frostrated
08-21 01:54 PM
I dont think your issuse can be fixed even by attorney. You are not coming under any category to file Green Card. So prepare for yourself to go back and build your life back in canada.
or pray that CIR gets approved soon so that you can apply under the undocumented alien category.
or pray that CIR gets approved soon so that you can apply under the undocumented alien category.
wallpaper Oggy and the Cockroaches
gveerab
07-03 11:10 PM
Hi Ramus,
I am not posting this message to offend any body's feelings, please don't take it personally. AILA is saying anyone can participate in the LAWSUIT without paying any money, but IV is saying it's an expensive thing and we need to start new funding drive. It's not clear to me and I believe if we start thread with more information more people would have convinced and contributed.
I agree, we need money to maintain the website. if that is the case please mention that clearly. We need to maintain this website to keep our activities , no question about that.
I have been observing from last couple of months any new issue is ending up with fund drive, but no update after that what happened. May be I am wrong, but as an observer this is my openion. Hope you guys will take this as positive comment and respond with more details. I don't have any doubt on the core team capabilities and scincearity.
In ths home page clearly mentioned that contribute for lawsuit. Without taking it personally can you please provide the details of how much money we might need and how we are going to spend this money?
Thanks
Veera
$20 per month $150 on time contributions
I am not posting this message to offend any body's feelings, please don't take it personally. AILA is saying anyone can participate in the LAWSUIT without paying any money, but IV is saying it's an expensive thing and we need to start new funding drive. It's not clear to me and I believe if we start thread with more information more people would have convinced and contributed.
I agree, we need money to maintain the website. if that is the case please mention that clearly. We need to maintain this website to keep our activities , no question about that.
I have been observing from last couple of months any new issue is ending up with fund drive, but no update after that what happened. May be I am wrong, but as an observer this is my openion. Hope you guys will take this as positive comment and respond with more details. I don't have any doubt on the core team capabilities and scincearity.
In ths home page clearly mentioned that contribute for lawsuit. Without taking it personally can you please provide the details of how much money we might need and how we are going to spend this money?
Thanks
Veera
$20 per month $150 on time contributions
Ramba
07-14 10:02 PM
--
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
Have you read the USCIS question? If not, read few times to understand how your interpretation is wrong.
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.
The bottom line is if his approved 140 is not revoked with in 180 days of filing the 485, his 485 is still valid even if ported the job with in a month after filing 485.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as you say the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
Have you read the USCIS question? If not, read few times to understand how your interpretation is wrong.
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.
The bottom line is if his approved 140 is not revoked with in 180 days of filing the 485, his 485 is still valid even if ported the job with in a month after filing 485.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as you say the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
2011 Oggy and the cockroaches)
cestmoi
01-11 11:46 PM
Am I blind or is part 2 missing one more option?
None of the options apply to me below as I will be applying for employment based Green Card as I have a L1A visa (unless I'm not supposed to be filling out i-485?)
a. An immigrant petition giving me an immediately available immigrant visa number has been approved (attach a copy of the approval notice, or a relative, special immigrant juvenile, or special immigrant military visa petition filed...
b. My spouse or parent applied for adjustment of status or was granted lawful permanent residence in an immigrant visa category that allows derivative status for spouses and children
c. I entered as a K-1 fiance(e) of a US citizen whom I married within 90 days of entry...
d. I was granted asylum or derivative asylum status as the spouse or child of a person granted asylum and am eligible for adjustment.
e. I am a native or citizen of Cuba admitted or paroled into the US after Jan 1, 1959...
f. I am the husband, wife or minor unmarried child of a Cuban described above in (e)....
g. I have continously resided in the US since before Jan 1, 1972
h. Other basis of eligibility. Explain (for example, I was admitted as a refugee, my status has not been terminated, and I have been physically present in the US for 1 year...
