hsm2007
10-11 11:56 AM
Guys,
After responding to the RFE last week, I have been seeing continous LUDs on my 485. They were on 10/8, 10/9 and today on columbus day 10/11. There was also one when they registered my RFE response on 10/6.
And to add to that I received a FP notice for both spouse and myself but the date isn't until after 3 weeks. Can I get the FP done early? I don't want them to sit on my application for another 3 weeks just because they are waiting for my FP.
After responding to the RFE last week, I have been seeing continous LUDs on my 485. They were on 10/8, 10/9 and today on columbus day 10/11. There was also one when they registered my RFE response on 10/6.
And to add to that I received a FP notice for both spouse and myself but the date isn't until after 3 weeks. Can I get the FP done early? I don't want them to sit on my application for another 3 weeks just because they are waiting for my FP.
wallpaper short black hair red
pappu
02-04 02:27 PM
Some questions to those who are supporting country cap.
Why not put a country cap on foreign students� visas since many of them get into the green card line eventually?
Why not put a country cap on H1B visas since many of them get into the green card line eventually?
Why not put a country cap on labor certifications?
Why not put a country cap on I-140s?
Why not impose a country cap at the port of entry?
Why not put a country cap on visitors� visas?
Why not put a country cap on business visas?
Why not put a country cap on US trade with other countries?
Why not put a country cap on amount of US $ reserves that each country can have?
Why not put a country cap on children that foreigners in the US can bear?
Why not put a country cap on the foreigners� earnings in the US?
.
.
.
And the list can go on.
Putting country cap on greens cards serves a hidden racist agenda of not letting the people of one particular ethnic group grow in number and become strong.
Big question:
Why not put a country cap on the CIR for all undocumented?
What are the reasons for not doing that?
Lawmakers give a rationale of diversity as the reason for country caps. Why is the reason for diversity not relevant for undocumented? I am sure there are undocumented from all countries and not just one country?
Why not put a country cap on foreign students� visas since many of them get into the green card line eventually?
Why not put a country cap on H1B visas since many of them get into the green card line eventually?
Why not put a country cap on labor certifications?
Why not put a country cap on I-140s?
Why not impose a country cap at the port of entry?
Why not put a country cap on visitors� visas?
Why not put a country cap on business visas?
Why not put a country cap on US trade with other countries?
Why not put a country cap on amount of US $ reserves that each country can have?
Why not put a country cap on children that foreigners in the US can bear?
Why not put a country cap on the foreigners� earnings in the US?
.
.
.
And the list can go on.
Putting country cap on greens cards serves a hidden racist agenda of not letting the people of one particular ethnic group grow in number and become strong.
Big question:
Why not put a country cap on the CIR for all undocumented?
What are the reasons for not doing that?
Lawmakers give a rationale of diversity as the reason for country caps. Why is the reason for diversity not relevant for undocumented? I am sure there are undocumented from all countries and not just one country?
mdubbaka
03-17 02:37 PM
MY PD is Sep 2002. Filed in July 2007.
2011 2010 short hair red
CT_Green
12-27 09:03 AM
I have a home mortgage and also a 529 for my daughter. The H1 approval notice is good enough. I guess one just needs to look around for other options.
more...
nyte_crawler
03-10 09:10 AM
I changed 5 employers over the past 6 years, after I filed my GC. I never did AC21 with out them asking for it and I responded to only one RFE with whatever the document they requested and I mentioned that I used AC21 to change the job.
nozerd
01-28 09:49 AM
Yup. Specially given that H1 is a dual intent visa.
All Im asking for is clarity. DOS needs to come out and say that based on current demand we except your priority date to be current between x and y date. Even if the x and y is something ridiculous like 8 or 10 ys I am cool with it. Atleast we will know where we stand and not try to be hopeful and depressed with each VB. We need some good estimates to make imp life decision.
The original intent of country caps was to prevent one single country from monopolizing the immigration (but this was regular unskilled immigration like family based immigration etc). But when it comes to skill based immigration it is ridiculous to maintain country caps. Everybody including the US government, USCIS and industry know that country caps in skilled category are ridiculous. That is why in H1B they don’t enforce the country caps. Because if they enforce the country caps in H1b the whole H1 program will collapse. I know the difference between h1 and green cards but when you bring people into US on H1 without country caps they should not enforce country caps on H1 to green cards skilled category. The people who are oppose immigration are using this(the country cap or rather quota) as an excuse to make things worse for immigrantion.
