bomber
06-29 06:12 PM
My $0.02. This could be a pre-emptive measure on the part of AILA. There must have been some talk at the state department of mid-month regression. This might be a strategy to scotch that. Raise a ruckus and send a message that we are prepared to file a law suit. Who knows? We are mere pawns in this grand game. Whatever happens, I hope people keep some perspective and not lose sleep over this.
- Sri
Good reasoning here. I truly hope it's true and USCIS realizes what they are planning to do..
- Sri
Good reasoning here. I truly hope it's true and USCIS realizes what they are planning to do..
wallpaper 2011 2011 Tom Felton tom
Mahatma
08-09 02:28 PM
My idea for presenting my views on NAME CHECK and PROGRAMMING problem is to REACH TO TRUTH as Mahatma Gandhi always preferred. I may be wrong also. Your views and comments would help improve this debate.
If my suspicion is true, then this (programming blunder) would be a CODE BREAKER. I got this idea bacuse of my background in genomics and bioinformatics. For example, if a gene sequence is not done well and there are some errors, gene database may erroneously show wrong HITS. This is the reason why gene sequencing is done throughly and accurately to avoid wrong interpretation. For example, simple error could mean nothing or a million dollar discovery.
If phoenetic program is appied to Davids and Johns, there would be countless hits. While they do not permit spelling error in your name during adjudication then why do they want to play with different spellings of your name??
If my suspicion is true, then this (programming blunder) would be a CODE BREAKER. I got this idea bacuse of my background in genomics and bioinformatics. For example, if a gene sequence is not done well and there are some errors, gene database may erroneously show wrong HITS. This is the reason why gene sequencing is done throughly and accurately to avoid wrong interpretation. For example, simple error could mean nothing or a million dollar discovery.
If phoenetic program is appied to Davids and Johns, there would be countless hits. While they do not permit spelling error in your name during adjudication then why do they want to play with different spellings of your name??
DesiGuy
09-10 02:48 AM
early morning in Uk. glad to see the momentum...will start calling (again) soon and leaving vm's.
good luck to all
good luck to all
2011 Tom Felton And His Girlfriend
baleraosreedhar
11-07 10:20 AM
Untill that happens, if you dont mind, PM me your e-mail address and I will be more than happy to e-mail you the docs.
Anyone who are not able to download the documents can do the same.
at baleraosreedhar @ yahoo dot com
Thanks
Sreedhar
Anyone who are not able to download the documents can do the same.
at baleraosreedhar @ yahoo dot com
Thanks
Sreedhar
more...
piyushpan
01-05 12:40 PM
Hi,
This thread (forum as well)seems to be really enthusiatic abt the immigration reforms.
Keep it up! I am a new member to this forum who had been passively following the S1932 disaster on immigration.com forums.
Hopefully things may look better with the new bill sponsored by Arlen Specter.
The bill looks good but how do we know that it is this bill which will be discussed and not the other bills sponsored by senator hagel,mccain etc..
Question is even though this bill seems to be a consolidated effort of all the previous bills how can we be sure if this is the bill which will be discussed as part of immigration reforms in feb?
Also this does not have any clause for applying for I-485 before cut off date?
So the people who benefit through this bill are probably the Masters/Phd who can automatically adjust their status and the people who have not even applied for a GC ( since no labor cert required).
But for people who are stuck at their 1-140 waiting to apply for I-485 the only thing this bill helps is increasing the EB quota.
I am a EB-2 applicant (masters) and would strongly support this bill but i don't see how it helps EB-3 applicants as much unless we have the clause for applying for I-485 before cut off date.
This thread (forum as well)seems to be really enthusiatic abt the immigration reforms.
Keep it up! I am a new member to this forum who had been passively following the S1932 disaster on immigration.com forums.
Hopefully things may look better with the new bill sponsored by Arlen Specter.
The bill looks good but how do we know that it is this bill which will be discussed and not the other bills sponsored by senator hagel,mccain etc..
Question is even though this bill seems to be a consolidated effort of all the previous bills how can we be sure if this is the bill which will be discussed as part of immigration reforms in feb?
Also this does not have any clause for applying for I-485 before cut off date?
