xela
03-12 07:56 AM
As far as dates for India goes, its out. Bulletin on USCIS website will have details for all other countries as well which doesn't matter much to us...
How sweet of you, but guess what it does matter to some people, like me.
What I do not understand is how EB3 row only moves so little because there isnt a lot of people left before 2005. Anyone have an answer for that?
But I hope things will eventually improve for all of us!
How sweet of you, but guess what it does matter to some people, like me.
What I do not understand is how EB3 row only moves so little because there isnt a lot of people left before 2005. Anyone have an answer for that?
But I hope things will eventually improve for all of us!
wallpaper emo i love you cartoon.
njboy
04-04 03:41 PM
if this bill is signed into law...most desi consultant companies with one h4 aunty doing the accounting work + recruiting + administrative work will have to shut down
sc3
10-16 04:45 PM
Read your above sentence, then read your below sentence. If I try to find a relation between these two sentences I do not know what you are talking.
I think you know pretty well what I am talking about. USCIS has not "reacted" in any malicious way against the immigrant community wrt. to July 07 actions. If you find they have done so they will be severely answerable to various laws in the country. Do you think the lawyers will keep quite when they sense blood in the water? There has been no "reaction" by USCIS, except as a figment of imagination in the minds of this community.
Again I am not sure what you are saying but MY PD is in early 2004 and RD was in Aug, they moved my application to another centre and my new RD is Oct. then I saw 2006 and 2007 cases getting approved. This is not right, why are they going by RD and not on PD?.
USCIS has always gone by RD, not PD to a large extent (there have been deviations here and there, but none of them are due to policy issues). It is unfortunate that due to your application movement to another center you got a bad "RD" -- you should probably work with them to get the RD fixed.
PD based processing is not sustainable as I had highlighted before. If you applied for 485 before someone else, you should be approved first. Now I am saying applied for 485, not Labor/Perm. Now dont come back with a post saying I applied July 2 00:01, but someone with July 3rd 23:55 is getting approved before I am. Afford some granularity of a week or so.
Exactly dude, there should be some synchronization between DOL and USCIS. Just saying that USCIS is not responsible for DOL’s actions does not solve the problem, they can conveniently blame each other and take till eternity to process applications and you will keep saying the same thing that USCIS is not to be blamed.
No, you did not say that, all you said was USCIS is not doing anything wrong.
I did not say USCIS is "doodh ka dula", but DoL and USCIS are two different entities. You cant blame one for the problems of the other. USCIS has its share of blames, but to blame everything on USCIS just shows that you have lost your objectivity. You don't want to be blamed for the actions of your colleague, so why do you blame USCIS for things which are not their doing??
If you keep blaming USCIS for everything (I am sure some of you want to blame the economic crisis, the Darfur issue etc. on USCIS too, come on!, you know you wanted to ;) ), the community's credibility comes into question.
End of the day, you (and/or others) are distracting the OP's idea with FUD. If you have constructive ideas to channel OPs enthusiasm you should suggest alternatives. Not make her/him fearful with untenable accusations of retribution from USCIS.
I think you know pretty well what I am talking about. USCIS has not "reacted" in any malicious way against the immigrant community wrt. to July 07 actions. If you find they have done so they will be severely answerable to various laws in the country. Do you think the lawyers will keep quite when they sense blood in the water? There has been no "reaction" by USCIS, except as a figment of imagination in the minds of this community.
Again I am not sure what you are saying but MY PD is in early 2004 and RD was in Aug, they moved my application to another centre and my new RD is Oct. then I saw 2006 and 2007 cases getting approved. This is not right, why are they going by RD and not on PD?.
USCIS has always gone by RD, not PD to a large extent (there have been deviations here and there, but none of them are due to policy issues). It is unfortunate that due to your application movement to another center you got a bad "RD" -- you should probably work with them to get the RD fixed.
PD based processing is not sustainable as I had highlighted before. If you applied for 485 before someone else, you should be approved first. Now I am saying applied for 485, not Labor/Perm. Now dont come back with a post saying I applied July 2 00:01, but someone with July 3rd 23:55 is getting approved before I am. Afford some granularity of a week or so.
Exactly dude, there should be some synchronization between DOL and USCIS. Just saying that USCIS is not responsible for DOL’s actions does not solve the problem, they can conveniently blame each other and take till eternity to process applications and you will keep saying the same thing that USCIS is not to be blamed.
No, you did not say that, all you said was USCIS is not doing anything wrong.
I did not say USCIS is "doodh ka dula", but DoL and USCIS are two different entities. You cant blame one for the problems of the other. USCIS has its share of blames, but to blame everything on USCIS just shows that you have lost your objectivity. You don't want to be blamed for the actions of your colleague, so why do you blame USCIS for things which are not their doing??
If you keep blaming USCIS for everything (I am sure some of you want to blame the economic crisis, the Darfur issue etc. on USCIS too, come on!, you know you wanted to ;) ), the community's credibility comes into question.
End of the day, you (and/or others) are distracting the OP's idea with FUD. If you have constructive ideas to channel OPs enthusiasm you should suggest alternatives. Not make her/him fearful with untenable accusations of retribution from USCIS.
2011 Azuzephre#39;s Pon amp; Zi Emo
anand2007
07-03 03:34 PM
DOS says USCIS suddenly did backlog case reduction. Why USCIS didn't communicate to DOS regarding this action before or immeditely after july Visa bulletin was issued. Suprisingly when DOS issued revision USCIS immediately acted on it and started rejecting applications based on DOS revision.Also how can backlog reduction be unexpected action when they are clearing backlog cases for a month.
