dupedinjuly
07-13 04:44 PM
DREAM act does not benefit Highly Skilled Immigrants in anyway. Let someone else lobby for it. If you think there is something important that affects/benefits us, then please post that.
wallpaper londe hair highlights ideas.
sam_hoosier
12-27 10:45 AM
All,
With the current rate of outsourcing happening around in US and the rate of influx of temporary workers coming in on mostly L1 and may be few on H1 B Visas every year through the outsourcing companies , i am sceptical about the future of GC aspirants. With the way of GC processing happening which are caused by restrictions /policies of governing bodies and no sight of positive relief in near future i am little apprehensive about the future.
I feel that there might be no areas that are not impacted by Outsourcing boom . Most of the companies that i see and my friends work ,i see many of the operations are outsourced or planning in place to get outsourced.
with the current rate of outsourcing and subprime mess which may cause slow down in economy , i am not sure if there would be any positions to support our AOS , when our PD becomes current. Some times i think , the fight for GC is even worth it.
Every one feel free to post your views/opinions/Analysis on this topic ....
The impact of outsourcing (if any) would only be on lower level software/IT jobs which are getting sent to cheaper destinations. However the GC applicant pool is much wider than just IT/software programmers, so overall the impact would be smaller.
With the current rate of outsourcing happening around in US and the rate of influx of temporary workers coming in on mostly L1 and may be few on H1 B Visas every year through the outsourcing companies , i am sceptical about the future of GC aspirants. With the way of GC processing happening which are caused by restrictions /policies of governing bodies and no sight of positive relief in near future i am little apprehensive about the future.
I feel that there might be no areas that are not impacted by Outsourcing boom . Most of the companies that i see and my friends work ,i see many of the operations are outsourced or planning in place to get outsourced.
with the current rate of outsourcing and subprime mess which may cause slow down in economy , i am not sure if there would be any positions to support our AOS , when our PD becomes current. Some times i think , the fight for GC is even worth it.
Every one feel free to post your views/opinions/Analysis on this topic ....
The impact of outsourcing (if any) would only be on lower level software/IT jobs which are getting sent to cheaper destinations. However the GC applicant pool is much wider than just IT/software programmers, so overall the impact would be smaller.
nolud
02-11 04:08 PM
I received a letter from uscis/DHS on Jan 28.
It was in response to my request about my wifes I-485 being in namecheck for a long time.
The response stated:
"The review of our records indicate that the investigation into your background has been completed. The processing of your case has been delayed because the requirement review is still in process."
Does this mean that the namecheck has been completed?
What is "requirement review"?
Did anyone else get this type of letter?
Wifes Case dates:
PD - Jul 2003
Interview Date - Jan 4 2006
Type - Family based ( on marriage )
Info Pass - Sep 2007
Last FP - Oct 2007
LUD - 10/2007 ( probably because of FP )
Current Status:
On October 7, 2003, we received this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS, and mailed you a notice describing how we will process your case. Please follow any instructions on this notice. We will notify you by mail when we make a decision or if we need something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when yours will be done. This case is at our NATIONAL BENEFITS CENTER location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
Note: If this is the wrong forum/area, please advise where is this question best suited for...
Thanks to ALL
It was in response to my request about my wifes I-485 being in namecheck for a long time.
The response stated:
"The review of our records indicate that the investigation into your background has been completed. The processing of your case has been delayed because the requirement review is still in process."
Does this mean that the namecheck has been completed?
What is "requirement review"?
Did anyone else get this type of letter?
Wifes Case dates:
PD - Jul 2003
Interview Date - Jan 4 2006
Type - Family based ( on marriage )
Info Pass - Sep 2007
Last FP - Oct 2007
LUD - 10/2007 ( probably because of FP )
Current Status:
On October 7, 2003, we received this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS, and mailed you a notice describing how we will process your case. Please follow any instructions on this notice. We will notify you by mail when we make a decision or if we need something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when yours will be done. This case is at our NATIONAL BENEFITS CENTER location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
Note: If this is the wrong forum/area, please advise where is this question best suited for...
