wandmaker
12-16 11:27 AM
See really ..my ignorence on this option ( of making smaller contribution using paypal- donations@immigrationvoice.org )... is probably why some of the guys I have spoken to at work have also not contributed yet..though they all visit and adhore the IV effort..
Now you know how to contribute smaller amounts to IV - contribute the smaller denomination regularly or whenever possible and spread the word. So both IV and you can benefit from this. Thank you.
Now you know how to contribute smaller amounts to IV - contribute the smaller denomination regularly or whenever possible and spread the word. So both IV and you can benefit from this. Thank you.
wallpaper Valentino Rossi took an
TeddyKoochu
07-01 10:59 AM
because the backlog for EB3 is currently staring at close to 10 years and an EB2 requirement is around 5 years of progressive experience, which might enable many of them who would have progressed in their careers due to a 10 year wait for green card.
Why not EB2 to EB1 is because, EB1 is for exceptionally skilled people(athletes, doctors, multi-national managers(via L1A) etc). For EB2 candidates to be pushed to EB1, they need to exceptionally skilled which cannot be gained via experience but by acquiring skills which will place them in those categories.
If they can acquire those skills, then they automatically qualify for EB1 or EB1-NIW and can apply anytime by themselves. Note, EB1 does not need a labor approval too.
Hope that makes clear the distinction between EB1, EB2 & EB3. Employment-based GC applying lessons 101...of course this is the simplest one...:D
Do you really agree with multi-national managers(via L1A). This is the area wherein the interpretation is pretty loose. If you dissect EB1 data you would find that EB1C used bulk of it except for this year due to bad economy and tightening of screws. There should be some very clearly defined guidelines for EB1-C, somebody being an onsite coordinator or managing 5 people should not be eligible. This category should be reserved for those who are managing at least 100 people or control business in several millions. I agree that EB1 should be just for the exceptional.
Why not EB2 to EB1 is because, EB1 is for exceptionally skilled people(athletes, doctors, multi-national managers(via L1A) etc). For EB2 candidates to be pushed to EB1, they need to exceptionally skilled which cannot be gained via experience but by acquiring skills which will place them in those categories.
If they can acquire those skills, then they automatically qualify for EB1 or EB1-NIW and can apply anytime by themselves. Note, EB1 does not need a labor approval too.
Hope that makes clear the distinction between EB1, EB2 & EB3. Employment-based GC applying lessons 101...of course this is the simplest one...:D
Do you really agree with multi-national managers(via L1A). This is the area wherein the interpretation is pretty loose. If you dissect EB1 data you would find that EB1C used bulk of it except for this year due to bad economy and tightening of screws. There should be some very clearly defined guidelines for EB1-C, somebody being an onsite coordinator or managing 5 people should not be eligible. This category should be reserved for those who are managing at least 100 people or control business in several millions. I agree that EB1 should be just for the exceptional.
rameshvaid
03-15 09:44 PM
Getting expungemen t wouldnot help in his case.
For immigration purposes, his conviction stands.
Everytime when he visits consulate for a visa or enters USA at POE, he needs to indicate this on documents and provide explanation (if asked ) with relevant documents.
Yes, I do agree with you but he asked a specific question related to travelling, and his expungement will help. He need not to declare at the POE about his case but as you said he will have the side effects of this case in various other stages till he is admitted as PR.
RV
For immigration purposes, his conviction stands.
Everytime when he visits consulate for a visa or enters USA at POE, he needs to indicate this on documents and provide explanation (if asked ) with relevant documents.
Yes, I do agree with you but he asked a specific question related to travelling, and his expungement will help. He need not to declare at the POE about his case but as you said he will have the side effects of this case in various other stages till he is admitted as PR.
RV
2011 Poster - Valentino Rossi
HV000
11-08 10:13 AM
Happy Diwali Everyone!!
more...
dilipb
06-23 04:15 PM
Hi dilip,
Where do we get the A# from ?
Look at your current EAD !!!!!
It has that A#
Where do we get the A# from ?
Look at your current EAD !!!!!
It has that A#
TeddyKoochu
07-01 11:27 AM
teddy the pun "multi-national managers(via L1A)" was intended. if that makes it clear.
anyway, the focus of this thread was about the president's immigration speech. Atleast the speech included the fact that illegal immigration makes a mockery of legal immigration. understood that any solution also must include finding a way on how to handle the undocumented people.
anyway, the speech for now might be just a start or more "kick in the butt" to let the congress know that they need to start work in CIR. when it comes to fruition is anybody's guess.
Thanks for clarifying !
anyway, the focus of this thread was about the president's immigration speech. Atleast the speech included the fact that illegal immigration makes a mockery of legal immigration. understood that any solution also must include finding a way on how to handle the undocumented people.
anyway, the speech for now might be just a start or more "kick in the butt" to let the congress know that they need to start work in CIR. when it comes to fruition is anybody's guess.
