seahawks
09-23 08:13 PM
I guess one strategy would be only to file for principal applicants, get green cards, become citizens and then sponsor dependents would be a faster route than waiting through the EB route:) Just kidding.
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
purplehazea
06-26 10:47 AM
Hi Jamie,
I do not think anyone should doubt the hard work and sincerity of illegal immigrants - be they mexican or any other nationality. All these folks come to USA seeking a better life. It is a fact that politicians have used illegal immigration to their advantage - how it suits them at a particular point in time. SO I do respect the hard working nature and contribution of illegal immigration.
However you will have to appreciate that the government's policy of grouping legal and illegal immigrants in any legistative decision has proven to be a nightmare for the legal immigrants. You will also appreciate that issues and circumstances surrounding legal immigrants are substantially different from illegal immigrant issues. However legal immigrants have to face the brunt of retrogression and other processing delays due to:
1) A nonsensical approach of first letting illegal immigrants to work here, not giving them their rights for long years or enforcing the laws to deport them and then suddenly legalizing the illegals, without improving INS/DHS processes or infrastructure/Visa quotas.
2) Prospects of another huge influx of legalization which as we all know, the INS is not capable of processing with its existing operational capabilities.
I am hopeful that whatever law emerges in the next year or two should handle illegal and legal issues separately. As far as xenophobia towards hispanics, everybody has their own view, so you cannot unfairly generalize that Indians have this racism towards mexican illegals. Personally, I do not have a problem with people expressing their ethnic identity, but as we know everybody need not think like us and everybody is entitled to an opinion.
Good luck and please continue to work for relief for legal immigrant community.
I do not think anyone should doubt the hard work and sincerity of illegal immigrants - be they mexican or any other nationality. All these folks come to USA seeking a better life. It is a fact that politicians have used illegal immigration to their advantage - how it suits them at a particular point in time. SO I do respect the hard working nature and contribution of illegal immigration.
However you will have to appreciate that the government's policy of grouping legal and illegal immigrants in any legistative decision has proven to be a nightmare for the legal immigrants. You will also appreciate that issues and circumstances surrounding legal immigrants are substantially different from illegal immigrant issues. However legal immigrants have to face the brunt of retrogression and other processing delays due to:
1) A nonsensical approach of first letting illegal immigrants to work here, not giving them their rights for long years or enforcing the laws to deport them and then suddenly legalizing the illegals, without improving INS/DHS processes or infrastructure/Visa quotas.
2) Prospects of another huge influx of legalization which as we all know, the INS is not capable of processing with its existing operational capabilities.
I am hopeful that whatever law emerges in the next year or two should handle illegal and legal issues separately. As far as xenophobia towards hispanics, everybody has their own view, so you cannot unfairly generalize that Indians have this racism towards mexican illegals. Personally, I do not have a problem with people expressing their ethnic identity, but as we know everybody need not think like us and everybody is entitled to an opinion.
Good luck and please continue to work for relief for legal immigrant community.
sathweb
07-08 09:12 AM
I definetly believe the captions we write are going to come in the news. So, writing good message will make it more memorable. We have to come up with many of such messages.
How about this:
"Respected senator,
They say backlog elimination. We say a Measure to keep us out. Please check the facts and let UICIS hear what you say."
How about this:
"Respected senator,
They say backlog elimination. We say a Measure to keep us out. Please check the facts and let UICIS hear what you say."
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
Lasantha
07-05 12:57 PM
Yes, The word Gandhigiri is a combination of Gandhi - giri , the first is in reference to Mahatma Gandhi and giri is a slang for doing things in a certain way. Gandhigiri means protesting in a peacful way but in a way that embaresses the people being protested against.
Thanks Crystal and nfinity for the explaination. Sounds like a great idea. Count me in.
Thanks Crystal and nfinity for the explaination. Sounds like a great idea. Count me in.
more...
maag
05-30 10:49 AM
Thanks Marty once again.