Thanks to ALL
2011 Mid length londe hair was
Imm_Exploited
08-24 12:26 AM
Can you vote as a GC applicant or even a permanent resident? NO
You would think you could influence the Americans to support your cause and vote accordingly in the elections. FORGET IT!! Let alone the 2nd, 3rd, 4th.......17th generation American citizens, even the recently naturalized immigrants don't give a crap about us immigrants. The media and the politicians just have a field time with the immigrants (both legal and illegal) and some ignorant and dumb Americans (who don't usually vote) who get easily carried away by the emotions played both for and against immigration.
The serious voters (this has been established by several polls) however, are quite aware that immigrants are not given relief and naturalized overnight and are obviously confident that it could take around 20 years for any immigrant to get naturalized. The issues for these serious voters are: Iraq war, economy (the dwindling housing market?), globalization, gay marriage, abortion, and imports from China.
I wish good luck for IV and all those participating at the DC rally. NO, I can't make it, I am sorry.
Ok..., but can you tell me how they are approving cses for PD EB3'2003 or Any EB3 cases daily, when EB3 is 'U', do you have answer for this.
Since ther is plenty of approval going on everyday.
They are not following any PD for the last 3-months approval, I don't believe any rule they have.Now they are already under pressure , and the pressure started already.They have to clean up.I don't think they will wait untill next year June, since Election is on Sept'2008.
-satish
----------------------------------------------
EB2/PD-Sept'2004/I-140 Approved.
I-485 - Sent July5th.
RD - ?
AD -?
Edit/Delete Message
You would think you could influence the Americans to support your cause and vote accordingly in the elections. FORGET IT!! Let alone the 2nd, 3rd, 4th.......17th generation American citizens, even the recently naturalized immigrants don't give a crap about us immigrants. The media and the politicians just have a field time with the immigrants (both legal and illegal) and some ignorant and dumb Americans (who don't usually vote) who get easily carried away by the emotions played both for and against immigration.
The serious voters (this has been established by several polls) however, are quite aware that immigrants are not given relief and naturalized overnight and are obviously confident that it could take around 20 years for any immigrant to get naturalized. The issues for these serious voters are: Iraq war, economy (the dwindling housing market?), globalization, gay marriage, abortion, and imports from China.
I wish good luck for IV and all those participating at the DC rally. NO, I can't make it, I am sorry.
Ok..., but can you tell me how they are approving cses for PD EB3'2003 or Any EB3 cases daily, when EB3 is 'U', do you have answer for this.
Since ther is plenty of approval going on everyday.
They are not following any PD for the last 3-months approval, I don't believe any rule they have.Now they are already under pressure , and the pressure started already.They have to clean up.I don't think they will wait untill next year June, since Election is on Sept'2008.
-satish
----------------------------------------------
EB2/PD-Sept'2004/I-140 Approved.
I-485 - Sent July5th.
RD - ?
AD -?
Edit/Delete Message
more...
vxg
06-26 04:10 PM
I am getting confused here about digital photo and USCIS not accepting them. I am assuming that "digital photo" just means pictures taken from a digital camera and printed out, which is what most of the studios do anyways, so why would USCIS have any problem with it. Is there a difference in pictures taken from a digital camera vs poloroid camera? If anything, digital camera most likey will have far better picture quality than poloroid camera so what's the deal with "digital photo" being unacceptable. Or do you guys mean a photo on a floppy of something when you say digital photo.
Check the photo guidelines from USCIS website here is blurb
"For U.S. passport and visa photographs, a digital camera with a resolution of 1 mega-pixel will be more than adequate for capturing the image and producing the final photo that conforms to the dimensions specified on this web site.
and the link is
http://travel.state.gov/passport/guide/digital/digital_880.html
digital photos are OK if printed prpoerly.
