black_logs
02-18 12:08 PM
Yes, most of the states are going to implement it. It is allready existing in P.A. and I know atleast 2 people who's friends picks/drops them to work. It's a shame, living in this country for 6 years and suddenly your DL is snatched away. Getting 3 years H1B extensions in all circumstances is on of our main agenda at iv.org please see our brochure in resources section. This will solve atleast some part of the problem.
wallpaper a store name in a country
indio0617
07-20 10:43 AM
I got a brilliant idea guys, I am sure it is not new but it looks now is the right time to pursue it.
Apparently it would be very difficult to fight FBI namechek delays. After USCIS was swamped with a pile of cases due to visa retrogression fiasco the processing times most probably will increase significantly. The visa retrogression is going to be reinstated.
Also there is a great injustice to those who had to go through the BEC black hole.
I think everybody agrees that the current green card process is a lottery where winners get everything in a couple of months and losers wait sometimes 10 years. (Yes I know such cases).
So how to fix all this in a way that it would not affect negatively anybody?
The answer might be very simple: Count the time spent waiting in the administration created lines towards citizenship. In other words the 5 year count starts not when one get the green card but from one�s priority date. After all it is not the immigrant's fault that he has the same name as someone who saw a suspicious person on the plane and was questioned by FBI as a witness.
This would PARTIALLY restore justice without punishing anybody.
USCIS will be happy as it would take off some pressure from their delays.
Legislators are happy as more people will be able to vote for them.
Immigration lawyers are happy as the measure would not take away their revenue, in fact it may even increase it.
All those who say in numerous interviews on TV �.. we are a nation of immigrants and we support LEGAL immigration but we do not want amnesty�� are happy or would have to admit that they are happy to save the face.
The current losers in immigration process would automatically catch up (almost) with the luckiest ones.
Immigrationvoice will be happy as I am sure many current waiters and even those who already got their green cards would contribute to support the measure.
Anti immigrants are NOT UNHAPPY since the measure does not increase the number of immigrants.
Employers are NOT UNHAPPY since the measure does not affect them in any way.
If immigrationvoice has desire and resources to suggest and support a measure to the legislature it better concentrate on this rather that on something like �� make FBI report namecheck results to the applicants..�.
Of course it would require changes to the current legislature but I cannot imagine that somebody would come out with a sensible reason against it.
sbdol:
IV core has thought about this specific proposal before and it is already on our radar. Thanks for suggesting though.
Apparently it would be very difficult to fight FBI namechek delays. After USCIS was swamped with a pile of cases due to visa retrogression fiasco the processing times most probably will increase significantly. The visa retrogression is going to be reinstated.
Also there is a great injustice to those who had to go through the BEC black hole.
I think everybody agrees that the current green card process is a lottery where winners get everything in a couple of months and losers wait sometimes 10 years. (Yes I know such cases).
So how to fix all this in a way that it would not affect negatively anybody?
The answer might be very simple: Count the time spent waiting in the administration created lines towards citizenship. In other words the 5 year count starts not when one get the green card but from one�s priority date. After all it is not the immigrant's fault that he has the same name as someone who saw a suspicious person on the plane and was questioned by FBI as a witness.
This would PARTIALLY restore justice without punishing anybody.
USCIS will be happy as it would take off some pressure from their delays.
Legislators are happy as more people will be able to vote for them.
Immigration lawyers are happy as the measure would not take away their revenue, in fact it may even increase it.
All those who say in numerous interviews on TV �.. we are a nation of immigrants and we support LEGAL immigration but we do not want amnesty�� are happy or would have to admit that they are happy to save the face.
The current losers in immigration process would automatically catch up (almost) with the luckiest ones.
Immigrationvoice will be happy as I am sure many current waiters and even those who already got their green cards would contribute to support the measure.
Anti immigrants are NOT UNHAPPY since the measure does not increase the number of immigrants.
Employers are NOT UNHAPPY since the measure does not affect them in any way.