So the people who benefit through this bill are probably the Masters/Phd who can automatically adjust their status and the people who have not even applied for a GC ( since no labor cert required).
But for people who are stuck at their 1-140 waiting to apply for I-485 the only thing this bill helps is increasing the EB quota.
I am a EB-2 applicant (masters) and would strongly support this bill but i don't see how it helps EB-3 applicants as much unless we have the clause for applying for I-485 before cut off date.
SunnySurya
08-07 10:09 AM
These are the red dots and comments I have got so far:
Calling US educated and... 08-07-2008 10:54 AM anti-immigrant in the making
Calling US educated and... 08-07-2008 10:30 AM
Calling US educated and... 08-07-2008 10:24 AM Selfish!!!
Calling US educated and... 08-07-2008 09:37 AM very disappointing post.
Calling US educated and... 08-07-2008 03:12 AM From your post one thing is clear, you are an embodiment of selfishness. Oh by the way, I am also an EB2 guy who could benefit from your proposal. After GC, what is next stop? NumbersUSA ?
Calling US educated and... 08-07-2008 10:54 AM anti-immigrant in the making
Calling US educated and... 08-07-2008 10:30 AM
Calling US educated and... 08-07-2008 10:24 AM Selfish!!!
Calling US educated and... 08-07-2008 09:37 AM very disappointing post.
Calling US educated and... 08-07-2008 03:12 AM From your post one thing is clear, you are an embodiment of selfishness. Oh by the way, I am also an EB2 guy who could benefit from your proposal. After GC, what is next stop? NumbersUSA ?
more...
n_2006
11-06 10:05 AM
Too lazy
Too scary
Too selfish
So far I am lazy. I am sending them today.
Just 51? Only 51 members used AC21 or what?
What will it take the rest to participate? USCIS sending denials to your address? If this campaign fails there is no one to help you if this happens.
Send those letters ASAP
Too scary
Too selfish
So far I am lazy. I am sending them today.
Just 51? Only 51 members used AC21 or what?
What will it take the rest to participate? USCIS sending denials to your address? If this campaign fails there is no one to help you if this happens.
Send those letters ASAP
2010 2011 tom felton 2011
CADude
11-09 12:03 PM
I do received RD as July 2nd and ND: Oct 10 on RN. I am not planning to bug IO@NSC for EAD or NC untill Jan 2008 or I see my PD current per VB.
I called yesterday and spoke to an IO at TSC.. she says I am seen pending for name check as of Oct 17.
I am a July 2 filer.
CAdude.. I have a question for you though.. Did your notices show receipt dates of 2nd July or different.
I spoke to my lawyer about getting it fixed.. but they never responded to me back.
*Happy Diwali*
I called yesterday and spoke to an IO at TSC.. she says I am seen pending for name check as of Oct 17.
I am a July 2 filer.
CAdude.. I have a question for you though.. Did your notices show receipt dates of 2nd July or different.
I spoke to my lawyer about getting it fixed.. but they never responded to me back.
*Happy Diwali*
more...
digital2k
09-09 02:36 PM
Message sent to 1000s of contacts for more calls ...
Please Keep calling everyone and ask everyone you can ...
Please take a minute and Your call today can help half million people in waiting ...
Community of half million will appreciate and bless you for your efforts...
Thank You
IV has just now got a green light from our lobbyists. We need to start calling now.
Someone please consolidate all information and create a campaign for this. Now is the time to follow up with anybody on the full committee with whom we have previously met or been in contact. Don’t call people who are already cosponsors. Only select people in the committee that are not co-sponsors. Make sure to say that you are a member of immigration voice so that it complements our lobbying efforts.
Please pool your energies and create a list of people to call, phone numbers and what to say. Any moderator will add in the first post of this thread.
Please keep posting your feedback on the thread when you have called. Once the campaign details are posted, post them on other websites too.
_______________
House Judiciary Committee Members
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
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
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-4236
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND & TALKING POINTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HR5882 was sponsored by Congresswoman Lofgren and Congressman Sensenbrenner. This bill recaptures all the unused visa numbers that have been lost since 1992 due to processing delays in Employment based category and Family category. It is estimated that 216000 green cards will be recaptured which would help to eleviate the employment based backlogs.
Please use the instructions provided below to make the phone calls.
