jcgc
02-21 10:43 AM
NOT EVERYONE REGISTERS AT THESE POS SITES. lol
C'mon be realistic.
Exactly...If everyone registers, then we wouldnt need to estimate any ratios. Would we?
Also even when people do register their case on this site, not many register their dependents cases.
in FY08 we know for sure that EB2 Inida quota has been consumed. That gives a definite number of approvals to use for estimation. When i estimate that represents 6.75% of these cases (all cases upto Dec03), this ratio is a reasonable estimate of all the people who do not register.
C'mon be realistic.
Exactly...If everyone registers, then we wouldnt need to estimate any ratios. Would we?
Also even when people do register their case on this site, not many register their dependents cases.
in FY08 we know for sure that EB2 Inida quota has been consumed. That gives a definite number of approvals to use for estimation. When i estimate that represents 6.75% of these cases (all cases upto Dec03), this ratio is a reasonable estimate of all the people who do not register.
wallpaper 619 rey mysterio.
nomi
12-11 02:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by god_bless_you
SO if USCIS wants to make a new rule of filing I485 for the one whose I 140 is cleared and priority date is not current, It CAN DO That RULE Right?
We do not need any Congress approval for that Right?
If so can we explore this option??
Yes, I was wondering the same thing.
The only plausible explanation for requiring congress' approval, that I am able to come up with, is that we bundled many requests along with the request for concurrent processing of 140/485, like additional visa numbers etc., which I think are not in the hands of USCIS.
We would need congress approval to increase visa numbers, etc. But for changing the rule to allow concurrent 140/485 processing is probably within the jurisdiction of the USCIS.
Originally Posted by god_bless_you
SO if USCIS wants to make a new rule of filing I485 for the one whose I 140 is cleared and priority date is not current, It CAN DO That RULE Right?
We do not need any Congress approval for that Right?
If so can we explore this option??
Yes, I was wondering the same thing.
The only plausible explanation for requiring congress' approval, that I am able to come up with, is that we bundled many requests along with the request for concurrent processing of 140/485, like additional visa numbers etc., which I think are not in the hands of USCIS.
We would need congress approval to increase visa numbers, etc. But for changing the rule to allow concurrent 140/485 processing is probably within the jurisdiction of the USCIS.
wandmaker
10-10 01:07 PM
Just to avoid all this , You can say I'm a US citizen and move on. They cannot ask for any verification can they?
If verified, you would end up in eating ham burger.
If verified, you would end up in eating ham burger.
2011 WWE RAW Kane Rey Mysterio
vin
06-12 03:35 PM
"why should anyone now listen to Bush,"
Both the democrats and GOP is divided on the Iraq war issue, but this is a bipartisan bill and only some of the Republican senators are opposing the bill. 80-90% of the democrat senators are OK with the bill. Once Bush is able to convince and get the 15 votes he needs, which he most probably will, the bill is most likely to go through.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...adlines-nation
Saying that 80% of Democrats support the bill and 86% of Republicans oppose it, Reid said he had no intention of taking up the bill until the GOP leadership has "25 votes or so" for the legislation. "I'm not dancing that tune again," he said.
Both the democrats and GOP is divided on the Iraq war issue, but this is a bipartisan bill and only some of the Republican senators are opposing the bill. 80-90% of the democrat senators are OK with the bill. Once Bush is able to convince and get the 15 votes he needs, which he most probably will, the bill is most likely to go through.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...adlines-nation
Saying that 80% of Democrats support the bill and 86% of Republicans oppose it, Reid said he had no intention of taking up the bill until the GOP leadership has "25 votes or so" for the legislation. "I'm not dancing that tune again," he said.
more...
gcisadawg
02-13 01:49 PM
Ash, I agree with the message but you need to work on the choice of words. This not ethnic cleansing or lynching or systematic targetting. I'd say America is going into a protectionist mode. When you are in that mode, the first step is to keep aliens at a distance.
ita
02-02 03:25 PM
desi3933,
Thanks for your response. I did little digging on the H1 LCA front.Here's what I found out and I have one question too.
Now I've a LCA for my H1.But I also found out that each time I (employee) changes location there will be a new LCA and it's not one LCA per H1, at least in case of consulting.
I guess if there is a RFE we have to attach all the W2 and all the H1 LCA's. LCA has a start date and end date. Now my company says they don't have previous LCA.
If they say they don't have it then I don't know if they will be able to give me LCA if I leave the company and if there is RFE later.
All my W2 amount(s) are in good shape compared to the latest LCA which is for one of major metro areas in NorthEast.