All Im asking for is clarity. DOS needs to come out and say that based on current demand we except your priority date to be current between x and y date. Even if the x and y is something ridiculous like 8 or 10 ys I am cool with it. Atleast we will know where we stand and not try to be hopeful and depressed with each VB. We need some good estimates to make imp life decision.
The original intent of country caps was to prevent one single country from monopolizing the immigration (but this was regular unskilled immigration like family based immigration etc). But when it comes to skill based immigration it is ridiculous to maintain country caps. Everybody including the US government, USCIS and industry know that country caps in skilled category are ridiculous. That is why in H1B they don’t enforce the country caps. Because if they enforce the country caps in H1b the whole H1 program will collapse. I know the difference between h1 and green cards but when you bring people into US on H1 without country caps they should not enforce country caps on H1 to green cards skilled category. The people who are oppose immigration are using this(the country cap or rather quota) as an excuse to make things worse for immigrantion.
more...
shreekarthik
08-02 02:01 PM
you have already filed ur I485 right ? so what do u mean "y am i still waiting ?"
2010 pictures short black hair red
kumarc123
10-23 02:01 PM
Obama clearly explained that he wanted to end abuses of the H1-B visas that is used by highly qualified specialists to work in US. He added that he would make "immigrant workers less dependent on their employers for their right to stay in the country, and would hold accountable employers who abuse the system and their workers".
I read that too, the problem is that American people have now become aware of the H1B visa abuse, I believe all these Desi vendor/body shops have really abused the system to the root. If democrats take over, which I interpret they most likely will, they will put out much strict regulations on these small companies. I know some people in my university are planning to join a community that will report the Desi companies abusing the system to department of commerce, because their are some people who failed to get H1b visa in last two years due to the lottery system.
Thanks
I read that too, the problem is that American people have now become aware of the H1B visa abuse, I believe all these Desi vendor/body shops have really abused the system to the root. If democrats take over, which I interpret they most likely will, they will put out much strict regulations on these small companies. I know some people in my university are planning to join a community that will report the Desi companies abusing the system to department of commerce, because their are some people who failed to get H1b visa in last two years due to the lottery system.
Thanks
more...
tawlibann
03-18 06:00 PM
Sorry if this is offtopic but can someone explain to me who banned me and why? I didn't write anything offensive or abusive, and I didn't insult anybody. I was just discussing the issues I read in another forum.
If it is my handle, you don't like, well my name is Tawlibann Foggs (it is Celtic name, and quite rare but I like it). My friends call me Taliban jokingly (I know it may not be funny to all of you, and I didn't like it at first, but I can't stop people), so that's why the handle was 'taliban'. I hope that answers your questions, and I mean no harm to anyone.
I thought this forum was open to everybody to express their opinions and discuss relevant issues without insulting others. If you're going to keep banning me, please just let me know that I'm not welcome, and I'll leave. I thought Immigration Voice and its forum was open to all EB immigrants. I was even intending to become a contributing member, but now I'm kind of lost. Am I not supposed to post here? Is there something I missed?
If it is my handle, you don't like, well my name is Tawlibann Foggs (it is Celtic name, and quite rare but I like it). My friends call me Taliban jokingly (I know it may not be funny to all of you, and I didn't like it at first, but I can't stop people), so that's why the handle was 'taliban'. I hope that answers your questions, and I mean no harm to anyone.
I thought this forum was open to everybody to express their opinions and discuss relevant issues without insulting others. If you're going to keep banning me, please just let me know that I'm not welcome, and I'll leave. I thought Immigration Voice and its forum was open to all EB immigrants. I was even intending to become a contributing member, but now I'm kind of lost. Am I not supposed to post here? Is there something I missed?
hair short hair red highlights.
yetanotherguyinline
05-15 04:26 PM
I agree this is a bad year but this was an article from 2006. I also completely agree that people need to pursue M.B.A with the aim of improving their skills or with a aim of improving their marketability or future career growth but then once you pay the big bucks it alwyas filters down to ROI. But spending 2 years of one's life at a full-time school shelling out 100's of thousands of dollars (especially if it is out of their own pocket) will make sense only if one can justify the investment in terms of dollars. People expect sunk costs to be recovered in the future. Investment banking and finance offered that opportunity to M.B.A professionals where they could draw anywhere between $300k-450k in base salary alone apart from millions of dollars in bonuses. Going into the future, the current socialistic government will keep tabs on such exuberant pays.