(1) Call the congressman/woman office and request to speak with the aide who handles Legislative and Immigration matters
2) If they are not available leave a VM for them -
"I would like Representative "Representative Name" to support HR 5882, bill to recapture the green cards lost due to processing and bureaucratic delays. As you may already know that this is a bi-partisan bill with wide bipartisan support in the house and will help improve American competitiveness & reduce the back logs associated with USCIS. This bill is non controversial measures that will help US to stay competitive with a highly educated and skilled work force and address family based backlogs also.
To All congress-critters:
In a nutshell, this bill allows USCIS to manage their workflow more effectively, which provides better customer service, and will eventually lead to better turn-around times.
To Democrats: More people will be able to get their citizenship in reasonable times.
To Republicans: Companies will be able to attract more talent which improves economic performance."
(3) As usual Do NOT get into the CIR issue or illegal Immigration. If the aide is confusing with CIR or illegal immigration, just tell them that these are legal immigration bills.
(4) If the aide asks whether you belong to the district or not, tell them NO if you don't. Mention to them that you already spoke with your representative and would like the congressman/congresswoman
support.
The list of key representatives along with their contact information is provided in this post.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If asked please say that you are a member of Immigration Voice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the staffer ask - "did you call the representative in your area", say that -
"Yes I did. Congressman/Congresswoman is a prominent member of Immigration Sub-committee which makes him a national figure of great importance. Congressman's decision and support is very important for people inside and outside of your district and as such I urge you and the Congressman to support HR5882."
Please Keep calling everyone and ask everyone you can ...
Please take a minute and Your call today can help half million people in waiting ...
Community of half million will appreciate and bless you for your efforts...
Thank You
IV has just now got a green light from our lobbyists. We need to start calling now.
Someone please consolidate all information and create a campaign for this. Now is the time to follow up with anybody on the full committee with whom we have previously met or been in contact. Don’t call people who are already cosponsors. Only select people in the committee that are not co-sponsors. Make sure to say that you are a member of immigration voice so that it complements our lobbying efforts.
Please pool your energies and create a list of people to call, phone numbers and what to say. Any moderator will add in the first post of this thread.
Please keep posting your feedback on the thread when you have called. Once the campaign details are posted, post them on other websites too.
_______________
House Judiciary Committee Members
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
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
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-4236
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND & TALKING POINTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HR5882 was sponsored by Congresswoman Lofgren and Congressman Sensenbrenner. This bill recaptures all the unused visa numbers that have been lost since 1992 due to processing delays in Employment based category and Family category. It is estimated that 216000 green cards will be recaptured which would help to eleviate the employment based backlogs.
Please use the instructions provided below to make the phone calls.
(1) Call the congressman/woman office and request to speak with the aide who handles Legislative and Immigration matters
2) If they are not available leave a VM for them -
"I would like Representative "Representative Name" to support HR 5882, bill to recapture the green cards lost due to processing and bureaucratic delays. As you may already know that this is a bi-partisan bill with wide bipartisan support in the house and will help improve American competitiveness & reduce the back logs associated with USCIS. This bill is non controversial measures that will help US to stay competitive with a highly educated and skilled work force and address family based backlogs also.
To All congress-critters:
In a nutshell, this bill allows USCIS to manage their workflow more effectively, which provides better customer service, and will eventually lead to better turn-around times.
To Democrats: More people will be able to get their citizenship in reasonable times.
To Republicans: Companies will be able to attract more talent which improves economic performance."
(3) As usual Do NOT get into the CIR issue or illegal Immigration. If the aide is confusing with CIR or illegal immigration, just tell them that these are legal immigration bills.
(4) If the aide asks whether you belong to the district or not, tell them NO if you don't. Mention to them that you already spoke with your representative and would like the congressman/congresswoman
support.
The list of key representatives along with their contact information is provided in this post.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If asked please say that you are a member of Immigration Voice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the staffer ask - "did you call the representative in your area", say that -
"Yes I did. Congressman/Congresswoman is a prominent member of Immigration Sub-committee which makes him a national figure of great importance. Congressman's decision and support is very important for people inside and outside of your district and as such I urge you and the Congressman to support HR5882."
hair tom felton girlfriend emma
grupak
08-21 12:32 PM
Yes, the same law can be interpreted like this:
EB1-ROW unused visa will go to EB2-ROW
EB2-ROW unused visa will go to EB3-ROW
Same for each country.
