHER FEW DAYS.
H.R.2669
Title: To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.
Sponsor: Rep Miller, George [CA-7] (introduced 6/12/2007) Cosponsors (31)
Related Bills: H.RES.531
Latest Major Action: 7/20/2007 Resolving differences -- Senate actions. Status: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Kennedy; Dodd; Harkin; Mikulski; Bingaman; Murray; Reed; Clinton; Obama; Sanders; Brown; Enzi; Gregg; Alexander; Burr; Isakson; Murkowski; Hatch; Roberts; Allard; Coburn.
House Reports: 110-210
MAJOR ACTIONS:
6/12/2007 Introduced in House
6/25/2007 Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Labor. H. Rept. 110-210.
7/11/2007 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 273 - 149 (Roll no. 613).
7/20/2007 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 78 - 18. Record Vote Number: 272.
7/20/2007 Resolving differences -- Senate actions: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Kennedy; Dodd; Harkin; Mikulski; Bingaman; Murray; Reed; Clinton; Obama; Sanders; Brown; Enzi; Gregg; Alexander; Burr; Isakson; Murkowski; Hatch; Roberts; Allard; Coburn.
Correct me if I am wrong, ---but I thought that "This Ammendment" was attached to a defence bill. I dont think that it was the ammendment that was shot down, but the whole defence bill.
Kindly note,
This particular Cornyn amendment (S.Amdt. 2339) offered to attach to H.R. 2669 (College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 ), but the motion was failed due to lack of 5 votes.(55 YEAS and 40 NAYs. Require 3/5 majority) HR.2669 is passed by both Senate and house and sent for conference to resolve the difference between house and senate versions and president is sure to sign the bill and thus would become the law in another few days. This amendment does not have anything to do with defence bill or with SKILL bill. Following is the actions taken by congress of HR 2669.
IF THE AMENDMENT HAD PASSED WE WOULD HAVE GOT ATLEAST 240,000 RECAPTURED, UNUSED VISAS OF PREVIOUS YEARS IN ANOTHER FEW DAYS.
H.R.2669
Title: To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.
Sponsor: Rep Miller, George [CA-7] (introduced 6/12/2007) Cosponsors (31)
Related Bills: H.RES.531
Latest Major Action: 7/20/2007 Resolving differences -- Senate actions. Status: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Kennedy; Dodd; Harkin; Mikulski; Bingaman; Murray; Reed; Clinton; Obama; Sanders; Brown; Enzi; Gregg; Alexander; Burr; Isakson; Murkowski; Hatch; Roberts; Allard; Coburn.
House Reports: 110-210
MAJOR ACTIONS:
6/12/2007 Introduced in House
6/25/2007 Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Labor. H. Rept. 110-210.
7/11/2007 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 273 - 149 (Roll no. 613).
7/20/2007 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 78 - 18. Record Vote Number: 272.
7/20/2007 Resolving differences -- Senate actions: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Kennedy; Dodd; Harkin; Mikulski; Bingaman; Murray; Reed; Clinton; Obama; Sanders; Brown; Enzi; Gregg; Alexander; Burr; Isakson; Murkowski; Hatch; Roberts; Allard; Coburn.
more...
stevestamps
08-20 06:33 PM
i have faced same problem in NC, we can't do anything unless we go out of country and get visa stamped in passport. rules have been changed in NC DMV since last year. i have visited 3-4 DMV's in NC, everyone told same thing.
My husbands DL expires on Oct 1st, 2007. The North Carolina DMV insists that he should have a valid H1B visa stamp in his PP in order to renew the license. He does have a valid H1B extension with I-94 at the bottom till Oct.2009. We dont want to leave the country as we are filing for our I-485's.
Any one in NC have any suggestions?
My husbands DL expires on Oct 1st, 2007. The North Carolina DMV insists that he should have a valid H1B visa stamp in his PP in order to renew the license. He does have a valid H1B extension with I-94 at the bottom till Oct.2009. We dont want to leave the country as we are filing for our I-485's.
