GayatriS
01-05 08:06 PM
I have been confused by some of the things Professor Wadhwa says -- being opposed to H1 visas and saying there are no shortages of engineers. I saw this video on Youtube which explained everything to me. He is acting like a true American -- like we should once we become citizens. He is advising America on how they can stay competetive -- like all of us want for this great country. But he is also saying that the real solution is for America to welcome immigrants as permanent residents rather than on temporary visas.
Now I understand his message -- if you want to bring in the best from all over the world, bring them here on green cards -- not H1 visas. I also read one of his interviews where he said he was concerned about how H1 workers were taken advantage of and how they lived in immigration limbo. He really does care about doing what is right for all of us.
I totally totally agree with Professor Sahib! I wish the government listens to him. What he is saying is good for everyone. As Indians we want America to succeed and prosper and we want to be a big part of the reason they prosper.
Please see this and give it a good review -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvqqYDmLgjY
Gayatri
Now I understand his message -- if you want to bring in the best from all over the world, bring them here on green cards -- not H1 visas. I also read one of his interviews where he said he was concerned about how H1 workers were taken advantage of and how they lived in immigration limbo. He really does care about doing what is right for all of us.
I totally totally agree with Professor Sahib! I wish the government listens to him. What he is saying is good for everyone. As Indians we want America to succeed and prosper and we want to be a big part of the reason they prosper.
Please see this and give it a good review -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvqqYDmLgjY
Gayatri
wallpaper kate middleton height kate
lonedesi
08-04 10:07 PM
^^^^^^
JunRN
10-01 03:16 PM
Pls excse my noob-ness, i have read all the pages of this thread but cudnt find a precise answer.
I am in the Rn program, and wud be graduating in may08, hopefylly pass nclex and start OPT by june08. i can then start with my visa screen, and I140 as these are not retrogressed, but if retrogression continues and i am not able to file I485, do i still get an EAD. my guess is 'not' but just trying to confirm as i wud have to plan to continue with studies after 1 yr of OPT.
and btw thanks for tons of usefull info!
There is no such thing as retrogression for I-140. Any employer can file I-140for you anytime.
For nurses, we are Labor Certification exempt, meaning we don't have to go through this long process. Our LC process is very short, only 40 days and need not be sent to DOL. What I would suggest is that you start looking for sponsor once you're on OPT so that you can establish early priority date by filing I-140 asap.
PD is the date you file I-140. Once your PD is current as per Department of State Visa Bulletin, then you can apply for Adjustment of Status (i-485). EAD (I-765) can accompany that AOS application.
So, the answer to your question is NO. You cannot apply for EAD if you're applying for I-140 only. To file for EAD, it must be accompanied by I-485.
You get 1-yr EAD though once you do your OPT and hope before it expires, your PD becomes current and you can apply for EAD based on pending I-485.
I am in the Rn program, and wud be graduating in may08, hopefylly pass nclex and start OPT by june08. i can then start with my visa screen, and I140 as these are not retrogressed, but if retrogression continues and i am not able to file I485, do i still get an EAD. my guess is 'not' but just trying to confirm as i wud have to plan to continue with studies after 1 yr of OPT.
and btw thanks for tons of usefull info!
There is no such thing as retrogression for I-140. Any employer can file I-140for you anytime.
For nurses, we are Labor Certification exempt, meaning we don't have to go through this long process. Our LC process is very short, only 40 days and need not be sent to DOL. What I would suggest is that you start looking for sponsor once you're on OPT so that you can establish early priority date by filing I-140 asap.
PD is the date you file I-140. Once your PD is current as per Department of State Visa Bulletin, then you can apply for Adjustment of Status (i-485). EAD (I-765) can accompany that AOS application.
So, the answer to your question is NO. You cannot apply for EAD if you're applying for I-140 only. To file for EAD, it must be accompanied by I-485.
You get 1-yr EAD though once you do your OPT and hope before it expires, your PD becomes current and you can apply for EAD based on pending I-485.