Check the photo guidelines from USCIS website here is blurb
"For U.S. passport and visa photographs, a digital camera with a resolution of 1 mega-pixel will be more than adequate for capturing the image and producing the final photo that conforms to the dimensions specified on this web site.
and the link is
http://travel.state.gov/passport/guide/digital/digital_880.html
digital photos are OK if printed prpoerly.
justAnotherFile
01-23 01:46 AM
Whats the POA?
Is the CA drive currently centered around any particular city? How many members from CA?
Is the CA drive currently centered around any particular city? How many members from CA?
more...
purgan
04-13 11:34 AM
India EB2 and EB3 categories still stuck...for the past 8 months now:mad:
2010 wallpaper rown hair highlights
ravi98
11-04 01:52 PM
He's a full blown liberal both fiscally and socially.
I would think coming from MI, a state that has one of the highest unemployment, and the relief that the auto industry got - it continues to exist because of those liberal fiscal policies.
Besides, his being liberal fiscally/socially has nothing to do with our issues. He is probably the best ally for our issue in the democratic circle...
I would think coming from MI, a state that has one of the highest unemployment, and the relief that the auto industry got - it continues to exist because of those liberal fiscal policies.
Besides, his being liberal fiscally/socially has nothing to do with our issues. He is probably the best ally for our issue in the democratic circle...
more...
swarnapuri
12-12 12:47 PM
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/Visa_Bulletin_For_January_2007.html
hair londe hair highlights ideas.
prioritydate
08-10 04:15 PM
BUMP :p:p:p:p:p
more...
longq
12-20 03:41 PM
Hello IV and its core members,
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
hot londe hair highlights 2011.
senthil1
09-01 10:03 AM
It is not true that Many people have to wait 10+ years to get gc. May be some people might wait for 10 years because of frequent change of jobs , layoffs and also ignorance of green card processing. Most of the time EB2 waiting time is 2 to 3 years. Indian EB3 is in worst situation but only for past 2 years and before that everything was current. For that also most waiting persons filed I 485 because of July VB issue. In my opinion EB3 PD will be backdated up to 5 years.
Also there is no legistrative activity in Congress about any immigration issue. Always skil bill comes in limelight when congress is in Session. But everyone knows that skil bill is asking too much in H1b and immigration numbers because of exemptions and it will be very difficult task. But no one in pro immigrant community is ready to compromise on numbers. When Congress tries to curb the abuse of H1b even pro immigrants are opposing the bills without any suggestion of any alternatives. If some bill comes for only GC that too moderate increase in numbers that will have bright chance of passing in congress.
You should not expect any rally will produce meaningful reform. It has to be proved that additional immigrant and H1b numbers will produce more jobs and it should not create unemployment in americans.Just sufferings of gc waiters is not enough. My opinion is Rally will be used to show strength of IV and may educate public and Congress. But anti immigrants also doing Similar Campaign(not big rallies) by negative points of immigration. The same congress till the end of 2008 and I doubt they will consider any immigration issue till new congress comes in 2009 that is not too far from now. But it is always good to try all the time.
Before any reform comes most IV members may get GC.
This is your only chance. There is no more rally later.
If you want to wait 10+ years for your green card, stay at home and hide. (Retrogression will just get worse, I guarantee). If you want to change your future and get a GC one day please show up at the rally. We are there to show that we even exist, no need to do anything else. We need everyone.
No one cares about people who doesn't exist.
Also there is no legistrative activity in Congress about any immigration issue. Always skil bill comes in limelight when congress is in Session. But everyone knows that skil bill is asking too much in H1b and immigration numbers because of exemptions and it will be very difficult task. But no one in pro immigrant community is ready to compromise on numbers. When Congress tries to curb the abuse of H1b even pro immigrants are opposing the bills without any suggestion of any alternatives. If some bill comes for only GC that too moderate increase in numbers that will have bright chance of passing in congress.
