k3GC
11-11 01:01 PM
I think this letter looks good, let us send it. There is no hassle in doing that.
Questions
1. Do we all need to send a copy? Is this like a campaign we are doing?
2. Do we need to send this as IV? Is that possible? Who should we talk to about that?
3. Has somebody sent such letters before the the DOS Visa Office etc. and got anything - may be they can shed some light. I know of folks who have done the the 7001 form DHS | CIS Ombudsman - Case Problems (http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/editorial_0497.shtm). I dont think this falls under that.
My 2 cents is - this is not a campaign, we are asking for a formal answer / clarification and if we can send this as from IV may be we will get an answer.
Questions
1. Do we all need to send a copy? Is this like a campaign we are doing?
2. Do we need to send this as IV? Is that possible? Who should we talk to about that?
3. Has somebody sent such letters before the the DOS Visa Office etc. and got anything - may be they can shed some light. I know of folks who have done the the 7001 form DHS | CIS Ombudsman - Case Problems (http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/editorial_0497.shtm). I dont think this falls under that.
My 2 cents is - this is not a campaign, we are asking for a formal answer / clarification and if we can send this as from IV may be we will get an answer.
wallpaper Tattoo And Piercing
senthil1
12-22 11:14 AM
I know many of my friends who were not paid in bench. All of them received green card without any problem. But only difference is they were in unpaid bench anywhere between 2 to 6 months. I do not know anyone who was in unpaid bench for 1 year or more. Most INS officiers are sympathic towards many violations. Recently one of my friend's wife forgot to renew H4 and she was Visa overstay for about 8 months. She applied change of status explainig the situation her H4 was extended with validity date from original expiry date.
I wasn't goofin off, by choice. I had no option but wait and pray that my employer would find a job for me. I had every reason to bother at his stage, because I invested so much time and money to file my GC. Natually, I am bothered because you never know what USCIS would ask; they are always ready to pull the carpet underneath you. What if IO ask me to prove that I am not out of status ? would I be able to show the proof? No! I can't...
I wasn't goofin off, by choice. I had no option but wait and pray that my employer would find a job for me. I had every reason to bother at his stage, because I invested so much time and money to file my GC. Natually, I am bothered because you never know what USCIS would ask; they are always ready to pull the carpet underneath you. What if IO ask me to prove that I am not out of status ? would I be able to show the proof? No! I can't...
kaisersose
02-21 04:12 PM
I had one question. If there 140 K quota and 400 k employment AOS pending shuldnt they be cleared in 2-3 years (140k*3) since no matter what 140 k visas are going to get used (for example if there are leftovers others will get it)?
Even assuming hereafter no visa numbers will be wasted, It is not exactly FIFO for that to happen.
Consider this:
a) The Indian Applicant started back in 2003. In 2009 everything is done except assigning a visa number to this case.
b) There is a German Applicant who will start in 2008. In 2009 everything is done except assigning a visa number to this case.
The German will get a visa number assigned and a green card, but the Indian will not as he still has thousands ahead of him waiting for visa numbers.
Therefore 400K at 140K/ year is not how it works.
Even assuming hereafter no visa numbers will be wasted, It is not exactly FIFO for that to happen.
Consider this:
a) The Indian Applicant started back in 2003. In 2009 everything is done except assigning a visa number to this case.
b) There is a German Applicant who will start in 2008. In 2009 everything is done except assigning a visa number to this case.
The German will get a visa number assigned and a green card, but the Indian will not as he still has thousands ahead of him waiting for visa numbers.
Therefore 400K at 140K/ year is not how it works.
2011 Kitty Scarification Tattoo
feedfront
09-21 12:23 PM
Hi Guys,
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
Don't worry too much, just follow the instructions and respond. Well, I will suggest to use your current employer and their attorney as paperword will be smooth, efficient and fast.
You can hold your H1 transfer for a week or two till you don't respond.
I think your attorney (whoever you pick to work on RFE) will definitely mention AC-21 to keep it issueless.