Thanks for clarifying !
more...
Macaca
06-17 10:34 AM
The delay caused by the FBI name check has substantial consequences to applicants and their families, as well as to our country and the economy. Examples of how legitimate applicants suffer include:
Loss of employment and employment opportunities where the position requires green card status or U.S. citizenship;
Possible termination of employment due to the inability to comply with required Form I-9 employment verification procedures where USCIS delays interim EAD issuance;
Difficulties obtaining drivers� licenses;
Inability to qualify for certain federal grants and funds;
Limitations on the ability to purchase property;
Difficulties obtaining credit and student loans; and
Disqualification from in-state tuition.
Loss of employment and employment opportunities where the position requires green card status or U.S. citizenship;
Possible termination of employment due to the inability to comply with required Form I-9 employment verification procedures where USCIS delays interim EAD issuance;
Difficulties obtaining drivers� licenses;
Inability to qualify for certain federal grants and funds;
Limitations on the ability to purchase property;
Difficulties obtaining credit and student loans; and
Disqualification from in-state tuition.
2010 Valentino Rossi
GCard_Dream
03-27 06:36 PM
I am filling out the form G-639 to obtain a copy of the I-140 approval notice. I am little confused about section 6 and 8.
In section 1, I indicated that I want the information under the FOIA. It is indicated in section 1 that I have to complete all sections except section 6 which is the "Verification of subject's Identity". So if I don't have to complete the section 6 then I also shouldn't have to do any notary in section 8, right?
It appears that section 8 is related to section 6 and I should be able to skip both. Any ideas guys. Thanks.
In section 1, I indicated that I want the information under the FOIA. It is indicated in section 1 that I have to complete all sections except section 6 which is the "Verification of subject's Identity". So if I don't have to complete the section 6 then I also shouldn't have to do any notary in section 8, right?
It appears that section 8 is related to section 6 and I should be able to skip both. Any ideas guys. Thanks.
more...
rameshavula
05-12 09:38 AM
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/immig12.html
Its a good sign.....
Ramesh
Its a good sign.....
Ramesh
hair Valentino Rossi Laureus Awards
eb3retro
03-17 04:39 PM
Guys - I have 2 sets of questions:
1. Case 1: Re-enter on AP with a valid H1-B visa till Oct 2010 (not stamped in Passport though). What status do I have (AOS or H1-B)? This is assuming that I work for the same GC sponsoring employer. I currently have 3 copies of AP (and 3 for my wife) - will I have to turn in all 3 of them at the POE? I have read that the Immigration Officers keep 2 of the 3 APs and return one back to you. The I-94 is stamped for 1 year - what do I do after a year? Do I have to renew my AP every year to maintain my status in the US?
2. Case II: Re-enter on AP (not working for sponsoring employer - using AC 21) - Is this safe? How does one explain AC21 to the Immigration Officer..how should one answer the question: 'Who is your current employer?'
thanks in advance!
charlotte-gc
refer to my post here.. http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=230811&postcount=1
1. Case 1: Re-enter on AP with a valid H1-B visa till Oct 2010 (not stamped in Passport though). What status do I have (AOS or H1-B)? This is assuming that I work for the same GC sponsoring employer. I currently have 3 copies of AP (and 3 for my wife) - will I have to turn in all 3 of them at the POE? I have read that the Immigration Officers keep 2 of the 3 APs and return one back to you. The I-94 is stamped for 1 year - what do I do after a year? Do I have to renew my AP every year to maintain my status in the US?
2. Case II: Re-enter on AP (not working for sponsoring employer - using AC 21) - Is this safe? How does one explain AC21 to the Immigration Officer..how should one answer the question: 'Who is your current employer?'
thanks in advance!
charlotte-gc
refer to my post here.. http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=230811&postcount=1
more...
gconmymind
09-05 01:48 PM
AFAIK, AP is considered only for emergency travel. That said, I think the officer was being over reactive.
As we all know, immigration laws are arcane. AP for emergency travel was ok when people used to get GC within 6 months of 485 filing. Now, when it can take anywhere from 1 to 3 years to get GC after 485 filing, does it make sense to have AP for only emergency?! Crap...
As we all know, immigration laws are arcane. AP for emergency travel was ok when people used to get GC within 6 months of 485 filing. Now, when it can take anywhere from 1 to 3 years to get GC after 485 filing, does it make sense to have AP for only emergency?! Crap...
hot Valentino Rossi has set the
pappu
06-30 10:52 AM
Nothing significant is expected from this speech. Most politicians repeat the same 3 things- Secure our borders, provide path to citizenship to millions and welcome best and the brightest. The real question is when they will do the real work on immigration. There have been some discussions on administrative fixes on immigration. However some of these fixes would politically harm democrats in the upcoming elections.
more...
house Valentino Rossi
mpadapa
10-05 02:36 PM
come on folks. This is a great way to meet with fellow IV-ers.