I plan to apply for SIN but is it required to do medical insurance, PO box and bank account right now?
I am returning back on monday and as of now don't know if i will go to canada or stay in US.
I plan to apply for SIN but is it required to do medical insurance, PO box and bank account right now?
I am returning back on monday and as of now don't know if i will go to canada or stay in US.
hiralal
05-09 03:34 PM
yes ..I agree with most of the above. the new admin is more protectionist .. I wonder if the analysis will show that a large number of immigrant visas were wasted !!!
in republicans you have 20% against immi but democrats maybe 80% against
hopefully BJP will come to power in India and retaliate against nuclear deal ..and then they will realise that protectionism cuts both ways !!
in republicans you have 20% against immi but democrats maybe 80% against
hopefully BJP will come to power in India and retaliate against nuclear deal ..and then they will realise that protectionism cuts both ways !!
more...
imconfused
07-03 11:17 AM
trust me, everyone will write for 2 days more, then move on... i know that! agar kuch karna hi hotta to apna desh kahaan se kahaan pahunch gaya hotta... apne desh ko to badal nahi sakte idhar kya karengey? hehe
keep writing, let me also see how many of us can do this..
sab bol bacchan amitabh bachchan..
keep writing, let me also see how many of us can do this..
sab bol bacchan amitabh bachchan..
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
coloniel60
06-11 01:17 PM
When I asked my employer to send me an employment letter so that I can file my I-485 application on my own, my employer insisisted that I mail him all the I-485 documents and a check for $2500 on his name and that he will add the employment letter and mail the application to USCIS.
Apart from gaining $1000 (2500 I sent him - 1500 for I-485 fees) does the employer benifit anything by mailing the application himself. Am I correct in assuming that I will receive the receipt notice even if the employer mailed the application to USCIS (He is not using a lawyer to represent me)? :confused: :confused: :confused:
Apart from gaining $1000 (2500 I sent him - 1500 for I-485 fees) does the employer benifit anything by mailing the application himself. Am I correct in assuming that I will receive the receipt notice even if the employer mailed the application to USCIS (He is not using a lawyer to represent me)? :confused: :confused: :confused:
more...
vinabath
03-26 11:37 AM
Labor Substition was a devil which has created most of this problem as I can see there are hardly 15-20% original beneficiaries for these 2002-2003 Labors.
Employers made Labor Sub a Devil by misusing it. It has been provided to employers as a valid advantage from employer perspective.
Infact GC has become a retention perk for the employer and from the employer perspective all they need is unlimited H-1B permits. All this added to the fuel that GC has become a perk to the employee because they suck up 6 years of H-1B servitude and not a Employer benefit anymore.
I think the Govt and USCIS start to think now that
H-1B is employer benefit
GC is employee benefit
and they are slowly moving to make changes in the current law.
Employers made Labor Sub a Devil by misusing it. It has been provided to employers as a valid advantage from employer perspective.
Infact GC has become a retention perk for the employer and from the employer perspective all they need is unlimited H-1B permits. All this added to the fuel that GC has become a perk to the employee because they suck up 6 years of H-1B servitude and not a Employer benefit anymore.
I think the Govt and USCIS start to think now that
H-1B is employer benefit
GC is employee benefit
and they are slowly moving to make changes in the current law.
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
texcan
09-14 05:23 PM
finally got to know from my bank that checks were encashed. checked the receipt nos. on back of checks. notice receipt date is 10the sept.
i had mailed the papers on july 27th and NSC receipt date was 30th july.
was your i-140 from TSC
i had mailed the papers on july 27th and NSC receipt date was 30th july.
was your i-140 from TSC
more...
dsairam
12-19 04:24 PM
Hi All,
I would like to know if I will get in trouble if I do this:
First, switch to a completely unrelated job after 180 days of I485 filing,
then, switch back to similar job when my priority date becomes current or close to becoming current.