I have also switched my employer and not filed AC-21. I've been sent RFE and that's what my attorney will do (I assume). I had asked him before (after switching job) if I needed to file AC21 letter. He said it's not mandatory and added that it can be handled if any RFEs are issued. Well, I did not send AC21 because he was asking for fee and I did not want to DIY project on such important. He's my previous employer's attorney.
I think for these RFEs you don't need great attorney as case is not complex. I think anything will work as long as you've not misused any GC's requirements.
Good Luck!
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
Don't worry too much, just follow the instructions and respond. Well, I will suggest to use your current employer and their attorney as paperword will be smooth, efficient and fast.
You can hold your H1 transfer for a week or two till you don't respond.
I think your attorney (whoever you pick to work on RFE) will definitely mention AC-21 to keep it issueless.
I have also switched my employer and not filed AC-21. I've been sent RFE and that's what my attorney will do (I assume). I had asked him before (after switching job) if I needed to file AC21 letter. He said it's not mandatory and added that it can be handled if any RFEs are issued. Well, I did not send AC21 because he was asking for fee and I did not want to DIY project on such important. He's my previous employer's attorney.
I think for these RFEs you don't need great attorney as case is not complex. I think anything will work as long as you've not misused any GC's requirements.
Good Luck!
more...
smuggymba
07-27 08:24 AM
Really need urgent help on this. These folks are asking me to sign a 1 year contract with them. Wanted to ask if anybody has any experience with this company.
Do they really sue if we break the contract?. Is it legal in the US to have a binding contract to begin with?. Please let me know. I need to make a decision in a few days as I am packing my bags from Texas and flying to Santa Clara to attend their courses...
Dear Friend,
All this is con artistry about charging for "training". They post ads saying we have urgent business requirements for 5 Analysts but you have to attend our course....once u attend the course, on the very last at 5pm, you'll be given a sheet of paper to sign a contract, which means u have to stick with them whether u get a project or not.
Modus Operandi - If u get a project, they make money............if u don't get a proj, they are not affected since they don't pay on bench...........if u get a proj with another compnay and leave, they sue u and show u ur contract and make money.
Win win for the desi consultant, tough life for you buddy. Make an informed decision. Everyone knows how these ppl operate and still get stuck with them.
I don't want you posting in this same forum 5 months from now that I have been sued or been threatened to be sued and can I shift employers etc as I don't have a project.
Best of luck.
Do they really sue if we break the contract?. Is it legal in the US to have a binding contract to begin with?. Please let me know. I need to make a decision in a few days as I am packing my bags from Texas and flying to Santa Clara to attend their courses...
Dear Friend,
All this is con artistry about charging for "training". They post ads saying we have urgent business requirements for 5 Analysts but you have to attend our course....once u attend the course, on the very last at 5pm, you'll be given a sheet of paper to sign a contract, which means u have to stick with them whether u get a project or not.
Modus Operandi - If u get a project, they make money............if u don't get a proj, they are not affected since they don't pay on bench...........if u get a proj with another compnay and leave, they sue u and show u ur contract and make money.
Win win for the desi consultant, tough life for you buddy. Make an informed decision. Everyone knows how these ppl operate and still get stuck with them.
I don't want you posting in this same forum 5 months from now that I have been sued or been threatened to be sued and can I shift employers etc as I don't have a project.
Best of luck.
delax
07-13 08:40 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...
"Evil Intentions" - Again - Would the Mahatma use these words before asking himself a few questions? :)
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...
"Evil Intentions" - Again - Would the Mahatma use these words before asking himself a few questions? :)
more...
BharatPremi
03-17 02:19 PM
Based on your assumptions, it would take around 2 years to reach Dec 2003 for EB3-India.
