desibechara
10-12 03:39 PM
I am..
EB3 India..PD Oct 2001, LC certfied on June 19,, got in hand on July26
Applied I140, I485 and I170, I130 on Aug7
NSC..receipts Sep19
FP notice for Oct 30,have not recived for wifes' FP notice
EAD online notice for both of us ..on Oct 9
I understand lot of people are anxious about GC..but look at dates!!!
Its been 6 years..
DB
EB3 India..PD Oct 2001, LC certfied on June 19,, got in hand on July26
Applied I140, I485 and I170, I130 on Aug7
NSC..receipts Sep19
FP notice for Oct 30,have not recived for wifes' FP notice
EAD online notice for both of us ..on Oct 9
I understand lot of people are anxious about GC..but look at dates!!!
Its been 6 years..
DB
wallpaper justin bieber 2011 hairstyle.
virtual55
07-03 09:11 AM
with out a reliable website, we can't communicate and do all the important things(productive) you are talking. maintaining a reliable website doesn't need much funds.
Anti immigrants will not know our plans if we may this a paid website.
Anti immigrants will not know our plans if we may this a paid website.
brad_sk2
03-09 02:41 PM
If your kids were born in the US then maybe they will be able to file for you by then and that will be definitely faster than EB-3. :D
Hehe..nice one...and so true as well:(
Hehe..nice one...and so true as well:(
2011 Haircut justin bieber
cdeneo
03-07 02:28 PM
Can someone please shed light on this - I was looking for the same information.
What if my employer is definitely going to revoke my approved I-140 upon my resignation (past 180 days)? Do I need to file "Notice of I-140 Portability"?
Also, in the above posts when people are saying that almost no support is needed from the new employer to keep 485 process going smoothly, is it safe to assume they are changing jobs using EAD and not doing H1B transfer?
One more question, my employer will revoke my I-140 and my H1B. How long can I be without a job after they do that? Are the above actions of my employer very likely to result in a RFE from USCIS? If so, what will USCIS ask for in RFE?
Thank for all the advise.
---------------------------------
Contributed $100.
What if my employer is definitely going to revoke my approved I-140 upon my resignation (past 180 days)? Do I need to file "Notice of I-140 Portability"?
Also, in the above posts when people are saying that almost no support is needed from the new employer to keep 485 process going smoothly, is it safe to assume they are changing jobs using EAD and not doing H1B transfer?
One more question, my employer will revoke my I-140 and my H1B. How long can I be without a job after they do that? Are the above actions of my employer very likely to result in a RFE from USCIS? If so, what will USCIS ask for in RFE?
Thank for all the advise.
---------------------------------
Contributed $100.
more...
reddy_h
08-15 02:41 PM
I don't think anybody would be interested in Sep visa bulletin as everything is expected to be 'U' for EB categories. The Oct bulletin would be more interesting. There are some predictions already that it would be similar to visa bulletin for Jan 2007.
reddy_h
08-15 02:41 PM
I don't think anybody would be interested in Sep visa bulletin as everything is expected to be 'U' for EB categories. The Oct bulletin would be more interesting. There are some predictions already that it would be similar to visa bulletin for Jan 2007.
more...
grinch
03-04 03:21 PM
Yeah I've been working on my entry slowly, learning some new things I never knew.
Almost done!
Almost done!
2010 justin bieber 2011 haircut
fromnaija
07-23 05:19 PM
My lawyer also submitted my 485 without the employer's letter. She maintained that since I currently work for the petitioning employer, it is not required. She only submitted my pay advice.
Thanks much for your time! We already applied without it.
Lets see... I don;t have much in my hands other than waiting....
Thanks much for your time! We already applied without it.
Lets see... I don;t have much in my hands other than waiting....
more...
alex99
10-12 09:01 PM
Thanks
hair hot justin bieber 2011 haircut
ghost
08-12 07:22 AM
what is the percentage you are looking ? 50 -50 ?I know thousands of people who can write a check for 10K to support any law that can give them a GC in the next 3-6 months..
Here is the thing: We all can write 10K checks to get a GC in next 3-6 months but things don't work that way...small persistent steps lead to assured success...see if you can get the people you know sign up for a 6 USD per week recurring donation, it takes 5 minutes of their time.