I weighed all these when deciding to start part-time. I always wanted to be a Mechanical Engineer and I want to be associated with my field for rest of my life. My intent of pursuing M.B.A is to move up the ladder quickly in Engineering/Technology Management.
You nailed it when you said you want to be in your field and you need an MBA to move up. My argument was that ROI should not be the major factor but reasoning as you mentioned above should be.
I weighed all these when deciding to start part-time. I always wanted to be a Mechanical Engineer and I want to be associated with my field for rest of my life. My intent of pursuing M.B.A is to move up the ladder quickly in Engineering/Technology Management.
You nailed it when you said you want to be in your field and you need an MBA to move up. My argument was that ROI should not be the major factor but reasoning as you mentioned above should be.
more...
masouds
02-16 10:16 PM
If the Africans had just continued to abide by slavery, they would never have gotten their freedom, just because, "it's the American policy."
I hate to break my own promise to shut up on this, and I hate to be your history teacher: African slaves in US didn't become free because they fought with their owners. They became free since President Lincoln decided that slavery had gone on a bit too long.
When european immigrants walked into this continent and started hacking natives, they had firearm, they had the aggression and they had the numbers on their side. Which one of these do you (or we) have?
Let's stop debating this, since this issue isn't going to be resolved here; You either get the next president/congress to abolish this part of immigration law, or ask the courts to force the government to do what you like.
I hate to break my own promise to shut up on this, and I hate to be your history teacher: African slaves in US didn't become free because they fought with their owners. They became free since President Lincoln decided that slavery had gone on a bit too long.
When european immigrants walked into this continent and started hacking natives, they had firearm, they had the aggression and they had the numbers on their side. Which one of these do you (or we) have?
Let's stop debating this, since this issue isn't going to be resolved here; You either get the next president/congress to abolish this part of immigration law, or ask the courts to force the government to do what you like.
hot lack hair with red highlights
svbp007
02-24 01:53 PM
Hi, I hope somebody helps in my dilemma.
I am currently on an L1A visa. I heard that my main office (where I am now working) is closing the foreign office where I come from. Based on L1 requirements and facts, it states that once the subsidiary closes, my L1 becomes invalid. Given this, the company is willing to sponsor my green card as soon as possible. It will probably still take a year before the subsidiary officially closes. What are my options? If they have to close the company while my green card is being process, would it be cancelled ?
Thanks.
There should not be a problem with your L1. It was a requirement to get L1...not to stay on L1. Given that L1 is a dual intent category...it does not make sense either.
I know directly of a case where the company from which a colleague came from India was sold to another company ....but because in the preceding 3 years the Indian company was an affiliate...it was OK.
What L1 requirements are you talking about ?...is there any rule that you saw that states that if the subsidiary closes L1 becomes invalid?...can you provide that link/info ?
I am currently on an L1A visa. I heard that my main office (where I am now working) is closing the foreign office where I come from. Based on L1 requirements and facts, it states that once the subsidiary closes, my L1 becomes invalid. Given this, the company is willing to sponsor my green card as soon as possible. It will probably still take a year before the subsidiary officially closes. What are my options? If they have to close the company while my green card is being process, would it be cancelled ?
Thanks.
There should not be a problem with your L1. It was a requirement to get L1...not to stay on L1. Given that L1 is a dual intent category...it does not make sense either.
I know directly of a case where the company from which a colleague came from India was sold to another company ....but because in the preceding 3 years the Indian company was an affiliate...it was OK.