# of visas required = 5000 or 6000 * 1.75 = 8750 or 10, 500
# of visas available = 5000
# years of wait until Dec 2003 = 1.75 to 2.1 years.
Right. But here USCIS plays its villain role. What happens is USCIS moves clock ahead depending upon last month's "demand." We always think stramline logic.. USCIS does not work that way. It will kick PD to x date for an example Dec 2002. Now at the same time it will keep RD at say for example july 2001..Now it will keep some files eating dust in Name check so end effect is "Some" will get their gC. So next month, seeing this "demand" USCIS will kick PD further.. same game.. I believe at some level it decides seeing it reaching to "3500" limit put a break. So in reality what happen is even though USCIS kicks PD ahead not "all applicants with valid PD" get their GC. If they are unlucky enough to stuck in name check or RD is not being current, they will again wait for years for next kicking cycle start from April 2001.
# of visas required = 5000 or 6000 * 1.75 = 8750 or 10, 500
# of visas available = 5000
# years of wait until Dec 2003 = 1.75 to 2.1 years.
Right. But here USCIS plays its villain role. What happens is USCIS moves clock ahead depending upon last month's "demand." We always think stramline logic.. USCIS does not work that way. It will kick PD to x date for an example Dec 2002. Now at the same time it will keep RD at say for example july 2001..Now it will keep some files eating dust in Name check so end effect is "Some" will get their gC. So next month, seeing this "demand" USCIS will kick PD further.. same game.. I believe at some level it decides seeing it reaching to "3500" limit put a break. So in reality what happen is even though USCIS kicks PD ahead not "all applicants with valid PD" get their GC. If they are unlucky enough to stuck in name check or RD is not being current, they will again wait for years for next kicking cycle start from April 2001.
2010 Scarification Tattoos
Jaime
09-11 03:54 PM
For the first time in its history, the U.S. faces the prospect of a reverse brain drain. New research by my team at the Pratt School of Engineering at Duke University shows that more than 1 million highly skilled professionals such as engineers, scientists, doctors, researchers, and their families are in line for a yearly allotment of only around 120,000 permanent-resident visas for employment-based principals and their families in the three main employment visa categories (EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3). These individuals entered the country legally to study or to work. They contributed to U.S. economic growth and global competitiveness. Now we've set the stage for them to return to countries such as India and China, where the economies are booming and their skills are in great demand. U.S. businesses large and small stand to lose critical talent, and workers who have gained valuable experience and knowledge of American industry may become potential competitors.
The problem is simple. There aren't enough permanent-resident visas available each year for skilled workers and their families. And there is a limit of fewer than 10,000 visas that can be issued to immigrants from any single country. So countries with the largest populations such as India and China are allocated the same number of visas as Iceland and Mongolia.
Visa Delays Deprive U.S. of Talent The result is that wait times for employment visas currently stretch from four to six years for immigrants from countries such as India and China, and all indications are that these delays will get longer. Based on a 2003 study of new legal immigrants to the U.S. called the New Immigrant Survey, we estimate that in 2003, about 1 in 3 professionals who had been through the immigration process either planned to leave the U.S. or were uncertain about remaining. Media reports and other anecdotal evidence indicate that many skilled workers have indeed begun to return home.
Much of the current public debate on immigration centers on concerns over low-skilled immigrants entering the U.S. illegally. We do need to develop fair policies to deal with this problem. But skilled immigrants who enter the U.S. legally are a different issue. Professor Richard Devon of Pennsylvania State University estimates that in the U.S. about $200,000 is invested in a child by the time they gain a bachelor's degree in engineering. That means that the U.S. gains billions of dollars in benefit from educated professionals who leave other countries to come here. And we lose billions when they return home. Additionally, we end up training highly skilled workers in our markets, technology, and way of doing business.
Consider this: Earlier research by my team found that more than half of the engineering and technology companies started in Silicon Valley and a quarter of those started nationwide from 1995 to 2006 had immigrant founders. These companies employed 450,000 workers and generated $52 billion in revenue in 2006. Their founders tended to be very highly educated in science, technology, math, and engineering-related disciplines, with 96% of them holding bachelor's degrees and 75% holding master's degrees or PhDs (see BusinessWeek.com, 6/11/07, "Immigrants: Key U.S. Business Founders").
Patents: Evidence of Entrepreneurial Activity We also uncovered some puzzling data on patent filings. When we analyzed the international patent database maintained by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), we found that 1 in every 4 patent applications from the U.S. in 2006 listed a foreign national residing in the U.S. as an inventor. This number had increased threefold over an eight-year period and didn't take into account inventors who had become U.S. citizens before applying for a patent.