Do you have any idea ,in case of RFE, what happens if we just send W2 without LCA/ with latest LCA?
Thank you.
W2 should be fine in most cases. Additionally, employment letter stating job duties, salary offered, dates is very useful. Please note that this salary could be different from GC Salary, however, it must be within the salary range mentioned in H1 LCA.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
Thanks for your response. I did little digging on the H1 LCA front.Here's what I found out and I have one question too.
Now I've a LCA for my H1.But I also found out that each time I (employee) changes location there will be a new LCA and it's not one LCA per H1, at least in case of consulting.
I guess if there is a RFE we have to attach all the W2 and all the H1 LCA's. LCA has a start date and end date. Now my company says they don't have previous LCA.
If they say they don't have it then I don't know if they will be able to give me LCA if I leave the company and if there is RFE later.
All my W2 amount(s) are in good shape compared to the latest LCA which is for one of major metro areas in NorthEast.
Do you have any idea ,in case of RFE, what happens if we just send W2 without LCA/ with latest LCA?
Thank you.
W2 should be fine in most cases. Additionally, employment letter stating job duties, salary offered, dates is very useful. Please note that this salary could be different from GC Salary, however, it must be within the salary range mentioned in H1 LCA.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
more...
Jaime
09-10 12:54 PM
There are thousands
2010 Rey-Mysterio pictures
justAnotherFile
07-25 12:24 PM
"Dude/Dudette, I give up. The alien's eligibility and admissibility is decided at I-485 stage - FBI name checks, medical tests ring a bell? The law explicitly states that visa number availabililty is a pre-requisite for the adjustment of status application in 245(a)(3). If you can't understand - or choose to refuse to understand - plain English, have fun arguing with yourself".
Dude I apologize if my line of argument is irritating you so much. btw 245(a)(3) is not plain english its legalese. And I'm not the one arguing with myself there are others in this thread who read the law along the same lines. Anyway this forum is for debate and thats what we are doing.
Probably this option is not attractive to you that you are so pissed with it.
Btw I'm contacting some attorneys on my personal expense to interpret this.
If they reach the same conclusion as you I'll be happy to accept it, i have no issues and I'll post it on this thread.
But the fact is at this point I still believe there may just be a 1% chance.
Dude I apologize if my line of argument is irritating you so much. btw 245(a)(3) is not plain english its legalese. And I'm not the one arguing with myself there are others in this thread who read the law along the same lines. Anyway this forum is for debate and thats what we are doing.
Probably this option is not attractive to you that you are so pissed with it.
Btw I'm contacting some attorneys on my personal expense to interpret this.
If they reach the same conclusion as you I'll be happy to accept it, i have no issues and I'll post it on this thread.
But the fact is at this point I still believe there may just be a 1% chance.
more...
tejonidhi
09-10 01:31 PM
I am wondering when will they discuss about Humans ?:mad:
hair Rey Mysterio Wallpaper by
perm
07-03 02:44 PM
where's the petetion, where do we sign?
more...
kk_kk
06-10 04:53 PM
Sent
hot Rey Mysterio 2010 Wallpaper
ArkBird
02-19 05:34 PM
I wish congress spends atleast 10% of the time our fellow IVans are spending here to discuss this bill!
more...
house THE MASK KING Rey Mysterio
mjadala
09-10 05:35 PM
Guys,
The link isnt working for me too.
I hope things work in favor with this bill today, but if not, we must ask for Citizenship instead of Greencards. Anyone with me.,
We have all waited for 5-10 year and there are many who got it in one year and then Citizenship in 6-8 years from the day they got their GCs. That was the normal timeframe. But due to their inefficiency, we are waiting this much time. NOT our fault. Now dont you guys think we must ask for Citizenship.. I thought my case was too stressful, came 99, applied 04, waiting for 485 now, but I have seen so many many stories of ohter guys also here who suffered more. I feel we must ask them Citizenship. If we get, great, else atleast we end up with GC.
Anybody with me,
Thanks,
Sri.,
Came in 98; applied in 04, waiting.
The link isnt working for me too.
I hope things work in favor with this bill today, but if not, we must ask for Citizenship instead of Greencards. Anyone with me.,
We have all waited for 5-10 year and there are many who got it in one year and then Citizenship in 6-8 years from the day they got their GCs. That was the normal timeframe. But due to their inefficiency, we are waiting this much time. NOT our fault. Now dont you guys think we must ask for Citizenship.. I thought my case was too stressful, came 99, applied 04, waiting for 485 now, but I have seen so many many stories of ohter guys also here who suffered more. I feel we must ask them Citizenship. If we get, great, else atleast we end up with GC.