2011 kate middleton weight loss
vbkris77
02-26 02:39 PM
Here is how I came up with that analysis. Last year they made changes to give GC for those stuck in FBI name check if they passed 180 days. So most of the ROW got their GC last year. There were not many labors approved from 2008. So there is no demand from EB2 ROW this year. With the economy going down, not many would get EB1s either. I don't anticipate many EB5s either this year. So major chunk of EB visas will need to come to EB2I/C. Will CIS do that or not is a different story.
more...
gcseeker2002
09-13 05:47 PM
What can we do about it ? I knew 3-4 guys who ported from EB3 to EB2 and even got their 485 approved because of this, during August.
lazycis
11-20 01:11 PM
Some benefits can be revoked automatically (I-140, I-485), some can be revoked only after determination is made by USCIS and a beneficiary is notified and has an opportunity to respond. EAD is one of the latter.
See e.g., 8 CFR Part 205 titled "Revocation of approval of petitions". It has two sections: 205.1 Automatic revocation and 205.2 Revocation on notice.
http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=203798478322+8+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve
EAD is not listed in Sec. 205.1. Moreover, 8 CFR �274a.12(c) specifically lists reasons for automatic revocation. I-485 denial is not listed as such a reason. Therefore, EAD remains valid even after I-485 denial untill it expires or until USCIS director revokes it. I do not see any basis for a different legal interpretation.
See also this court of appeals (8th Cir.) decision where the court says that automatic revocation occurs only if a specific condition specified in the laws and regs is met:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/399/399.F3d.891.04-1132.html
"The district court thought that her adoptive father's petition for immediate relative status was automatically revoked when Taylor reached age 21, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 205.1(a)(3)(i)(F), but the record does not appear to support that conclusion. The automatic revocation occurs only if the alien reaches age 21 before commencing her journey to the United States (which Taylor did not) or if the alien reaches age 21 before a decision on a pending application for adjustment of status becomes final (and there is no evidence in the record that Taylor ever applied for adjustment of status). See 8 C.F.R. � 205.1(a)(3). Thus, it is possible that the petition for immediate relative status was not revoked when Taylor reached age 21, but rather — if the 1984 visa petition was "currently valid" as of her 21st birthday — automatically converted to an approved petition for classification as an unmarried daughter of a citizen of the United States, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 204.2(i)(2). See 8 U.S.C. � 1153(a)(1). In that case, Taylor may have been legally present throughout her time in the United States."
See e.g., 8 CFR Part 205 titled "Revocation of approval of petitions". It has two sections: 205.1 Automatic revocation and 205.2 Revocation on notice.
http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=203798478322+8+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve
EAD is not listed in Sec. 205.1. Moreover, 8 CFR �274a.12(c) specifically lists reasons for automatic revocation. I-485 denial is not listed as such a reason. Therefore, EAD remains valid even after I-485 denial untill it expires or until USCIS director revokes it. I do not see any basis for a different legal interpretation.
See also this court of appeals (8th Cir.) decision where the court says that automatic revocation occurs only if a specific condition specified in the laws and regs is met:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/399/399.F3d.891.04-1132.html
"The district court thought that her adoptive father's petition for immediate relative status was automatically revoked when Taylor reached age 21, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 205.1(a)(3)(i)(F), but the record does not appear to support that conclusion. The automatic revocation occurs only if the alien reaches age 21 before commencing her journey to the United States (which Taylor did not) or if the alien reaches age 21 before a decision on a pending application for adjustment of status becomes final (and there is no evidence in the record that Taylor ever applied for adjustment of status). See 8 C.F.R. � 205.1(a)(3). Thus, it is possible that the petition for immediate relative status was not revoked when Taylor reached age 21, but rather — if the 1984 visa petition was "currently valid" as of her 21st birthday — automatically converted to an approved petition for classification as an unmarried daughter of a citizen of the United States, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 204.2(i)(2). See 8 U.S.C. � 1153(a)(1). In that case, Taylor may have been legally present throughout her time in the United States."
more...
willigetgc?
04-30 01:52 PM
TIER I: LIST OF KEY SENATORS FOR CIR
Senator Scott Brown (R-Massachusetts)
(202) 224-4543
Senator Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire)
(202) 224-3324
Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana)
(202) 224-4814
Senator Michael Enzi (R-Wyoming)
(202) 224-3424
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina)
(202) 224-5972
Senator John Ensign (R-Nevada)
(202) 224-6244
Senator Orin Hatch (R-Utah)
(202) 224-5251
Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas)
(202) 224-2934
Senator John Kyl (R-Arizona)
(202) 224-4521
Senator Mitch Mcconnell (R-Kentuky)
(202) 224-2541
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota)
(202) 224-3244
Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri)
(202) 224-6154
Senator Jon Tester (D-Montana)
(202) 224-2644
Senator Jim Webb (D-Virginia)
(202) 224-4024
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island)
(202) 224-2921
TIER II: LIST OF KEY SENATORS SPONSORING OR CO-SPONSORING CIR BILL
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nevada)
(202) 224-3542
Senator Dick Durbin (Illinois)
(202) 224-2152
Senator Chuck Schumer (New York)
(202) 224-6542
Senator Patrick Leahy (Vermont)
(202) 224-4242
Senator Dianne Feinstein (California)
(202) 224-3841
Senator Bob Menendez (New Jersey)
(202) 224-4744
Sen. Ben Cardin (Maryland)
(202) 224-4524
All the numbers listed by Pappu are correct, and no changes need to be made.