We realized that these foreign-national inventors were not likely to be from the same immigrant group that was founding high-tech companies. They were likely to be PhD students and employees of U.S. corporations who are in the U.S. on temporary visas. Temporary-visa holders can't easily start their own companies�their visas require them to work full time for the company that sponsored them.
For our new research, we reanalyzed the WIPO patent database to look at which immigrant groups and corporations were applying for the most patents. To understand the foreign-national data, we examined extensive information published by the Homeland Security Dept., the Labor Dept., and the State Dept. We also reviewed the New Immigrant Survey to gain insight into the immigration process and to examine the potential that, even after becoming permanent residents, skilled immigrants might return home.
Here is what we found:
� Foreign nationals contributed to more than half of the international patents filed by companies such as Qualcomm (QCOM) (72%), Merck (MRK) (65%), General Electric (GE) (64%), Siemens (SI) (63%), and Cisco (CSCO) (60%). Their contributions were relatively small at Microsoft (MSFT) (3%) and General Motors (GM) (6%). Surprisingly, 41% of the patents filed by the U.S. government had foreign nationals listed as inventors.
� Foreign nationals contributed to 25.6% of all U.S. international patent applications in 2006, but the numbers were much higher in several states such as New Jersey (37%), California (36%), and Massachusetts (32%).
� In 2006, 16.8% of international patent applications from the U.S. had inventors with Chinese names and 36% of these (or 5.5% of the total) were foreign nationals. Similarly, 13.7% had Indian names and 40% (or 6.2% of the total) were foreign nationals.
� Both Indian and Chinese inventors tended to file most patents in the fields of medicine, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and electronics.
Our analysis of the immigration data produced the most startling results.
"Immigration Limbo" We estimate that, as of Sept. 30, 2006, there were 500,040 individuals in the main employment-based visa categories and an additional 555,044 family members in line for permanent-resident status in the U.S. An additional 126,421 with job offers were waiting abroad. In total, there were 1,181,505 educated and skilled professionals waiting to gain legal permanent-resident status.
In the 2005-06 academic year, there were 259,717 international students in the U.S. There were an additional 38,096 in practical training�many of these are PhD researchers.
One thing is certain: If we wait five years to fix immigration policy, the unskilled workers will still be here, but the skilled workers who are in "immigration limbo" will be long gone. Our loss will be the gain of countries we are increasingly competing with in the new global landscape.
The problem is simple. There aren't enough permanent-resident visas available each year for skilled workers and their families. And there is a limit of fewer than 10,000 visas that can be issued to immigrants from any single country. So countries with the largest populations such as India and China are allocated the same number of visas as Iceland and Mongolia.
Visa Delays Deprive U.S. of Talent The result is that wait times for employment visas currently stretch from four to six years for immigrants from countries such as India and China, and all indications are that these delays will get longer. Based on a 2003 study of new legal immigrants to the U.S. called the New Immigrant Survey, we estimate that in 2003, about 1 in 3 professionals who had been through the immigration process either planned to leave the U.S. or were uncertain about remaining. Media reports and other anecdotal evidence indicate that many skilled workers have indeed begun to return home.
Much of the current public debate on immigration centers on concerns over low-skilled immigrants entering the U.S. illegally. We do need to develop fair policies to deal with this problem. But skilled immigrants who enter the U.S. legally are a different issue. Professor Richard Devon of Pennsylvania State University estimates that in the U.S. about $200,000 is invested in a child by the time they gain a bachelor's degree in engineering. That means that the U.S. gains billions of dollars in benefit from educated professionals who leave other countries to come here. And we lose billions when they return home. Additionally, we end up training highly skilled workers in our markets, technology, and way of doing business.