But its not happening. What actually is happening that they are giving unused visa from EB1-ROW to EB2-ROW to EB2-I/C. WHY?
So EB3-ROW is retrogressed bcoz it doesn't get any spillover and hence it affect EB3-I.
So where is the correct interpretation? Does any body know?
Don't take me wrong here. I don't favor EB3-ROW or any particular category. I am EB3-I with PD Nov 2002.
Suppose Eb1ROW--> EB2 ROW --> EB3 ROW like you say , and EB3 ROW becomes current. Now what?
Wouldn't the unused EB3 ROW go to EB1 -C/I --> EB2 -C/I--> EB3 -C/I instead of directly EB3 ROW --> EB3 -C/I?
I think EB2 C/I is the bottleneck.
No matter what you do, pushing for the recapture bill and removing country ceiling is going to help EB immigrants overall.
EB1-ROW unused visa will go to EB2-ROW
EB2-ROW unused visa will go to EB3-ROW
Same for each country.
But its not happening. What actually is happening that they are giving unused visa from EB1-ROW to EB2-ROW to EB2-I/C. WHY?
So EB3-ROW is retrogressed bcoz it doesn't get any spillover and hence it affect EB3-I.
So where is the correct interpretation? Does any body know?
Don't take me wrong here. I don't favor EB3-ROW or any particular category. I am EB3-I with PD Nov 2002.
Suppose Eb1ROW--> EB2 ROW --> EB3 ROW like you say , and EB3 ROW becomes current. Now what?
Wouldn't the unused EB3 ROW go to EB1 -C/I --> EB2 -C/I--> EB3 -C/I instead of directly EB3 ROW --> EB3 -C/I?
I think EB2 C/I is the bottleneck.
No matter what you do, pushing for the recapture bill and removing country ceiling is going to help EB immigrants overall.
more...
ysnraju
06-20 11:51 PM
Yes!! You can work now it self. It is legal under some circumstances please see Murthy website with AC21 FAQ :http://www.murthy.com/news/UDac21qa.html
Question 2 : I lost my job before the 180-day period. Can I still use portability? TOP
Quite possibly, provided the I-485 remains in pending (unadjudicated) status for at least 180 days. It is the I-485 processing time that is important, not when the beneficiary changes positions. This is because the "green card" (GC) is based upon a future job offer. The person is not required to have worked for the GC-sponsoring employer prior to filing or obtaining the GC. Accordingly, it appears the AC21 law did not intend to change the prior law, which only requires a future job offer with respect to the GC sponsorship in employment-based cases. Please refer to the disclaimer at the end of this page, since, at the time of this writing, the regulations have not been published.
Question 3 : I never worked for my sponsoring employer. It was a future job offer. Can I use AC21 portability? TOP
Yes, under the same circumstances as Question 2.
Question 2 : I lost my job before the 180-day period. Can I still use portability? TOP
Quite possibly, provided the I-485 remains in pending (unadjudicated) status for at least 180 days. It is the I-485 processing time that is important, not when the beneficiary changes positions. This is because the "green card" (GC) is based upon a future job offer. The person is not required to have worked for the GC-sponsoring employer prior to filing or obtaining the GC. Accordingly, it appears the AC21 law did not intend to change the prior law, which only requires a future job offer with respect to the GC sponsorship in employment-based cases. Please refer to the disclaimer at the end of this page, since, at the time of this writing, the regulations have not been published.
Question 3 : I never worked for my sponsoring employer. It was a future job offer. Can I use AC21 portability? TOP
Yes, under the same circumstances as Question 2.
hot Tom Felton And His Girlfriend
Nil
11-11 09:18 AM
The Los Angeles Times (11/11, Watanabe) reports that, according to a report from the Migration Policy Institute, there is "a massive 'brain waste' of highly educated and skilled immigrant professionals who potentially could, with a little aid, help ease looming labor shortages in California and nationwide in healthcare, computer sciences and other skilled jobs." According to the report's findings, "nationwide, more than 1.3 million college-educated legal immigrants are unemployed or working in unskilled jobs such as dishwashers or taxi drivers," and "nearly one-fourth of them, or 317,000, live in California." The report also "noted that competition for such professionals is heating up, with other countries such as Canada and Australia moving aggressively to attract them with better transition programs," and "suggested an expansion of successful programs such as Welcome Back," which helps transition immigrants with medical skills "back into the healthcare field."