What L1 requirements are you talking about ?...is there any rule that you saw that states that if the subsidiary closes L1 becomes invalid?...can you provide that link/info ?
more...
house short black hair red
shrayus
04-20 04:09 PM
I will get it posted on various internal mailing systems of sun. Will bring the banner www.immigrationvoice.org
Sanjeev
Sanjeev
tattoo red black hair color styles
sc09876
07-29 01:14 PM
Add CareFirst - Blue Cross Blue Shield
Legg Meson
All these companies take people on H1 and after an year of year an half they say they have changed policy and they can't file H1. They have big lawyers like M**** and R**** and those lawyers tell employers even if your employee is on 5th year and if you don't file GC (PERM) b4 365 days its alright.... we can send them out and re catpture time and all BS and ultimately employees suffer.... as they r in their 5th or some are in 6th year and are completely screwed up.
We should think of taking some legal actions...
Ya..make sure you consult your attorney to know if such a thing is viable. :). Make sure you read the "employment at will" agreement along with all the other 28 pages that you will abide by the HR policies and also make sure that you read the 125 pages of HR policies.
Legg Meson
All these companies take people on H1 and after an year of year an half they say they have changed policy and they can't file H1. They have big lawyers like M**** and R**** and those lawyers tell employers even if your employee is on 5th year and if you don't file GC (PERM) b4 365 days its alright.... we can send them out and re catpture time and all BS and ultimately employees suffer.... as they r in their 5th or some are in 6th year and are completely screwed up.
We should think of taking some legal actions...
Ya..make sure you consult your attorney to know if such a thing is viable. :). Make sure you read the "employment at will" agreement along with all the other 28 pages that you will abide by the HR policies and also make sure that you read the 125 pages of HR policies.
more...
pictures short black hair red
rajkr
06-11 01:21 PM
Dude, we are not suggesting or even thinking that we should move away from main agenda, thats there and thats where IV advocacy days aimed at. Its part of the game. You cant sail the sea without winning over turbulences. these are not if and if nots.
Other If's you are trying to post are not in the works, if they are then its same path. You cant turn a blind eye to something that is already happening.
If you really believe that this bogus bill will become a Law, then also see the real picture, that is why I posted the other Ifs.
This Bill is titled as "Employ America Act". By having the GC, you are not an American. If you do not know the rule here it is, GC is a "Privilege", and it is not a "Right". So if this Bill passes all these people with alerady having GC will also need to pack their Bags and Go. That is the reality, dude.
So again and again do not fall over it. If you respond to this Bill, and Vote "No" against it, you are trying to send wrong messages to the originators of the bill, that we are scared. Why you guys are making everyone scared, when there is nothing to be scared about.
Other If's you are trying to post are not in the works, if they are then its same path. You cant turn a blind eye to something that is already happening.
If you really believe that this bogus bill will become a Law, then also see the real picture, that is why I posted the other Ifs.
This Bill is titled as "Employ America Act". By having the GC, you are not an American. If you do not know the rule here it is, GC is a "Privilege", and it is not a "Right". So if this Bill passes all these people with alerady having GC will also need to pack their Bags and Go. That is the reality, dude.
So again and again do not fall over it. If you respond to this Bill, and Vote "No" against it, you are trying to send wrong messages to the originators of the bill, that we are scared. Why you guys are making everyone scared, when there is nothing to be scared about.
dresses short black hair red
gsc999
04-22 02:56 PM
Decipher and GSC999 have totally contradictory opinions . Not sure whom to believe here .:D . There seems to have been 2 sets of opinons here of the members who attended the rally.
---
I think you mean the conclusions we drew are different. Yes, as Congressman Gutierrez himself said yesterday. Some people, he was referring to Latinos who were opposing STRIVE, see STRIVE as glass half-empty. Others as half-full.
I will want to be in the latter category anyday.
The objective of the meeting was to show support for STRIVE, I think we acheived that. If your expectation was that there will only be IV members in the group and the congressman would focus exclusively on that issue. Sorry for the disappointment, welcome to politics. Lets learn from this.
Also, most members think that only anti-immigrants oppose STRIVE. That is not true. Undocumented immigrants also oppose STRIVE. When someone says ,"oh the whole thing was regarding undocumented," well yes but you have to go deeper. Within that group, there are people who oppose STRIVE.
---
I think you mean the conclusions we drew are different. Yes, as Congressman Gutierrez himself said yesterday. Some people, he was referring to Latinos who were opposing STRIVE, see STRIVE as glass half-empty. Others as half-full.
I will want to be in the latter category anyday.