If immigrationvoice has desire and resources to suggest and support a measure to the legislature it better concentrate on this rather that on something like �� make FBI report namecheck results to the applicants..�.
Of course it would require changes to the current legislature but I cannot imagine that somebody would come out with a sensible reason against it.
sbdol:
IV core has thought about this specific proposal before and it is already on our radar. Thanks for suggesting though.
go_guy123
05-30 11:56 AM
While doing some ad-hoc research after watching Valkyrie, I discovered this interesting bit of U.S. immigration history and couldn't help but be amazed how nobody seems to know or talk about United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind).
The Luce-Celler Act of 1946 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luce-Celler_Act_of_1946) was proposed by Republican Clare Booth Luce and Democrat Emanuel Celler in 1943 and signed into being by President Harry Truman on July 2, 1946, granting naturalization rights to Indian Americans (and Filipino Americans) and re-established immigration from India (and the Philippines).
Food for thought...
jazz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965
Eventually this bill introduced that 7% per country cap
The Luce-Celler Act of 1946 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luce-Celler_Act_of_1946) was proposed by Republican Clare Booth Luce and Democrat Emanuel Celler in 1943 and signed into being by President Harry Truman on July 2, 1946, granting naturalization rights to Indian Americans (and Filipino Americans) and re-established immigration from India (and the Philippines).
Food for thought...
jazz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965
Eventually this bill introduced that 7% per country cap
2011 Funny/Weird Restaurant Names
pune_guy
05-28 07:02 PM
Hi,
Can you tell the name of the insurance company? My in-laws are planning to come here and I will be buying insurance for them. I will stay away from this company.
How can high-fever be considered as pre-existing condition? I though diseases such as diabetes, cancer, etc are pre-existing conditions. Right?
Can you tell the name of the insurance company? My in-laws are planning to come here and I will be buying insurance for them. I will stay away from this company.
How can high-fever be considered as pre-existing condition? I though diseases such as diabetes, cancer, etc are pre-existing conditions. Right?
more...
vxg
08-15 01:24 PM
I would say it is still a good sign as it tells that someone is at least looking at your case instead of your case being in a basement in a box.
I had this discussion with my lawyer. This lawywer has been touch with USCIS very closely and understand the process and how the system works (to the best possible for an outsider) and here is what has to say about LUD.
************************
Most I-485 will be adjudicated without any LUD at all. This is an because even today it is the physical file that is being delivered to an IO. IO will not touch the system if there had been no issue or no infomation to update.
If one is getting LUDs on any application, it most likely implies that some information is being updated. LUD most likely are for some reasons.
The process of adjudicating a 485 is multi step with many department involved. When the file reaches an IO for the decision , it is expected to be complete in every respect. If IO has any follow up question or any comments, she would then enter in the system that we se as LUD.
Thus, LUD in most cases ( and not all), if at all, is a potential indication of further delay..
I am not aware of any concrete reason for LUD on an approved I-140. My discussion with USCIS indicate that it may be due to updating of company specific information and not necessary related to individual case. Internally the the system recognize each company by a specific number.
Regarding your question LUD on AP, it should be unrelated to 485 as it is handled by a different department and lower level officials.
***********************************
I had this discussion with my lawyer. This lawywer has been touch with USCIS very closely and understand the process and how the system works (to the best possible for an outsider) and here is what has to say about LUD.
************************
Most I-485 will be adjudicated without any LUD at all. This is an because even today it is the physical file that is being delivered to an IO. IO will not touch the system if there had been no issue or no infomation to update.
If one is getting LUDs on any application, it most likely implies that some information is being updated. LUD most likely are for some reasons.
The process of adjudicating a 485 is multi step with many department involved. When the file reaches an IO for the decision , it is expected to be complete in every respect. If IO has any follow up question or any comments, she would then enter in the system that we se as LUD.
Thus, LUD in most cases ( and not all), if at all, is a potential indication of further delay..
I am not aware of any concrete reason for LUD on an approved I-140. My discussion with USCIS indicate that it may be due to updating of company specific information and not necessary related to individual case. Internally the the system recognize each company by a specific number.