Consider this: Earlier research by my team found that more than half of the engineering and technology companies started in Silicon Valley and a quarter of those started nationwide from 1995 to 2006 had immigrant founders. These companies employed 450,000 workers and generated $52 billion in revenue in 2006. Their founders tended to be very highly educated in science, technology, math, and engineering-related disciplines, with 96% of them holding bachelor's degrees and 75% holding master's degrees or PhDs (see BusinessWeek.com, 6/11/07, "Immigrants: Key U.S. Business Founders").
Patents: Evidence of Entrepreneurial Activity We also uncovered some puzzling data on patent filings. When we analyzed the international patent database maintained by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), we found that 1 in every 4 patent applications from the U.S. in 2006 listed a foreign national residing in the U.S. as an inventor. This number had increased threefold over an eight-year period and didn't take into account inventors who had become U.S. citizens before applying for a patent.
We realized that these foreign-national inventors were not likely to be from the same immigrant group that was founding high-tech companies. They were likely to be PhD students and employees of U.S. corporations who are in the U.S. on temporary visas. Temporary-visa holders can't easily start their own companies�their visas require them to work full time for the company that sponsored them.
For our new research, we reanalyzed the WIPO patent database to look at which immigrant groups and corporations were applying for the most patents. To understand the foreign-national data, we examined extensive information published by the Homeland Security Dept., the Labor Dept., and the State Dept. We also reviewed the New Immigrant Survey to gain insight into the immigration process and to examine the potential that, even after becoming permanent residents, skilled immigrants might return home.
Here is what we found:
� Foreign nationals contributed to more than half of the international patents filed by companies such as Qualcomm (QCOM) (72%), Merck (MRK) (65%), General Electric (GE) (64%), Siemens (SI) (63%), and Cisco (CSCO) (60%). Their contributions were relatively small at Microsoft (MSFT) (3%) and General Motors (GM) (6%). Surprisingly, 41% of the patents filed by the U.S. government had foreign nationals listed as inventors.
� Foreign nationals contributed to 25.6% of all U.S. international patent applications in 2006, but the numbers were much higher in several states such as New Jersey (37%), California (36%), and Massachusetts (32%).
� In 2006, 16.8% of international patent applications from the U.S. had inventors with Chinese names and 36% of these (or 5.5% of the total) were foreign nationals. Similarly, 13.7% had Indian names and 40% (or 6.2% of the total) were foreign nationals.
� Both Indian and Chinese inventors tended to file most patents in the fields of medicine, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and electronics.
Our analysis of the immigration data produced the most startling results.
"Immigration Limbo" We estimate that, as of Sept. 30, 2006, there were 500,040 individuals in the main employment-based visa categories and an additional 555,044 family members in line for permanent-resident status in the U.S. An additional 126,421 with job offers were waiting abroad. In total, there were 1,181,505 educated and skilled professionals waiting to gain legal permanent-resident status.
In the 2005-06 academic year, there were 259,717 international students in the U.S. There were an additional 38,096 in practical training�many of these are PhD researchers.
One thing is certain: If we wait five years to fix immigration policy, the unskilled workers will still be here, but the skilled workers who are in "immigration limbo" will be long gone. Our loss will be the gain of countries we are increasingly competing with in the new global landscape.
more...
pitha
02-21 03:34 PM
It is such irresponsible advise that has made EB2 India unavailable. The EB2 or eb3 should be decided based on the job requirements and not to fulfill your personal needs so that you can jump from eb3 to eb2. have you heard the adage "One rotten apple spoils the whole barrel". it is basically because of people like you the whole EB system is tainted and viewed as filled with corrupt people who will bend rules to suit there needs. Forget eb2 go for eb1 but only if your job really is in EB1 and not to cheat the system. You may get away with it but the end result is DOL and USCIS will make it stringent to get eb2 or eb1.
anyway the practical matter is people ported from eb3 to eb2 recklessly and eb2 is becoming same as eb3.
if u can keep thd same PD whenu change from eB3 to eB2..you should do it immediately!
anyway the practical matter is people ported from eb3 to eb2 recklessly and eb2 is becoming same as eb3.
if u can keep thd same PD whenu change from eB3 to eB2..you should do it immediately!
hair scarification tattoos
angelfire76
10-20 01:23 PM
How does it matter what their GC policies are, if we are left holding a piece of plastic in an country where we can't live in?