Anybody with me,
Thanks,
Sri.,
Came in 98; applied in 04, waiting.
tattoo rey mysterio wallpaper.
nomi
12-11 02:38 PM
[QUOTE=wildvoice]
Yes, I am definitely for this idea that we should petition/ask USCIS to change the rules to allow those with approved I-140 to be able to file I-485 while their PD is not yet current even if we would pay US$5,000.:rolleyes:
[QUOTE]
Yes, I am definitely for this idea that we should petition/ask USCIS to change the rules to allow those with approved I-140 to be able to file I-485 while their PD is not yet current even if we would pay US$5,000.:rolleyes:
[QUOTE]
more...
pictures Rey mysterio
makemygc
06-10 06:40 PM
My wife is working with a company "A" in India and have filed for H1 through a company "B" in USA.
Currently she does not have any VISA.
Can her current company "A" apply for L1 and she can come to USA on L1?
And suppose she can come to US on L1 through company "A", What happens if her H1 gets approved through Company "B", Can she still continue
working for Comapny "A".?
Thanks in Advance.
-Moti
As far as I know L1 has no affect on the H1 filing. She can come US on L1 and if her H1 gets approved, she can continue to work on L1 with company A. To tranfer to H1, she has to go out of US and then re-enter after getting H1 visa stamped. This is based on my understanding and few of my friends who have done that. They were in US on L1 but filed their H1 through another company.
Currently she does not have any VISA.
Can her current company "A" apply for L1 and she can come to USA on L1?
And suppose she can come to US on L1 through company "A", What happens if her H1 gets approved through Company "B", Can she still continue
working for Comapny "A".?
Thanks in Advance.
-Moti
As far as I know L1 has no affect on the H1 filing. She can come US on L1 and if her H1 gets approved, she can continue to work on L1 with company A. To tranfer to H1, she has to go out of US and then re-enter after getting H1 visa stamped. This is based on my understanding and few of my friends who have done that. They were in US on L1 but filed their H1 through another company.
dresses rey mysterio wallpaper.
Jaime
09-11 05:44 PM
We have the time now! The time to plan and to attend the rally! Once the rally passes we will be out of time! We have this huge opportunity! Let us all seize it!!! LET US ALL ATTEND THE RALLY!!!!
more...
makeup rey mysterio wallpaper.
logiclife
12-20 04:54 PM
Please lookup 245(k).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
(k) Inapplicability of certain provisions for certain employment-based immigrants
An alien who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) of this title (or, in the case of an alien who is an immigrant described in section 1101 (a)(27)(C) of this title, under section 1153 (b)(4) of this title) may adjust status pursuant to subsection (a) of this section and notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8) of this section, if—
(1) the alien, on the date of filing an application for adjustment of status, is present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission;
(2) the alien, subsequent to such lawful admission has not, for an aggregate period exceeding 180 days—
(A) failed to maintain, continuously, a lawful status;
(B) engaged in unauthorized employment; or
(C) otherwise violated the terms and conditions of the alien’s admission.
So basically if you are applying for employment based immigration adjustment of status(meaning I-485) under EB1 EB2 or EB3, (that's what they mean by paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) in the above text), and if you have not voilated status for over 180 days after your last legal entry into USA, and if you were in legal status at the time of applying for 485, then you may adjust status.
Now, a really good idea would be that you disclose this whole thing at the time of filing 485 and also claim the benefit under section 245(k). Since its apparent that you have not done it, I would advise to leave it alone and dont dig up old graves.
Consult an attorney for further advise, but dont go overboard in being Raja Harishchandra (the chronic truth teller) because frankly USCIS may not care about this and you can always claim the benefit under section 245(k).
However, if USCIS finds out about this (which is very very unlikely) and if the officer is a very strict person, then they may create a case of wilful misrepresentation. That's because on form I-485, it says that "have you ever been out of status or illegal and if so, provide details". In that question, if you didnt disclose your past history of being out of status ( I am assuming you were out of status and not illegal) then basically, in theory, they can say that you wilfully misrepresented (basically lied to them) by hiding this.
One option is to file an amendment to your I-485 and disclose this fact. That way, atleast they cannot make a case of wilfull misrepresentation. Nonetheless, remember, for them to find this out (about you not working and sitting at home) is difficult. Unless they somehow ask for your W-2 and paystubs for past 6-7 years and in that case it will be very easy for them to see that you were not working for 1 year.