This is like having one subway sandwich per week for 6 months, the key is to do it persistently every week/month. Thanks!
Here is the thing: We all can write 10K checks to get a GC in next 3-6 months but things don't work that way...small persistent steps lead to assured success...see if you can get the people you know sign up for a 6 USD per week recurring donation, it takes 5 minutes of their time.
This is like having one subway sandwich per week for 6 months, the key is to do it persistently every week/month. Thanks!
more...
chanduv23
05-26 04:40 PM
There is a rule that you are suppossed to carry your passport all the times if you are on a visa.
Border patrol has the right to ask you for documents.
Fines are like $100 or so - not quite sure.
I was once driving on Adirondocks and was stopped by the border patrol. I showed my dirver's license but they wanted to see the visa. We waited there for sometime as they validated us on their computer and then let us go - they were friendly and suggested that it is always good to carry documents.
Border patrol has the right to ask you for documents.
Fines are like $100 or so - not quite sure.
I was once driving on Adirondocks and was stopped by the border patrol. I showed my dirver's license but they wanted to see the visa. We waited there for sometime as they validated us on their computer and then let us go - they were friendly and suggested that it is always good to carry documents.
hot justin bieber 2011 haircut
shankar_thanu
04-04 02:53 PM
This bill would affect all of us if they apply these same rules when we try to exend or transfer out existing H1s. Does it(the bill) say anything about that?
more...
house justin bieber 2011 haircut.
abhijitp
07-18 12:37 AM
Continuing on this forum with more generic title
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10383
Per Greg Siskind -- July 2nd filers might have to file again, as all July 2nd application were rejected. Check out the link below as well as the comment section for the blog
Greg Siskind is reporting the following about July2nd rejection here
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/faqs-part-1.html
part of above post --
USCIS did not state how cases filed and rejected on the 2nd are to be handled other than to say that properly filed applications would be accepted. This presumably covers the many cases filed after the second that were held, but it doesn�t explain what will happen to the cases received earlier. We hope USCIS will issue special instructions to issue July 2nd receipt dates to those who are able to document they attempted to file. We presume some folks are still waiting on their July 2nd cases to be returned and are debating refiling new cases rather than waiting. Unfortunately, there is a risk of not getting the package back before August 17th and some people will need to refile without proof of the earlier filing. Hopefully, again, USCIS will institute a process for such individuals to avoid being penalized.
USCIS has not announced any details yet on how it will determine which cases get 2007 visa numbers that might still be available. We also don�t know yet how cases will be processed that are not in the batch of cases that get green card numbers this year. For those who will have to get numbers in future years, applications should be worked by the order of the priority date. So applicants with labor certifications approved some time back, for example, should go before people in the same category with later priority dates.
For individuals filing cases not requiring a labor certification (such as Schedule A cases and national interest waivers), the priority date is the date of filing. Because there may be hundreds of thousands of applications received between July 2nd and August 17th with many of these cases not requiring a labor certification, the date during this six week period a case is filed could make a big difference in terms of when a case will complete processing. And, again, getting that July 2nd priority date for those who filed early and were rejected could make a big difference in when their cases are ultimately processed through to completion.
This would be interesting as well as cause for concern for many of us. Do we have to go through the whole process one more time and file again?
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10383
Per Greg Siskind -- July 2nd filers might have to file again, as all July 2nd application were rejected. Check out the link below as well as the comment section for the blog
Greg Siskind is reporting the following about July2nd rejection here
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/faqs-part-1.html
part of above post --
USCIS did not state how cases filed and rejected on the 2nd are to be handled other than to say that properly filed applications would be accepted. This presumably covers the many cases filed after the second that were held, but it doesn�t explain what will happen to the cases received earlier. We hope USCIS will issue special instructions to issue July 2nd receipt dates to those who are able to document they attempted to file. We presume some folks are still waiting on their July 2nd cases to be returned and are debating refiling new cases rather than waiting. Unfortunately, there is a risk of not getting the package back before August 17th and some people will need to refile without proof of the earlier filing. Hopefully, again, USCIS will institute a process for such individuals to avoid being penalized.