Any one in NC have any suggestions?
gcformeornot
05-28 08:05 AM
please contribute
more...
sampath
04-25 01:38 PM
The priority date based on the person first entering the US on H1B visa, or converting to a H1 status from any other visa status in the US is an excellent one.
This eliminates all the issues that H1Bs face today when applying for a GC. Employer portability, Visa retrogression etc ( and not to mention employer manipulation of H1Bs workers in delaying to file GCs ) are applied in fairness to everyone. This takes the fear out of H1B workers to change jobs at will without regard to negative impact on their pending GC applications..
Way to go.. Why can't IV propose to add this one liner to any of the impending amendments or find another lawmaker to support this which can alleviate most issues faced by H1Bs today.
This eliminates all the issues that H1Bs face today when applying for a GC. Employer portability, Visa retrogression etc ( and not to mention employer manipulation of H1Bs workers in delaying to file GCs ) are applied in fairness to everyone. This takes the fear out of H1B workers to change jobs at will without regard to negative impact on their pending GC applications..
Way to go.. Why can't IV propose to add this one liner to any of the impending amendments or find another lawmaker to support this which can alleviate most issues faced by H1Bs today.
2010 Derrick Rose Chicago Bulls
manderson
01-07 03:00 PM
My wife is still waiting for the AP. The receipt notice gives August 6 as the receipt date. She called USCIS last Tuesday and was told that USCIS is running really slow and is taking 180 days to process APs. The lady she spoke to asked my wife to call back after "it is 180 days past her notice date". Her 180 days will complete on February 6. We have postponed out travel plans several times.
is this NSC or TSC?
is this NSC or TSC?
more...
BharatPremi
07-05 03:24 PM
Guys,
Please Pound on this as well.
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/485
- BharatPRemi
Please Pound on this as well.
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/485
- BharatPRemi
hair rose adidas. Derrick Rose
Mouns
04-30 03:19 PM
Born in China, you can't get a Visa, even if you have a job not fillable by an US guy. And same thing if you are spouse,child you need to wait for years.
Can we estimate what kind of relief would be given in these cases?
Openheim: 225K recaptured GC family and Employment. Would provide some relief, not a lot!. As for family, about 50GC would go the husband and wife. it would be a first step.
Lowsy job and recapturing wouldn't help a lot! needs to explore other possibilities...
Can we estimate what kind of relief would be given in these cases?
Openheim: 225K recaptured GC family and Employment. Would provide some relief, not a lot!. As for family, about 50GC would go the husband and wife. it would be a first step.
Lowsy job and recapturing wouldn't help a lot! needs to explore other possibilities...
more...
gbof
02-18 07:30 PM
i had run these numbers a while back. for sure EB2 will reach the end of 2005 this year. i just hope its done systematically so that they clear everybody with an EB2 2005 PD this year.
Trust me, my friend - I surely believe in systematic movement and by this june/july it will be Dec05 or beyond. Dates for EB2 have stayed around apr04 for really longer and then suddenly to 06. Very few perms were cleared in 05 (as per your posting). It should logivcally be past 2005 , never to go back.BTW ,we missed GC last aug/sept lotto
Trust me, my friend - I surely believe in systematic movement and by this june/july it will be Dec05 or beyond. Dates for EB2 have stayed around apr04 for really longer and then suddenly to 06. Very few perms were cleared in 05 (as per your posting). It should logivcally be past 2005 , never to go back.BTW ,we missed GC last aug/sept lotto
hot derrick rose mvp shirt.
IAMINQ
02-04 07:28 AM
I got my labor approved from Philadelphai Backlog Center around Dec ' 2005. It was filed in March 2004 (RIR). If anyone needs more info mail me.
Thanks,
Thanks,
more...
house derrick rose mvp t shirt.
lskreddy
04-30 03:55 PM
Jeez, they are done. I am freaking dumbstruck for the sheer lack of substance in the discussion. Gosh, what a waste of tax-payers money!!
tattoo derrick rose mvp shirt.
belmontboy
09-01 07:03 PM
----
Mind what you say in an open forum.
These type of information can fuel anti's cause.
Job requirements "exist" in the company.
They are not created by employers or lawyers for the sake of GC.
