gc_on_demand
11-20 12:39 PM
Hmmmm - laws are generally framed with generic thumb rules. They cannot be addressed to specific stuff. Visass and restrictions are based on needs and demands and not moods and whims. If USA needs software engineers, then they frame laws to get software engineers - they do not target consulting companies - remember it is we who have issues with consulting companies and it is upto those having issues to deal with them
But if they want CIR then we cannot be on anti immigant side. If we sit on anti side we loose what ever we will get in CIR. We can educate lawmakers to add more stuff for us in CIR. I dont think we can be priority when this CIR things will start.. we had only chance for last year that we lost. ( HR 5882 ). As CIR storm begins in next year it will be in our favor to go with it.. ( I dont tihnk so we even have choice ). we are in such minority against illegal people that hardly they will notice us but becasue of business ( Corporate ) only they will add some stuff for us. I heard recently on NPR ( and on CNN ) china is back on sending student again. US unis giving more visas to raise money from fees so NAFSA will also try to add some for US educated.
But if they want CIR then we cannot be on anti immigant side. If we sit on anti side we loose what ever we will get in CIR. We can educate lawmakers to add more stuff for us in CIR. I dont think we can be priority when this CIR things will start.. we had only chance for last year that we lost. ( HR 5882 ). As CIR storm begins in next year it will be in our favor to go with it.. ( I dont tihnk so we even have choice ). we are in such minority against illegal people that hardly they will notice us but becasue of business ( Corporate ) only they will add some stuff for us. I heard recently on NPR ( and on CNN ) china is back on sending student again. US unis giving more visas to raise money from fees so NAFSA will also try to add some for US educated.
malibuguy007
09-16 01:38 PM
House Judiciary Committee MembersBelow or go to the thread mentioned above
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member new_horizon)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV members cnag & Prashant)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member little_willy)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY SPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member new_horizon)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV members cnag & Prashant)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member little_willy)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY SPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
stuckinmuck
05-30 01:27 PM
Have written to my Immigration Coordinator who will confirm with the company lawyer if this rule applies to 'pending' I-140 approvals or will 'filed' and 'approved' I-140 (prior to May-15-07) be safe.
Will let you know his response.
__________________________________________
Contribution so far: $1000
Webfaxes sent to all Senators
Emails sent to Senators, Representatives, Reporters
Will let you know his response.
__________________________________________
Contribution so far: $1000
Webfaxes sent to all Senators
Emails sent to Senators, Representatives, Reporters
mambarg
08-03 05:18 PM
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.
Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?
Answer: An I-140 is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
A. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
B. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.
Question 12. Can the 180 days that an I-485 application must be pending for I-140 portability eligibility accrue during a period when visa numbers are unavailable?
Answer: Yes. The fact that a visa number becomes unavailable after the filing of the I-485 application does not stop the number of days required for I-140 portability eligibility from accruing.
Question 13. Does the alien�s priority date change as a result of porting under �106(c) of AC21?
Answer: No. The priority date continues to be determined at the time of the initial labor certification filing with the Department of Labor or at the time the initial I-140 immigrant petition is filed with USCIS (in cases where no labor certification is required).
Question 14. Must the alien have a new offer of employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the I-140 portability provisions?
Answer: Yes. The alien cannot still be looking for �same or similar� employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the adjustment portability provisions. The alien must be able to show there is a new valid offer of employment at the time the I-485 is adjudicated.
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.
Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?
Answer: An I-140 is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
A. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
B. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.
Question 12. Can the 180 days that an I-485 application must be pending for I-140 portability eligibility accrue during a period when visa numbers are unavailable?
Answer: Yes. The fact that a visa number becomes unavailable after the filing of the I-485 application does not stop the number of days required for I-140 portability eligibility from accruing.
Question 13. Does the alien�s priority date change as a result of porting under �106(c) of AC21?
Answer: No. The priority date continues to be determined at the time of the initial labor certification filing with the Department of Labor or at the time the initial I-140 immigrant petition is filed with USCIS (in cases where no labor certification is required).
Question 14. Must the alien have a new offer of employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the I-140 portability provisions?