People now think one or the other is their savior, but only time will tell. Politicians can speak all they want, plan all they want, but the only thing they can do is react.
People now think one or the other is their savior, but only time will tell. Politicians can speak all they want, plan all they want, but the only thing they can do is react.
more...
malaGCPahije
03-17 04:21 PM
What I am saying is spill over from ROW goes to EB2 first. It does not split to EB2 and EB3 evenly. So more people from EB2 gets visa granted and thus people who joined EB2 bandwagon from EB3 and had earlier PD, they get Visa quickly. Now generally this spillover does not go to EB3 from EB2 having high demand from EB2 and thus EB3 get stuck with conventional numbers with 7% country limit and thus EB3 numbers move slowly. But if that spillover happens for both EB3 and 2 equally than EB3 can also move little bit quickly which is not the case. Thus shortening the queue by switching over to EB2 does not give full advantage to remained lot of EB3.
The recent movement in EB2 have been contributed to the spillover from EB2 ROW. That raises a question over the spill over rules. The EB2 ROW spill over should have helped EB3 ROW. But EB3 ROW is not yet C, however EB2-I moved up. If the spillover happens at the same level, then EB3-I may have hope in the future when EB3-ROW becomes C. Is such an assumption right or wrong?
The recent movement in EB2 have been contributed to the spillover from EB2 ROW. That raises a question over the spill over rules. The EB2 ROW spill over should have helped EB3 ROW. But EB3 ROW is not yet C, however EB2-I moved up. If the spillover happens at the same level, then EB3-I may have hope in the future when EB3-ROW becomes C. Is such an assumption right or wrong?
hot Scarification Tattoos
kicca
09-28 02:21 PM
just found this interesting link about doing business in the world
http://www.doingbusiness.org/economyrankings/
it's on worldbank.org
http://www.doingbusiness.org/economyrankings/
it's on worldbank.org
more...
house scarification tattoo. BODY SCARIFICATION TATTOOS; BODY SCARIFICATION TATTOOS
nomi
12-12 04:57 PM
All of the documents in this link are written by
"Micheal Aytes /s/,
Acting Associate Director, Domestic Operations
U.S. of Citizenship and Immigration Services
Department of Homeland Security"
I wonder if he is the person we should be talking to. Although the document does not indicate which city he works in. He should at leats be able to tell us who in USCIS makes these decisions if he is not the right person.
Also I was not able to find anything about not allowing concurrently to file 140/485 applications. Where was this information published? Does anyone know?
12/11/2006: USCIS Considers Termination of Concurrent Filing (140/485)
According to the USCIS rule-making agenda, the USCIS is to propose to terminate current concurrent I-140 and I-485 filing. The proposed rule is scheduled to be published in March 2007 with 60-day comment period. It is thus not imminent, but in the later part of next year(Oops!), the immigrant community may see a totally different filing procedure including electronic registration and filing just like current PERM labor certificaiton application procedure. Once the concurrent filing is terminated, the immigrants may experience a terrible pain as related to maintenance of nonimmigrant status pending I-140 petition, eligibility for 245K benefit, plus unavailability of EAD and AP pending I-140 petition, AC-21 180-day portability, etc. etc. Should the I-140 petition processing be dragged, the pain will be extremely unbearable
http://www.immigration-law.com/
"Micheal Aytes /s/,
Acting Associate Director, Domestic Operations
U.S. of Citizenship and Immigration Services
Department of Homeland Security"
I wonder if he is the person we should be talking to. Although the document does not indicate which city he works in. He should at leats be able to tell us who in USCIS makes these decisions if he is not the right person.
Also I was not able to find anything about not allowing concurrently to file 140/485 applications. Where was this information published? Does anyone know?