more...
house 2011 the 2011 MTV Movie Awards tom felton 2011 mtv movie awards. makeup Tom
nisha23
01-15 01:45 AM
Hi,
I also interviewed in Mumbai on Jan 4 for an F1->H1-B status change. I was told to wait for an email from the consulate and have not heard anything as of today (Jan.15). Is there anyone who has heard from the consulate and interviewed around that time? Also, could someone please tell me what this kentucky number is which you can call?
Thanks
Nisha.
I also interviewed in Mumbai on Jan 4 for an F1->H1-B status change. I was told to wait for an email from the consulate and have not heard anything as of today (Jan.15). Is there anyone who has heard from the consulate and interviewed around that time? Also, could someone please tell me what this kentucky number is which you can call?
Thanks
Nisha.
tattoo tom felton girlfriend 2009.
funny
09-09 04:49 PM
Just finished calling 10 congressman's office. Will continue until the list is finished.
^^^ Don't let this thread slip down^^
^^^ Don't let this thread slip down^^
more...
pictures pictures girlfriend 2011 tom
sundarpn
01-03 12:29 AM
pl. keep this updated. thx
dresses makeup 2011 tom felton and emma tom felton 2011 calendar. tom felton 2011
mrsr
06-27 10:33 PM
I think this what uscis says
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label
more...
makeup dresses 2011 Tom Felton at the
logiclife
01-04 05:39 PM
The best thing to happen to immigration lawyers is H1 quota increase. That starts a whole chain of events that will generate revenue for them until the guy on H1 is citizen.
Getting people GC faster could only serve the revenue generated from filing I-485, but then retrogression does not eliminate it, it only delays it.
Lawyers hired by my company dont seem to care much about retrogression(they sure do pretend). they would work in the best interest of WHOEVER PAYS THEM.
In general however, they would love:
1. H1 quota increase(irrelevant to us).
2. Family immigration(irrelevant to us).
3. Faster EB GC(relevant to us but not a high priority for them).
I was relying on AILA all along thinking that they will work for themselves and in turn it will help us but it shows from 1932 that by joining Quota raise of H1, they torpedoed the whole thing.
--logiclife.
Getting people GC faster could only serve the revenue generated from filing I-485, but then retrogression does not eliminate it, it only delays it.
Lawyers hired by my company dont seem to care much about retrogression(they sure do pretend). they would work in the best interest of WHOEVER PAYS THEM.
In general however, they would love:
1. H1 quota increase(irrelevant to us).
2. Family immigration(irrelevant to us).
3. Faster EB GC(relevant to us but not a high priority for them).
I was relying on AILA all along thinking that they will work for themselves and in turn it will help us but it shows from 1932 that by joining Quota raise of H1, they torpedoed the whole thing.
--logiclife.
girlfriend tom felton and jade olivia
anotherone
01-29 05:33 PM
ok this is what I have
a) email with offer of employment and link to I9 form in offer letter
b) accepted verbally
c) background check done and report sent to me
d) called and was chatting when I mentioned EAD, was told sorry we cant offer you employment due to EAD, and that is has to EAD filed by this company only because they cant verify its legality et., one way was for them to do my h1b but they are not hiring h1b right now, so sorry. later they said they would consult with legal and get back to me. however i dont hold out much hope
e) i immediately filled out the i9 form
f) wrote email to them outlining our conversation from d) explaining my surprise (and boy! was a surprised!) and trying to make my case that I was not a risky bet for the company because of how interminably long I have been in this country and my spouse had GC already, but mine was not processed in time before priority date became not current.
g) hr wrote back, acknowledging our conversation and saying that they were not sure and that is why they were going to consult with their legal dept and will talk next week.
All I have are emails and offer letter.