Regarding your question LUD on AP, it should be unrelated to 485 as it is handled by a different department and lower level officials.
***********************************
gc_aspirant_prasad
07-07 04:44 PM
dugg
more...
svn
04-07 07:06 PM
After 10 years on H-1, last year we applied for my H1 extension and received a 3 year extension, based on I-140 approval. However, I am traveling out of the country and did not want to go to the consulate for a visa stamping especially since I had a tough experience the last time around. Luckily, my company also applied for EAD extension and Advance Parole. I am planning to use the Advance Parole for reentry - therefore, travel is one reason you might prefer to have an Advance Parole (though you might be able receive an Advance Parole without extending your EAD as well - am not sure of that)
Irrespective of whether EAD is used, one should always extend EAD as a backup. ( Especially in this economy)
I definitely agree. Not sure whether an EAD can be obtained in the future, if you do not keep it continuously active by extending it - you will want to look into that.
Irrespective of whether EAD is used, one should always extend EAD as a backup. ( Especially in this economy)
I definitely agree. Not sure whether an EAD can be obtained in the future, if you do not keep it continuously active by extending it - you will want to look into that.
2010 Hilarious name aside, Uruguay
starscream
03-24 04:19 PM
Have you hear anything from your appeal? Please let me know.
Thank you.
Aura M/Hassan 11,
I am assuming that when you guys say appeal - you mean request for review (RFR) for the LC that got denied. My LC was denied in November 06 and my employer's lawyer filed a Request for Review (RFR )because the said they were absolutely sure that DOL had denied the LC in error. Well, DOL approved the RFR and my LC was approved in Jan 08 - YES it took 14 months. The advantage is that if RFR is approved the priority date can be maintained. The lawyer's had told me that it does take a year for RFR to be approved (of course at that time nobody expected that the Pdates would become curent in summer of 07 so I missed that bus) - but anyways now I can maintain my original priority date.
From whatever I have read online it seems the lawyers have to be absolutely sure that the LC is denied in error by DOL to expect any positive reply for the RFR.
Best of luck to you both!!
Thank you.
Aura M/Hassan 11,
I am assuming that when you guys say appeal - you mean request for review (RFR) for the LC that got denied. My LC was denied in November 06 and my employer's lawyer filed a Request for Review (RFR )because the said they were absolutely sure that DOL had denied the LC in error. Well, DOL approved the RFR and my LC was approved in Jan 08 - YES it took 14 months. The advantage is that if RFR is approved the priority date can be maintained. The lawyer's had told me that it does take a year for RFR to be approved (of course at that time nobody expected that the Pdates would become curent in summer of 07 so I missed that bus) - but anyways now I can maintain my original priority date.
From whatever I have read online it seems the lawyers have to be absolutely sure that the LC is denied in error by DOL to expect any positive reply for the RFR.
Best of luck to you both!!
more...
morchu
05-08 04:04 PM
I would say file EB1-140 alone for now (you can retain Oct 06 priority date for EB1 with proper documentation), wait for its approval, and after the approval of EB1-140, still if your 485 is pending, do an "interfiling" showing your new EB1-140.
Assumption: EB1 is not going to be retrogressed beyond Oct 06, in future.
Thank you, Ms. Reddy for your prompt reply.
Do I have to file another I-485? How does it work? Your advice is greatly appreciated.
Assumption: EB1 is not going to be retrogressed beyond Oct 06, in future.
Thank you, Ms. Reddy for your prompt reply.
Do I have to file another I-485? How does it work? Your advice is greatly appreciated.
hair Name: mem. Country: United
gsc999
08-22 02:29 PM
My lawyer filed my Labor certification stating that the job requires 'BS degree in CS'. My labor got approved last month.
I hold a MS degree in CS and BS degree in Industrial Engg.
Now while I am about to file for I-140, I am getting information from various sources that my bachelor's degree has to be in CS, irrespective of holding a master's degree in CS.
Has anyone faced similar situation? How can I resolve this issue?