Consult an attorney and tell the attorney all the details. I am not a lawyer and you should always ask a lawyer for legal advise.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
(k) Inapplicability of certain provisions for certain employment-based immigrants
An alien who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) of this title (or, in the case of an alien who is an immigrant described in section 1101 (a)(27)(C) of this title, under section 1153 (b)(4) of this title) may adjust status pursuant to subsection (a) of this section and notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8) of this section, if—
(1) the alien, on the date of filing an application for adjustment of status, is present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission;
(2) the alien, subsequent to such lawful admission has not, for an aggregate period exceeding 180 days—
(A) failed to maintain, continuously, a lawful status;
(B) engaged in unauthorized employment; or
(C) otherwise violated the terms and conditions of the alien’s admission.
So basically if you are applying for employment based immigration adjustment of status(meaning I-485) under EB1 EB2 or EB3, (that's what they mean by paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) in the above text), and if you have not voilated status for over 180 days after your last legal entry into USA, and if you were in legal status at the time of applying for 485, then you may adjust status.
Now, a really good idea would be that you disclose this whole thing at the time of filing 485 and also claim the benefit under section 245(k). Since its apparent that you have not done it, I would advise to leave it alone and dont dig up old graves.
Consult an attorney for further advise, but dont go overboard in being Raja Harishchandra (the chronic truth teller) because frankly USCIS may not care about this and you can always claim the benefit under section 245(k).
However, if USCIS finds out about this (which is very very unlikely) and if the officer is a very strict person, then they may create a case of wilful misrepresentation. That's because on form I-485, it says that "have you ever been out of status or illegal and if so, provide details". In that question, if you didnt disclose your past history of being out of status ( I am assuming you were out of status and not illegal) then basically, in theory, they can say that you wilfully misrepresented (basically lied to them) by hiding this.
One option is to file an amendment to your I-485 and disclose this fact. That way, atleast they cannot make a case of wilfull misrepresentation. Nonetheless, remember, for them to find this out (about you not working and sitting at home) is difficult. Unless they somehow ask for your W-2 and paystubs for past 6-7 years and in that case it will be very easy for them to see that you were not working for 1 year.
Consult an attorney and tell the attorney all the details. I am not a lawyer and you should always ask a lawyer for legal advise.
girlfriend Rey Mysterio
nomi
12-12 04:59 PM
All of the documents in this link are written by
"Micheal Aytes /s/,
Acting Associate Director, Domestic Operations
U.S. of Citizenship and Immigration Services
Department of Homeland Security"
I wonder if he is the person we should be talking to. Although the document does not indicate which city he works in. He should at leats be able to tell us who in USCIS makes these decisions if he is not the right person.
Also I was not able to find anything about not allowing concurrently to file 140/485 applications. Where was this information published? Does anyone know?
what about if we write a letter to USCIS and ask for some relief and all IV member fax that letter to USCIS same day. USICS will take notice about that many faxes same day and may be throw some light on this issue.
What do you guys think ??
"Micheal Aytes /s/,
Acting Associate Director, Domestic Operations
U.S. of Citizenship and Immigration Services
Department of Homeland Security"
I wonder if he is the person we should be talking to. Although the document does not indicate which city he works in. He should at leats be able to tell us who in USCIS makes these decisions if he is not the right person.
Also I was not able to find anything about not allowing concurrently to file 140/485 applications. Where was this information published? Does anyone know?
what about if we write a letter to USCIS and ask for some relief and all IV member fax that letter to USCIS same day. USICS will take notice about that many faxes same day and may be throw some light on this issue.
What do you guys think ??
hairstyles Wallpaper of Rey Mysterio
we_can
12-27 12:43 PM
Posted classified on portland.ekNazar.com
http://portland.eknazar.com/ekClassifieds/product_desc.php?id=127180
http://portland.eknazar.com/ekClassifieds/product_desc.php?id=127180
hebron
08-10 06:13 PM
I feel frustrated at some peoples' unwillingness to admit that EB3 needs IV's help now more than ever. They are saying that nothing much can be done for EB3, as INS merely corrected its wrong interpretation in visa allocation
But, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
Hi gk_2000, May be I am the only one who doesn't understand the idea. If you don't mind could you please explain what you proposed with examples?
But, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
Hi gk_2000, May be I am the only one who doesn't understand the idea. If you don't mind could you please explain what you proposed with examples?
ilamurughu
07-11 08:44 PM
Hi...
LC filing state : CA
PD : Oct 2003
Labour approval : Sep 2006
I-140 approval : Oct 2006
I - 485 : Documents sitting with Attorney and advising to wait until Oct'07...
LC filing state : CA
PD : Oct 2003
Labour approval : Sep 2006
I-140 approval : Oct 2006
I - 485 : Documents sitting with Attorney and advising to wait until Oct'07...