Answer: Yes. The alien cannot still be looking for �same or similar� employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the adjustment portability provisions. The alien must be able to show there is a new valid offer of employment at the time the I-485 is adjudicated.
more...
cessua
06-09 06:37 PM
So are you guys saying that if this bill passes and it is signed by Bush it won't really help the EB3 group?
Shouldn't we see the priority date moving fast with the stuff below?:
For US Master and higher degrees;
For Medical specialty certification based on post doctoral training experience;
For STEM degrees who have been working in a related field during a 3 yr; period preceding their application for an immigrant visa;
Spouses and children of EB applicants;
Shouldn't we see the priority date moving fast with the stuff below?:
For US Master and higher degrees;
For Medical specialty certification based on post doctoral training experience;
For STEM degrees who have been working in a related field during a 3 yr; period preceding their application for an immigrant visa;
Spouses and children of EB applicants;
drirshad
04-19 07:13 PM
Go to http://www.shusterman.com/
Got some updates as to whats going on behind the curtains ..
Gear up & give sometime to fight against the anti-immg groups who have already started contacting the law makers & congressmen ......
Got some updates as to whats going on behind the curtains ..
Gear up & give sometime to fight against the anti-immg groups who have already started contacting the law makers & congressmen ......
more...
ajju
03-01 11:55 AM
USCIS can pre-adjudicate a case, even when visa numbers are not available. This means that USCIS processes all the application, but just waits for a visa number to finalize it.
does it reflect on online status? How else can we find out that one's case has been pre-adjudicated... LUD?? or any specific status?? or only IO can tell??
does it reflect on online status? How else can we find out that one's case has been pre-adjudicated... LUD?? or any specific status?? or only IO can tell??
Aah_GC
06-13 06:39 PM
I have asked this question before and have called around 4 reps so far. Do I just leave a message or ask for the Congressman / woman? The receptionists are probably not even writing down the messages.
more...
augustus
10-08 07:42 PM
Interesting question! Logically, as soon as a H4 holder starts using EAD the H4 becomes invalid. As long as the primary is in valid H1B status, the dependent should be able get back to H4 status even if the 485 is denied.
However, I am not sure how someone can changes status from AOS (due to using EAD) to H4. May be getting out of the U.S. and come back as H4 again? Anybody has any idea?
I think this was my lawyer's contention too when she described to me about being in EAD as well as H-4. As long as my husband is in H-1, I would be in H-4 contrary to most discussions that take place here. I think USCIS, has no clear explanation for this situation!!
Advance parole is similar to this, you have H1 but you become parolee. I don't understand. Any other comments from other applicants?
However, I am not sure how someone can changes status from AOS (due to using EAD) to H4. May be getting out of the U.S. and come back as H4 again? Anybody has any idea?
I think this was my lawyer's contention too when she described to me about being in EAD as well as H-4. As long as my husband is in H-1, I would be in H-4 contrary to most discussions that take place here. I think USCIS, has no clear explanation for this situation!!
Advance parole is similar to this, you have H1 but you become parolee. I don't understand. Any other comments from other applicants?
humdesi
02-17 03:59 AM
Which was effectively nullified by
"Default Re: Predicted Visa Bulletin movement
Nothing was said, but logically, unless there is worldwide EB3 movement, EB2 for China and India can't advance. EB for India and China have already maxed out for the year and all additional movement is based on leftovers from the rest of the world."
"Default Re: Predicted Visa Bulletin movement
Nothing was said, but logically, unless there is worldwide EB3 movement, EB2 for China and India can't advance. EB for India and China have already maxed out for the year and all additional movement is based on leftovers from the rest of the world."
more...
kaarmaa
01-19 12:43 PM
Oh God!!
How can we stop these EB2I - EB3I fights?
What unites us? Only in our fights for superiority?
How can we stop these EB2I - EB3I fights?
What unites us? Only in our fights for superiority?
ruchigup
08-22 03:22 PM
As stated earlier go for your own lawyer.
New employer has Fragomen and I heard there is lot of negative air about their procedures on PERM. Current employer legal firm is Baker McKenzie.
I am kind of reluctant to have Fragomen as my attorney representation
__________________
Can I have some recommendations for good attorney?
