ganguteli
03-02 11:12 AM
here is one way we can bring attention to this issue without spending a dime and without travelling hundreds of miles to DC
there is a blog on Reuters about housing ..just post your messages ..the more the merrier. here is my post.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/02/26/first-100-days-a-fix-for-the-housing-crisis/
-----------
Thanks
Oh really?
So you think writing some annonymous comments on some website will be a good campaign to draw attention?
So you will not contact any reporter for your idea. You will not want to travel to DC or meet any lawmaker with your idea. You will only write annomymous comments and blame IV.
I wish campaigns were so easy. I feel the reason why you are not serious is because you already have EAD.
there is a blog on Reuters about housing ..just post your messages ..the more the merrier. here is my post.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/02/26/first-100-days-a-fix-for-the-housing-crisis/
-----------
Thanks
Oh really?
So you think writing some annonymous comments on some website will be a good campaign to draw attention?
So you will not contact any reporter for your idea. You will not want to travel to DC or meet any lawmaker with your idea. You will only write annomymous comments and blame IV.
I wish campaigns were so easy. I feel the reason why you are not serious is because you already have EAD.
wallpaper quotes about heartbreak.
lacrossegc
01-14 01:34 PM
It appears form the wording in the text that, anyone who has maintained a continuous stay for at least 5 years preceding and up to the date of enactment of this bill, gets to apply for AOS and be granted permanent residence.
so with respect to EB folks, this provides GC aspirants (with 5 year stay) an immediate relief. The total quota numbers are not modified. Everything stays as is. This appears to be a one time relief to free up the choke in the system (at least for EB).
thanks,
slowwin
I wonder how it would work for existing AOS applicants. The existing applicants have already applied under the INA c9 subsections. The text of the current bill states that the applicant needs to apply under this bill's section to adjust status, similar to 245i. Now if this means reapplying under this section, that would mean another flood of applicants. Obviously with such a deluge, you wouldnt need a quota, the CIS system itself will take years to sort out the applicants.
so with respect to EB folks, this provides GC aspirants (with 5 year stay) an immediate relief. The total quota numbers are not modified. Everything stays as is. This appears to be a one time relief to free up the choke in the system (at least for EB).
thanks,
slowwin
I wonder how it would work for existing AOS applicants. The existing applicants have already applied under the INA c9 subsections. The text of the current bill states that the applicant needs to apply under this bill's section to adjust status, similar to 245i. Now if this means reapplying under this section, that would mean another flood of applicants. Obviously with such a deluge, you wouldnt need a quota, the CIS system itself will take years to sort out the applicants.
chanduv23
10-13 10:33 AM
We should have video taped 'laborchic' inspiring speech and post it on youtube :)
2011 quotes about heartbreak and
raj1998
05-06 10:38 AM
I don't think USCIS takes into consideration whether the MS is full time / Part time / distance learning. On the degree certificates no University mention's if the program was full time or online. Also i don't think USCIS goes by the reputation of university. As far as Accreditation is concerned please check with education evaluators they might be of help but then again I don't think USCIS looks for accredited programs. I say so because there are lot of local schools which are not accredited but have good reputations locally.
As far as career growth is concerned after MS that's a separate topic altogether..
As far as career growth is concerned after MS that's a separate topic altogether..
more...
n2b
08-15 12:18 PM
It would give some idea I think
http://www.usvisahelp.com/art_intent.html
In order to determine whether the alien truthfully represented his or her intent to remain with his or her petitioning U.S. employer after receiving the green card, the USCIS uses the standard created by Seihoon v. Levy. That is, USCIS examines the “rapid course of events” following the alien’s receipt of his or her green card. The Department of State has reduced this rule to a 30-60-90 day formula which USCIS generally follows. If an alien ends employment with the petitioning employer within 30 days of receiving his/her green card, then it is highly likely that USCIS will decide that the alien’s intent at the Consulate interview was not, as he/she stated, to remain with the petitioning employer indefinitely. After 60 days have passed, it is less likely (but still risky) that USCIS will determine that the alien lied about his/her intent at the Consulate interview. And after 90 days, it is highly unlikely that USCIS will have a problem with the alien’s change of employment
Maybe this 30-60-90 rule applies to people with Consular Processing or someone who enters this country on Employment based GC and who leaves the employer right away after coming here.