USCIS has not announced any details yet on how it will determine which cases get 2007 visa numbers that might still be available. We also don�t know yet how cases will be processed that are not in the batch of cases that get green card numbers this year. For those who will have to get numbers in future years, applications should be worked by the order of the priority date. So applicants with labor certifications approved some time back, for example, should go before people in the same category with later priority dates.
For individuals filing cases not requiring a labor certification (such as Schedule A cases and national interest waivers), the priority date is the date of filing. Because there may be hundreds of thousands of applications received between July 2nd and August 17th with many of these cases not requiring a labor certification, the date during this six week period a case is filed could make a big difference in terms of when a case will complete processing. And, again, getting that July 2nd priority date for those who filed early and were rejected could make a big difference in when their cases are ultimately processed through to completion.
This would be interesting as well as cause for concern for many of us. Do we have to go through the whole process one more time and file again?
tattoo justin bieber 2011 haircut
vkrishn
07-13 09:05 PM
I called at 5PM PST after looking at USCIS website and had to enter "3" (Which basically says you have a problem with your case) after i enter my receipt number to talk to a rep. Spoke to a Rep and filed a SR. They have given me Aug 12th as the "target date" by which i should get a response. I am ok with an interview as my case is pretty clean and don't see a reason to be denied. As long as i know that the case is being processed i am ok.
Thanks anyway wait_for_ever_gc.
To the person who asked me whether i work at Cisco? : No i don't..
Thanks anyway wait_for_ever_gc.
To the person who asked me whether i work at Cisco? : No i don't..
more...
pictures justin bieber haircut 2011
johnwright03
07-01 09:38 AM
06/30/2007: Potential EB Visa Number Exhaution in July and Probable Actions of State Department or USCIS
* By now, people understand that the sources of potential action by the State Department or USCIS are predicated on the two important facts. One was the information from a government source that there were only about 40,000 numbers left for the entire EB visa numbers for the FY 2007 which ends on September 30, 2007. The second important fact was that reportedly the USCIS alone had far more than 40,000 I-485 applications in the backlog queue that were reportedly ready for approval. Considering the fact that the immigrant visa numbers are consumed by the approval of I-485 applications by the USCIS and the approval of immigant visa applications in the consular processing by visa posts througout the world, 40,000 visa numbers could be fairly quickly exhausted in early July 2007. This prediction was exacerbated by the information that the USCIS was apparently picking up the pace of I-485 adjudications lately.
* Obviously the State Department has been in communication with the USCIS and was well aware of the situation. Sources reported that the State Department might revise the July Visa Bulletin either Monday or Tuesday to reflect the situation. However, it is unclear at this point whether this will occur on Monday or Tuesday or, for that matter, some time soon, particulary considering the ongoing uproar in the nation. Assuming that the EB immigrant visa number will be exhausted before the end of July, from the government perspectives, they may have two options to handle this matter. One is the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin based on the newly developed facts and predictions. The other option is that the State Department does not take any action of revising the Visa Bulletin but just notify the USCIS when the visa numbers for certain categories are exhausted. The initial sources of rumor was the former possibility. However, as updated by the AILA afterwards, it might or might not happen.
* Whether the State Department revises the July visa bulletin or not, the fact will remain that 40,000 numbers could indeed be run out in a fairly short period of time in July. It is too obvious that under the statute, when the visa numbers are exhausted, the USCIS will not be able to approve any I-485 applications, and for that reason, the USCIS may wrongly reject the incoming I-485 applications or return I-485 applications which were received after the date when the visa number is exhausted. This happened for the "other worker" category in June when the priority date was current in June for certain other workers. The issue of legality of such action of the USCIS is rooted in the required distinction of the USCIS statutory mandates between its job of adjudication of 485 applications "already in the pipeline" and its job of "accepting new 485 applications." Arguably, when the visa number runs out, there is no question about that the USCIS should not and cannot adjudicate and approve any 485 applications. But there is no legal basis that the USCIS should not and cannot "accept" new 485 applications when the cases fall within the cut-off date of the monthly visa bulletin. If the State Department attempts to revise the July Visa Bulletin, probably they are doing it to overcome the predicament of the USCIS that will face in rejecting the new 485 applications. The problem is the State Department's own legal problem or authority to revise the published Visa Bulletin. Accordingly, either USCIS or State Department will be liable for either abuse of power or arbitrary act depending on who acts. The AILF is planning to sue the USCIS for rejecting "other worker" new 485 applications in June probably on ultra vires or other statutory authority grounds. Should the same thing happen in July, the AILF intends to extend its lawsuit to cover the July 2007 485 applicants, probably in the form of class action. What happens if the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin and the USCIS rejects the new applications based on the new Visa Bulletin? Strictly speaking, there may be no cause of action against the USCIS in that it followed the State Department's Visa Bulletin for the month of July. In this case, probably the lawsuit will have to be directed to the State Department for violation of law in revising the visa bulletin. We will soon find out.
