sivakumar
02-22 01:48 PM
thanks GCwaitforever I just wish that after april you change your name to GCRecivedFinally :->
wallpaper Facebook has previously
supernova
04-06 08:37 PM
I know a person who was sent back; IO called the end client to verify his employment and asked if they could hire american worker instead, when the employer said they could, IO sent him back. I think they are only going after H1's working for smaller consulting companies.
You may write it off as a rumor, so be it, but IV needs to step in and take necessary action.
You may write it off as a rumor, so be it, but IV needs to step in and take necessary action.
a_yaja
07-09 04:47 PM
I hope this lawsuit fails. Looking ahead this lawsuit, if it succeeds might do us more damage than good. Law of unintended consequences states that something can happen we haven't thought of.
Supposing, if lawsuit goes ahead and wins, one outcome might be - USCIS might start adhering to strict interpretation of 7% per country, or curtail spillovers drastically. Then we are in deep shit.
How can USCIS adher to 7% per country quota when AC21 explicitly says that if visas are still available after allotment to ROW, the remaining visas must spill over to the over subscribed countries?
As a result of failure of this lawsuite, if they start adhering to 7% cap, then they are in violation of AC21. That would be another lawsuite for sure.
Supposing, if lawsuit goes ahead and wins, one outcome might be - USCIS might start adhering to strict interpretation of 7% per country, or curtail spillovers drastically. Then we are in deep shit.
How can USCIS adher to 7% per country quota when AC21 explicitly says that if visas are still available after allotment to ROW, the remaining visas must spill over to the over subscribed countries?
As a result of failure of this lawsuite, if they start adhering to 7% cap, then they are in violation of AC21. That would be another lawsuite for sure.
2011 facebook like icon vector.
qesehmk
02-11 03:03 PM
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Family based visa used for FY2009 = 215,343
Family based immigrant visa numbers = 226,000
Unused visa = 10,567
available for employment based visa numbers for FY2010.
*********
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf
Family based visa used for FY2008 = 226,105
Family based immigrant visa numbers = 226,000
Unused visa = ZERO
available for employment based visa numbers for FY2009.
Always go by the facts.
___________________
Not a legal advice.
I agree. I tried to see if there is a way FB category in 2009 might have received a spillover from EB. But thats almost impossible given EB is severely backlogged.
Another way to verify unused 13K in 2009 EB would be to check 2010 FB limit. If there were unused visas from EB in 2009 then they go back to FB in 2010.
Finally, per Ron unused is not same as wasted. Unused is unassigned. Wasted is .... assigned but action is not taken to close the case. If that is the case then wasted visas won't be available .... neither inside or outside category. It is frightening to think that with so many preadjudicated cases USCIS might be wasting visas! I don't believe this .... but if true ... it is outrageous.
Family based visa used for FY2009 = 215,343
Family based immigrant visa numbers = 226,000
Unused visa = 10,567
available for employment based visa numbers for FY2010.
*********
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf
Family based visa used for FY2008 = 226,105
Family based immigrant visa numbers = 226,000
Unused visa = ZERO
available for employment based visa numbers for FY2009.
Always go by the facts.
___________________
Not a legal advice.
I agree. I tried to see if there is a way FB category in 2009 might have received a spillover from EB. But thats almost impossible given EB is severely backlogged.
Another way to verify unused 13K in 2009 EB would be to check 2010 FB limit. If there were unused visas from EB in 2009 then they go back to FB in 2010.
Finally, per Ron unused is not same as wasted. Unused is unassigned. Wasted is .... assigned but action is not taken to close the case. If that is the case then wasted visas won't be available .... neither inside or outside category. It is frightening to think that with so many preadjudicated cases USCIS might be wasting visas! I don't believe this .... but if true ... it is outrageous.
more...
prem_goel
07-12 08:15 PM
Spillover happens quarterly, but the visas are allocated in the last quarter! This is because the retrogressed countries are allocated their regular quota every quarter and the extra visas must be allocated based on the priority date, irrespective of the country! It would be difficult to allocate in the earlier quarters to achieve this!
So looking at the demand data used for determining Aug bulletin,
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/EmploymentDemandUsedForCutOffDates.pdf
how far do you think it'll progress next month?