There is lot of activity happening as a result on the rally, U might be fortunate to hear about them during the meet:D
There is lot of activity happening as a result on the rally, U might be fortunate to hear about them during the meet:D
tattoo valentino rossi race number
amitjoey
07-09 04:24 PM
Please send english_august's pdf to your local newspapers.
more...
pictures valentino rossi wheelie
texanmom
08-15 10:31 AM
From everything I've read before, it is safe to stay with the sponsoring employer for at least 6 mos.
There have to be extenuating circumstances to leave earlier than that, and be prepared to elaborate during the citizenship interview.
There have to be extenuating circumstances to leave earlier than that, and be prepared to elaborate during the citizenship interview.
dresses Wallpaper Valentino Rossi.
franklin
08-22 07:06 PM
First your PD has to be current for USCIS to look into your RD.
Not quite, as I understand it, if your PD is not current, your AOS will continue processing and will eventually get to a "approved, pending visa number" state. You can pretty much be in this state for some time, and then when PD does become current (as happened from May through July this year with the significant shift in PDs in the bulletins) there will be a massive approval rate of all those pending applications.
USCIS doesn't stop the application process just because your PD is no longer current
This is how USCIS got through 60k unused visas in a staggeringly short time. There were a LOT of applications that were ready to go, they were just waiting for those numbers. USCIS didn't all of a suddenly quadruple their efficiency in processing :)
Not quite, as I understand it, if your PD is not current, your AOS will continue processing and will eventually get to a "approved, pending visa number" state. You can pretty much be in this state for some time, and then when PD does become current (as happened from May through July this year with the significant shift in PDs in the bulletins) there will be a massive approval rate of all those pending applications.
USCIS doesn't stop the application process just because your PD is no longer current
This is how USCIS got through 60k unused visas in a staggeringly short time. There were a LOT of applications that were ready to go, they were just waiting for those numbers. USCIS didn't all of a suddenly quadruple their efficiency in processing :)
more...
makeup Valentino Rossi has ended 2008
garybanz
12-06 09:54 AM
I have not tried it myself, but a couple members did and it worked. I also know about folks receiving EADs after filing lawsuits. There is still rule of the law in this country. Try follow my instructions and see the results.
I was at USCIS this morning, followed every thing you suggested. My IO officer was actually a desi guy.
1) They completely refused to look at the received date, I had my EAD (765) receipt, but the IO said he only cares about the receipt date. I even has the print out from USCIS.gov in which they have mentioned that they will honor the date on which applications were received in the mail room but he did not budge. His argument was " That update is in the over all scheme of things, but for EAD they have specific instruction to follow only the date they entered the data in the system"
2) I was not allowed to see a supervisor, the IO did talk to the supervisor but did not let me see her.
I was at USCIS this morning, followed every thing you suggested. My IO officer was actually a desi guy.
1) They completely refused to look at the received date, I had my EAD (765) receipt, but the IO said he only cares about the receipt date. I even has the print out from USCIS.gov in which they have mentioned that they will honor the date on which applications were received in the mail room but he did not budge. His argument was " That update is in the over all scheme of things, but for EAD they have specific instruction to follow only the date they entered the data in the system"
2) I was not allowed to see a supervisor, the IO did talk to the supervisor but did not let me see her.
girlfriend Valentino Rossi put his mark
USINPAC
07-13 02:57 PM
July 13, 2007
Aman Kapoor
Co-Founder
Immigration Voice
P.O. Box 114
Dayton, NJ 08810
aman@immigrationvoice.org
Dear Aman,
This letter is regarding the article "Say it with flowers: Gandhigiri for US green cards" published by the Indian Express on Wednesday, July 11, 2007. The article erroneously indicated that Robinder Sachdev from USINPAC was a coordinator of the flower protest initiative. As you obviously know, this is incorrect. I assure you that Mr. Sachdev did not make this false representation. We are reaching out to the reporter requesting they publish a clarification. USINPAC is aware that the flower plan was originated and organized by Immigration Voice and has responded to all enquiries accordingly. Please feel free to call (202-276-7946) or email me on this, if you have any further questions.
Warm Regards,
Surabhi Garg
Director, Member Initiatives
202-276-7946 (Cell#)
sgarg@usinpac.com
www.usinpac.com
Aman Kapoor
Co-Founder
Immigration Voice
P.O. Box 114
Dayton, NJ 08810
aman@immigrationvoice.org
Dear Aman,
This letter is regarding the article "Say it with flowers: Gandhigiri for US green cards" published by the Indian Express on Wednesday, July 11, 2007. The article erroneously indicated that Robinder Sachdev from USINPAC was a coordinator of the flower protest initiative. As you obviously know, this is incorrect. I assure you that Mr. Sachdev did not make this false representation. We are reaching out to the reporter requesting they publish a clarification. USINPAC is aware that the flower plan was originated and organized by Immigration Voice and has responded to all enquiries accordingly. Please feel free to call (202-276-7946) or email me on this, if you have any further questions.
