GCaspirations
10-02 12:57 PM
I applied in NSC 485/EAD/AP on July 27th. The case was transfered to CSC. 485 Application was then transfered to TSC from CSC but EAD and AP are being processed in CSC.
I am intrested in knowing if you have received FP notice.
I am intrested in knowing if you have received FP notice.
wallpaper Kim Kardashian amp; Kris
chanduv23
03-26 01:47 PM
one doenst have to argue but can definitely question why its not there on their website if its not htere..they just cant decide one fine morning to just start as king for stuff...
I agree. They have to follow well set guidelines.
I would say - those having issues must all get together and write to the Authorities asking them to update rules on website and not arbitrary.
I agree. They have to follow well set guidelines.
I would say - those having issues must all get together and write to the Authorities asking them to update rules on website and not arbitrary.
makemygc
07-27 01:43 PM
Urgency of getting a receipt is that once you get the receipt, it means that USCIS has 'accepted' your application and it will not be rejected for lack of initial evidence.
You can track it by checking your bank account too. You checks will be cashed first before you get the receipt.
You can track it by checking your bank account too. You checks will be cashed first before you get the receipt.
2011 Kim Kardashian Spotted Out
maximus777
11-20 06:10 PM
Yes ... and that "something" is a billion dollar business model. Education is a big business here .. not to speak of billions spent by the students in housing, insurance, living cost etc. And if there is no H1 after studies, this source dries up .
Contrary to popular belief, most students studies on Self Funding basis .. paying huge out-of-state tuitiion. So the myth that US Tax payers are paying for education of International Students is not true. The miniscule high flyers who go to top schools, go for Ph D, Post Doc, tenure track proffesors etc already have the option to get GC through EB1.
If its money that lures them into action, so be it. At this point, the situation is so desperate anything that moves the queue quicker is fine by me.
Contrary to popular belief, most students studies on Self Funding basis .. paying huge out-of-state tuitiion. So the myth that US Tax payers are paying for education of International Students is not true. The miniscule high flyers who go to top schools, go for Ph D, Post Doc, tenure track proffesors etc already have the option to get GC through EB1.
If its money that lures them into action, so be it. At this point, the situation is so desperate anything that moves the queue quicker is fine by me.
more...
hari-patti
07-23 08:46 PM
Hi
Could anyone guide me on this.
What does "class" mean when filing for e-file AP?
thanks
Could anyone guide me on this.
What does "class" mean when filing for e-file AP?
thanks
cram
10-10 10:29 PM
The October visa bulletin has been out for 10 days now and we haven't seen any approvals as of yet. Are there any?
more...
delax
08-09 11:20 PM
^^^^
2010 Kim Kardashian#39;s Boyfriend
tinku01
02-12 02:37 PM
great point mr internet then I think CP filiers should other way to make their efforts and should not participate in letter campaign since there are lot of people who are waiting in CP queue.....anyway are you British...it seems to me from your reply:rolleyes:
more...
neelu
04-20 12:20 PM
Here's what I sent...
I am writing to inform you of how the country based quotas imposed on Employment (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=335690#) Based green cards are unfair and totally illogical. When I immigrated to the US, I believed that this country was a meritocracy where you were judged based on your abilities and qualities. These country based quotas reward people depending on where they or their ancestors were born. This causes people from India and China to wait over a decade to get a green card whereas someone from another country with similar or lesser abilities can obtain permanent residence in a very short time (about an year).
Since these EB category based green cards are awarded for professional skills, imposing a country based quota just does not make any sense. I urge you to work with Congress and change this unfair policy and reinforce that America is truly a society that celebrates meritocracy.
About me:
I have been in the US for over 10 years. I work for company ABC, for which I am happy to say, I recently wrote an algorithm (patent pending) which brought in about 10 million dollars worth of contracts to my company.
I have paid $xyzn federal taxes, $xyz in state taxes, $xyz in medicare taxes & $xyz in SSN taxes over the last 10 years. There are my monetary contributions to this country.