For majority of people here in US, they might have already worked for a given employer for 3-6 years before they filed 485 and got their GC and completed their 6 months after AOS application to kick in AC21. So for such a person who has sustained abuse by working at the petitioning employer for 3-6 years, does he need to show any more intent?
http://www.usvisahelp.com/art_intent.html
In order to determine whether the alien truthfully represented his or her intent to remain with his or her petitioning U.S. employer after receiving the green card, the USCIS uses the standard created by Seihoon v. Levy. That is, USCIS examines the “rapid course of events” following the alien’s receipt of his or her green card. The Department of State has reduced this rule to a 30-60-90 day formula which USCIS generally follows. If an alien ends employment with the petitioning employer within 30 days of receiving his/her green card, then it is highly likely that USCIS will decide that the alien’s intent at the Consulate interview was not, as he/she stated, to remain with the petitioning employer indefinitely. After 60 days have passed, it is less likely (but still risky) that USCIS will determine that the alien lied about his/her intent at the Consulate interview. And after 90 days, it is highly unlikely that USCIS will have a problem with the alien’s change of employment
Maybe this 30-60-90 rule applies to people with Consular Processing or someone who enters this country on Employment based GC and who leaves the employer right away after coming here.
For majority of people here in US, they might have already worked for a given employer for 3-6 years before they filed 485 and got their GC and completed their 6 months after AOS application to kick in AC21. So for such a person who has sustained abuse by working at the petitioning employer for 3-6 years, does he need to show any more intent?
forever
06-12 08:31 PM
I agree with the analysis given by willwin. In fact, I was thinking on similar lines. If no visas are wasted and total number of pending employment based visas is around 200,000 as given by Mr. Op.. himself, I do not see any reason why dates do not move. My estimation is both EB-2 and EB-3 dates for China and India will hover in the range of 2005 ~ 2006. This estimation is based on number of applications filed during Pre-PERM and Post-PERM era with two recessions taking the toll on number of applications received by USCIS.
Only assumptions in the above analysis are
1. Figures given by Mr. Op.. is somewhat correct. (Seems to be correct based on monthly statistics released by USCIS since 2008)
2. USCIS does not intend to waste visas.(This also can be safely assumed as they are following the policy of not wasting for the last two years)
3.No country limit. (This seems correct if point 2 is correct)
Now guys, do not disturb my dream.:)
Only assumptions in the above analysis are
1. Figures given by Mr. Op.. is somewhat correct. (Seems to be correct based on monthly statistics released by USCIS since 2008)
2. USCIS does not intend to waste visas.(This also can be safely assumed as they are following the policy of not wasting for the last two years)
3.No country limit. (This seems correct if point 2 is correct)
Now guys, do not disturb my dream.:)
more...
just4gc
04-07 07:27 PM
Where's the great predictor "vdlrao"? It looks like he has spent sleepless nights in winter calculating his predictions and is now in spring hibernation.
Looks like ags123 has taken over his role.
Looks like ags123 has taken over his role.
2010 2011 quotes on heartbreak and
bindas74
03-18 04:13 PM
I am following from the start of the original post. This was a post by a new member who appears to create rift among the EB2 or EB3. The reason I believe is he just want to incite in such a way that few other folks will respond and keep the thread floating. Later few other posts by himself were created with different ids. just observe the trend and you will notice it.
So folks dont respond any more and this rift creation will die down.
I hope the admins keep this thread open and not kill it. I am not sure what the intentions of the OP ( some of you claimed that he wants to create a rift ), but this is definitely a valid concern for all the EB3(I) guys. This is a natural reaction to the frustrations of EB3(I) guys just like the mass upheaval during the July 2007 VB fiasco. Since it was across the board, there were no differences. Now since this involves only EB3(I), there is not much support from IV or others. But in my opinion, this is as much unfair as the Julay VB fiasco.
