rbalaji5
09-19 10:17 AM
Silicon Valley - The best place for these kind of effort..:)
wallpaper adminton game no34255
venkataramesh
07-02 01:14 PM
Done
sweet_jungle
10-26 10:11 PM
bump, action item, please notarize and mail. Please keep this thread active!
please send the link and doc.
please send the link and doc.
2011 Wallpaper 1 800x600 of
gimmeacard
07-13 05:08 PM
hoping we dont see another retrogression
more...
pcs
11-12 09:57 PM
It not about law... it is about following the law...
If you want quick action shoot letters ALL AT THE SAME TIME.... Just decide the name and the address of recipients .... Attach the copy of the rule and write the letter .....
Just make enough noise so that they can not ignore this rule...
If you want quick action shoot letters ALL AT THE SAME TIME.... Just decide the name and the address of recipients .... Attach the copy of the rule and write the letter .....
Just make enough noise so that they can not ignore this rule...
immi2006
06-12 02:46 PM
i think most of us make excelletn candidates to become Senators :-) if not at least a good immigration lawyer..
more...
sprash
01-30 02:35 PM
Wow! Thanks a lot for posting such detailed RFE information. This really helps a lot in understanding what I may be asked.
My GC sponsoring employer revoked my H1 last year itself. I could see the change in status back then itself within a month of having left them. Nothing happenned after that. I got a new H1 from my (then) new employer and things continued as before. This employer has not yet revoked my H1 (from what I can see) and its probably because they are almost going under. There are less than 25 people left in the company so I doubt that they will have spent the money to go and revoke all the H1s of the folks they laid off.
Maybe its like someone suggested - USCIS is pre-processing my 485 based on received date since I mailed my app very early on in July 2007.
Yes, I believe thats what they might be doing - preprocessing. There was no obvious 'trigger' event that caused RFE on my case either. They raised these RFEs even though I had not changed my sponsoring employer or transferred my h1b. I have a feeling they preprocessed mine too.
I don't mean to scare you (just prepare you for the worst) --- you might want to talk to some desi consultants and make an arrangement that in case the RFE is employment verification, they give you pay stubs from the time you were laid off. As you can see from my RFE, you might need to show your recent paystubs and employment verification. Yes, it will be a financial loss for you, but without these I believe your case can get rejected (gurus correct me if I'm wrong!).
Again I am is just hypothesizing your situation, your case might be entirely different. This is 'just in case'.....
My GC sponsoring employer revoked my H1 last year itself. I could see the change in status back then itself within a month of having left them. Nothing happenned after that. I got a new H1 from my (then) new employer and things continued as before. This employer has not yet revoked my H1 (from what I can see) and its probably because they are almost going under. There are less than 25 people left in the company so I doubt that they will have spent the money to go and revoke all the H1s of the folks they laid off.
Maybe its like someone suggested - USCIS is pre-processing my 485 based on received date since I mailed my app very early on in July 2007.
Yes, I believe thats what they might be doing - preprocessing. There was no obvious 'trigger' event that caused RFE on my case either. They raised these RFEs even though I had not changed my sponsoring employer or transferred my h1b. I have a feeling they preprocessed mine too.
I don't mean to scare you (just prepare you for the worst) --- you might want to talk to some desi consultants and make an arrangement that in case the RFE is employment verification, they give you pay stubs from the time you were laid off. As you can see from my RFE, you might need to show your recent paystubs and employment verification. Yes, it will be a financial loss for you, but without these I believe your case can get rejected (gurus correct me if I'm wrong!).
Again I am is just hypothesizing your situation, your case might be entirely different. This is 'just in case'.....
2010 and Fallingattac adminton
Jaime
09-10 12:54 PM
There are thousands
more...
sandeepsriv
01-18 11:50 AM
I have just contributed $20 and although I have not signed up for recurring but I will try to contribute every month.
Sandeep
Sandeep
hair MegaJoin - Badminton Blog
delax
07-13 10:22 AM
Permit me to call out the grossly misguided emotions I've seen in this thread.
We have a co-alum of the DHS Secy sending a detailed, cogent and EASY TO READY letter pleading for our cause and yet we diss her.
Sheela Murthy might be different things to different people. Reality is that she is agent of capitalism JUST AS WE ARE. Then, why take a holier than thou attitude and arbitrarily attribute nefarious intentions to her actions?
This shallowness illustrates the deep void in vision and a decidedly insular world view.
I would urge IV members to THANK Sheela Murthy for her cogent articulation of the human impact of this disastrous situation and ask her to continue to support the cause through various means.