Does USCIS check what other jobs have I done during the entire adjustee period or it is only concerned about the job at the time of adjudication?
Thanks in advance!
I would like to know if I will get in trouble if I do this:
First, switch to a completely unrelated job after 180 days of I485 filing,
then, switch back to similar job when my priority date becomes current or close to becoming current.
Does USCIS check what other jobs have I done during the entire adjustee period or it is only concerned about the job at the time of adjudication?
Thanks in advance!
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
gc_maine2
08-13 02:44 PM
As per the discussion's from other threads about LUD, it's been largerly agreed that there is no relavance between the LUD change/not change to one's 485 application. Hopes this will clear your doubt.
Hi all,
any advice/suggestion in my case:
EB3
I-140 is approved on Jun 15, 2007, Premium processing, in Texas
I485 package delivered to Nebraska on July 2, 11:35 am and is singed by ... whoever..
I've registered on the https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/index.jsp
site and all times before LUD for my I140 was 6/16/2007 until today
Today LUD for is updated to 8/12/2007.
Checks have not been cashed.
Please anybody is in the same sutiation???
Hi all,
any advice/suggestion in my case:
EB3
I-140 is approved on Jun 15, 2007, Premium processing, in Texas
I485 package delivered to Nebraska on July 2, 11:35 am and is singed by ... whoever..
I've registered on the https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/index.jsp
site and all times before LUD for my I140 was 6/16/2007 until today
Today LUD for is updated to 8/12/2007.
Checks have not been cashed.
Please anybody is in the same sutiation???
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
amitjoey
07-09 05:37 PM
This site have artifical flowers, thats probably the reason its cheap.
That is all the more better, spare real flowers from dying at USCIS doorsteps.:D
That is all the more better, spare real flowers from dying at USCIS doorsteps.:D
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
iambest
03-26 02:13 PM
My PD of Dec. 2004, I think it will be late 2010 before I see my date current. I hope we atleast see May 2007 visa bulletin dates in May 2008.
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
fortune50
07-04 07:29 PM
My application reached to TSC on July 2 10:20 AM
I am confused now, what happens next? how much time they will take to reject our applications?
is Congress woman Lofgren's Statement going to help us?
I am confused now, what happens next? how much time they will take to reject our applications?
is Congress woman Lofgren's Statement going to help us?
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
pasupuleti
05-03 01:19 PM
source immigration-law.com
05/02/2006: Senator John Cornyn Introduced S.2691 for "Legal" Employment-Based Immigration Legislation
* Today, John Cornyn, Senator from Texas, introduced in the Senate S. 2691, Securing Knowledge Innovation and Leadership (SKIL) bill, which is similar to the legal employment-based immigration bills incorporated in the comprehensive immigration reform bills of Senator Bill Frist and Senator Alen Specter. These legal employment-based immigration bills are similar to the Education bill named PACE Act which is still pending in the Senate.
* Senator Cornyn strongly opposes the legalization of undocumented immigrants as opposed to the Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and most of the Senators in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The compromised comprehensive immigration reform proposal faced strong challenge from Senator Cornyn before the bill collapsed in the Senate during the Easter break. Cornyn-Kyl bill and McCain-Kennedy has engaged in a fierce duel in the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the full Senate. The collision was marked by the legalization of illegal immigrants that are incorporated in the McCain-Kennedy bill.
* By introduction of S. 2691, Senator Cornyn practically joins the original Bill Frist bill that strongly supported legal immigration and strongly opposed legalization of illegal aliens by focusing on the border security and the immigration enforcement. Question remains whether the legal immigration bill can pass the Congress as separate from the Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation. We are concerned that this bill may bring a further division between the legal immigrant community and the illegal immigrant community with the potential damaging consequences to both legal and illegal communities. We have maintained a tradition of strongly supporting legal employment-based immigration. We just hope that the legal and illegal reform legislation does not end up with the fate of S. 1932 as driven by the political forces using the traditional battle tactic of 'divide and conquer.' From the perspectives of the legal employment-based immigrant community, all of the pending bills support their interest and they will be least affected by whichever bill the Congress finally would pass. This is a time to unite and not a time to divide.