You should not expect any rally will produce meaningful reform. It has to be proved that additional immigrant and H1b numbers will produce more jobs and it should not create unemployment in americans.Just sufferings of gc waiters is not enough. My opinion is Rally will be used to show strength of IV and may educate public and Congress. But anti immigrants also doing Similar Campaign(not big rallies) by negative points of immigration. The same congress till the end of 2008 and I doubt they will consider any immigration issue till new congress comes in 2009 that is not too far from now. But it is always good to try all the time.
Before any reform comes most IV members may get GC.
This is your only chance. There is no more rally later.
If you want to wait 10+ years for your green card, stay at home and hide. (Retrogression will just get worse, I guarantee). If you want to change your future and get a GC one day please show up at the rally. We are there to show that we even exist, no need to do anything else. We need everyone.
No one cares about people who doesn't exist.
more...
house Curly Hair Highlight Ideas.
tikka
03-26 03:43 PM
I spoke to a staff at Michael R. McNulty's office.
He comes to Albany on weekends only.
Rest of the time (5 days a week) he is in Washington.
We can meet staff members any time betwenn 9 to 5 (no appointment required).
Spoke to staff member at Schumer's office.
He is not available for a meeting.
Have set up a meeting (with staff) for 12th April 11am (nothing available for next 2 weeks).
I was actually just trying to find out if we could schedule an appointment with Schumer. Did not expect them to set up an appointment on the phone so fast.
We can change if this is not convenient.
I am not sure if this is gonna help, as it is 2 weeks away.
Please provide feedback.
hi
Are you going alone to Schumer's office?
I am come along if you'd like.
Varsha send me all the necessary docs. Let me know if I can assist in some way
He comes to Albany on weekends only.
Rest of the time (5 days a week) he is in Washington.
We can meet staff members any time betwenn 9 to 5 (no appointment required).
Spoke to staff member at Schumer's office.
He is not available for a meeting.
Have set up a meeting (with staff) for 12th April 11am (nothing available for next 2 weeks).
I was actually just trying to find out if we could schedule an appointment with Schumer. Did not expect them to set up an appointment on the phone so fast.
We can change if this is not convenient.
I am not sure if this is gonna help, as it is 2 weeks away.
Please provide feedback.
hi
Are you going alone to Schumer's office?
I am come along if you'd like.
Varsha send me all the necessary docs. Let me know if I can assist in some way
tattoo crazy hair color ideas for
Sheila Danzig
02-25 09:33 PM
I personally do not know of anyone who has attempted admission into a University with a CA.
Professors expert letters range up to $900.00+ with most firms. We rarely charge more than $550.00 Each case is different and it depends on the research needed.
In India, only UGC (University Grant Commission) is qualified to issue equivalency letters. Professor letter can be supplemental, but it can not be authentic certification, as UGC is only one to issue that.
>> The professor's letters are not cheap but effective.
Care to explain what do you mean by "not cheap"?
Is there any university that have taken CA qualified for PhD programme?
Professors expert letters range up to $900.00+ with most firms. We rarely charge more than $550.00 Each case is different and it depends on the research needed.
In India, only UGC (University Grant Commission) is qualified to issue equivalency letters. Professor letter can be supplemental, but it can not be authentic certification, as UGC is only one to issue that.
>> The professor's letters are not cheap but effective.
Care to explain what do you mean by "not cheap"?
Is there any university that have taken CA qualified for PhD programme?
more...
pictures Ideas brown or red hair,
eilsoe
02-03 06:24 AM
:phil: heehee...
dresses girlfriend londe hair
Maverick_2008
04-24 11:47 AM
Getting a driver's license is also problematic in some states.