Warm Regards,
Surabhi Garg
Director, Member Initiatives
202-276-7946 (Cell#)
sgarg@usinpac.com
www.usinpac.com
hairstyles Yamaha M1 Valentino Rossi
apb
03-18 02:38 PM
AT JFK.
Submitted two copies of AP and passport. I had three copies from USCIS.
Went through US citizen/resident queue and the CBP officer took me to another verification counter.
There were only one other person (Russian). No questions asked. NONE. Verified address and very very informative and friendly CBP officer. Handed both AP with one of them stamped. I have all three copies of AP with me with one stamped.
He advised that every time I travel make sure there is no NOID on my case and my AP is current.
Submitted two copies of AP and passport. I had three copies from USCIS.
Went through US citizen/resident queue and the CBP officer took me to another verification counter.
There were only one other person (Russian). No questions asked. NONE. Verified address and very very informative and friendly CBP officer. Handed both AP with one of them stamped. I have all three copies of AP with me with one stamped.
He advised that every time I travel make sure there is no NOID on my case and my AP is current.
sagis99
05-22 04:34 PM
yes, this whole debate is useless anyway, since there's no meaning to those dates, maybe just for extreme cases, that are delayed even beyond the usual unreasonable delay.
If you manage to get your employer to get a SR open for you on the I140, chances are, you'll get your I140 approved before you'll get any response to the SR, since USCIS takes that ridiculous 45 business days to respond.
If you manage to get your employer to get a SR open for you on the I140, chances are, you'll get your I140 approved before you'll get any response to the SR, since USCIS takes that ridiculous 45 business days to respond.
sayantan76
07-02 09:38 AM
last time i posted this idea everyone ridiculed.
Well we desis can only follow the lead of firingis.. so firingis say that who the f*** asked you to come here in the first place and we understand their logic and tell ourselves who the f*** asked us to be here in the first place .. so we are to blame ourselves for everything and take the crap anyway..
But that is not the point.
The point is that me and my company and you and your organisation have paid a service fee with a reasonable expectation of service. reasonable expectation of service is subject to interpretetion based on common sense and no f**king common sense says that waiting 10 years for GC is reasonable .. unless your common sense has been replaced by self disrepecting logic ....
i am not a lawyer but i think that when you pay a processing fees to apply for a privilege (drivers license, business permit, visa, green card etc) from the appropriate statutory authority (DMV, USCIS, Dept of Commerce etc) - the payment of fees does not make you the customer of the statutory authority - so to the extent that USCIS has not broken a law to discriminate against a particular set of applicants (class) - a class action may indeed have no merit.
However, if it can be proved that there has indeed been gross negligence or that USCIS has not followed its own established procedures, made commitments but not honored those, lied or broken the law of the land - then there may be a case.......
another angle is that if the law itself violates the constitution - there is a separate procedure to appeal against such a law (like may suits going on in state courts on laws related to gay rights) - however USCIS would not be party to such a lawsuit since USCIS does not make laws. one would need not only a good immigration lawyer but also a constitutional expert for a venture like this.
Well we desis can only follow the lead of firingis.. so firingis say that who the f*** asked you to come here in the first place and we understand their logic and tell ourselves who the f*** asked us to be here in the first place .. so we are to blame ourselves for everything and take the crap anyway..
But that is not the point.
The point is that me and my company and you and your organisation have paid a service fee with a reasonable expectation of service. reasonable expectation of service is subject to interpretetion based on common sense and no f**king common sense says that waiting 10 years for GC is reasonable .. unless your common sense has been replaced by self disrepecting logic ....
i am not a lawyer but i think that when you pay a processing fees to apply for a privilege (drivers license, business permit, visa, green card etc) from the appropriate statutory authority (DMV, USCIS, Dept of Commerce etc) - the payment of fees does not make you the customer of the statutory authority - so to the extent that USCIS has not broken a law to discriminate against a particular set of applicants (class) - a class action may indeed have no merit.
However, if it can be proved that there has indeed been gross negligence or that USCIS has not followed its own established procedures, made commitments but not honored those, lied or broken the law of the land - then there may be a case.......
another angle is that if the law itself violates the constitution - there is a separate procedure to appeal against such a law (like may suits going on in state courts on laws related to gay rights) - however USCIS would not be party to such a lawsuit since USCIS does not make laws. one would need not only a good immigration lawyer but also a constitutional expert for a venture like this.
0 comments:
Post a Comment