* Where does this leave to the July 485 applicants? Fact remains that all likelihood, the annual limit may reach fairly early in July and they should file their cases before the visa posts and the USCIS exhaust all the numbers. They have to do this probably for the two reasons. One is that should the government take the second option of rejecting new cases after reaching the limit just as we experienced in the other worker cases, those who filed the I-485 application before that date will not be affected. Those who files the application after the date of exhaution and receive rejection of the 485 applications may be entitled to sue the USCIS either in a class action or individually. Secondly, if the government takes the first option of the State Department revising the July Visa Bulletin, they will have to sue the State Department and for that purpose, they should have filed I-485 applications within July 2007. Otherwise, they may have a standing to sue the State Department.
* For the foregoing reasons, we urge the July 485 filers to file the applications as soon as possible. At the same time, we urge the State Department and the USCIS not to take any actions to avoid the lawsuits. They should keep accepting I-485 applications even after the enhaution of the FY 2007 numbers, even though they will not be able to adjudicate these applications until the visa numbers become current again. Again, the agencies should distinguish the requirement for adjudication of 485 applications and the requirement for acceptance of new applications. These are two separate things.
* By now, people understand that the sources of potential action by the State Department or USCIS are predicated on the two important facts. One was the information from a government source that there were only about 40,000 numbers left for the entire EB visa numbers for the FY 2007 which ends on September 30, 2007. The second important fact was that reportedly the USCIS alone had far more than 40,000 I-485 applications in the backlog queue that were reportedly ready for approval. Considering the fact that the immigrant visa numbers are consumed by the approval of I-485 applications by the USCIS and the approval of immigant visa applications in the consular processing by visa posts througout the world, 40,000 visa numbers could be fairly quickly exhausted in early July 2007. This prediction was exacerbated by the information that the USCIS was apparently picking up the pace of I-485 adjudications lately.
* Obviously the State Department has been in communication with the USCIS and was well aware of the situation. Sources reported that the State Department might revise the July Visa Bulletin either Monday or Tuesday to reflect the situation. However, it is unclear at this point whether this will occur on Monday or Tuesday or, for that matter, some time soon, particulary considering the ongoing uproar in the nation. Assuming that the EB immigrant visa number will be exhausted before the end of July, from the government perspectives, they may have two options to handle this matter. One is the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin based on the newly developed facts and predictions. The other option is that the State Department does not take any action of revising the Visa Bulletin but just notify the USCIS when the visa numbers for certain categories are exhausted. The initial sources of rumor was the former possibility. However, as updated by the AILA afterwards, it might or might not happen.