So looking at the demand data used for determining Aug bulletin,
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/EmploymentDemandUsedForCutOffDates.pdf
how far do you think it'll progress next month?
file485
12-22 09:40 AM
lazycis..
yes..the 485 was filed thru ex-employer based on future employment...
so basically we submitted a future empl letter from ex-employer + the current employment letter with the current employer stating that I am working with the current employer with the same skills mentioned in the labor..
the mess up was submitting the current empl.letter alongwith the G325a form which does not mention the current employer(which was prepared in June 07 before i found this job..)
yes..the 485 was filed thru ex-employer based on future employment...
so basically we submitted a future empl letter from ex-employer + the current employment letter with the current employer stating that I am working with the current employer with the same skills mentioned in the labor..
the mess up was submitting the current empl.letter alongwith the G325a form which does not mention the current employer(which was prepared in June 07 before i found this job..)
more...
gcma08
06-10 11:24 PM
We received the 485 approval notices sent emails today
2010 Just click the Facebook Logo
sugaur
08-22 12:57 AM
I am not sure why you guys are so harsh when someone is asking for guidance and help. If you have lot of time please go after the antis...there are lot of websites to rant your farustartion. If you can not give any useful information...please refrain from posting. It just gives very bad light.
Hey, I think the suggestion to contact congressman/senator/newspaper is a good one, probably the best anyone has given so far.
I couldnt resist making a crack, here's a person with ABSOLUTELY no clue about US immigration system blaming the USCIS for sending an RFE. And taking care of a 500 pounder doesnt qualify for a waiver for labour certification:D
Hey, I think the suggestion to contact congressman/senator/newspaper is a good one, probably the best anyone has given so far.
I couldnt resist making a crack, here's a person with ABSOLUTELY no clue about US immigration system blaming the USCIS for sending an RFE. And taking care of a 500 pounder doesnt qualify for a waiver for labour certification:D
more...
nixstor
07-04 09:44 PM
Please stop posting this on every thread. In one line you are just spamming. We all visit Attorney Oh's website often. He does not need any publicity
immigration-law.com
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
immigration-law.com
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
hair Affiliations amp; Links
anilsal
06-30 10:50 PM
It is possible for every city to have at least one usps office to be open on Sunday. They have a different day off.
Just go to the USPS website and locate an office that is open on Sun.
Just go to the USPS website and locate an office that is open on Sun.
more...
mihird
07-09 10:37 PM
I think, we should all follow this lawsuit closely...if it gets accepted for trial in Illinois, I am seriously considering filing one myself in California...on similar grounds..
There are several attorneys who would be willing to file a lawsuit no cost with the understanding that any monetary benefits if won, be split with them....
Likewise, I think, others should stand up and consider filing separate law suits in different states....the more law suits get filed, the more media/people/congressmen attention this issue will get...
There are several attorneys who would be willing to file a lawsuit no cost with the understanding that any monetary benefits if won, be split with them....
Likewise, I think, others should stand up and consider filing separate law suits in different states....the more law suits get filed, the more media/people/congressmen attention this issue will get...
hot facebook like logo.jpg
vin13
11-13 09:29 AM
If you do not have the time to meet the lawmakers or their aides, call them over the phone explain the situation and email the letter.
If 100s' of us try and 1 succeeds, we all succeed.
If 100s' of us try and 1 succeeds, we all succeed.
more...
house but to a Facebook logo and
mordaut
02-27 08:38 PM
wow these are good...but im just wondering...what are they modelled after? ive never seen any subways like those...
tattoo facebook logo facebook like
Gravitation
02-20 05:18 PM
Ok guys before you shoot it down heres my calc for EB2 pending apps from 2000 to Dec 2003. Obviously its a rough estimate, who knows how many eb3s switched, labor subs etc etc etc.
From pending apps from 2000 to 2003 dec are about 96. Assume represents 1% of total population so it would be 9600. Each app has about 1.5 dependents so about 15,000? If you assume as lower say 0.5% then number would obviously increase to 29,000.
Ok now shoot me down.
I had done some calculations long ago, it guestimated that 5~6% of people are registered with traciitt.
From pending apps from 2000 to 2003 dec are about 96. Assume represents 1% of total population so it would be 9600. Each app has about 1.5 dependents so about 15,000? If you assume as lower say 0.5% then number would obviously increase to 29,000.
Ok now shoot me down.