Maverick_2008
Hello all,
I am starting this thread exclusively to know and understand all kinds of problems faced by our legal non-immigrant visa community, does not matter if it is minor or major, just put your experience here. Unless we tell and discuss about our problems, how we can expect a solution? So, let�s list all our issues here, rank them and forward it our law makers. I am very hopeful that they will help.
I am a firm believer of the proverb "Crying baby gets milk!"
I feel that we are here to compensate the shortage of highly skilled people and we do not deserve unnecessary hurdles/problems/pains that adversely affect our normal lives! We have other things to worry about! For example if our kids don't poop!;)
Here is one I have faced personally and I feel it is absolutely unnecessary! ( or may be it can be changed )
1. Travel issues....when you have applied for H1 extension, sometimes it takes 6 months, you cannot travel during this period, and you have to wait till it is approved. Have paid $1000 twice for premium processing! How this can be fixed ?
Maverick_2008
Hello all,
I am starting this thread exclusively to know and understand all kinds of problems faced by our legal non-immigrant visa community, does not matter if it is minor or major, just put your experience here. Unless we tell and discuss about our problems, how we can expect a solution? So, let�s list all our issues here, rank them and forward it our law makers. I am very hopeful that they will help.
I am a firm believer of the proverb "Crying baby gets milk!"
I feel that we are here to compensate the shortage of highly skilled people and we do not deserve unnecessary hurdles/problems/pains that adversely affect our normal lives! We have other things to worry about! For example if our kids don't poop!;)
Here is one I have faced personally and I feel it is absolutely unnecessary! ( or may be it can be changed )
1. Travel issues....when you have applied for H1 extension, sometimes it takes 6 months, you cannot travel during this period, and you have to wait till it is approved. Have paid $1000 twice for premium processing! How this can be fixed ?
more...
makeup hot Blonde Hair Highlights
lost_in_migration
11-16 03:09 PM
http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeo/overview_practices.html
Other Discriminatory Practices Under Federal EEO Laws
Title VII
Title VII prohibits not only intentional discrimination, but also practices that have the effect of discriminating against individuals because of their race, color, national origin, religion, or sex.
National Origin Discrimination
* It is illegal to discriminate against an individual because of birthplace, ancestry, culture, or linguistic characteristics common to a specific ethnic group.
* A rule requiring that employees speak only English on the job may violate Title VII unless an employer shows that the requirement is necessary for conducting business. If the employer believes such a rule is necessary, employees must be informed when English is required and the consequences for violating the rule.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 requires employers to assure that employees hired are legally authorized to work in the U.S. However, an employer who requests employment verification only for individuals of a particular national origin, or individuals who appear to be or sound foreign, may violate both Title VII and IRCA; verification must be obtained from all applicants and employees. Employers who impose citizenship requirements or give preferences to U.S. citizens in hiring or employment opportunities also may violate IRCA.
Other Discriminatory Practices Under Federal EEO Laws
Title VII
Title VII prohibits not only intentional discrimination, but also practices that have the effect of discriminating against individuals because of their race, color, national origin, religion, or sex.
National Origin Discrimination
* It is illegal to discriminate against an individual because of birthplace, ancestry, culture, or linguistic characteristics common to a specific ethnic group.
* A rule requiring that employees speak only English on the job may violate Title VII unless an employer shows that the requirement is necessary for conducting business. If the employer believes such a rule is necessary, employees must be informed when English is required and the consequences for violating the rule.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 requires employers to assure that employees hired are legally authorized to work in the U.S. However, an employer who requests employment verification only for individuals of a particular national origin, or individuals who appear to be or sound foreign, may violate both Title VII and IRCA; verification must be obtained from all applicants and employees. Employers who impose citizenship requirements or give preferences to U.S. citizens in hiring or employment opportunities also may violate IRCA.
girlfriend londe hair highlights ideas.