05/02/2006: Senator John Cornyn Introduced S.2691 for "Legal" Employment-Based Immigration Legislation
* Today, John Cornyn, Senator from Texas, introduced in the Senate S. 2691, Securing Knowledge Innovation and Leadership (SKIL) bill, which is similar to the legal employment-based immigration bills incorporated in the comprehensive immigration reform bills of Senator Bill Frist and Senator Alen Specter. These legal employment-based immigration bills are similar to the Education bill named PACE Act which is still pending in the Senate.
* Senator Cornyn strongly opposes the legalization of undocumented immigrants as opposed to the Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and most of the Senators in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The compromised comprehensive immigration reform proposal faced strong challenge from Senator Cornyn before the bill collapsed in the Senate during the Easter break. Cornyn-Kyl bill and McCain-Kennedy has engaged in a fierce duel in the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the full Senate. The collision was marked by the legalization of illegal immigrants that are incorporated in the McCain-Kennedy bill.
* By introduction of S. 2691, Senator Cornyn practically joins the original Bill Frist bill that strongly supported legal immigration and strongly opposed legalization of illegal aliens by focusing on the border security and the immigration enforcement. Question remains whether the legal immigration bill can pass the Congress as separate from the Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation. We are concerned that this bill may bring a further division between the legal immigrant community and the illegal immigrant community with the potential damaging consequences to both legal and illegal communities. We have maintained a tradition of strongly supporting legal employment-based immigration. We just hope that the legal and illegal reform legislation does not end up with the fate of S. 1932 as driven by the political forces using the traditional battle tactic of 'divide and conquer.' From the perspectives of the legal employment-based immigrant community, all of the pending bills support their interest and they will be least affected by whichever bill the Congress finally would pass. This is a time to unite and not a time to divide.
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
TIND_CT
08-25 02:23 PM
485+131+765 - Delivered on 5th July - TSC - EB3
No receipt yet..
No receipt yet..
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
n_2006
02-26 08:39 AM
Paypal Transaction # 5XF27777C1879882M
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
JazzByTheBay
09-28 04:36 PM
Given the number of questions and concerns IV members have about AC21 in general and "what after EAD/AP", it makes sense to coordinate with USCIS (and lawmakers if required) on this and get some favorable responses that allay everyone's concerns.
If EAD+AP are like a "provisional GC", USCIS should perhaps not delve too much into the job description of work done after the 180 days past AOS filing, imo. Just as in the case of GCs, the bar of intent to be employed in that job is met by working for that employer for 90-180 days (the latter to be on the safe side). The only reason this is such a huge issue is because of the unreasonable waiting time induced on the GC process due to retrogression.
As a result, folks from retrogression-affected countries suffer from these anxities, whereas those from unaffected countries get their GCs, and are free birds after the 90-180 day period.
It's unreasonable to expect folks from retrogressed countries to be employed in the same position, or to otherwise limit their options by imposing restrictions of new job being the same job description as the one on the approved labor cert.
jazz
First there is not enough AC21 cases to give feed back how their 485s were handled (approved/detail of RFE/denied) due to job change. Becase, almost all guys who used ac21 still in waiting game due to retrogression.
The main thing what I see here is, USCIS has not yet published the final regulation to interpret AC21 act, even after 7 years of passing AC21 act. They are issuing internal field office memo. These memos are non-binding. In other words, one cannot firmly relay on memos or challange the USCIS decision on AC21 portability according to these memos.
However, sofar, these memos are very favorable to workers, including allowing self-employment, one can port even before 140 approval ect...However, USCIS were cautioning in each memos, that the final regulation may be restrictive than memos. If they took restrictive position in final regulation, it will be a huge problem for most peoples, as they might have violated the final regulation.