I had done some calculations long ago, it guestimated that 5~6% of people are registered with traciitt.
more...
pictures Facebook Like Box
shreekhand
05-14 12:28 AM
Unfortunately one needs to have a GC or be a USC in order to be eliglible for FAFSA or any federal financial aid.
dresses and facebook like button
mpadapa
09-26 11:39 AM
I just got a call from Eilene Zimmerman regarding the article and she promised me that she is working on fixing the error soon
more...
makeup Make Money on Facebook by
logiclife
12-21 10:28 PM
You should've thought about this that whole year that you were goofin' off! Why are you bringing this up at this late juncture, anyway? Your PD is Dec, 2004. What makes you your petition will trigger an RFE for not working during 2001? You raise a very perplexing and contradicting query...
Hey, take it easy big guy/gal.
You are acting as if instead of being gainfully employed, he was sitting around and playing golf or something and that put him out of status.
Go easy on the judging part, coz you could be goofing off for a while too and if you are goofing off for a while, its not like after a week of goofing off, you are going to throw in the towel and take the next plane back home. In a country that has employed and harbored 11 million illegals, who dont even have a passport, those who are legally present and 'goofing off' for a while between 2 legitimate jobs that require excrutiating process of h1 sponsorship are the least of anyone's problems. In fact, the section 245(k) says that it is OK to goof off as long as goofing off is less than 180 days. And if the goofing off was before your last entry into usa, it doesnt even matter, regardless of whether it was less than 180 or more than 180 days. If US CONGRESS legitimizes, who are you to be the bigger judge.
IF the economy tanks, then a lot of us will be 'goofing off' in 2008 and 2009.
When someone is 'goofing off', that someone is concerned about paying the rent, managing to buy groceries and borrowing money off of credit cards to pay the bill, and during the 'goofing off' people dont sit by on a bench and think..."hmm...what will happen when I file my 485 and will this 'goofing off' hurt me at the time".
Hey, take it easy big guy/gal.
You are acting as if instead of being gainfully employed, he was sitting around and playing golf or something and that put him out of status.
Go easy on the judging part, coz you could be goofing off for a while too and if you are goofing off for a while, its not like after a week of goofing off, you are going to throw in the towel and take the next plane back home. In a country that has employed and harbored 11 million illegals, who dont even have a passport, those who are legally present and 'goofing off' for a while between 2 legitimate jobs that require excrutiating process of h1 sponsorship are the least of anyone's problems. In fact, the section 245(k) says that it is OK to goof off as long as goofing off is less than 180 days. And if the goofing off was before your last entry into usa, it doesnt even matter, regardless of whether it was less than 180 or more than 180 days. If US CONGRESS legitimizes, who are you to be the bigger judge.
IF the economy tanks, then a lot of us will be 'goofing off' in 2008 and 2009.
When someone is 'goofing off', that someone is concerned about paying the rent, managing to buy groceries and borrowing money off of credit cards to pay the bill, and during the 'goofing off' people dont sit by on a bench and think..."hmm...what will happen when I file my 485 and will this 'goofing off' hurt me at the time".
girlfriend Facebook Like Box
Administrator2
06-11 12:22 PM
Everyone is again talking about ifs and buts. Guys why do not you put your hard work on what is more important than what is never ever going to happen. People with a GC, if this Bill passes, they are not going to renew your GC also. How's about that? People with a US citizenship, with previous GC status, they will not renew the USA passport, if this Bill passes. How's about that?
So forget all these bogus bills, and support our main agenda, which is to remove the Backlogs. If you do not have any new news, then sit idle, but please do not spread these bogus out-of-world stories.
Don’t think you understand so let me give it a shot.
We just got off a conference call with our coalition partners. This is a real threat. Everyone, including some of the largest of companies on the planet think this is a real threat. It you are a lawyer or if you represent some law firm, then please go back and get busy with entering items like first and last name in a simple immigration form. This is not your area of expertise.
Experts with this are saying that the language is deliberately kept vague. Some of the terms used in the language of the amendment do not have direct corresponding visa. Since we don’t trust the guys behind this amendment, we think they have deliberately kept the language which is not precise.
Consider this as a kick-off for the election campaign. The real risk is, even if this amendment is defeated, between now and the elections we will all see many similar amendments. At some point Senators will be forced to vote on an issue which is pitched as “American citizens” v/s “foreign workers”. Experts believe that anti immigrants will try to push this amendment in middle of the night in the must pass bills.
Some lawyer, for the purpose of pandering to the client base, is of the opinion that this amendment does not affect EADs. In the grand scheme of things this is plain wrong because he/she will not be asked to leave the country if such an amendment passes in the middle of the night. Just engaging in name calling Senator Grassley or calling the Senator pig face is not going to stop the amendment. Please grow up and get real. Your pandering may get innocent audience to believe that there is no real threat even when everyone with any real sense of expertise is scrambling to oppose this amendment.