I called both sets of Senators, and gave our stand on this immigration reform issue to each Sen. office, and here is the feedback from them:
Sen Brown: Will review the bill and will let his position known in a weeks time.
Sen Gregg: He has no position currently
Sen Lugar: Since the bill has no language yet, he would like to wait before he gives an opinion. He has previously supported immigration reform. He is continuing to meet with Sen. Schumer
Sen. Enzi: Does not support amnesty and he will let us know what his position on high skilled immigrant provisions in a week
Sen. Graham: Left message
Sen. Ensign: Has no comments, asked for NV address
Sen. Hatch: Staff read the press release regarding yesterday's framework, which states that this is partisan politics, and border enforcement has to be done first. Told him our position and asked for support
Sen. Cornyn: Could not leave message as there was high volume. will call back again. However, the message said that local offices need to be contacted.
Sen. Kyl: Has also released a press statement, did not read it, asked me to check it on the senators webpage. Took my opinion though.
Sen. McConnell: He just wanted our comments and the sen himself did not have any comment regarding immigration.
Sen. Klobucher: Has not fully reviewed what was in the frame work, took our opinion on the matter, and the staff asked for the zipcode irrespective of where you were from.
Sen. McCaskill: Their office has no opinion on the bill. She is in general support of legal immigrants. However, she wanted to see how things progress in the senate.
Sen. Tester: He opposes amnesty. took our opinion but did not want to take a stand on high skilled immigrants issue
Sen. Webb: left a message
Sen. Whitehouse: has not reviewed the framework. took my opinion.
Called Sens. Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Leahy, Feinstein, Menendez and Cardin's offices and thanked them for their support and leadership.
Senator Scott Brown (R-Massachusetts)
(202) 224-4543
Senator Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire)
(202) 224-3324
Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana)
(202) 224-4814
Senator Michael Enzi (R-Wyoming)
(202) 224-3424
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina)
(202) 224-5972
Senator John Ensign (R-Nevada)
(202) 224-6244
Senator Orin Hatch (R-Utah)
(202) 224-5251
Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas)
(202) 224-2934
Senator John Kyl (R-Arizona)
(202) 224-4521
Senator Mitch Mcconnell (R-Kentuky)
(202) 224-2541
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota)
(202) 224-3244
Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri)
(202) 224-6154
Senator Jon Tester (D-Montana)
(202) 224-2644
Senator Jim Webb (D-Virginia)
(202) 224-4024
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island)
(202) 224-2921
TIER II: LIST OF KEY SENATORS SPONSORING OR CO-SPONSORING CIR BILL
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nevada)
(202) 224-3542
Senator Dick Durbin (Illinois)
(202) 224-2152
Senator Chuck Schumer (New York)
(202) 224-6542
Senator Patrick Leahy (Vermont)
(202) 224-4242
Senator Dianne Feinstein (California)
(202) 224-3841
Senator Bob Menendez (New Jersey)
(202) 224-4744
Sen. Ben Cardin (Maryland)
(202) 224-4524
All the numbers listed by Pappu are correct, and no changes need to be made.
I called both sets of Senators, and gave our stand on this immigration reform issue to each Sen. office, and here is the feedback from them:
Sen Brown: Will review the bill and will let his position known in a weeks time.
Sen Gregg: He has no position currently
Sen Lugar: Since the bill has no language yet, he would like to wait before he gives an opinion. He has previously supported immigration reform. He is continuing to meet with Sen. Schumer
Sen. Enzi: Does not support amnesty and he will let us know what his position on high skilled immigrant provisions in a week
Sen. Graham: Left message
Sen. Ensign: Has no comments, asked for NV address
Sen. Hatch: Staff read the press release regarding yesterday's framework, which states that this is partisan politics, and border enforcement has to be done first. Told him our position and asked for support
Sen. Cornyn: Could not leave message as there was high volume. will call back again. However, the message said that local offices need to be contacted.