Mind what you say in an open forum.
These type of information can fuel anti's cause.
Job requirements "exist" in the company.
They are not created by employers or lawyers for the sake of GC.
more...
pictures derrick rose mvp. derrick rose
desi3933
09-15 11:46 AM
.....
once your I-140 is approved, that date is yours.. but for only that preference category
.....
Incorrect.
Please read this pdf document
AFM Update: Chapter 22: Employment-based Petitions (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/afm_ch22_091206R.pdf)
Please pay attention to section (3) Priority Date Based on Earlier Petition on page 28 -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If an alien is the beneficiary of two (or more) approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions, the priority of the earlier petition may be applied to all subsequently-filed employment-based petitions.
For example:
Company A files a labor certification request on behalf of an alien ("Joe") as a janitor on January 10, 2003. The DOL issues the certification on March 20, 2003. Company A later files, and USCIS approves, a relating I-140 visa petition under the EB-3 category. On July 15, 2003, Joe files a second I-140 visa petition in his own behalf as a rocket scientist under the EB-1 category, which USCIS approves. Joe is entitled to use the January 10, 2003, priority date to apply for adjustment under either the EB-1 or the EB-3 classification.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest, you talk to an attorney before using words like illegal. It may be unfair, but still be legal.
_____________________________________
Proud Indian-American and Legal Immigrant
once your I-140 is approved, that date is yours.. but for only that preference category
.....
Incorrect.
Please read this pdf document
AFM Update: Chapter 22: Employment-based Petitions (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/afm_ch22_091206R.pdf)
Please pay attention to section (3) Priority Date Based on Earlier Petition on page 28 -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If an alien is the beneficiary of two (or more) approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions, the priority of the earlier petition may be applied to all subsequently-filed employment-based petitions.
For example:
Company A files a labor certification request on behalf of an alien ("Joe") as a janitor on January 10, 2003. The DOL issues the certification on March 20, 2003. Company A later files, and USCIS approves, a relating I-140 visa petition under the EB-3 category. On July 15, 2003, Joe files a second I-140 visa petition in his own behalf as a rocket scientist under the EB-1 category, which USCIS approves. Joe is entitled to use the January 10, 2003, priority date to apply for adjustment under either the EB-1 or the EB-3 classification.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest, you talk to an attorney before using words like illegal. It may be unfair, but still be legal.
_____________________________________
Proud Indian-American and Legal Immigrant
dresses derrick rose mvp t shirt.
optimystic
09-10 03:32 PM
People in the forum are talking a lot about visa recapture..
But how will this help if USCIS continues to disregard PDs utterly and just approve cases that they can lay their hands on....
Due to July 2 fiasco, pretty much everyone have filed I-485...Even those with 2007 PDs.
Say USCIS recaptures Visas, makes every category current and starts approving 2007 PD cases! Even worst, due to the every category 'C', may be 2008, 2009 (when it arrives) people start applying I-485 as well, and USCIS continues to consume all the visa numbers to to approve the cases of these lucky bas*$%^&ds (no offence!) with most recent PDs. How does this help you or me with older PDs waitin for years and years ! :(
even with recapture
- the visa numbers are not unlimited
- the processing power of USCIS is not unlimited
But
- The capability of USCIS to screw up at every opportunity seems to be unlimited
- And the number of lucky bas*$%^&ds who get approved despite newest PDs seem to be unlimited too :)
So , think visa recapture alone wont solve anything. We have to make USCIS accountable. Make them process cases fairly. Make them respect PDs.
But how will this help if USCIS continues to disregard PDs utterly and just approve cases that they can lay their hands on....
Due to July 2 fiasco, pretty much everyone have filed I-485...Even those with 2007 PDs.