I was privileged to have volunteered in your 2008 presidential campaign. I was and am inspired by the new politics and policies that you talked about. A legal immigration fix is something that is low cost high benefit for the country - so I implore you to make this a high priority.
Thank you.
Hello Neelu,
Can you share the draft of your modified letter?
thx.
I am writing to inform you of how the country based quotas imposed on Employment (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=335690#) Based green cards are unfair and totally illogical. When I immigrated to the US, I believed that this country was a meritocracy where you were judged based on your abilities and qualities. These country based quotas reward people depending on where they or their ancestors were born. This causes people from India and China to wait over a decade to get a green card whereas someone from another country with similar or lesser abilities can obtain permanent residence in a very short time (about an year).
Since these EB category based green cards are awarded for professional skills, imposing a country based quota just does not make any sense. I urge you to work with Congress and change this unfair policy and reinforce that America is truly a society that celebrates meritocracy.
About me:
I have been in the US for over 10 years. I work for company ABC, for which I am happy to say, I recently wrote an algorithm (patent pending) which brought in about 10 million dollars worth of contracts to my company.
I have paid $xyzn federal taxes, $xyz in state taxes, $xyz in medicare taxes & $xyz in SSN taxes over the last 10 years. There are my monetary contributions to this country.
I was privileged to have volunteered in your 2008 presidential campaign. I was and am inspired by the new politics and policies that you talked about. A legal immigration fix is something that is low cost high benefit for the country - so I implore you to make this a high priority.
Thank you.
Hello Neelu,
Can you share the draft of your modified letter?
thx.
hair Kim Kardashian, Kris Humphries
rimco99
07-27 01:32 PM
to get the receipts. Lets not bug them and have them work instead on receipting. With over 500K+ applications, it'd be a while to get the reciept..
oops did i mention EAD/AP..ur gonna have to wait a really long time on that one.
Can't we request for a temporary EAD 90 days after you receive the notice ? in the local immigration office (For Example in Boston).
oops did i mention EAD/AP..ur gonna have to wait a really long time on that one.
Can't we request for a temporary EAD 90 days after you receive the notice ? in the local immigration office (For Example in Boston).
more...
ryan
06-10 12:43 PM
You can make whatever you like of the current situtation, but let me tell you something.
There is a HUGE difference between being TOLERATED and BEING LIKED.
I am sure you have the intelligence to see the difference.
You can "tolerate" someone you don't like, but you can not "welcome" someone whom you don't like. I for one, donlt want to be in the "tolerated" category.
And may I ask, what exactly is your definition of hostility? Being chased down the street by a bunch of thugs, who think you should be in their country, or the kind of passive hostility being practised as of now?
Quite honestly, if that is how you feel - perhaps you'd need to reconsider relocating to your home nation. I'm Indian, who grew up in the Middle East. I've lived in the United States for 6 years. I've always felt quite welcome and accepted in every way possible. I believe I've been treated fairly and have had the opportunity to live with Americans and contribute in positive ways. I continue to live here, primarily based on these sentiments. I'd never live here if I felt the way you do now.
There is a HUGE difference between being TOLERATED and BEING LIKED.
I am sure you have the intelligence to see the difference.
You can "tolerate" someone you don't like, but you can not "welcome" someone whom you don't like. I for one, donlt want to be in the "tolerated" category.
And may I ask, what exactly is your definition of hostility? Being chased down the street by a bunch of thugs, who think you should be in their country, or the kind of passive hostility being practised as of now?