Some of the EB2(I) guys are worried that their GC dreams would get delayed if there is any Admin fix for EB3(I). For all those individuals in EB2(I) who want to oppose any kind of admin fix for EB3(I), I just want you to think about it. Is it really fair? There are individuals in EB3(I) waiting since 2001 - a total of 8+ years. Don't get me wrong - but some of the EB2(I) guys who have applied as late as 2006 and 2007 are expecting/hoping to get their GC this year if there is a spillover. And I think these are the individuals ( not all of the EB2 guys though ) who are opposing any kind of admin fix ( please dont yell at me or curse me etc...if you are not one among those mentioned, then please dont worry..this is not about you::) Ofcourse i would like each one of us to get GC as soon as possible) to EB3(I).
And I dont see why there will be a rift between EB2 and EB3 if each of us follows net etiquette in positng responses. Let's do some constuctive brainstoming - without getting into perosnal attacks or getting too emotional. Let's do what is right and not what each one of us thinks is right. Then I guess there wont be any rifts. The only thing I am asking is to get EB3(I) to advnace a little bit. I am not asking for it be on par with EB2(I). I hope some of you see a point in my frustration::))
Do you really want EB2(I) to advance to 2005/2006 while EB3(I) guys are still languishing in 2001? That's totally unfair in my opinion. I know this world is not fair but how can anyone else try to divide us if we all stand united? And to stand united, EB2 guys should be willing to support any initiative to help EB3(I) move from stone ages::))
Peace!
( I am getting ready with my body armour for all the brickbats various people are going to throw at me::))
Regards
So folks dont respond any more and this rift creation will die down.
I hope the admins keep this thread open and not kill it. I am not sure what the intentions of the OP ( some of you claimed that he wants to create a rift ), but this is definitely a valid concern for all the EB3(I) guys. This is a natural reaction to the frustrations of EB3(I) guys just like the mass upheaval during the July 2007 VB fiasco. Since it was across the board, there were no differences. Now since this involves only EB3(I), there is not much support from IV or others. But in my opinion, this is as much unfair as the Julay VB fiasco.
Some of the EB2(I) guys are worried that their GC dreams would get delayed if there is any Admin fix for EB3(I). For all those individuals in EB2(I) who want to oppose any kind of admin fix for EB3(I), I just want you to think about it. Is it really fair? There are individuals in EB3(I) waiting since 2001 - a total of 8+ years. Don't get me wrong - but some of the EB2(I) guys who have applied as late as 2006 and 2007 are expecting/hoping to get their GC this year if there is a spillover. And I think these are the individuals ( not all of the EB2 guys though ) who are opposing any kind of admin fix ( please dont yell at me or curse me etc...if you are not one among those mentioned, then please dont worry..this is not about you::) Ofcourse i would like each one of us to get GC as soon as possible) to EB3(I).
And I dont see why there will be a rift between EB2 and EB3 if each of us follows net etiquette in positng responses. Let's do some constuctive brainstoming - without getting into perosnal attacks or getting too emotional. Let's do what is right and not what each one of us thinks is right. Then I guess there wont be any rifts. The only thing I am asking is to get EB3(I) to advnace a little bit. I am not asking for it be on par with EB2(I). I hope some of you see a point in my frustration::))
Do you really want EB2(I) to advance to 2005/2006 while EB3(I) guys are still languishing in 2001? That's totally unfair in my opinion. I know this world is not fair but how can anyone else try to divide us if we all stand united? And to stand united, EB2 guys should be willing to support any initiative to help EB3(I) move from stone ages::))
Peace!
( I am getting ready with my body armour for all the brickbats various people are going to throw at me::))
Regards
more...
BharatPremi
10-23 03:48 PM
To avoid the struggle for standing in a "Ration Card" Queue we opted USA and now we find ourselves in GC queue. Queue is our fate..:)
hair Heartbreak, Heartbreak Quotes
chanduv23
10-09 10:28 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
more...
Berkeleybee
04-26 11:45 AM
BTW, I want to use this opportunity to thank IV members virtual55, jkays94, and cpolisetti for setting this whole ball in motion.