Say USCIS recaptures Visas, makes every category current and starts approving 2007 PD cases! Even worst, due to the every category 'C', may be 2008, 2009 (when it arrives) people start applying I-485 as well, and USCIS continues to consume all the visa numbers to to approve the cases of these lucky bas*$%^&ds (no offence!) with most recent PDs. How does this help you or me with older PDs waitin for years and years ! :(
even with recapture
- the visa numbers are not unlimited
- the processing power of USCIS is not unlimited
But
- The capability of USCIS to screw up at every opportunity seems to be unlimited
- And the number of lucky bas*$%^&ds who get approved despite newest PDs seem to be unlimited too :)
So , think visa recapture alone wont solve anything. We have to make USCIS accountable. Make them process cases fairly. Make them respect PDs.
more...
makeup chicago bulls derrick rose mvp
Blessing&Lifeisbeautiful
08-01 10:48 PM
Latest update from shusterman about bridge legislation for schedule A:
Now, Senator Schumer is seeking to attach the Hutchison-Durbin Amendment to a piece of "must pass" legislation in August. For more information about the immigration of nurses and physical therapists, see "Nurse" page at
http://shusterman.com/toc-rn.html
and "Allied Health Professionals" page at
http://shusterman.com/toc-ahp.html
Hope they will pass it this time....
Questions:
When will be the August recess?
Are there any "must pass" bills, good for such an attachment, scheduled in the senate before the August recess? :confused:
bump
Now, Senator Schumer is seeking to attach the Hutchison-Durbin Amendment to a piece of "must pass" legislation in August. For more information about the immigration of nurses and physical therapists, see "Nurse" page at
http://shusterman.com/toc-rn.html
and "Allied Health Professionals" page at
http://shusterman.com/toc-ahp.html
Hope they will pass it this time....
Questions:
When will be the August recess?
Are there any "must pass" bills, good for such an attachment, scheduled in the senate before the August recess? :confused:
bump
girlfriend chicago bulls derrick rose mvp
ras
10-16 05:47 PM
Added some missing in's and to's, etc. if it appears appropriate, you may keep the changes.
Issue/Background:
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring it to your attention the hardship faced by I 485 applicants because of inappropriate denials by USCIS with out adhering to AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many applicants have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485 applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing a NOID or an RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS the change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees and psychological stress, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are adhered to when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this could be added to the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant could be issued a NOID/RFE instead of out rightly denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
Issue/Background:
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring it to your attention the hardship faced by I 485 applicants because of inappropriate denials by USCIS with out adhering to AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many applicants have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485 applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing a NOID or an RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS the change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees and psychological stress, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are adhered to when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this could be added to the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant could be issued a NOID/RFE instead of out rightly denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
hairstyles Derrick Rose MVP Shirt
add78
06-23 12:58 PM
Thanks dingdong12 and prashanthg
Guys n Gals,
The latest State Chapter update should be inspiring if you were a skeptic.
Please rally your friends and colleagues to join IV, State Chapters and contribute.
Every $ counts.
Every call counts.
Every persuasion counts.
Everybody counts.
Thank You fellows.
Let us stand up to our High Skills and High Income prestige.
Help IV, Help Yourself.
Guys n Gals,
The latest State Chapter update should be inspiring if you were a skeptic.
Please rally your friends and colleagues to join IV, State Chapters and contribute.
Every $ counts.
Every call counts.
Every persuasion counts.
Everybody counts.
Thank You fellows.
Let us stand up to our High Skills and High Income prestige.
Help IV, Help Yourself.
santb1975
06-03 01:30 PM
This is great
Contributed $100 just now
(Receipt ID: 3118-4400-XXXX-XXXX).
------------
$200 contributed so far
Contributed $100 just now
(Receipt ID: 3118-4400-XXXX-XXXX).
------------
$200 contributed so far
mirage
08-04 03:23 PM
I never give any red or green dot to anybody nor do I care what I have. As, you said what you felt was right, other users did the same to you...
I got red dots, just because I raised my concerns against factual errors in the letter. I have never mentioned that I am against sending letters. Just that emotional outburst is not going to help EB-3 India applicants.
Good Luck and I hope everyone gets GC soon.
____________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
I got red dots, just because I raised my concerns against factual errors in the letter. I have never mentioned that I am against sending letters. Just that emotional outburst is not going to help EB-3 India applicants.
Good Luck and I hope everyone gets GC soon.
____________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
No comments:
Post a Comment