* Whether the State Department revises the July visa bulletin or not, the fact will remain that 40,000 numbers could indeed be run out in a fairly short period of time in July. It is too obvious that under the statute, when the visa numbers are exhausted, the USCIS will not be able to approve any I-485 applications, and for that reason, the USCIS may wrongly reject the incoming I-485 applications or return I-485 applications which were received after the date when the visa number is exhausted. This happened for the "other worker" category in June when the priority date was current in June for certain other workers. The issue of legality of such action of the USCIS is rooted in the required distinction of the USCIS statutory mandates between its job of adjudication of 485 applications "already in the pipeline" and its job of "accepting new 485 applications." Arguably, when the visa number runs out, there is no question about that the USCIS should not and cannot adjudicate and approve any 485 applications. But there is no legal basis that the USCIS should not and cannot "accept" new 485 applications when the cases fall within the cut-off date of the monthly visa bulletin. If the State Department attempts to revise the July Visa Bulletin, probably they are doing it to overcome the predicament of the USCIS that will face in rejecting the new 485 applications. The problem is the State Department's own legal problem or authority to revise the published Visa Bulletin. Accordingly, either USCIS or State Department will be liable for either abuse of power or arbitrary act depending on who acts. The AILF is planning to sue the USCIS for rejecting "other worker" new 485 applications in June probably on ultra vires or other statutory authority grounds. Should the same thing happen in July, the AILF intends to extend its lawsuit to cover the July 2007 485 applicants, probably in the form of class action. What happens if the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin and the USCIS rejects the new applications based on the new Visa Bulletin? Strictly speaking, there may be no cause of action against the USCIS in that it followed the State Department's Visa Bulletin for the month of July. In this case, probably the lawsuit will have to be directed to the State Department for violation of law in revising the visa bulletin. We will soon find out.
* Where does this leave to the July 485 applicants? Fact remains that all likelihood, the annual limit may reach fairly early in July and they should file their cases before the visa posts and the USCIS exhaust all the numbers. They have to do this probably for the two reasons. One is that should the government take the second option of rejecting new cases after reaching the limit just as we experienced in the other worker cases, those who filed the I-485 application before that date will not be affected. Those who files the application after the date of exhaution and receive rejection of the 485 applications may be entitled to sue the USCIS either in a class action or individually. Secondly, if the government takes the first option of the State Department revising the July Visa Bulletin, they will have to sue the State Department and for that purpose, they should have filed I-485 applications within July 2007. Otherwise, they may have a standing to sue the State Department.
* For the foregoing reasons, we urge the July 485 filers to file the applications as soon as possible. At the same time, we urge the State Department and the USCIS not to take any actions to avoid the lawsuits. They should keep accepting I-485 applications even after the enhaution of the FY 2007 numbers, even though they will not be able to adjudicate these applications until the visa numbers become current again. Again, the agencies should distinguish the requirement for adjudication of 485 applications and the requirement for acceptance of new applications. These are two separate things.
dresses justin bieber 2011 haircut
Saralayar
04-03 12:34 PM
Dude complete your profile first if you want to be taken seriously.
I would be hesitant to write to some anonymous email id.
For our accurate statistics, please fill all your details (Zuhail and others) with correct details (it won't affect you in anyways). For arriving at correct numbers for any Agendas, this is required. Then post your questions or start a thread in this forum.
I would be hesitant to write to some anonymous email id.
For our accurate statistics, please fill all your details (Zuhail and others) with correct details (it won't affect you in anyways). For arriving at correct numbers for any Agendas, this is required. Then post your questions or start a thread in this forum.
more...
makeup Justin+ieber+2011+haircut
thirdworldman
03-11 03:25 PM
By "light linking" do you mean associating lights with specific objects?
girlfriend justin bieber haircut 2011
amitjoey
07-05 04:38 PM
Added my $100 towards our common dreams and goals! I still vote to keep this site free for everyone's benefit. Believe me ppl will come around..took me a while but as they say better late than never!
IV you have our support! United we stand!
Paypal Confirmation Number: 8GH00265XS5850731
PD: Aug 04
RD: ????
Thanks Rohit!.
IV you have our support! United we stand!
Paypal Confirmation Number: 8GH00265XS5850731
PD: Aug 04
RD: ????
Thanks Rohit!.
hairstyles justin bieber 2011 haircut
ss2005
07-11 01:48 PM
If they want to make money, they no need to say that abt 2 year EAD at all.
And also most of the EAD renewals are free of cost who filed after 30th June 30 2007.
And also most of the EAD renewals are free of cost who filed after 30th June 30 2007.
hsm2007
09-20 07:37 PM
Hi Guys,
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
sashidhar_gundimeda
07-02 08:14 PM
Confirmation Number: 34850160M9463882Y.
Thanks and keep up the good work - Sashi
Thanks and keep up the good work - Sashi
No comments:
Post a Comment