None of the options apply to me below as I will be applying for employment based Green Card as I have a L1A visa (unless I'm not supposed to be filling out i-485?)
a. An immigrant petition giving me an immediately available immigrant visa number has been approved (attach a copy of the approval notice, or a relative, special immigrant juvenile, or special immigrant military visa petition filed...
b. My spouse or parent applied for adjustment of status or was granted lawful permanent residence in an immigrant visa category that allows derivative status for spouses and children
c. I entered as a K-1 fiance(e) of a US citizen whom I married within 90 days of entry...
d. I was granted asylum or derivative asylum status as the spouse or child of a person granted asylum and am eligible for adjustment.
e. I am a native or citizen of Cuba admitted or paroled into the US after Jan 1, 1959...
f. I am the husband, wife or minor unmarried child of a Cuban described above in (e)....
g. I have continously resided in the US since before Jan 1, 1972
h. Other basis of eligibility. Explain (for example, I was admitted as a refugee, my status has not been terminated, and I have been physically present in the US for 1 year...
more...
justAnotherFile
07-25 12:24 PM
"Dude/Dudette, I give up. The alien's eligibility and admissibility is decided at I-485 stage - FBI name checks, medical tests ring a bell? The law explicitly states that visa number availabililty is a pre-requisite for the adjustment of status application in 245(a)(3). If you can't understand - or choose to refuse to understand - plain English, have fun arguing with yourself".
Dude I apologize if my line of argument is irritating you so much. btw 245(a)(3) is not plain english its legalese. And I'm not the one arguing with myself there are others in this thread who read the law along the same lines. Anyway this forum is for debate and thats what we are doing.
Probably this option is not attractive to you that you are so pissed with it.
Btw I'm contacting some attorneys on my personal expense to interpret this.
If they reach the same conclusion as you I'll be happy to accept it, i have no issues and I'll post it on this thread.
But the fact is at this point I still believe there may just be a 1% chance.
Dude I apologize if my line of argument is irritating you so much. btw 245(a)(3) is not plain english its legalese. And I'm not the one arguing with myself there are others in this thread who read the law along the same lines. Anyway this forum is for debate and thats what we are doing.
Probably this option is not attractive to you that you are so pissed with it.
Btw I'm contacting some attorneys on my personal expense to interpret this.
If they reach the same conclusion as you I'll be happy to accept it, i have no issues and I'll post it on this thread.
But the fact is at this point I still believe there may just be a 1% chance.
stldude
07-13 08:21 AM
Guys ! ! ! ! AT this stage let's take all the help we get from any possible source. Although i agree that Murthy is trying to stab in to the fame/sucess in this fabulous effort by IV, but it's better to add on more Voices to this cause...
The whole GC Seekercommunity knows that IV played a very big role in creating a public awareness and making people talk. Let's not bother commenting on Murthy's evil intentions...
The whole GC Seekercommunity knows that IV played a very big role in creating a public awareness and making people talk. Let's not bother commenting on Murthy's evil intentions...
more...
iv_only_hope
02-21 04:17 PM
Thats true. There will be supply of more 485s to the pool but that will be from EB1 and EB2 row which are always current. I guess you could reduce the 140k/year based on those numbers but since these cats are always current does it suggest there is not much demand?
2010 Oggy And The Cockroaches
crazyghoda
01-30 12:13 PM
No I didnt inform USCIS about job change. The lawyer who handled the H1 transfer from my GC sponsoring employer to the (laying off) employer suggested that there was no need to and we could respond to an RFE if it ever happened. He said that USCIS doesnt do anything with the letter and never truly match it up and so I let it go.
more...
GCBy3000
01-17 11:34 AM
it is a slow process. This recurring contribution is a good process in long run. We will inspire our members to contribute. This will grow in to thousands eventually. Keep up the good work with our core objectives.
/\/\/\/
bumping up the thread since this is the most crtical thing for us to achieve at this time so that we can put more resources at work in the coming months. As everyone could see on this thread, only few members have signed up for recurring contributions. We sent emails to all 8000+ members and the emails are still bouncing. Members have put fake email addresses. Despite repeated requests members have not updated their profile. In future when we send out updates by email or phone, such members will not get any updates too.
Since yesterday more than 2000 members have visited IV site and read this thread. We did not even get 1/100th of members signing up for this and contributing as little as $20.
Is this your commitment to the cause?
/\/\/\/
bumping up the thread since this is the most crtical thing for us to achieve at this time so that we can put more resources at work in the coming months. As everyone could see on this thread, only few members have signed up for recurring contributions. We sent emails to all 8000+ members and the emails are still bouncing. Members have put fake email addresses. Despite repeated requests members have not updated their profile. In future when we send out updates by email or phone, such members will not get any updates too.
Since yesterday more than 2000 members have visited IV site and read this thread. We did not even get 1/100th of members signing up for this and contributing as little as $20.