And by the way, I am NOT a client and that should make no difference in the quest for objective realization that there are shared interests at play.
However, I AM a trained negotiator and conflict mediator (apart from being a co-author of a mediation model) and hence from that perspective would aver that such realization of shared gains are what ADD VALUE to a discussion.
Cheers!
Cant agree more - Well said.
We have a co-alum of the DHS Secy sending a detailed, cogent and EASY TO READY letter pleading for our cause and yet we diss her.
Sheela Murthy might be different things to different people. Reality is that she is agent of capitalism JUST AS WE ARE. Then, why take a holier than thou attitude and arbitrarily attribute nefarious intentions to her actions?
This shallowness illustrates the deep void in vision and a decidedly insular world view.
I would urge IV members to THANK Sheela Murthy for her cogent articulation of the human impact of this disastrous situation and ask her to continue to support the cause through various means.
And by the way, I am NOT a client and that should make no difference in the quest for objective realization that there are shared interests at play.
However, I AM a trained negotiator and conflict mediator (apart from being a co-author of a mediation model) and hence from that perspective would aver that such realization of shared gains are what ADD VALUE to a discussion.
Cheers!
Cant agree more - Well said.
more...
trueguy
08-27 12:44 PM
As per this link and comments by the Director of USCIS-
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21175
Though we still have challenges to overcome, USCIS is currently showing improvements as a result of process improvements. As of April 25, 2008, USCIS had adjudicated over 65 percent of its FY 2008 target for employment-based visas. With five months to go in FY 2008, this is a strong start. We plan to continue implementing process improvements and new reporting mechanisms for managing these important applications.
I485 Receipt I485 Pending I485-processed FB I-485 EB I-485
Oct-07 237915 842231 50548 42500 8048
Nov-07 51773 845691 48313 42500 5813
Dec-07 35020 833141 47570 42500 5070
Jan-08 35771 813238 55674 42500 13174
Feb-08 38210 787516 63932 42500 21432
Mar-08 43548 762938 68126 42500 25626
Apr-08 50951 742597 71292 42500 28792
May-08 45357 739934 48020 42500 5520
* Data from USCIS months processing report
** Oct 07 Receipt number changed from 137915 to 237915 (just looked incorrect)
** FB is flat (730k-220k CP / 12 months)
We have 113475 EB I-485 processed until May 08 (in 8 months), if we take 80% acceptance rate the number of visa used will be 90780 and if we use 90% acceptance rate USCIS may have used 102127 visas.
June processing numbers are available
I485 Receipt I485 Pending I485-processed FB I-485 EB I-485
June-08 46024 740969 44989 42500 2489
It seems that in FY-2008-Total number of Employment Visas approved were-
Till April 2008=>8048 (Oct'07) + 5813(Nov'07) + 5070(Dec'07) +13174(Jan'08) + 21432(Feb'08) + 25626(Mar'08) + 28792(Apr'08) + 5520(May'08) + 2489(Jun'08) = 115964 (till Jun'08) out of 162704 for 2008.
Also, till April 2008, they had used=> 107955 which is 66% of 162,794.
So, the above comment by the Director of USCIS that till April 08, they had used 65% of the Fiscal 2008 quota is correct.
My guess in July and August is that they have used around 11000.
So liberally there are still 35000 unused visas for Sept. 08 and conservatively around 22000 for Sept. 08.
Do you have this statistics for Jul'2007, Aug'2007,Sep'2007. It will be interesting to know how many I-485 they recieved during Jul'2007 fiasco.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21175
Though we still have challenges to overcome, USCIS is currently showing improvements as a result of process improvements. As of April 25, 2008, USCIS had adjudicated over 65 percent of its FY 2008 target for employment-based visas. With five months to go in FY 2008, this is a strong start. We plan to continue implementing process improvements and new reporting mechanisms for managing these important applications.
I485 Receipt I485 Pending I485-processed FB I-485 EB I-485
Oct-07 237915 842231 50548 42500 8048
Nov-07 51773 845691 48313 42500 5813
Dec-07 35020 833141 47570 42500 5070
Jan-08 35771 813238 55674 42500 13174
Feb-08 38210 787516 63932 42500 21432
Mar-08 43548 762938 68126 42500 25626
Apr-08 50951 742597 71292 42500 28792
May-08 45357 739934 48020 42500 5520
* Data from USCIS months processing report
** Oct 07 Receipt number changed from 137915 to 237915 (just looked incorrect)
** FB is flat (730k-220k CP / 12 months)
We have 113475 EB I-485 processed until May 08 (in 8 months), if we take 80% acceptance rate the number of visa used will be 90780 and if we use 90% acceptance rate USCIS may have used 102127 visas.