12/11/2006: USCIS Considers Termination of Concurrent Filing (140/485)
According to the USCIS rule-making agenda, the USCIS is to propose to terminate current concurrent I-140 and I-485 filing. The proposed rule is scheduled to be published in March 2007 with 60-day comment period. It is thus not imminent, but in the later part of next year(Oops!), the immigrant community may see a totally different filing procedure including electronic registration and filing just like current PERM labor certificaiton application procedure. Once the concurrent filing is terminated, the immigrants may experience a terrible pain as related to maintenance of nonimmigrant status pending I-140 petition, eligibility for 245K benefit, plus unavailability of EAD and AP pending I-140 petition, AC-21 180-day portability, etc. etc. Should the I-140 petition processing be dragged, the pain will be extremely unbearable
http://www.immigration-law.com/
tattoo Scarification Tattoos
wellwisher02
04-23 08:10 PM
All,
Opened my email this morning to see the card production ordered email (time stamp in my inbox reads 2:15 am PST 4/23/08); the approval date was 4/23/08.
Been in meetings all day so not even a chance to call anyone about it.
Yay!
Good luck to all my fellow sufferers!
Googler
-------------
Hearty Congrats on turning 'Green'!
Opened my email this morning to see the card production ordered email (time stamp in my inbox reads 2:15 am PST 4/23/08); the approval date was 4/23/08.
Been in meetings all day so not even a chance to call anyone about it.
Yay!
Good luck to all my fellow sufferers!
Googler
-------------
Hearty Congrats on turning 'Green'!
more...
pictures Extreme Scarification Tattoos
WeldonSprings
03-19 05:02 PM
Can EB2 move to March 06?
I hope this happens. :)
I hope this happens. :)
dresses Scarification Tattoos
User00
06-22 12:54 PM
And wait for RFE.
USCIS is asking for COLOR copies of DL and passport.
Can you please provide the link ?
I refered to USCIS website but did not find a mention of copies of DL.
PLease advise.
Thanks
USCIS is asking for COLOR copies of DL and passport.
Can you please provide the link ?
I refered to USCIS website but did not find a mention of copies of DL.
PLease advise.
Thanks
more...
makeup scarification tattoo. scarification tattoo. body; scarification tattoo. body
gsc999
07-24 05:05 PM
Guies,
Dr. Emilio Gonz�lez Ask USCIS is over, we were hoping atleast we get a mention in this chat, but like everywhere we do not even get a mention, thats our plight.
That was the reason we were requesting IV to set up some kind of webfax to USCIS director, atleast he would be aware of the retrogression issue, then we can build our case from there.
But any way it is a waste of time.
---
It would be better to focus our energies in a directed fashion on some core issues that have been identified by the core team. Media, Senators, House members and other have become familiar with our issues. Will it be worthwhile to add these new provisons that might dilute our original charter? Let us address the key causes e.g. few immigrant visas, family counted towards visa numbers, re-capture past visas, increase immigrant visas etc.
Dr. Emilio Gonz�lez Ask USCIS is over, we were hoping atleast we get a mention in this chat, but like everywhere we do not even get a mention, thats our plight.
That was the reason we were requesting IV to set up some kind of webfax to USCIS director, atleast he would be aware of the retrogression issue, then we can build our case from there.
But any way it is a waste of time.
---
It would be better to focus our energies in a directed fashion on some core issues that have been identified by the core team. Media, Senators, House members and other have become familiar with our issues. Will it be worthwhile to add these new provisons that might dilute our original charter? Let us address the key causes e.g. few immigrant visas, family counted towards visa numbers, re-capture past visas, increase immigrant visas etc.
girlfriend scarification tattoo. Fresh Scarification Tattoos
makemygc
07-05 10:56 AM
Core is putting their time and mmoney and doing this all for everybody
Pray please tell me what the core did for people stuck in BEC's.
Even these people contributed and once the dates were made current everybody and I'm sorry to say including the core forgot about them.
I know I'll be bashed for wrting this and pls dont get offended but I just had to ask.
Answer me this. God forbid but if you have a cancer and your brother has a malaria and you have just one doctor to treat. Would you ask doctor to treat you first since you have a bigger issue than your brother? No, right.