Is this your commitment to the cause?
hair Oggy and the Cockroaches [GBA
HOPE_GC_SOON
08-02 03:13 PM
Folks,
This is a good beginning for a cause which gives us some relief in these retrogressed life.
We can atleast propose to USCIS, to accept 485 (if not approval), for those case, where I140 is approved, and the approval can be given in the normal PD schema.
This would lessen the burden on USCIS and facilitate the GC applicant to avail of AC21 PROVISION.
Also, we can highlight here that EAD renewal could be a great source of revenue for USCIS.
Please start this movement.
best wishes and thanks for all the great Volunteers.
No doubt if, IV wish, it can achieve... No Wonders
thanks
To the core group/Senior Members,
If I understand it right, the ability to concurrently file I40/I485 was introduced by the legacy INS through a memo in July of 2002 and it went effective almost immediately on July 31st 2002. I've tried to search for news archives on different law websites and to best of my knowledge it was purely an executive decision taken by INS governing body and no congressional or judicial intervention was needed to allow concurrent filing. In a very similar fashion, the new USCIS has indicated that it wants to discontinue concurrent filing in near future...an executive decision again.
Is it a possibility to get an audience with the USCIS director/start a letter campaign with the goal of getting them issue a memo allowing filing of I485/EAD even if the visa number is not available? The adjucation of the case would obviously happen only after visa number becomes available but as we all know this will be a big relief for all those who want to use AC21 provisions.
Passage of CIR/SKIL is very important in the longer run to reduce the overall greencard processing time and alleviate heavy backlogs but if we get this small relief right now it would help a lot of individuals from retrogressed countries waiting to file I485...and the good thing is, it looks like USCIS might have the ability to effect this change without a lengthy legislative process.
Any thoughts ??
This is a good beginning for a cause which gives us some relief in these retrogressed life.
We can atleast propose to USCIS, to accept 485 (if not approval), for those case, where I140 is approved, and the approval can be given in the normal PD schema.
This would lessen the burden on USCIS and facilitate the GC applicant to avail of AC21 PROVISION.
Also, we can highlight here that EAD renewal could be a great source of revenue for USCIS.
Please start this movement.
best wishes and thanks for all the great Volunteers.
No doubt if, IV wish, it can achieve... No Wonders
thanks
To the core group/Senior Members,
If I understand it right, the ability to concurrently file I40/I485 was introduced by the legacy INS through a memo in July of 2002 and it went effective almost immediately on July 31st 2002. I've tried to search for news archives on different law websites and to best of my knowledge it was purely an executive decision taken by INS governing body and no congressional or judicial intervention was needed to allow concurrent filing. In a very similar fashion, the new USCIS has indicated that it wants to discontinue concurrent filing in near future...an executive decision again.
Is it a possibility to get an audience with the USCIS director/start a letter campaign with the goal of getting them issue a memo allowing filing of I485/EAD even if the visa number is not available? The adjucation of the case would obviously happen only after visa number becomes available but as we all know this will be a big relief for all those who want to use AC21 provisions.
Passage of CIR/SKIL is very important in the longer run to reduce the overall greencard processing time and alleviate heavy backlogs but if we get this small relief right now it would help a lot of individuals from retrogressed countries waiting to file I485...and the good thing is, it looks like USCIS might have the ability to effect this change without a lengthy legislative process.
Any thoughts ??
more...
new_horizon
10-23 12:40 AM
my detailed post went missing:mad: ...dunno why nojoke edited it out :D.
to put it briefly, i never heard anybody hiring a ceo based on his experience of having organized the company picnic (read community organizer to prez :rolleyes:).
to put it briefly, i never heard anybody hiring a ceo based on his experience of having organized the company picnic (read community organizer to prez :rolleyes:).
hot Oggy and the cockroaches
gc_wow
03-09 12:37 PM
why did row eb3 gone back 2 years?
more...
house Oggy and the Cockroaches
nixstor
04-23 04:57 PM
Read my message - I am *NOT* an IV member and nor did I represent myself as one - like many people I just subscribed to public portal - if you want to limit it to IV members, you must consider doing that .
As far as talking in the meeting was considered, it was not an IV meeting and open to the public and I have all the right to say what I want to - whether it is inline with what you want to hear or not is not my problem.
Tone yourself down before you point fingers elsewhere. GC is not your birth right.