Another issue is, definition of "same or similar occupational classification". This is going to be very subjective based on how uscis adjudicator going to compare old and new jobs. The memo says by comparing job duties both old and new jobs and based on SOC or ONET code of old and new job they have to decide both jobs are same or similar. As there is no clear regulation it is big issue to go howmuch level of similarity between jobs. For example one guy may think "database administrator" and "network administrator" are similar job to port. The USCIS may think it may not. It is not quantified.
I feel IV should advocate on liberal/quantifyable defintion for similar jobs in AC21 interpretation. For example, all computer professional jobs should be considered as similar jobs as well as all engineering jobs should be considered similar to port. For example mining engineer can port to chemical engineer job etc...
Also, if any one port to self employment in similar job, there is no much information available wheter one should open a company in his/her name or not (by just working in 1099 etc.. for multiple positions). This needs to have a flexible option for workers, like one can work in 1099 w/o opening a bussiness.
Also, IV should advocate on not to have any restrictive interpretation in final regulation.
If EAD+AP are like a "provisional GC", USCIS should perhaps not delve too much into the job description of work done after the 180 days past AOS filing, imo. Just as in the case of GCs, the bar of intent to be employed in that job is met by working for that employer for 90-180 days (the latter to be on the safe side). The only reason this is such a huge issue is because of the unreasonable waiting time induced on the GC process due to retrogression.
As a result, folks from retrogression-affected countries suffer from these anxities, whereas those from unaffected countries get their GCs, and are free birds after the 90-180 day period.
It's unreasonable to expect folks from retrogressed countries to be employed in the same position, or to otherwise limit their options by imposing restrictions of new job being the same job description as the one on the approved labor cert.
jazz
First there is not enough AC21 cases to give feed back how their 485s were handled (approved/detail of RFE/denied) due to job change. Becase, almost all guys who used ac21 still in waiting game due to retrogression.
The main thing what I see here is, USCIS has not yet published the final regulation to interpret AC21 act, even after 7 years of passing AC21 act. They are issuing internal field office memo. These memos are non-binding. In other words, one cannot firmly relay on memos or challange the USCIS decision on AC21 portability according to these memos.
However, sofar, these memos are very favorable to workers, including allowing self-employment, one can port even before 140 approval ect...However, USCIS were cautioning in each memos, that the final regulation may be restrictive than memos. If they took restrictive position in final regulation, it will be a huge problem for most peoples, as they might have violated the final regulation.
Another issue is, definition of "same or similar occupational classification". This is going to be very subjective based on how uscis adjudicator going to compare old and new jobs. The memo says by comparing job duties both old and new jobs and based on SOC or ONET code of old and new job they have to decide both jobs are same or similar. As there is no clear regulation it is big issue to go howmuch level of similarity between jobs. For example one guy may think "database administrator" and "network administrator" are similar job to port. The USCIS may think it may not. It is not quantified.
I feel IV should advocate on liberal/quantifyable defintion for similar jobs in AC21 interpretation. For example, all computer professional jobs should be considered as similar jobs as well as all engineering jobs should be considered similar to port. For example mining engineer can port to chemical engineer job etc...
Also, if any one port to self employment in similar job, there is no much information available wheter one should open a company in his/her name or not (by just working in 1099 etc.. for multiple positions). This needs to have a flexible option for workers, like one can work in 1099 w/o opening a bussiness.
Also, IV should advocate on not to have any restrictive interpretation in final regulation.
fetch_gc
09-27 09:23 AM
Still waiting for receipts for all 6 of them.
Please see signature for more details.
Please see signature for more details.
confu
08-04 01:35 PM
I got my card today.
It starts on the next day of my old cards expiry date.
Validity is for one year only though.
What is your application PD and Category?
It starts on the next day of my old cards expiry date.
Validity is for one year only though.
What is your application PD and Category?
No comments:
Post a Comment