I really dont want to go the legal complaining route if this can be resolved. But I am in a fighting mode. I probably would not have been so upset if I had not turned down other interviews...
a) email with offer of employment and link to I9 form in offer letter
b) accepted verbally
c) background check done and report sent to me
d) called and was chatting when I mentioned EAD, was told sorry we cant offer you employment due to EAD, and that is has to EAD filed by this company only because they cant verify its legality et., one way was for them to do my h1b but they are not hiring h1b right now, so sorry. later they said they would consult with legal and get back to me. however i dont hold out much hope
e) i immediately filled out the i9 form
f) wrote email to them outlining our conversation from d) explaining my surprise (and boy! was a surprised!) and trying to make my case that I was not a risky bet for the company because of how interminably long I have been in this country and my spouse had GC already, but mine was not processed in time before priority date became not current.
g) hr wrote back, acknowledging our conversation and saying that they were not sure and that is why they were going to consult with their legal dept and will talk next week.
All I have are emails and offer letter.
I really dont want to go the legal complaining route if this can be resolved. But I am in a fighting mode. I probably would not have been so upset if I had not turned down other interviews...
hairstyles tom felton 2011 mtv. the 2011 MTV Movie Awards
Jerrome
09-24 05:53 PM
They are referring to the Perm Labor data for year 2009.
I think one common mistake that is being made everywhere on this board since the USCIS data got out is to make assumptions on demand. We are only being shown data which shows pending applications from USCIS. If USCIS releases data of how much demand by priority date they were getting then its a different thing. When you say , are you basing that on this data released by USCIS or on something else. Because if you are then you are probably wrong. This data only tells you pending data as of Aug 2009 by priority dates. It could well be the case that USCIS got a lot of volume from Sep 2007 to Aug 2008 and processed them all and hence pending is less now. Hope you understand. The only way you can do it with some degree of success with current public data is by looking at PERM Filing data.
I think one common mistake that is being made everywhere on this board since the USCIS data got out is to make assumptions on demand. We are only being shown data which shows pending applications from USCIS. If USCIS releases data of how much demand by priority date they were getting then its a different thing. When you say , are you basing that on this data released by USCIS or on something else. Because if you are then you are probably wrong. This data only tells you pending data as of Aug 2009 by priority dates. It could well be the case that USCIS got a lot of volume from Sep 2007 to Aug 2008 and processed them all and hence pending is less now. Hope you understand. The only way you can do it with some degree of success with current public data is by looking at PERM Filing data.
desi3933
01-30 06:23 AM
Another thought... they might have been confused with EAD through L1/B1 etc dependent and EAD through pending AOS. The first case is temporary and depends on the primary applicant status. See if thats their concern and clarify...
Good luck!!!
yagw
It does not matter. EAD is unrestricted employment authorization and has no conditions attached due to basis it was issued. Of course, EAD can be revoked due to basis no longer available (such as expiration of L2 Status), but person can work as long as EAD is valid.
Form I-9 Employment Verification - Form I-9 Services from Form I-9 Compliance, LLC (http://www.formi9.com/form-i9-faqs.aspx)
[From the link]
Q. Can I avoid reverifying the I-9s by not hiring persons whose employment authorization has an expiration date?
A. You cannot refuse to hire persons solely because their employment authorization is temporary. The existence of a future expiration date does not preclude continuous employment authorization for an employee and does not mean that subsequent employment authorization will not be granted. In addition, consideration of a future employment authorization expiration date in determining whether an alien is qualified for a particular job could be an unfair immigration-related employment practice.
---------------------------------------------
_________________________
US citizen of Indian origin
Not a legal advice
Good luck!!!
yagw
It does not matter. EAD is unrestricted employment authorization and has no conditions attached due to basis it was issued. Of course, EAD can be revoked due to basis no longer available (such as expiration of L2 Status), but person can work as long as EAD is valid.
Form I-9 Employment Verification - Form I-9 Services from Form I-9 Compliance, LLC (http://www.formi9.com/form-i9-faqs.aspx)
[From the link]
Q. Can I avoid reverifying the I-9s by not hiring persons whose employment authorization has an expiration date?
A. You cannot refuse to hire persons solely because their employment authorization is temporary. The existence of a future expiration date does not preclude continuous employment authorization for an employee and does not mean that subsequent employment authorization will not be granted. In addition, consideration of a future employment authorization expiration date in determining whether an alien is qualified for a particular job could be an unfair immigration-related employment practice.