Quite honestly, if that is how you feel - perhaps you'd need to reconsider relocating to your home nation. I'm Indian, who grew up in the Middle East. I've lived in the United States for 6 years. I've always felt quite welcome and accepted in every way possible. I believe I've been treated fairly and have had the opportunity to live with Americans and contribute in positive ways. I continue to live here, primarily based on these sentiments. I'd never live here if I felt the way you do now.
hot Kim Kardashian and Kris
gvenkat
02-28 03:02 PM
I understand you don�t care about the United States and its people and you�re only interested in what you can gain from them but if you weren�t so blinded by greed you�d see this is something else they can give to you. Now I know why I took the route I did, I would have accomplished far less in my personal life with the likes of you. In fact, I may doing to much sharing my expertise with you. I refuse to have my name tarnished any further. Besides, you�re only a beginner. What was I thinking? IV really ought to make it clear to everyone that this is an amateur site. Maybe by changing its name to Beginning Immigration. IV definitely is not the voice of Immigration � my voice is different from IVs and I�m dealing with immigration. I may have to contact the internet higher-ups about this farse.
u shud have tried the smuggling from any other country say thailand or singapore.. then u would not have come here crying.. now get lost :mad::mad::mad:
u shud have tried the smuggling from any other country say thailand or singapore.. then u would not have come here crying.. now get lost :mad::mad::mad:
more...
house Kim Kardashian is ready to tie
qvadis
12-29 12:14 AM
Being on the other side (EB3-ROW) I read the law a bit differently ;-)
In short:
- INA 202 (a) (2) establishes a 7% country limit for both FB and EB categories together and per fiscal year.
- INA 202 (a) (3) allows to make unused visas available per quarter in excess to the 7% country limit.
- INA 202 (e) specifies that any visas in excess to 7% must be distributed equally to FB and EB, and each sub-categories.
- INA 202 (a) (5) gives preference to EB (over FB) and determines the allottment for additional visas with preference to EB1 over EB2, etc.
INA 202 (a) (5)
If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
I guess the question here is, what does "visas available" in conjunction with INA 203(b) mean.
INA 203 (b) (3) (EB3)
[...] Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) [...]
The way I read it all this is that the rules in INA 203 (b) (1)...(5) should be applied first before INA 202 (a) (5), ie. additional visas are only available if EB-3 ROW is current.
So, the allottment should work as follows:
Any unused visas in EB-1 (with regards to 7% country limit) will spill over to EB-2, and unused visas from EB-2 to EB-3, etc. If there are still unused visas, they will be used for countries that are subject to the 7% limit, first in EB-1, then EB-2, etc.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. [...]
INA 202 (a) (3)
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I would disagree with the premise in your note. You could also read it that the 7% applies to the sum of both FB and EB categories: "[T]he total number of immigrant visas [...] under subsections (a) and (b) [...] may not exceed 7 percent [...] of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections [...].�
Subsection (e) actually seems to suggest that any additional visas have to be allotted proportional to FB and EB categories:
[I]INA 202 (e)
If it is determined that the total number of immigrant visas [...] will exceed the numerical limitation [...] visa numbers with respect to natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to the extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this section and section 203) in a manner so that -
(1)
the ratio of the visa numbers made available under section 203(a) to the visa numbers made available under section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the worldwide level of immigration under section 201(c) to such level under section 201 (d);
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
I guess the important phrase in the law is IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE. You seem to interpret 203 (b) as only up to 28.5% are available without the ones spilled over from higher categories.
In short:
- INA 202 (a) (2) establishes a 7% country limit for both FB and EB categories together and per fiscal year.
- INA 202 (a) (3) allows to make unused visas available per quarter in excess to the 7% country limit.
- INA 202 (e) specifies that any visas in excess to 7% must be distributed equally to FB and EB, and each sub-categories.
- INA 202 (a) (5) gives preference to EB (over FB) and determines the allottment for additional visas with preference to EB1 over EB2, etc.
INA 202 (a) (5)
If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
I guess the question here is, what does "visas available" in conjunction with INA 203(b) mean.
INA 203 (b) (3) (EB3)
[...] Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) [...]
The way I read it all this is that the rules in INA 203 (b) (1)...(5) should be applied first before INA 202 (a) (5), ie. additional visas are only available if EB-3 ROW is current.
So, the allottment should work as follows:
Any unused visas in EB-1 (with regards to 7% country limit) will spill over to EB-2, and unused visas from EB-2 to EB-3, etc. If there are still unused visas, they will be used for countries that are subject to the 7% limit, first in EB-1, then EB-2, etc.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. [...]