The objective of the meeting was to show support for STRIVE, I think we acheived that. If your expectation was that there will only be IV members in the group and the congressman would focus exclusively on that issue. Sorry for the disappointment, welcome to politics. Lets learn from this.
Also, most members think that only anti-immigrants oppose STRIVE. That is not true. Undocumented immigrants also oppose STRIVE. When someone says ,"oh the whole thing was regarding undocumented," well yes but you have to go deeper. Within that group, there are people who oppose STRIVE.
more...
makeup Short black bob with red
Circus123
02-20 04:31 PM
EB3 india wont move further... With PD Sep 2001 EB3 Indi. Still waiting...
Don't worry man! Your coast is near ... I think the EB3 India movement will atleast go to Sept - Oct 2001 . Someone had posted the Labor PD count from May 01 to Dec 01 . (524 in total) . Obviously the unknown which came out of the BEC backlogs makes this situation worse.
Don't worry man! Your coast is near ... I think the EB3 India movement will atleast go to Sept - Oct 2001 . Someone had posted the Labor PD count from May 01 to Dec 01 . (524 in total) . Obviously the unknown which came out of the BEC backlogs makes this situation worse.
girlfriend hair short hair red highlights. emo short black hair red highlights. short
gc03
07-24 09:02 AM
I totally agree with you. Excellent point.
hairstyles short black hair red
nomi
12-13 01:24 PM
All , this subject has been raised very often and every time new members join in they start a thread and start questioning it.
- IV has indepth explored and studied this option and have found that this change is not possible administratively.
- we have not just met a lawyer. we have met few lawyers. we also have communicated with USCIS in the past.
- In the past some administrative changes have been done by USCIS, but this change cannot be done by them. All, we already had this idea long long ago and we also thought that why dont we do it if it so simple and then we dont have to go through all the legislative hurdles. But NO it cannot be done by USCIS.
- Faxing USCIS will not work. USCIS does not take policy decisions. We need to approach policy makers to get it done and that is what we are doing. By coming up with ideas, endlessly discussing despite explaination by IV and not working with IV action items we will all go in divergent directions and lose focus on the main action items we want each every member should focus. If you really feel for some idea and want to help, instead of asking IV to give explanation to every question on the forum, contact any of the active IV core members on the forum and bounce ideas. We need people with ideas and also same people willing to work on them too.
- If it was possible to get it done administratively, then in the current Skil bill push we would have/ and lawmakers would also have just asked USCIS to implement it.
Hope this explains this topic. Thanks
Thanks Pappu for explaination. Look like this door is already close. Well let me know if I can do anything to help.
- IV has indepth explored and studied this option and have found that this change is not possible administratively.
- we have not just met a lawyer. we have met few lawyers. we also have communicated with USCIS in the past.
- In the past some administrative changes have been done by USCIS, but this change cannot be done by them. All, we already had this idea long long ago and we also thought that why dont we do it if it so simple and then we dont have to go through all the legislative hurdles. But NO it cannot be done by USCIS.
- Faxing USCIS will not work. USCIS does not take policy decisions. We need to approach policy makers to get it done and that is what we are doing. By coming up with ideas, endlessly discussing despite explaination by IV and not working with IV action items we will all go in divergent directions and lose focus on the main action items we want each every member should focus. If you really feel for some idea and want to help, instead of asking IV to give explanation to every question on the forum, contact any of the active IV core members on the forum and bounce ideas. We need people with ideas and also same people willing to work on them too.
- If it was possible to get it done administratively, then in the current Skil bill push we would have/ and lawmakers would also have just asked USCIS to implement it.
Hope this explains this topic. Thanks
Thanks Pappu for explaination. Look like this door is already close. Well let me know if I can do anything to help.
hara_patta_for_rico
07-09 07:05 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
anilsal
07-18 12:48 AM
Plus the July 2nd bulletin has been reversed (meaning totally void). So the July 2nd filers should be ok. Infact there is a grim possibility that you may be assigned the remaining yearly visa numbers (as per Greg Siskind's blog entry).
Instead of really worrying, why don't you become a paid member of IV on a monthly recurring basis? This way you are supporting the IV cause (which is your/our cause).
Instead of really worrying, why don't you become a paid member of IV on a monthly recurring basis? This way you are supporting the IV cause (which is your/our cause).
0 comments:
Post a Comment