Please help as I almost spent 4 years in LC backlog queue!!!!!!!!
---
You should be Ok. Usually the job req. list the "minimun" job requirements. If you are overqualified that is fine.
I hold a MS degree in CS and BS degree in Industrial Engg.
Now while I am about to file for I-140, I am getting information from various sources that my bachelor's degree has to be in CS, irrespective of holding a master's degree in CS.
Has anyone faced similar situation? How can I resolve this issue?
Please help as I almost spent 4 years in LC backlog queue!!!!!!!!
---
You should be Ok. Usually the job req. list the "minimun" job requirements. If you are overqualified that is fine.
more...
nixstor
12-02 10:42 PM
IV is not for any particular nationals. While ROW is also affected because of retrogression, India and China are severely affected and there is hardly any movement in EB2/3 for India. The hard country limits in EB system and inability to capture unused visa numbers are just 2 of the many reasons responsible for retrogression. These forums have been misused by some people to advertise about their firm. May be the other member skimmed through the post and considered it a similar ad. OP has given a fitting response. Welcome to IV.
hot Isnt it funny when people feel
achu
08-27 06:18 PM
hello,
dmv need USCIS issued photo identification in order to renew or change your DL. first they check if you have a valid visa with photo, if not they ask for valid EAD. if you don't have these then you have to show the approval notice. but the biggest problem with this is it take 3 to 5 months to process DL. hope this help.
achu.
dmv need USCIS issued photo identification in order to renew or change your DL. first they check if you have a valid visa with photo, if not they ask for valid EAD. if you don't have these then you have to show the approval notice. but the biggest problem with this is it take 3 to 5 months to process DL. hope this help.
achu.
more...
house FUNNY COUNTRY DOOR SIGN SAVE
suaralph
10-22 09:50 PM
I guess all the EB2 june filers might get approvals rather than EB3 June..right??
Has anyone in the EB3 category (june 2007 filers) got any approvals??
Cheers!!
I agree with you. EB2 filers should not have any problem after USCIS solves all this receipting mess. Any one who filed in June and is already approved must have been pre-adjudicated, which means both name check and finger printing must have happened before the new fiscal year began. Anyway, from our perspective and not USCIS'S, EB3 has a long way to go.
My details:
PD= 03/2005
I-140: Approved
RD: June 26, 2007
FP: Sept.8, 2007
EAD: approved in 44 days
Has anyone in the EB3 category (june 2007 filers) got any approvals??
Cheers!!
I agree with you. EB2 filers should not have any problem after USCIS solves all this receipting mess. Any one who filed in June and is already approved must have been pre-adjudicated, which means both name check and finger printing must have happened before the new fiscal year began. Anyway, from our perspective and not USCIS'S, EB3 has a long way to go.
My details:
PD= 03/2005
I-140: Approved
RD: June 26, 2007
FP: Sept.8, 2007
EAD: approved in 44 days
tattoo As names continue to come in,
candylady11
01-26 04:03 PM
I asked about taking money out of a salaried employees pay to cover the cost of payroll over-ride from hourly employees. If Manager doesn�t have a contract, never had one, and nothing in writing to say you will be responsible for hourly employees if payroll goes over employer�s budget, can he take the money from the managers pay to cover this over-ride? Do you think I will be right if I took legal action against this sort of Payroll-Robbery?
more...
pictures with thecustom funny Isthe
wanna_immigrate
05-24 10:19 AM
Can we delete this thread ?
dresses My name is Jeanne.
airbusfan
06-01 12:10 PM
I also have access issue, but just since yesterday. Again like Rahul, I'm by no means desperate to have access to the forums, but would be nice. Please let us know if there is an issue that we can help out with in this regards!
I still no access to the donor forums for me. I've already sent 3 emails per the thread above. Is it really such a big deal to grant access to donor forum??