INA 202 (a) (3)
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I would disagree with the premise in your note. You could also read it that the 7% applies to the sum of both FB and EB categories: "[T]he total number of immigrant visas [...] under subsections (a) and (b) [...] may not exceed 7 percent [...] of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections [...].�
Subsection (e) actually seems to suggest that any additional visas have to be allotted proportional to FB and EB categories:
[I]INA 202 (e)
If it is determined that the total number of immigrant visas [...] will exceed the numerical limitation [...] visa numbers with respect to natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to the extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this section and section 203) in a manner so that -
(1)
the ratio of the visa numbers made available under section 203(a) to the visa numbers made available under section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the worldwide level of immigration under section 201(c) to such level under section 201 (d);
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
I guess the important phrase in the law is IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE. You seem to interpret 203 (b) as only up to 28.5% are available without the ones spilled over from higher categories.
tattoo Kim Kardashian amp; Kris
styrum
12-19 03:48 PM
Moreover, the decision totally ignores the fact that "The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment" and the entire answer to Q10 in Part I of the Aytes Memo od 12/25/05
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
Still his main problem was that the employer had requested a withdrawal of 140 (apparently doesn't matter when it was actually revoked by USCIS) before 485 was pending for 180 days.
Resume: make sure the petitioning employer doesn't revoke 140 before 485 is pending for 180.
As far as actually working for them: You don't have to work for the petitioning emplyer since it is for a "future" position. But if you never do and then (after 485 has been pending for 180 days and provided 140 was not revoked) port to another, how do you show you ever had the intent to work for them? The same answer to the same Q10 in the same memo says: "Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate." So what will be your "additional evidence" of your intent if you never worked for the original petitioning employer? Looks like working for the original petitioner (not neccessarily for all the 180 days after 485 was filed but as long as they don't withdraw 140 before 180 days is up) is the main proof of your intent to work for them and their intent to hire you permanently after you have GC.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
Still his main problem was that the employer had requested a withdrawal of 140 (apparently doesn't matter when it was actually revoked by USCIS) before 485 was pending for 180 days.
Resume: make sure the petitioning employer doesn't revoke 140 before 485 is pending for 180.
As far as actually working for them: You don't have to work for the petitioning emplyer since it is for a "future" position. But if you never do and then (after 485 has been pending for 180 days and provided 140 was not revoked) port to another, how do you show you ever had the intent to work for them? The same answer to the same Q10 in the same memo says: "Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate." So what will be your "additional evidence" of your intent if you never worked for the original petitioning employer? Looks like working for the original petitioner (not neccessarily for all the 180 days after 485 was filed but as long as they don't withdraw 140 before 180 days is up) is the main proof of your intent to work for them and their intent to hire you permanently after you have GC.
more...
pictures Kim Kardashian and Kris
bestia
01-26 08:51 PM
Just as example. With my first employer in the US I signed a contract without even reading it well (stupid thing to do, btw). Later I noticed that I signed something like "any products, technology, software, documentation, etc. ever developed by [me] is property of [my employer]". I don't remember the exact wording and lazy to look it up, but it meant that anything I will ever develop will belong to my employer. I didn't hesitate to leave them and contact their direct competitor, my previous employer wrote me "cease and desist" letter threating with legal actions if I will not respond with some time frame. I showed the contract to a lawyer and asked "what should I reply?". He laughed and said - reply "I suggest you to start legal actions immediately" or better don't reply at all. He won't be so stupid to go with this to court - he will lose the case and you will sue him back and recover all expenses.
I didn't reply and never heard from them again. So, yes, illegal and unreasonable agreements are not enforceable.
Also, if you google there was precedent with some guy from India. Who had similar agreement and left the company. The company sued him and lost, appealed and lost. The guy sued back and won, the company paid $200,000+ something expenses. The case was long ago, I don't remember the link.
I didn't reply and never heard from them again. So, yes, illegal and unreasonable agreements are not enforceable.