Dude, we all are brothers in this mess and everyone deserves to be treated fairly. I agree that core should work to eliminate BEC problem as well as any other opportunity to get any other immediate relief but core has limited resources, very limited funding plus and core needs to work on areas which fixes maximum number of lives here.
There are around 40000 people stuck in BEC and if 20% of those can join core and contribute, I'm sure that is enough number to allocate resources accordingly. But somehow people has got the wrong idea that IV is not for people stuck in BEC. I've seen similar posts in immigrationportal.com as well.
Now if IV will work for people who were eligible to file in July or even for people who just filed on Jul 2nd, i'm sure people will come and say that IV is for July 2nd people only. But that is not the case. Any issues/bill/ammendment which can bring some immediate relief should be worked along with our core issues which is retrogression. Once you are out of BEC (I hope you do asap as several of my friends stuck there), I'm sure your main issue will be retrogression and not BEC even if there are other people stuck there.
So lets not divide these communities any more, work together towards common cause that can bring some relief to our brother, sisters and ourselves. We all be benefitted if we all support each other.
Hope you understand.
Thanks
Pray please tell me what the core did for people stuck in BEC's.
Even these people contributed and once the dates were made current everybody and I'm sorry to say including the core forgot about them.
I know I'll be bashed for wrting this and pls dont get offended but I just had to ask.
Answer me this. God forbid but if you have a cancer and your brother has a malaria and you have just one doctor to treat. Would you ask doctor to treat you first since you have a bigger issue than your brother? No, right.
Dude, we all are brothers in this mess and everyone deserves to be treated fairly. I agree that core should work to eliminate BEC problem as well as any other opportunity to get any other immediate relief but core has limited resources, very limited funding plus and core needs to work on areas which fixes maximum number of lives here.
There are around 40000 people stuck in BEC and if 20% of those can join core and contribute, I'm sure that is enough number to allocate resources accordingly. But somehow people has got the wrong idea that IV is not for people stuck in BEC. I've seen similar posts in immigrationportal.com as well.
Now if IV will work for people who were eligible to file in July or even for people who just filed on Jul 2nd, i'm sure people will come and say that IV is for July 2nd people only. But that is not the case. Any issues/bill/ammendment which can bring some immediate relief should be worked along with our core issues which is retrogression. Once you are out of BEC (I hope you do asap as several of my friends stuck there), I'm sure your main issue will be retrogression and not BEC even if there are other people stuck there.
So lets not divide these communities any more, work together towards common cause that can bring some relief to our brother, sisters and ourselves. We all be benefitted if we all support each other.
Hope you understand.
Thanks
hairstyles Scarification Tattoos
fcres
07-23 03:52 PM
This is the press release in April that became effective Jun 18th http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/RFEFactSheet041207.pdf
And this is the inter office memo
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/RFEFinalRule060107.pdf
It does say CIS MAY deny a case if the initial evidences are missing , though adjudicators are urged to use this option judiciously.
Mine was filed without EVL and it has been receipted (in June). My lawyer asked me not to worry about it.
And this is the inter office memo
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/RFEFinalRule060107.pdf
It does say CIS MAY deny a case if the initial evidences are missing , though adjudicators are urged to use this option judiciously.
Mine was filed without EVL and it has been receipted (in June). My lawyer asked me not to worry about it.
grinch
03-10 07:31 PM
... OMG...
I'm so pissed at myself. I didn't have time to add anything I wanted, and now my volley looks like crap. But eh, I'm a newb so oh well. I'm gonna keep working on it and posting it in D&D.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/grinchvader/final.jpg
I'm so pissed at myself. I didn't have time to add anything I wanted, and now my volley looks like crap. But eh, I'm a newb so oh well. I'm gonna keep working on it and posting it in D&D.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/grinchvader/final.jpg
ARUNRAMANATHAN
07-13 12:33 AM
well most the people are blood suckers ......until they grow up !
When they are a small start up firm they work for you ...after that it is the clerk who works for you not even a legal person.
Arun
When they are a small start up firm they work for you ...after that it is the clerk who works for you not even a legal person.
Arun
0 comments:
Post a Comment