I still no access to the donor forums for me. I've already sent 3 emails per the thread above. Is it really such a big deal to grant access to donor forum??
more...
makeup Funny Shahiri, Eid Special
abhi_jais
12-03 02:59 PM
A friend of mine has got 221G from the New Delhi consulate. He works directly for the company there is no client involved here. The consulate has requested the details of every single employee of the company along with their immigration status. My friend is trying to get that information from the employer.
Any suggestion at this point????
Any suggestion at this point????
girlfriend presents LIFE MAGAZINE#39;s LIST OF IMPOSSIBLE TO PRONOUNCE COUNTRY NAMES.
anilsal
02-18 12:28 PM
like the 2nd FP notices have been sent to EB3-I folks from 2002 and 2003 batch.
Just a guess.
Just a guess.
hairstyles Name: Mustang Funny Car
number30
03-23 07:51 PM
Hello,
My first H1-B visa expires in September 2009. I was going to have my company file for extension exactly 6 months before the expiry date until I found out I cannot travel out of the U.S. while my extension application is pending. I have a trip planned in July.
My company attorney recommended that I put off submitting the extension, go on my trip and apply as soon as I get back.
Is there any risk associated with doing this? Or is it better to apply as soon as I can at the 6 month mark?
Thank you,
Team
No Risk involved. You can do a premium processing if required.
My first H1-B visa expires in September 2009. I was going to have my company file for extension exactly 6 months before the expiry date until I found out I cannot travel out of the U.S. while my extension application is pending. I have a trip planned in July.
My company attorney recommended that I put off submitting the extension, go on my trip and apply as soon as I get back.
Is there any risk associated with doing this? Or is it better to apply as soon as I can at the 6 month mark?
Thank you,
Team
No Risk involved. You can do a premium processing if required.
sparky_jones
05-07 12:23 PM
Some are of the opinion that filing AC21 draws unnecessary attention & scrutiny of your application (apparently which would not happen if you do not file AC21).
But I found this article from Murthy.com to be conclusive on this matter.
MurthyDotCom : Risk of GC Rescission for Failure to Notify Change of Job / Employer! (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_risres.html)
Filing AC21 is the safest approach -- I guess there is no need worry if the papers are in line.
I continue to be amazed at how much opinion differs on this matter among the immigration lawyers community. If you ask Ron Gotcher, he would come out guns blazing telling you that you are nothing short of a fool inviting trouble if you pro-actively inform USCIS of job change under AC21. He claims to have seen "monster" RFEs result from such notifications, causing unnecessary and avoidable pain. On the other hand, Murthy is strongly in support of such notification, claiming that they haven't seen any additional RFEs from such notification, and that it's best to inform USCIS of job changes. They give the example of avoidance of future GC rescission as the motivation.
So, who's telling the truth? Maybe Ron has a point. Maybe Murthy encourages AC21 notification because it brings additional business to them. Or maybe Ron is blowing hot air..and Murthy is right. Who knows...
At the end of the day, it boils down to you. Who do you want to trust?
But I found this article from Murthy.com to be conclusive on this matter.
MurthyDotCom : Risk of GC Rescission for Failure to Notify Change of Job / Employer! (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_risres.html)
Filing AC21 is the safest approach -- I guess there is no need worry if the papers are in line.
I continue to be amazed at how much opinion differs on this matter among the immigration lawyers community. If you ask Ron Gotcher, he would come out guns blazing telling you that you are nothing short of a fool inviting trouble if you pro-actively inform USCIS of job change under AC21. He claims to have seen "monster" RFEs result from such notifications, causing unnecessary and avoidable pain. On the other hand, Murthy is strongly in support of such notification, claiming that they haven't seen any additional RFEs from such notification, and that it's best to inform USCIS of job changes. They give the example of avoidance of future GC rescission as the motivation.
So, who's telling the truth? Maybe Ron has a point. Maybe Murthy encourages AC21 notification because it brings additional business to them. Or maybe Ron is blowing hot air..and Murthy is right. Who knows...
At the end of the day, it boils down to you. Who do you want to trust?
vamsi_poondla
11-27 09:51 AM
Whoever invoked this please share your experiences, dos and donts.
No comments:
Post a Comment