Berkeleybee
04-10 06:55 PM
Friends:
I was just going through the Immigration and Nationality Act as posted on the USCIS webpage. http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/INA.htm (see Section 274A)
I did not find any reference to the employment authorisation document (EAD card) in the INA. The reference to the EAD occurs in the Title 8 of the CFR (http://uscis.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/slb/slb-1/slb-10903/slb-27920?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-cfrp274a) The CFR is defined on the USCIS website as below (emphasis added by me).
"The general provisions of laws enacted by Congress are interpreted and implemented by regulations issued by various agencies. These regulations apply the law to daily situations. After regulations are published in the Federal Register, they are collected and published in the Code of Federal Regulations, commonly referred to as the CFR. The CFR is arranged by subject title and generally parallels the structure of the United States Code. Thus, Title 8 of the CFR deals with "Aliens and Nationality", as does Title 8 of the U.S. Code."
Unless, I missed something, the Secretary of the DHS has the authority to issue a regulation requiring the agencies to issue the EAD at any stage, similar to the powers the Secretary has to extend the validdity of the EAD beyond a year if he seems fit. Am I correct in my interpretation? I would welcome any person to please point out the applicable law (not regulation) which mentions that EAD can only be given after appling for adjustment of status and not before.
If I am way off base on this, then brickbats are also welcome.
bkarnik,
Excellent, creative question. Alas, the answer to this lies not in the INA itself but the Code of Federal Regulations.
To be specific, 8 CFR 274 a.12(c) (9) (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/janqtr/pdf/8cfr274a.12.pdf) is what allows employment authorization at the adjustment of status stage. See page 658 of the linked document.
I was about to write an explanation of 8 CFR 274, but then I found this excellent summary which describes the regulation of the employment of aliens http://www.coane.com/pdfs/workpermits.pdf
Now how do we go about changing this provision to include I-140 -- not sure.
However, it is simply a case of moving the ball around --
either you ask that people be able to file adjustment of status even if visa numbers are not available
OR
you ask that 8 CFR 274 a.12(c) (9) be amended so that people with approved I-140s be allowed to get EADs and Advance Parole.
I was just going through the Immigration and Nationality Act as posted on the USCIS webpage. http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/INA.htm (see Section 274A)
I did not find any reference to the employment authorisation document (EAD card) in the INA. The reference to the EAD occurs in the Title 8 of the CFR (http://uscis.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/slb/slb-1/slb-10903/slb-27920?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-cfrp274a) The CFR is defined on the USCIS website as below (emphasis added by me).
"The general provisions of laws enacted by Congress are interpreted and implemented by regulations issued by various agencies. These regulations apply the law to daily situations. After regulations are published in the Federal Register, they are collected and published in the Code of Federal Regulations, commonly referred to as the CFR. The CFR is arranged by subject title and generally parallels the structure of the United States Code. Thus, Title 8 of the CFR deals with "Aliens and Nationality", as does Title 8 of the U.S. Code."
Unless, I missed something, the Secretary of the DHS has the authority to issue a regulation requiring the agencies to issue the EAD at any stage, similar to the powers the Secretary has to extend the validdity of the EAD beyond a year if he seems fit. Am I correct in my interpretation? I would welcome any person to please point out the applicable law (not regulation) which mentions that EAD can only be given after appling for adjustment of status and not before.
If I am way off base on this, then brickbats are also welcome.
bkarnik,
Excellent, creative question. Alas, the answer to this lies not in the INA itself but the Code of Federal Regulations.
To be specific, 8 CFR 274 a.12(c) (9) (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/janqtr/pdf/8cfr274a.12.pdf) is what allows employment authorization at the adjustment of status stage. See page 658 of the linked document.
I was about to write an explanation of 8 CFR 274, but then I found this excellent summary which describes the regulation of the employment of aliens http://www.coane.com/pdfs/workpermits.pdf
Now how do we go about changing this provision to include I-140 -- not sure.