Sen. Kyl: Has also released a press statement, did not read it, asked me to check it on the senators webpage. Took my opinion though.
Sen. McConnell: He just wanted our comments and the sen himself did not have any comment regarding immigration.
Sen. Klobucher: Has not fully reviewed what was in the frame work, took our opinion on the matter, and the staff asked for the zipcode irrespective of where you were from.
Sen. McCaskill: Their office has no opinion on the bill. She is in general support of legal immigrants. However, she wanted to see how things progress in the senate.
Sen. Tester: He opposes amnesty. took our opinion but did not want to take a stand on high skilled immigrants issue
Sen. Webb: left a message
Sen. Whitehouse: has not reviewed the framework. took my opinion.
Called Sens. Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Leahy, Feinstein, Menendez and Cardin's offices and thanked them for their support and leadership.
2010 kate middleton height. kate
eb3_nepa
04-25 11:47 AM
Guys what about the type of visa? I mean shud the start date be ur H1B start date or ur F1 entry date? Coz if some people start on an H1 a lot of us also started on an F1. In that case doesnt it make more sense to root for the clause that says the immigrant can apply for his own GC that is employer independant? If i am not mistaken, is that not already a part of the PACE act?
Besides a lot of people are not sure for a while, if they even want to apply for their GCs or not initially. I personally know of atleast 3 such people. By putting the responsibility of application of the GC into the immigrant's hands, and empowering the applicant to apply for himself/herself, the process becomes a lot more transparent and fair. That way the day the immigrant decides to apply and applies is their PD. That way if someone does not start it as soon as he/she can, it is now up to them. Since the applicant Can apply for himself instead of being sponsored for a GC by an employer, it is no longer employer based, so no one can fault the employer saying that, "They didnt file for me for a year".
In my opinion, just pushing ur PD to the date u entered will not really help a lot. Coz say ur current PD is Feb 2002 EB3 but u had entered in 1998. DOL/UCSIS will say, ok lets do that, and the next day they will say, Now the Retrogression goes back to the year 1996. Is that not possible? Currently what we need is the immigrant to be in total control of his/her GC process. That way the GC can take even 10 years, so long as the applicant and dependants can avail of EADs and Travel permits which are longer than just 1 year increments. If we are thinking long term, then shudnt we be looking at this aspect? The GC itself represents nothing more than total freedom in ur career and it's choices. If we can achieve the same thing without the actual GC, isint that our goal?
Besides a lot of people are not sure for a while, if they even want to apply for their GCs or not initially. I personally know of atleast 3 such people. By putting the responsibility of application of the GC into the immigrant's hands, and empowering the applicant to apply for himself/herself, the process becomes a lot more transparent and fair. That way the day the immigrant decides to apply and applies is their PD. That way if someone does not start it as soon as he/she can, it is now up to them. Since the applicant Can apply for himself instead of being sponsored for a GC by an employer, it is no longer employer based, so no one can fault the employer saying that, "They didnt file for me for a year".
In my opinion, just pushing ur PD to the date u entered will not really help a lot. Coz say ur current PD is Feb 2002 EB3 but u had entered in 1998. DOL/UCSIS will say, ok lets do that, and the next day they will say, Now the Retrogression goes back to the year 1996. Is that not possible? Currently what we need is the immigrant to be in total control of his/her GC process. That way the GC can take even 10 years, so long as the applicant and dependants can avail of EADs and Travel permits which are longer than just 1 year increments. If we are thinking long term, then shudnt we be looking at this aspect? The GC itself represents nothing more than total freedom in ur career and it's choices. If we can achieve the same thing without the actual GC, isint that our goal?
more...
Green.Tech
06-05 09:54 AM
...on top!
hair kate middleton height
desi3933
08-04 11:49 AM
There's no law that employer should borne the cost of GC.
I suggest you talk to your lawyer first. The cost of Labor and I-140 should be borne by the employer as they are employer's petitions.
I have spent almost 10K in my GC process until last year and 2K this year for EADs and APs.
2K for EAD and AP this year alone! Let us see how many people on this forum has spend that much on EAD and AP. Paying high legal fees is NOT a basis to seek remedy.