June processing numbers are available
I485 Receipt I485 Pending I485-processed FB I-485 EB I-485
June-08 46024 740969 44989 42500 2489
It seems that in FY-2008-Total number of Employment Visas approved were-
Till April 2008=>8048 (Oct'07) + 5813(Nov'07) + 5070(Dec'07) +13174(Jan'08) + 21432(Feb'08) + 25626(Mar'08) + 28792(Apr'08) + 5520(May'08) + 2489(Jun'08) = 115964 (till Jun'08) out of 162704 for 2008.
Also, till April 2008, they had used=> 107955 which is 66% of 162,794.
So, the above comment by the Director of USCIS that till April 08, they had used 65% of the Fiscal 2008 quota is correct.
My guess in July and August is that they have used around 11000.
So liberally there are still 35000 unused visas for Sept. 08 and conservatively around 22000 for Sept. 08.
Do you have this statistics for Jul'2007, Aug'2007,Sep'2007. It will be interesting to know how many I-485 they recieved during Jul'2007 fiasco.
hot adminton - adminton
bondgoli007
02-15 07:55 PM
wow!!! Among the most divisive debate if ever I have seen one on IV.
Without offering my opinion on the topic at hand (divide and rule), I think "some" (not all or even most) of the members posting need to take a step back and see how hurtful their posts on this topic are getting to be. Some posts seem to have subtle racial bias and the ones in response seem to read too much into them too.
Guys, try not to post reactive or even respond to posts that are purely personal. I for one feel that this thread really doesn't do anyone any good and though Canuck's reason might have been more noble, it clearly is inducing normally clear headed individuals to get angry :-)
We all agree in general that EB process is a mess and working together we are trying to fix it. Certainly each of us have our preference in 'how' it should be fixed. However the IV core has goals based on broadly accepted potential fixes...lets support those and keep the infighting to a minimum...
GO IV
Without offering my opinion on the topic at hand (divide and rule), I think "some" (not all or even most) of the members posting need to take a step back and see how hurtful their posts on this topic are getting to be. Some posts seem to have subtle racial bias and the ones in response seem to read too much into them too.
Guys, try not to post reactive or even respond to posts that are purely personal. I for one feel that this thread really doesn't do anyone any good and though Canuck's reason might have been more noble, it clearly is inducing normally clear headed individuals to get angry :-)
We all agree in general that EB process is a mess and working together we are trying to fix it. Certainly each of us have our preference in 'how' it should be fixed. However the IV core has goals based on broadly accepted potential fixes...lets support those and keep the infighting to a minimum...
GO IV
more...
house Sania Mirza Wallpapers,
coolmanasip
06-19 03:09 PM
My lawyer is asking for the tax returns for last three years for 485 filing??? I read W2s in the USCIS list but I do not know why he is asking for tax returns?? Any clue.....
tattoo adminton to play Position
Ramba
04-07 05:27 PM
Rumor, rumor, and more rumors. We Indians get a kick out of this stuff, dont we? This actually happened with me couple of weeks ago.
POE: San Francisco. I hold a completely different job compared to my Masters degree. I was asked what qualifications I have to hold a job in marketing when my background was technology. I gave an explanation and the VO looked up and smile. He said, you memorized your answers well. I said, I've been doing it for the last five years. He laughed and said, you guys are smart cookies. Have fun, summer is around. NEXT.
Note to people who like to spread Bullshit: Please STOP spreading horsemanure. Unless your paperwork is completely out of whack, no VO at the POE has the RIGHT/AUTHORITY to send you back. I spoke to an immigration lawyer at a party couple of months ago. He said deportation procedures are not that simple. The VO has to call DHS and Immigration Services. Once they take over the case, it takes 12 to 24 hours to do a background check. Until that time, the person is held in custody at the Airport. A decent bed and food is provided. If the documents check out incorrect then authorities in the home country are informed and so is the Embassy in United States. DHS and USCIS allow folks from (Indian embassy) to interview the candidate (potential value target: crime recod back home, etc). If the embassy decides that the documents were forged then it will send a memo to the Indian Airport and ask the Indian police to book a case after the person arrives. The process is much detailed than making a call to somebody's father or father-in-law and asking, DO YOU NEED XYZ for this job.
So all this is dino-dung. Stop wasting time at your desk and do something productive.
Let the red-dots rain.