New employer has Fragomen and I heard there is lot of negative air about their procedures on PERM. Current employer legal firm is Baker McKenzie.
I am kind of reluctant to have Fragomen as my attorney representation
__________________
Can I have some recommendations for good attorney?
more...
nda050325
07-16 06:27 PM
I am not sure why the previous employer is required to provide a response to the RFE. It is the current employer (or the petitioner) who should respond to the RFE.
Can you provide more details on the RFE ?
Can you provide more details on the RFE ?
amitga
06-24 11:41 AM
Rupert Murdoch, Mayor Bloomberg Lobby For Immigration Reform, Path To 'Legal Status' For Illegal Immigrants (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/24/rupert-murdoch-mayor-bloo_n_623805.html)
more...
sh2005
08-13 11:24 AM
From my notice the processing date is meaningless at TSC because the dates are mostly the processing windows. For example, I140 was Jan 13 in July notice, which was 6 months behind. If you take a look on AP and EAD, they were just 3 months behind.
It turns out to me that processing date is the date that you are entitled to make a phone call to request your status. You may be lucky to have your EAD in 1 or 2 months. But if you do not have it in three months, you can make a call to request a reason they can not deny your request. But if your date is later than the processing date, they may turn down your request or ask you to wait.
That's it!
It makes predicting when our applicatios will be done a little harder :)
It turns out to me that processing date is the date that you are entitled to make a phone call to request your status. You may be lucky to have your EAD in 1 or 2 months. But if you do not have it in three months, you can make a call to request a reason they can not deny your request. But if your date is later than the processing date, they may turn down your request or ask you to wait.
That's it!
It makes predicting when our applicatios will be done a little harder :)
krishmunn
03-27 10:04 AM
I seriously doubt the genuinity of this poster. No authority will hold a valid passport of a foreign country, no country will allow to let one in with a copy of passport heck the airline will not even allow to board without a passport.
This guy may be here just to play some scare tactics.
This guy may be here just to play some scare tactics.
more...
pappu
08-08 03:59 PM
IV is organizing nationwide calls for its members that are taking part in the August 2009 action item. These calls will be providing our strategy and tips to everyone for the upcoming congressional visits. It is very important for everyone taking part in the action item to attend these calls.
==================================
Call 1:
Tuesday August 11, 8 PM EST
Call 2
Wednesday August 12, 9 PM EST
==========================
Note:The call-in codes will be posted on the state chapter yahoo/google groups. Please contact your state chapter leader. If you do not have a chapter, you can contact your nearest state chapter.http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72&Itemid=52. The chapter leader will verify you and provide this info.
Thanks
Team IV
==================================
Call 1:
Tuesday August 11, 8 PM EST
Call 2
Wednesday August 12, 9 PM EST
==========================
Note:The call-in codes will be posted on the state chapter yahoo/google groups. Please contact your state chapter leader. If you do not have a chapter, you can contact your nearest state chapter.http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72&Itemid=52. The chapter leader will verify you and provide this info.
Thanks
Team IV
mach1343
10-13 03:01 PM
Doesn't matter casuals or formals.
perm2gc
08-23 05:00 PM
in EB3, EB2 and EB1
did you make any calculations based on numbers.?????
did you make any calculations based on numbers.?????
eagerr2i
12-04 12:57 PM
Unfortunately, incompetence and inefficiency can not be grounds of a lawsuit. :)
Lawsuits can only hold ground if you can prove that a particular action taken was wrong as per the rule on the books and it lead to monetory loss or physical pain.
Lawsuits can only hold ground if you can prove that a particular action taken was wrong as per the rule on the books and it lead to monetory loss or physical pain.
anilsal
07-16 07:21 AM
i guess I am going to be in trouble in case I have to get a new PCC. I will try and get a new one when I reach India. Also update to my status is that chennai consulate has sent a letter to my local address in India about the interview appointment date.
The reason consulates in the US take 50 days for PCC is that they send the request to regional Passport Office in India who take like 45 days. So you may probably apply at PP office in India and get the clearance.
The reason consulates in the US take 50 days for PCC is that they send the request to regional Passport Office in India who take like 45 days. So you may probably apply at PP office in India and get the clearance.
No comments:
Post a Comment