However, it is simply a case of moving the ball around --
either you ask that people be able to file adjustment of status even if visa numbers are not available
OR
you ask that 8 CFR 274 a.12(c) (9) be amended so that people with approved I-140s be allowed to get EADs and Advance Parole.
hairstyles Blonde Hair Highlights.
like_watching_paint_dry
02-19 10:50 AM
willwin,
What you say sounds very selfish and narrow-minded.
When I made my first contribution to IV, I was stuck in BEC-hole and clearing out BEC was my top priority but not the top priority issue IVs list. I still believed in the big common goal and believed in the IV team.
You say that you don't see any benefit from IV's goals and so you wont contribute. IV's top priority is to bring relief through legislative solutions to retrogression. Can you tell me that eliminating retrogression will not benefit CP filers? If not, then what's the excuse of your bunch to not contribute?
If you still want to stick with the above "Oh it does not directly benefit me, a CP filer, because it does not massage my foot and make me feel good" rhetoric, then hey since I'm interested only in 485, I'd have to say that not a single cent of my contribution should go towards anything other than 485.
If every 485 filer were to get that selfish and said that, it would leave out this small pool of CP filer contributions (if any) which does not cover the costs of even arming up for your proposed cause. Now, where do you want to go from here?
BTW, it sounds like the CP filers are the ones who are frustrated - not the 485 filers.
What you say sounds very selfish and narrow-minded.
When I made my first contribution to IV, I was stuck in BEC-hole and clearing out BEC was my top priority but not the top priority issue IVs list. I still believed in the big common goal and believed in the IV team.
You say that you don't see any benefit from IV's goals and so you wont contribute. IV's top priority is to bring relief through legislative solutions to retrogression. Can you tell me that eliminating retrogression will not benefit CP filers? If not, then what's the excuse of your bunch to not contribute?
If you still want to stick with the above "Oh it does not directly benefit me, a CP filer, because it does not massage my foot and make me feel good" rhetoric, then hey since I'm interested only in 485, I'd have to say that not a single cent of my contribution should go towards anything other than 485.
If every 485 filer were to get that selfish and said that, it would leave out this small pool of CP filer contributions (if any) which does not cover the costs of even arming up for your proposed cause. Now, where do you want to go from here?
BTW, it sounds like the CP filers are the ones who are frustrated - not the 485 filers.
jgh_res
10-10 12:41 PM
I wish they invested in R and D and innovation and products instead of services. Service industry is mainly governed by dealing with cost efficient labor. These companies reach out to IITs IIMs get the best and brightest and dump them into the service sector and start earning on them.
If they changed their business modal and started investing in products and Rand D, it may not give them quick money, but the results will be beneficial on the long run.
I am not sure how much R & D is going on in india, but Adobe filed lots of patents from Adobe, india.
If they changed their business modal and started investing in products and Rand D, it may not give them quick money, but the results will be beneficial on the long run.
I am not sure how much R & D is going on in india, but Adobe filed lots of patents from Adobe, india.
gondalguru
06-27 07:56 PM
It is so easy
Take a good picture in good lighting with regular digital camera
Crop the picture to square size as needed
Open it in photoshop -- make picture package - select 2x2 of 20 pics -- and save it.
Again crop it with the ratio or 4x6 selecting six pictures.
Now u have a picture which is 4x6 in size with total of six 2x2 pp size pics in it.
go to walmart - at kiosk print it... for 24 cents per copy
6 cents per picture
and again pics are of your liking ..
in between you can edit to remove shadows easily
enjoy
Take a good picture in good lighting with regular digital camera
Crop the picture to square size as needed
Open it in photoshop -- make picture package - select 2x2 of 20 pics -- and save it.
Again crop it with the ratio or 4x6 selecting six pictures.
Now u have a picture which is 4x6 in size with total of six 2x2 pp size pics in it.
go to walmart - at kiosk print it... for 24 cents per copy
6 cents per picture
and again pics are of your liking ..
in between you can edit to remove shadows easily
enjoy
No comments:
Post a Comment