As you mentioned it can be a rumor. Or, it may be a very rare isolated case. However, I would like to say few words for the inspection and admission process at POE. There may be a lot of regulation regarding denying admission at POE. Ultimatly, it is upto the IO at POE to follow it or not. One cannot argue (or complaint with the supervisor) with them in the long line at POE to ask them to follow the rules and regulations; or you do not have your lawyer standing next to you in the line. You do not have much option at POE. If they want to flex their muscles, they can do it and deny the admission to any one without proper reason. Even if you have a valid visa and other documents US admission is not always gurenteed. However, 99.9% it wont happen. If the unemployment rate continue like this, it will not be a unusual to hear these kind of stories. Bottom line is IO at POE and consular officers at embassy has tremondus power; it is not easy (or question their decision) to overcome their decision.
POE: San Francisco. I hold a completely different job compared to my Masters degree. I was asked what qualifications I have to hold a job in marketing when my background was technology. I gave an explanation and the VO looked up and smile. He said, you memorized your answers well. I said, I've been doing it for the last five years. He laughed and said, you guys are smart cookies. Have fun, summer is around. NEXT.
Note to people who like to spread Bullshit: Please STOP spreading horsemanure. Unless your paperwork is completely out of whack, no VO at the POE has the RIGHT/AUTHORITY to send you back. I spoke to an immigration lawyer at a party couple of months ago. He said deportation procedures are not that simple. The VO has to call DHS and Immigration Services. Once they take over the case, it takes 12 to 24 hours to do a background check. Until that time, the person is held in custody at the Airport. A decent bed and food is provided. If the documents check out incorrect then authorities in the home country are informed and so is the Embassy in United States. DHS and USCIS allow folks from (Indian embassy) to interview the candidate (potential value target: crime recod back home, etc). If the embassy decides that the documents were forged then it will send a memo to the Indian Airport and ask the Indian police to book a case after the person arrives. The process is much detailed than making a call to somebody's father or father-in-law and asking, DO YOU NEED XYZ for this job.
So all this is dino-dung. Stop wasting time at your desk and do something productive.
Let the red-dots rain.
As you mentioned it can be a rumor. Or, it may be a very rare isolated case. However, I would like to say few words for the inspection and admission process at POE. There may be a lot of regulation regarding denying admission at POE. Ultimatly, it is upto the IO at POE to follow it or not. One cannot argue (or complaint with the supervisor) with them in the long line at POE to ask them to follow the rules and regulations; or you do not have your lawyer standing next to you in the line. You do not have much option at POE. If they want to flex their muscles, they can do it and deny the admission to any one without proper reason. Even if you have a valid visa and other documents US admission is not always gurenteed. However, 99.9% it wont happen. If the unemployment rate continue like this, it will not be a unusual to hear these kind of stories. Bottom line is IO at POE and consular officers at embassy has tremondus power; it is not easy (or question their decision) to overcome their decision.
more...
pictures Hero Honda Wallpapers,
chicago60607
09-10 05:36 PM
Hey Yall,
I just called the House Judiciary Committee to inquire about the webcast link not working and the reason sited was that "thats due to the hearing postponed until tomorrow".
So, no more hearing for the day and it resumes tomorrow. I did forget to ask for what time it starts, may be someone else can check on it.
I just called the House Judiciary Committee to inquire about the webcast link not working and the reason sited was that "thats due to the hearing postponed until tomorrow".
So, no more hearing for the day and it resumes tomorrow. I did forget to ask for what time it starts, may be someone else can check on it.
dresses Hrithik Roshan Wallpapers,
spicy_guy
08-11 11:44 AM
I may be wrong on my thinking, but I do hope you take a suggestion - when reading the INS law, understand it independently first. Then go back to see, if it can be applied on your interpretation. Do not start out with it, everything looks red when wearing red tinted glasses.......
After the advocacy days in DC, I am sold on what IV is offering and its commitment to the EB community. I am EB3 too and I am pretty much in the same boat as many of you here.
You put it out well from your side.
BTW, are you really 2007 EB3 I? Do you have a guesstimate on when you would get GC?:rolleyes:
After the advocacy days in DC, I am sold on what IV is offering and its commitment to the EB community. I am EB3 too and I am pretty much in the same boat as many of you here.
You put it out well from your side.