It was their post on the forum (see http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=453) pointing out Mitra Kalita's Q&A on the Wash Post site that set this whole ball rolling.
It is just one example of how every member can do his or her part to help us.
Keep the spirit up!
best,
Berkeleybee
It was their post on the forum (see http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=453) pointing out Mitra Kalita's Q&A on the Wash Post site that set this whole ball rolling.
It is just one example of how every member can do his or her part to help us.
Keep the spirit up!
best,
Berkeleybee
hot Heartbreak Quotes Image
bkarnik
06-13 02:59 PM
USCIS Ombudsman has released the 2007 Annual Report to Congress at link below. It is an interesting read. I am still reading it. At page 31, the question is posed:
�Exactly how many employment-based green card applications does the agency have pending?� USCIS still cannot answer that question today with certainty."
Also, per the backlog redifinition, the USCIS has about 1.2 million applications (as of March 2007) that it considers active. However, it does not count an additional 1.3 million applications in the backlog that are considered "unripe" cases by the USCIS.
I request the moderators to make this a sticky and if possible put a link on the homepage.
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0482.shtm
�Exactly how many employment-based green card applications does the agency have pending?� USCIS still cannot answer that question today with certainty."
Also, per the backlog redifinition, the USCIS has about 1.2 million applications (as of March 2007) that it considers active. However, it does not count an additional 1.3 million applications in the backlog that are considered "unripe" cases by the USCIS.
I request the moderators to make this a sticky and if possible put a link on the homepage.
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0482.shtm
more...
house hair hot love heartbreak quotes, emo quotes about heartbreak. i miss you
amitga
04-01 03:09 PM
I donated $25 on Mar 30th, but still I do not have access to Donar forum. How do I become a Donar.
tattoo makeup heartbreak quotes and
eager_immi
07-18 09:42 AM
Ask her to come back immediately to the US and go to the local court and get married. It is a simple solution. Hi,
Here is my situation. I can apply for I-485 since my labor(PD - Mar 05) has cleared and I-140 has been filed.
But, I have a fiancee and we are getting married in September 2007. She is on H1-B but currently traveling in India.
We cannot get married before September 2007, so, as far as I understand, I cannot add her into my AOS filing right now. And, as far as I understand they are gonna retrogress the dates to oblivion after August 17, 2007.
1. So, my question is, would she have to wait until my priority date become current again before she can add herself into my AOS application?
2. Let's say the answer for question 1 is YES. What happens if due to whatever reason, my I-140 gets approved BEFORE my priority date becomes current, so, in that scenario I wouldn't have been able to apply for her AOS anyway? Then, what are our options?
3. Let's say the answer for question 1 is NO. Then, is there a special processing I need to do to add her since my priority dates will not be current anytime soon because of the retrogression?
Please remember, she DOES carry H1-B on her own.
Thank you,
gc101.
Here is my situation. I can apply for I-485 since my labor(PD - Mar 05) has cleared and I-140 has been filed.
But, I have a fiancee and we are getting married in September 2007. She is on H1-B but currently traveling in India.
We cannot get married before September 2007, so, as far as I understand, I cannot add her into my AOS filing right now. And, as far as I understand they are gonna retrogress the dates to oblivion after August 17, 2007.
1. So, my question is, would she have to wait until my priority date become current again before she can add herself into my AOS application?
2. Let's say the answer for question 1 is YES. What happens if due to whatever reason, my I-140 gets approved BEFORE my priority date becomes current, so, in that scenario I wouldn't have been able to apply for her AOS anyway? Then, what are our options?
3. Let's say the answer for question 1 is NO. Then, is there a special processing I need to do to add her since my priority dates will not be current anytime soon because of the retrogression?
Please remember, she DOES carry H1-B on her own.