I spend about 3 K in one more GC process I started several years back which I abandoned because I changed the emloyer.
That was your choice.
I Spent 1000s of dollars in Visa stamping, H4 renewals. And yes I'm stuck for almost a decade.
H1/H4 and Green Card processing are not related to each other. H1 is for current job and GC is for the future job.
There are at least 10 people I know who are in similar situations, so I'm guessing there'll be thousands in USA. These are facts it may not apply to you but does apply to lot of people here...
One hand, you are saying guessing and still insist that it is based on facts.
I suggest you talk to your lawyer first. The cost of Labor and I-140 should be borne by the employer as they are employer's petitions.
I have spent almost 10K in my GC process until last year and 2K this year for EADs and APs.
2K for EAD and AP this year alone! Let us see how many people on this forum has spend that much on EAD and AP. Paying high legal fees is NOT a basis to seek remedy.
I spend about 3 K in one more GC process I started several years back which I abandoned because I changed the emloyer.
That was your choice.
I Spent 1000s of dollars in Visa stamping, H4 renewals. And yes I'm stuck for almost a decade.
H1/H4 and Green Card processing are not related to each other. H1 is for current job and GC is for the future job.
There are at least 10 people I know who are in similar situations, so I'm guessing there'll be thousands in USA. These are facts it may not apply to you but does apply to lot of people here...
One hand, you are saying guessing and still insist that it is based on facts.
more...
viskota
07-15 05:06 PM
Paid $10 through bill pay
hot kate middleton height weight
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
more...
house kate middleton weight. kate
sam2006
09-13 12:02 PM
Thank You wolfsappi kanaihya
as Promised
My 100$
Confirmation Number: 5X810871WS2653XXX
Remember
ITS NOW OR NEVER
as Promised
My 100$
Confirmation Number: 5X810871WS2653XXX
Remember
ITS NOW OR NEVER
tattoo hot kate middleton height and
AllVNeedGcPc
10-21 09:32 PM
... for example:
Step 1: File EB2 Perm labor (6-10 months)
Step 2: File 140 (2 days to 4 months)
:
And when should you interfile / port your EB3 date? Should you do it when you apply for 140 or should you do it after 140 approval when you apply for 485?
Thanks in advance
Step 1: File EB2 Perm labor (6-10 months)
Step 2: File 140 (2 days to 4 months)
:
And when should you interfile / port your EB3 date? Should you do it when you apply for 140 or should you do it after 140 approval when you apply for 485?
Thanks in advance
more...
pictures kate middleton height. kate
Milind123
09-13 04:38 PM
GCNaseeb, Appreciate your contribution. Read your signature. It says
"Contributing to US Economy since a Decade; still No Green Card."
People, This is exactly why we are going to the rally on Sept 18th. Are you one of the people who carry a similar signature if not in your IV posts but in your mind? I do. And I don't like it, and I would like that changed.
Please contribute; unless you pull the trigger, we are not going to find the third person.
As I was writing this post, sunty took the 2 fire. 2 more to go.
"Contributing to US Economy since a Decade; still No Green Card."
People, This is exactly why we are going to the rally on Sept 18th. Are you one of the people who carry a similar signature if not in your IV posts but in your mind? I do. And I don't like it, and I would like that changed.
Please contribute; unless you pull the trigger, we are not going to find the third person.
As I was writing this post, sunty took the 2 fire. 2 more to go.
dresses kate middleton weight. kate
a1b2c3
12-11 09:47 PM
for the first time (in 5 years that I have been tracking them) the visa bulletin looks like it was "made in America". The america of old, the one that is so organized that every official form includes an estimated time on how long it takes to fill it up. The one where every street has a clear name marker, every intersection has multiple stop lights, multiple signs. Where the little cats-eyes on the road are color coded[1] Where lines form automagically when a bunch of people converge on anything. Where you can go to any .gov site and pick up whatever statistics you want on anything from agriculture, to factories, to healthcare.
This is a nation built on documentation and organization.
For the first time the visa bulletin does not look like some discarded bingo card or four monkeys getting excited on a typewriter. For the first time the numbers make sense, they explain why they are what they are. They even put our prediction threads out of business by coming out with their own set of predictions for the rest of the year.
USCIS has had data like this for eons (how many cases pending in which category and from which country). It took the usual american obsession with data and organizing data to come out with all this.