Bud,
Its quite contradictory that you say that you are not an IV member and dont intend to be one, but you would like to particiapte freely and throw your opinion and get info about events with out aligning to the common goal of the organization. Now dont tell me that you got info about the event some where else. If every one of us try to get our own issue or a group of 15-20 people's issue solved we wont get any thing. This is common sense. What you said about making it paid site/open for certain members sounds bland to me. I am appalled that your thought process is not at all in sync with your accomplishments. If you think you can sell your group story and bring GC to the massess dream on. IV sure has lot of compelling stories that are sold already, but politics is bigger than you,me and our stories. If you are working only for people who are sought after by the stanford's and harvard's, move on.
It's so unfortunate that we fight on issues like this. On your next conf call with Rajiv, bring up the same Q and seek his advice. Let us know what he thinks about your sales pitch and getting GC's only for the most sought. I am not mocking you or slinging mud at you. Its blatant that you are not understanding the political scenario. GC is not any one's birth right but that is what actuallly holding you up.
As far as talking in the meeting was considered, it was not an IV meeting and open to the public and I have all the right to say what I want to - whether it is inline with what you want to hear or not is not my problem.
Tone yourself down before you point fingers elsewhere. GC is not your birth right.
Bud,
Its quite contradictory that you say that you are not an IV member and dont intend to be one, but you would like to particiapte freely and throw your opinion and get info about events with out aligning to the common goal of the organization. Now dont tell me that you got info about the event some where else. If every one of us try to get our own issue or a group of 15-20 people's issue solved we wont get any thing. This is common sense. What you said about making it paid site/open for certain members sounds bland to me. I am appalled that your thought process is not at all in sync with your accomplishments. If you think you can sell your group story and bring GC to the massess dream on. IV sure has lot of compelling stories that are sold already, but politics is bigger than you,me and our stories. If you are working only for people who are sought after by the stanford's and harvard's, move on.
It's so unfortunate that we fight on issues like this. On your next conf call with Rajiv, bring up the same Q and seek his advice. Let us know what he thinks about your sales pitch and getting GC's only for the most sought. I am not mocking you or slinging mud at you. Its blatant that you are not understanding the political scenario. GC is not any one's birth right but that is what actuallly holding you up.
tattoo Oggy and the Cockroaches
senthil1
02-13 01:26 PM
Ethnic cleansing is eliminating particular group of people while in civil war. Whatever happened in past in Rwanda could be called Ethnic Cleansing. Here Indians including me came for luxury life and better career though most of them available in India because here there is no availablity of skills. If US can get all the skills they need then there is no need for immigrants then if they reduce immigration that is not ethnic cleansing.
Total BS!
How can you even suggest that the immigration related raids to be the same as
.
Admins, please close this thread!
Total BS!
How can you even suggest that the immigration related raids to be the same as
.
Admins, please close this thread!
more...
pictures oggy and cockroach
rockstart
03-12 11:55 AM
In theory you are right. But practically Very big corporations/companies have recently started a practice not to hire a person on EAD if I-140 is not clearly approved. Why? Lawyers advise them to do so. I have been hired by very prestigious company recently of course on EAD and first thing they wanted to make a check was on whether I have I-140 approved or not. Secondly they ask if I could submit 3 years audit report for "previous employer". That could make sense to me as it was a clear hint that they wanted to check whether I am coming from good financial based company or not... Why? The reason is that if that would not have been the case then there could be the chance of denying I-140 although it was approved. At least in my network of friends I am the third person who experienced this level of scrutiny before hiring on EAD. The reason is simple. They do not want to hire a guy who can not work at some time of the initial period due to I-140 related problems. So bottom line, I-140 approval is must nowadays for working in big corporations with EAD.
I am worried about this financial reports. I am not sure many consulting companies will give those to employee who is leaving
I am worried about this financial reports. I am not sure many consulting companies will give those to employee who is leaving
dresses Oggy and the Cockroaches
Jitamitra
06-08 06:04 PM
Same old stuff. I dont see a light at the end of the tunnel till some immigration reform bill gets shoved in or a comprehensive immigration bill is introduced.
The obama administration is not in a mood to touch immigration and we live to be scape goats of policies back from 90's.
The obama administration is not in a mood to touch immigration and we live to be scape goats of policies back from 90's.
more...
makeup Oggy a šváby
swo
08-15 08:14 PM
It's very easy to forget that PDs can swing by YEARS at a time. (4 years in the case of the July Bulletin!) Things could easily swing back a year or two in only a month or two.