Immigration Voice and its coalition partners do not see this amendment in isolation. We are hoping for the best and preparing for the worst. And for the lack of clarity from the amendment language, we think that the intent of the amendment sponsors is to see us all out of here.
There is no simple way for the anti-immigrants to throw us all out in a single stroke. They will always engage in systematic elimination of everyone starting from the most vulnerable. The language is vague and it could be interpreted in lot of different ways. It is not wise to look for the most favorable interpretation of the language to find reasons for not doing anything because in the end our interpretation will mean nothing.
Let’s be smart, think for ourselves and act on our own behalf to send simple message requesting the Senate offices to oppose this amendment. What is so complicated about this? And if you don't want to participate, that's fine, but why would you discourage others from sending a simple message to the Senators from their state? Don't you have anything better to do?
So forget all these bogus bills, and support our main agenda, which is to remove the Backlogs. If you do not have any new news, then sit idle, but please do not spread these bogus out-of-world stories.
Don’t think you understand so let me give it a shot.
We just got off a conference call with our coalition partners. This is a real threat. Everyone, including some of the largest of companies on the planet think this is a real threat. It you are a lawyer or if you represent some law firm, then please go back and get busy with entering items like first and last name in a simple immigration form. This is not your area of expertise.
Experts with this are saying that the language is deliberately kept vague. Some of the terms used in the language of the amendment do not have direct corresponding visa. Since we don’t trust the guys behind this amendment, we think they have deliberately kept the language which is not precise.
Consider this as a kick-off for the election campaign. The real risk is, even if this amendment is defeated, between now and the elections we will all see many similar amendments. At some point Senators will be forced to vote on an issue which is pitched as “American citizens” v/s “foreign workers”. Experts believe that anti immigrants will try to push this amendment in middle of the night in the must pass bills.
Some lawyer, for the purpose of pandering to the client base, is of the opinion that this amendment does not affect EADs. In the grand scheme of things this is plain wrong because he/she will not be asked to leave the country if such an amendment passes in the middle of the night. Just engaging in name calling Senator Grassley or calling the Senator pig face is not going to stop the amendment. Please grow up and get real. Your pandering may get innocent audience to believe that there is no real threat even when everyone with any real sense of expertise is scrambling to oppose this amendment.
Immigration Voice and its coalition partners do not see this amendment in isolation. We are hoping for the best and preparing for the worst. And for the lack of clarity from the amendment language, we think that the intent of the amendment sponsors is to see us all out of here.
There is no simple way for the anti-immigrants to throw us all out in a single stroke. They will always engage in systematic elimination of everyone starting from the most vulnerable. The language is vague and it could be interpreted in lot of different ways. It is not wise to look for the most favorable interpretation of the language to find reasons for not doing anything because in the end our interpretation will mean nothing.
Let’s be smart, think for ourselves and act on our own behalf to send simple message requesting the Senate offices to oppose this amendment. What is so complicated about this? And if you don't want to participate, that's fine, but why would you discourage others from sending a simple message to the Senators from their state? Don't you have anything better to do?
hairstyles Description: I will Like 30
pappu
06-14 01:13 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/TransformationConOps_Mar07.pdf
CSPAvictim
07-09 07:55 PM
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. The remaining number was splitted for Consular porcessing.
my 2 cents...
Well, I didn't think Sunday, JULY 1 counted as a business day for USCIS. Isn't there a law prohibiting government employees from working on weekends? If there isn't any such law and if it really is a working day, maybe people should have hand delivered applications at the service centers on sunday. I read in some other thread that someone had his/her application delivered via USPS on sunday night :confused: No wonder this is all such a horrible mess!
my 2 cents...
Well, I didn't think Sunday, JULY 1 counted as a business day for USCIS. Isn't there a law prohibiting government employees from working on weekends? If there isn't any such law and if it really is a working day, maybe people should have hand delivered applications at the service centers on sunday. I read in some other thread that someone had his/her application delivered via USPS on sunday night :confused: No wonder this is all such a horrible mess!
sbabunle
01-01 10:36 AM
Does this mean a person with EAD has some risk moving to another job even after 6 months if old employer revokes I140?
There is no problem, but the only thing is that USCIS may not honor your original Priority Date.
There is no problem, but the only thing is that USCIS may not honor your original Priority Date.
No comments:
Post a Comment