---------------------------------------------
_________________________
US citizen of Indian origin
Not a legal advice
ramus
06-29 07:40 PM
This seems like 100% for sure news..
murthy news flash
NewsFlash! DOS Expected to Revise July Visa Bulletin
Posted Jun 29, 2007
�MurthyDotCom
We have received news from the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) that they have reliable information that the July Visa Bulletin will be revised on Monday, July 2nd, or Tuesday, July 3rd. This Visa Bulletin is expected to retrogress many of the categories that were announced as being "Current" for July. It is expected that at least some of the categories will become completely "unavailable." The reason for this is that the USCIS apparently engaged in extraordinary efforts to approve cases in June, once there was some forward movement of the Visa Bulletin. They did this to try to avoid the tide of cases expected in July. Each green card approval uses one visa number. If the numbers are all used for the year, then the DOS will issue a revised Visa Bulletin reflecting "unavailable" in the particular category or categories.
�MurthyDotCom
DOS Input
�MurthyDotCom
While there is no 100 percent assurance about this matter, we at the Murthy Law Firm were given a 95-98 percent confirmation of the expectation regarding the Visa Bulletin by a very reliable source. The most vulnerable categories, of course, are those that are typically the victims of retrogression: EB2 and EB3 for India, China, and (potentially) Mexico. If this unprecedented action should occur, it will mean is that the USCIS will reject I-485 cases based upon the anticipated Visa Bulletin revision, if it should, in fact indicate that visa numbers are not available in a particular category.
�MurthyDotCom
Legal Fight Brewing
�MurthyDotCom
There is substantial legal wrangling ongoing because of the anticipation of this unprecedented occurrence. The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) has announced plans to file suit against the USCIS for any cases rejected due to a revised Visa Bulletin.
�MurthyDotCom
Conclusion
�MurthyDotCom
It is difficult to formulate words in reaction to this matter. So, for the time being, we will let our clients and readers know that our full sympathies are with them, as they face yet another potential disappointment. We also let them know that we have been long-time supporters and contributors to AILF and we will fully do our part to fight what comes.
�MurthyDotCom
Please return to this page for updates on this topic.
murthy news flash
NewsFlash! DOS Expected to Revise July Visa Bulletin
Posted Jun 29, 2007
�MurthyDotCom
We have received news from the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) that they have reliable information that the July Visa Bulletin will be revised on Monday, July 2nd, or Tuesday, July 3rd. This Visa Bulletin is expected to retrogress many of the categories that were announced as being "Current" for July. It is expected that at least some of the categories will become completely "unavailable." The reason for this is that the USCIS apparently engaged in extraordinary efforts to approve cases in June, once there was some forward movement of the Visa Bulletin. They did this to try to avoid the tide of cases expected in July. Each green card approval uses one visa number. If the numbers are all used for the year, then the DOS will issue a revised Visa Bulletin reflecting "unavailable" in the particular category or categories.
�MurthyDotCom
DOS Input
�MurthyDotCom
While there is no 100 percent assurance about this matter, we at the Murthy Law Firm were given a 95-98 percent confirmation of the expectation regarding the Visa Bulletin by a very reliable source. The most vulnerable categories, of course, are those that are typically the victims of retrogression: EB2 and EB3 for India, China, and (potentially) Mexico. If this unprecedented action should occur, it will mean is that the USCIS will reject I-485 cases based upon the anticipated Visa Bulletin revision, if it should, in fact indicate that visa numbers are not available in a particular category.
�MurthyDotCom
Legal Fight Brewing
�MurthyDotCom
There is substantial legal wrangling ongoing because of the anticipation of this unprecedented occurrence. The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) has announced plans to file suit against the USCIS for any cases rejected due to a revised Visa Bulletin.
�MurthyDotCom
Conclusion
�MurthyDotCom
It is difficult to formulate words in reaction to this matter. So, for the time being, we will let our clients and readers know that our full sympathies are with them, as they face yet another potential disappointment. We also let them know that we have been long-time supporters and contributors to AILF and we will fully do our part to fight what comes.
�MurthyDotCom
Please return to this page for updates on this topic.
No comments:
Post a Comment