BTW, are you really 2007 EB3 I? Do you have a guesstimate on when you would get GC?:rolleyes:
more...
makeup to famous Indian Badminton
gc28262
06-10 11:06 PM
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
girlfriend base of chong wei wallpaper
kondur_007
06-08 07:01 PM
There is going to be no spillover to EB2 India at all because according to the thread "Employment-Based Visa Number Movement and Predictions - from current Murthy Bulletin" thread Mr. Oppenheim (the guy from the DOS who sets the visa bulletin) said that EB1, EB4 and Eb5 might also retrogress (that is have to a cut off date which means they will not be current). If EB1, EB2 and EB5 retrogress and there is no spillover from EB2 ROW and there is no spillover from Family based visas there will not be any spillover to Eb2 India at all. There is absoluetely no difference between Eb3 India and Eb2 India except that EB3 India will be stuck in 2001 and Eb2 India might be stuck either in 2002 or early 2003. We are screwed for ages to come. Dont give me red for bringing this harsh reality, I myself am depressed
Nobody should get red for expressing their thought!! So if at all I give you some, it would be only green!
coming to your point: Even in the thread you referenced to, I have posted a comment "Mr. Oppenheim's statements do not add up...his statements logically contradict each other (well you can not expect LOGIC from USCIS). and so the exact scenario will only be clarified with VB, date movements and finally, their year end statistics".
Accordingly, moving the EB2 I and C together, they have proven that "they are getting ready to spill over". Moreover, EB2 China has used up "its own quota" and will need spill over to move. EB2 ROW on the other had has not used up "its own quota" and will not need spill over (as it is current and not together with India and china). So any spill over from EB1 will come to EB2 India and China (effectively only to India). And if EB2 ROW does not use up their remaining numbers (which they have not so far) during the rest of fiscal year they will also spill to EB2 India.
Now as far as future of EB2 vs EB3 is concerned, I personally believe (and this is just my personal belief....) that unless EB1 (specially EB1C) gets oversubscribed (as mentioned in other threads), EB2 should move quickly during next fiscal year. EB1 usage can only be known from year end data as and when they publish it.
Nobody should get red for expressing their thought!! So if at all I give you some, it would be only green!
coming to your point: Even in the thread you referenced to, I have posted a comment "Mr. Oppenheim's statements do not add up...his statements logically contradict each other (well you can not expect LOGIC from USCIS). and so the exact scenario will only be clarified with VB, date movements and finally, their year end statistics".
Accordingly, moving the EB2 I and C together, they have proven that "they are getting ready to spill over". Moreover, EB2 China has used up "its own quota" and will need spill over to move. EB2 ROW on the other had has not used up "its own quota" and will not need spill over (as it is current and not together with India and china). So any spill over from EB1 will come to EB2 India and China (effectively only to India). And if EB2 ROW does not use up their remaining numbers (which they have not so far) during the rest of fiscal year they will also spill to EB2 India.
Now as far as future of EB2 vs EB3 is concerned, I personally believe (and this is just my personal belief....) that unless EB1 (specially EB1C) gets oversubscribed (as mentioned in other threads), EB2 should move quickly during next fiscal year. EB1 usage can only be known from year end data as and when they publish it.
hairstyles Aishwarya Rai Wallpapers
starscream
02-18 04:27 PM
I did not find any section specificcaly about ending EB or ending H1B , the only reference to H1b is in SEC. 1403. that is for fashion models:
SEC. 1403. NONIMMIGRANT CATEGORY FOR FASHION MODELS.
(a) Elimination of H-1B Classification for Fashion Models-
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h264/show
This bill is ending H1B for sure, but how will people get EB when there is no h1B or H1B renewal to wait for EB.
Please add your views about this bill.
Also, is there a IL chapter for IV?
SEC. 1403. NONIMMIGRANT CATEGORY FOR FASHION MODELS.
(a) Elimination of H-1B Classification for Fashion Models-
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h264/show
This bill is ending H1B for sure, but how will people get EB when there is no h1B or H1B renewal to wait for EB.
Please add your views about this bill.
Also, is there a IL chapter for IV?
GCKaIntezar
02-02 09:34 AM
Sorry, but I couldn't join last night's conf. call. I was out on a business work.
Did you guys meet?
Did you guys meet?
ashatara78
03-10 04:38 PM
The EB immigration system was fine before then; thus, the problem is supply/demand, not the immigration policies.
I have no comments about comparison of family vs EB but the EB immigration system was not find before then. I have friends who were in this system in the late 1980s, early 1990s and had huge problems - had to wait a long time, could not switch jobs, could not visit back home for sibling's weddings etc.
It was probably fine during the Clinton administration for a few years 1996-1999 but I only know of a few cases, not many.
I have no comments about comparison of family vs EB but the EB immigration system was not find before then. I have friends who were in this system in the late 1980s, early 1990s and had huge problems - had to wait a long time, could not switch jobs, could not visit back home for sibling's weddings etc.
It was probably fine during the Clinton administration for a few years 1996-1999 but I only know of a few cases, not many.
0 comments:
Post a Comment