Thank you,
gc101.
more...
pictures Posted under heartbreak, life,
ryanjoe_99
10-24 10:55 PM
thank you. Eventhough my son is 13 year old, when I told about it, he was worried about it.
dresses emo quotes about heartbreak. quotes about heartbreak.
jusky
02-23 10:00 AM
Please provide the email address/new thread where we can write the articles. Perhaps the admins can review all the articles submitted, and then choose some of the articles which they think are worthy, and other users can then try to post their comments. Last, the admins can edit the article based on those suggestions.
more...
makeup makeup love heartbreak quotes, emo quotes about heartbreak. emo quotes about
LostInGCProcess
09-05 02:48 PM
Most people has very misconception about "parole". It is not a free/flexible travel document like visa. As a AOS applicant, one should not leave US till it is approved/denied. One MUST present in US during AOS. The parole is only for any emergency purpose; which is similar to prisioners. As USCIS is flexible, in approving the AP, the people don't realize the travel limitation of AP. They are travelling on AP for vatation/fun etc.. As per law, the AP is not intended for it. The CBP officer was right in asking the legitimacy of the travel. The AP document clearly says it is based on "humanitation" admission to retrun after an emergency travel.
Technically, you are right. But on the other hand, it was at a time when one had to wait at the most 6 months for AOS.
But, for people from India, on EB categories, the wait is not months, its in YEARS. So, its irrational to go by whats written there.
On the other hand: I think we must request USCIS to recognize this underlying problem with EB folks that are primarily from India. They must print an exception on the AP for India and exclude the wording "for emergency purpose only". I don't know if USCIS has the discretionary power to amend minor changes.
Technically, you are right. But on the other hand, it was at a time when one had to wait at the most 6 months for AOS.
But, for people from India, on EB categories, the wait is not months, its in YEARS. So, its irrational to go by whats written there.
On the other hand: I think we must request USCIS to recognize this underlying problem with EB folks that are primarily from India. They must print an exception on the AP for India and exclude the wording "for emergency purpose only". I don't know if USCIS has the discretionary power to amend minor changes.
girlfriend Quotes About Heartbreak. emo
thamizhan
07-20 11:25 AM
Is there any thing to do with I-140approved/pending with I-485/ead/ap processing?
This is only to track people who sent their I-485 application documents to USICIS Nebraska Service Center and received by them on the same day.
If you are on that category, please vote.
This is only to track people who sent their I-485 application documents to USICIS Nebraska Service Center and received by them on the same day.
If you are on that category, please vote.
hairstyles dresses Emo Quotes About Heartbreak. emo quotes about heartbreak. emo quotes
chanduv23
01-13 01:32 PM
EB2 -- Dont run fast, you will fall down again ...
I'm EB3 , with PD Oct 18th, Off by 3 days since last 2 months ...
I don't think dates will go back again unless they drastically move the dates forward. The dates could remain stagnant for a long time though.
I'm EB3 , with PD Oct 18th, Off by 3 days since last 2 months ...
I don't think dates will go back again unless they drastically move the dates forward. The dates could remain stagnant for a long time though.
kumar1
02-10 03:46 PM
On a financial note, open up a 512 account for yourself with your state. This would save you some money from state income tax.
aperregatturv
09-22 07:01 PM
Another problem i see here....
this ROY BECK is CEO & Founder of NumbersUSA is doing a backdoor calls directly to Harry Reid to kill this and other bills ....
Check his Today's Blog
Link (http://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/beckr/september-22-2008/e-verify-will-die-if-congress-doesnt-act.html)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has two honorable choices:
* No. 1: Go around Sen.Menendez who has a "hold" on H.R. 6633, the "clean" E-Verify re-authorization bill passed by the House. Sen. Reid can bring this back-room filibuster to the Senate floor for a vote. If he does this, there easily will be the 60 votes necessary to stop Menendez and allow an overwhelming majority vote to pass H.R. 6633. (Reid reportedly doesn't want to do this because he doesn't want to force some of his Democrats to have to go on record just before the election.)
* No. 2: Avoid a vote altogether by talking to Menendez privately, persuading him that what he is doing is threatening the reputation of the Democratic Party just before elections and get him to withdraw his "hold" on H.R. 6633. (This way, Reid could then bring H.R. 6633 to the floor in the "hot-wire" fashion which will pass by voice vote.)
Either way, the American worker and public wins. It is all about Reid doing one of those two things.