Kudos to them.
Things remain bleak, but just to see something so neatly organized and put out was heartening to me.
P.S: and no, this is not them just doing their job. Their job is to put out the dates every month (like they have been doing for atleast over a decade). To clearly spell out how many cases are pending (like their recent report), and now to predict how these dates will move, is IMO going beyond the minimum requirements of the job, and is much appreciated.
[1]: blue meaning a firehydrant, yellow as a separator of lanes in different directions, white in the same direction, red is dont enter. found the meaning of the blue one recently, and was impressed. atleast in CA this is what they are.
Nice observations.
This is a nation built on documentation and organization.
For the first time the visa bulletin does not look like some discarded bingo card or four monkeys getting excited on a typewriter. For the first time the numbers make sense, they explain why they are what they are. They even put our prediction threads out of business by coming out with their own set of predictions for the rest of the year.
USCIS has had data like this for eons (how many cases pending in which category and from which country). It took the usual american obsession with data and organizing data to come out with all this.
Kudos to them.
Things remain bleak, but just to see something so neatly organized and put out was heartening to me.
P.S: and no, this is not them just doing their job. Their job is to put out the dates every month (like they have been doing for atleast over a decade). To clearly spell out how many cases are pending (like their recent report), and now to predict how these dates will move, is IMO going beyond the minimum requirements of the job, and is much appreciated.
[1]: blue meaning a firehydrant, yellow as a separator of lanes in different directions, white in the same direction, red is dont enter. found the meaning of the blue one recently, and was impressed. atleast in CA this is what they are.
Nice observations.
more...
makeup kate middleton height. kate
gc_on_demand
04-30 02:58 PM
I can understand if some congressman is agianst it.. but why USCIS doesnot want additional visa..
girlfriend kate middleton weight. kate
Edison99
09-01 08:54 PM
Since Jan 2000
Let us see who is waiting for most time in USA.
5 years and counting.
If you can tell your history of Green card and any tip on applying early would appreciate.
Let us see who is waiting for most time in USA.
5 years and counting.
If you can tell your history of Green card and any tip on applying early would appreciate.
hairstyles kate middleton weight.
RaviG
06-25 03:10 PM
Since I am sure that my GC will take 5 to 10 years more. Meanwhile too many things will change that might make me go back home. So I decided to invest in home(India). I sold lot of stocks. Stopped contributing to 401K above employers match (I used to contribute full 15K). Deferred buying house until my 140 approved.
I am at a life stage where I have enough experience and tendency to take risks (married but no kids etc...). If I have flexibility of not working, I want to invest my time in a small startup. Working/investing a start-up means I might go out of status anytime. So I decided not to try any of those. Its a loss for me as well as for economy. If I accumulate enough money I might go home and try to do something like startup or small business. It would be good for US and me if they let me do it here.
In essence I am loosing the oppurtunity and by restricting my career US is loosing an oppurtunity to create more jobs.
I am at a life stage where I have enough experience and tendency to take risks (married but no kids etc...). If I have flexibility of not working, I want to invest my time in a small startup. Working/investing a start-up means I might go out of status anytime. So I decided not to try any of those. Its a loss for me as well as for economy. If I accumulate enough money I might go home and try to do something like startup or small business. It would be good for US and me if they let me do it here.
In essence I am loosing the oppurtunity and by restricting my career US is loosing an oppurtunity to create more jobs.
ak_2006
06-10 02:13 PM
Can you post the link of the official announcement, thanks in advance
http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1213101513448.shtm
http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1213101513448.shtm
immi_seeker
10-01 03:04 PM
My impression was that USCIS calculated the possible number of cases that would be ready to be assigned a visa (means all the name check and other formalities finished) , before a month and the first PD that will not get a VISA will be the cutoff date for the bulletin for that month.
If the USCSI didnt have enough applications to be assigned the VISA , then why are they so conservative in making the cutoff dates move ahead. What is the harm in pro-actively moving the cutiff dates, to amek sure no visa gets wasted. I think focussing on avoiding visa wastage itself will reduce this retrogression mess to a big extent
If the USCSI didnt have enough applications to be assigned the VISA , then why are they so conservative in making the cutoff dates move ahead. What is the harm in pro-actively moving the cutiff dates, to amek sure no visa gets wasted. I think focussing on avoiding visa wastage itself will reduce this retrogression mess to a big extent
No comments:
Post a Comment