You can predict to your hearts content but I wouldn't get too hinged on those predictions.
Fact is that we were expecting Us and many were NOT Us. Similarly, PDs in October could be brought forward if there are insuffient applications ready for visas in some categories (ie ROW) in October.
Also remember that the number of newly filed EB applicaitons will be far, FAR less in coming months. Only PERM labors are done now and those will all have late PDs that will be ineligible for a long time. As a result, I think bulletins will start to become more consistent as the predictions of become more reliable after a couple of months of volatility in October.
The only real unknown after getting all the 485 data entry done is going to be the FBI namecheck factor.
You can predict to your hearts content but I wouldn't get too hinged on those predictions.
Fact is that we were expecting Us and many were NOT Us. Similarly, PDs in October could be brought forward if there are insuffient applications ready for visas in some categories (ie ROW) in October.
Also remember that the number of newly filed EB applicaitons will be far, FAR less in coming months. Only PERM labors are done now and those will all have late PDs that will be ineligible for a long time. As a result, I think bulletins will start to become more consistent as the predictions of become more reliable after a couple of months of volatility in October.
The only real unknown after getting all the 485 data entry done is going to be the FBI namecheck factor.
girlfriend Oggy and the Cockroaches
Ramba
02-21 03:00 PM
Assuming you are right then,
average visa issued for EB1 ROW+Non ROW over the last 5 years have been 26K,
Now assuming this year the demand would be close to average then. It leaves 14K for EB2
Implying 12/2003 dates movement is very likely as 14k>5k (your number)
Dont rely on tracitt. no one knows how many report there. It is not scientific or true. For right numbers, anlyse the DOS report for each year, if you hva more time.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html
average visa issued for EB1 ROW+Non ROW over the last 5 years have been 26K,
Now assuming this year the demand would be close to average then. It leaves 14K for EB2
Implying 12/2003 dates movement is very likely as 14k>5k (your number)
Dont rely on tracitt. no one knows how many report there. It is not scientific or true. For right numbers, anlyse the DOS report for each year, if you hva more time.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html
hairstyles Oggy and the Cockroaches
reddymjm
10-15 01:58 PM
I will mail it today or tomorrow.
jcmenon
07-25 01:22 PM
"Dude/Dudette, I give up. The alien's eligibility and admissibility is decided at I-485 stage - FBI name checks, medical tests ring a bell? The law explicitly states that visa number availabililty is a pre-requisite for the adjustment of status application in 245(a)(3). If you can't understand - or choose to refuse to understand - plain English, have fun arguing with yourself".
Dude I apologize if my line of argument is irritating you so much. btw 245(a)(3) is not plain english its legalese. And I'm not the one arguing with myself there are others in this thread who read the law along the same lines. Anyway this forum is for debate and thats what we are doing.
Probably this option is not attractive to you that you are so pissed with it.
Btw I'm contacting some attorneys on my personal expense to interpret this.
If they reach the same conclusion as you I'll be happy to accept it, i have no issues and I'll post it on this thread.
But the fact is at this point I still believe there may just be a 1% chance.
Thanks a lot, please keep us posted about the outcome, even if we have one percent of hope, there is no harm trying that.
Dude I apologize if my line of argument is irritating you so much. btw 245(a)(3) is not plain english its legalese. And I'm not the one arguing with myself there are others in this thread who read the law along the same lines. Anyway this forum is for debate and thats what we are doing.
Probably this option is not attractive to you that you are so pissed with it.
Btw I'm contacting some attorneys on my personal expense to interpret this.
If they reach the same conclusion as you I'll be happy to accept it, i have no issues and I'll post it on this thread.
But the fact is at this point I still believe there may just be a 1% chance.
Thanks a lot, please keep us posted about the outcome, even if we have one percent of hope, there is no harm trying that.
immigration07
08-15 08:20 PM
Sept Bulletin out - http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3761.html
I'm unable to understand well why EB3 is "U". :mad:
Friends, please share your thoughts. Let us discuss.........
use yur brain...else let it go.........................
I'm unable to understand well why EB3 is "U". :mad:
Friends, please share your thoughts. Let us discuss.........
use yur brain...else let it go.........................
0 comments:
Post a Comment