This is why we want you to put particular pressure on Democratic Senators to put an end to Menendez' shameful grandstanding. Fortunately, Senate Republicans are standing firm against Menendez.
The weakest and most vulnerable American workers -- and non-workers -- will benefit the most from your willingness to step forward and take action this week.
SEN. MENENDEZ' E-VERIFY BLACKMAIL DEAL
After we told you that some Republican Senate staffers were working with Sen. Menendez (D-N.J.) for massive increases in foreign workers, you hammered Republican offices for not holding the line for a "clean" E-Verify bill.
Your efforts really worked. By the end of this last week, Republican Senate staffs were going into negotiations with Democrats and making it clear they were united in oppositiion to a foreign-worker surge at this time of 5-year-high unemployment and financial industry collapse.
Sen. Menendez apparently is not bothered by the 5-year-high official unemployment rate -- or even by the 292,000 additional American workers who went on unemployment in August alone. He is insisting that if we keep E-Verify, then we have to add another 550,000 foreign workers next year to the 1.1 million immigrants already scheduled to come.
(AS A REMINDER: E-Verify is the central tool for taking away the job magnet from illegal immigration. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants to kill it so outlaw businesses will have more freedom to hire illegal workers. E-Verify is the on-line system that businesses can type into for each new hire and find out if they are an illegal alien.
(If you live in Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia -- or any other of the places that have started mandating that businesses use E-Verify -- your efforts to combat illegal immigration will be halted. )
this ROY BECK is CEO & Founder of NumbersUSA is doing a backdoor calls directly to Harry Reid to kill this and other bills ....
Check his Today's Blog
Link (http://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/beckr/september-22-2008/e-verify-will-die-if-congress-doesnt-act.html)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has two honorable choices:
* No. 1: Go around Sen.Menendez who has a "hold" on H.R. 6633, the "clean" E-Verify re-authorization bill passed by the House. Sen. Reid can bring this back-room filibuster to the Senate floor for a vote. If he does this, there easily will be the 60 votes necessary to stop Menendez and allow an overwhelming majority vote to pass H.R. 6633. (Reid reportedly doesn't want to do this because he doesn't want to force some of his Democrats to have to go on record just before the election.)
* No. 2: Avoid a vote altogether by talking to Menendez privately, persuading him that what he is doing is threatening the reputation of the Democratic Party just before elections and get him to withdraw his "hold" on H.R. 6633. (This way, Reid could then bring H.R. 6633 to the floor in the "hot-wire" fashion which will pass by voice vote.)
Either way, the American worker and public wins. It is all about Reid doing one of those two things.
This is why we want you to put particular pressure on Democratic Senators to put an end to Menendez' shameful grandstanding. Fortunately, Senate Republicans are standing firm against Menendez.
The weakest and most vulnerable American workers -- and non-workers -- will benefit the most from your willingness to step forward and take action this week.
SEN. MENENDEZ' E-VERIFY BLACKMAIL DEAL
After we told you that some Republican Senate staffers were working with Sen. Menendez (D-N.J.) for massive increases in foreign workers, you hammered Republican offices for not holding the line for a "clean" E-Verify bill.
Your efforts really worked. By the end of this last week, Republican Senate staffs were going into negotiations with Democrats and making it clear they were united in oppositiion to a foreign-worker surge at this time of 5-year-high unemployment and financial industry collapse.
Sen. Menendez apparently is not bothered by the 5-year-high official unemployment rate -- or even by the 292,000 additional American workers who went on unemployment in August alone. He is insisting that if we keep E-Verify, then we have to add another 550,000 foreign workers next year to the 1.1 million immigrants already scheduled to come.
(AS A REMINDER: E-Verify is the central tool for taking away the job magnet from illegal immigration. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants to kill it so outlaw businesses will have more freedom to hire illegal workers. E-Verify is the on-line system that businesses can type into for each new hire and find out if they are an illegal alien.
(If you live in Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia -- or any other of the places that have started mandating that businesses use E-Verify -- your efforts to combat illegal immigration will be halted. )
No comments:
Post a Comment