Also, if you google there was precedent with some guy from India. Who had similar agreement and left the company. The company sued him and lost, appealed and lost. The guy sued back and won, the company paid $200,000+ something expenses. The case was long ago, I don't remember the link.
dresses Kim Kardashian And Kris
gemini23
07-02 04:15 PM
medicals+vaccines(for me and my spouse) = $750
fedex = $50
gas = $30
passport fotos = $50
photocopying = $20
birthcertificate from india+courier = $30
uscis fees + lawyer fees (paid by employer)
2 days off (for medical visits)
8 hours waiting at doctors office for medicals
+ priceless feeling guilty of troubling old age parents to get birth certificates done
fedex = $50
gas = $30
passport fotos = $50
photocopying = $20
birthcertificate from india+courier = $30
uscis fees + lawyer fees (paid by employer)
2 days off (for medical visits)
8 hours waiting at doctors office for medicals
+ priceless feeling guilty of troubling old age parents to get birth certificates done
more...
makeup Kim Kardashian amp; Kris
DudefromBombay
11-03 12:52 AM
Can't agree more.
Thank God Dems are out otherwise Legals will never get anything till every illegal crossing the border is ahead of them. Democrats are only good for three kind of people:
Illegals
Illegals
Illegals
I hope Obama looses soon and we have some sanity of law
Thank God Dems are out otherwise Legals will never get anything till every illegal crossing the border is ahead of them. Democrats are only good for three kind of people:
Illegals
Illegals
Illegals
I hope Obama looses soon and we have some sanity of law
girlfriend Kim Kardashian, Kris Humphries
newbee7
07-07 08:36 PM
All officials and news coverage has talked about processing 60k visas in a month to avoid visas going waste. None clarifed to say the unused visas expire on 09/30 NOT 06/30.
We should try to highlight this fact to prove foul play.
We should try to highlight this fact to prove foul play.
hairstyles Kim Kardashian was taken by
zbd
01-03 09:43 PM
feel that is shame to tell, but you need to speak out... What to do ?
Is your selffriend produce high tech for modern life ? Tell him to get a fe for himself looking around the world. It's better than 4 though
Is your selffriend produce high tech for modern life ? Tell him to get a fe for himself looking around the world. It's better than 4 though
akred
07-14 11:05 PM
What was 245(i) amnesty?...just curious
Section 245(i) is a part of the INA. In 2001, this section was updated to allow people present illegally to submit a labor certification. This resulted in the DOL getting 6 years worth of applications in April 2001. These applications led to the establishment of the Backlog Elimination Centers and the PERM process. The applications filed 6 years ago are still being processed by the DOL.
Btw if you do not support DREAM ACT than you shouldn't be on this forum...
At this point I am neutral on the DREAM act. Before I can support the DREAM act you need to prove how it helps children of legal immigrants. I suspect there is more to your story than you are letting on. If you are 21 now, you would have been 19 in 2005 and well able to understand the consequences of becoming an illegal immigrant. As someone said the F1 was an option if you wanted to maintain legal status.
Section 245(i) is a part of the INA. In 2001, this section was updated to allow people present illegally to submit a labor certification. This resulted in the DOL getting 6 years worth of applications in April 2001. These applications led to the establishment of the Backlog Elimination Centers and the PERM process. The applications filed 6 years ago are still being processed by the DOL.
Btw if you do not support DREAM ACT than you shouldn't be on this forum...
At this point I am neutral on the DREAM act. Before I can support the DREAM act you need to prove how it helps children of legal immigrants. I suspect there is more to your story than you are letting on. If you are 21 now, you would have been 19 in 2005 and well able to understand the consequences of becoming an illegal immigrant. As someone said the F1 was an option if you wanted to maintain legal status.
whattodo21
12-15 11:23 AM
I filed for my ead in late september, got an rfe in mid nov, sent papers but see no change in status. how long does it take with an rfe to get ead? my 90 days are nearing and I am afraid with the holiday season coming, that I might not get in time. I have contacted my congressman, ombudsman's office can't do anything yet. what can be done?