It is clear to me USCIS and/or DOS is playing with the legal immigrants, even if this is a genuine situation, this is reckless behaviour from USCIS/DOS. It's time to teach a lesson to the USCIS regarding this. In the worst case, if we can't correct the situation at this time, we should atleast teach them that they can't do this in future.They wasted my money and time and caused mental tension. I just contributed $100 to fight. If we don't fight for ourselves who will???.
It is clear to me USCIS and/or DOS is playing with the legal immigrants, even if this is a genuine situation, this is reckless behaviour from USCIS/DOS. It's time to teach a lesson to the USCIS regarding this. In the worst case, if we can't correct the situation at this time, we should atleast teach them that they can't do this in future.They wasted my money and time and caused mental tension. I just contributed $100 to fight. If we don't fight for ourselves who will???.
more...
Munna Bhai
12-26 02:01 PM
Thanks for the reply, if old employer revokes I-140 while the other employer is still working on LC+I-140, Will this creates any problem for me?
-Thanks,
-Thanks,
sanju_dba
08-10 02:45 PM
Count me in!
more...
tooclose
07-12 06:49 PM
Hi,
My PD is March 1st 2006. Just wondering is March 1st is in or out? i.e. cut off is March 2nd or March 1st?
thanks,
Rwe
Well my PD is 3-Mar-2006. So close but too far. :mad:
My PD is March 1st 2006. Just wondering is March 1st is in or out? i.e. cut off is March 2nd or March 1st?
thanks,
Rwe
Well my PD is 3-Mar-2006. So close but too far. :mad:
2010 i love you emo cartoons
vbkris77
04-10 12:28 PM
What you said is absolutely true. EB1 Last year and the year before saw lot more approvals than usual. My reasoning is that even though EB1 was current for all along, they never really approved I140s to give them GC. So In the overall clearing of I140s, CIS cleared lot more EB1 cases and became approved during last 2 years. If you look at the I140 completion in the dash board, it will be very much clear that the completions came down to 4 digits for each month from 5 digits. Receipts continued to be less than 5K per month.
This year, we may see a big dip in EB1 cases and larger EB2 spillover. EB4 spillover is ruled out after this bulletin.
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
This year, we may see a big dip in EB1 cases and larger EB2 spillover. EB4 spillover is ruled out after this bulletin.
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
more...
hsm2007
10-18 12:30 PM
Did you confirm whether they received your RFE? You can go to Infopass and also talk to second level IO just to make sure that they received your RFE.
any one else.. who got any update after filling RFE?
I got soft LUD on Oct 12.... nothing after that :confused:
any one else.. who got any update after filling RFE?
I got soft LUD on Oct 12.... nothing after that :confused:
hair emo i love you cartoon. emo
frostrated
09-10 02:54 PM
My PD is March 2010 EB2 so i'm not even in this race yet but help me in understanding one thing.
Was EB3 current in July 2007? If yes, I'm assuming atleast 95% EB3 folks have EAD and their spouse can work. The really big problem in post 2007 EB3.
Since dates were current in July 2007, Eb2 and Eb3 can atleast enjoy EAD/spouse working benefits. Why do ppl complain when they have EAD etc whose PD is before 2007.
smuggymba
what happened to your earlier PD. I think it was in mid 2004 or so, correct?
Was EB3 current in July 2007? If yes, I'm assuming atleast 95% EB3 folks have EAD and their spouse can work. The really big problem in post 2007 EB3.
Since dates were current in July 2007, Eb2 and Eb3 can atleast enjoy EAD/spouse working benefits. Why do ppl complain when they have EAD etc whose PD is before 2007.
smuggymba
what happened to your earlier PD. I think it was in mid 2004 or so, correct?
more...
ronhira
04-11 06:05 PM
Good point. I appreciate your hard work.
This may be helpful
245(i), Adjustment of Status Permanent Residence, Life Act | V Visa, K Visa (http://www.callyourlawyers.com/245%28i%29revival.html)
GRANDFATHERED DERIVATIVE FAMILY MEMBERS
Grandfathered children and spouses: Accepting Applications for Adjustment of Status Under Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 06/10/1999 INS memo
Section 245(i) defines the term "beneficiary" to include a spouse or
child "eligible to receive a visa under section 203(d) of the Act." This
applies to spouses or children "accompanying or following to join" the
principal alien.
An alien who is accompanying or following to join an alien who is a
grandfathered alien is thus also the "beneficiary" of the grandfathered
petition or labor certification application and is also grandfathered.
Since an alien's ability to characterize himself or herself as
"accompanying or following to join" the principal alien depends on the
existence of a qualifying relationship at the time of the principal's
adjustment, adjudicators must determine whether the relationship existed
prior to the time the alien adjusted status. Officers should remember
that the burden of proof to establish the qualifying relationship rests
with the applicant.
The spouse or child of a grandfathered alien as of January 14 is also
grandfathered for 245(i) purposes. This means that the spouse or child
is grandfathered irrespective of whether the spouse or child adjusts
with the principal. The pre-January 15 spouse or child also are
grandfathered even after losing the status of spouse or child, such as
by divorce or by becoming 21 years of age, by the petitioner�s
naturalization, through the parents� divorce, or even if the principal
or petitioner dies. Grandfathered eligibility attaches to the person and
not the petition. Many aliens with pending, grandfathered petitions or
labor certification applications will marry or have children after the
qualifying petition or application was filed but before adjustment of
status. These "after-acquired" children and spouses are allowed to
adjust under 245(i) as long as they acquire the status of a spouse or
child before the principal alien ultimately adjusts status.
An alien who becomes the child or spouse of a grandfathered alien
after the alien adjusts status or immigrates cannot adjust status under
section 245(i) unless he or she has an independent basis for
grandfathering.
"Aged-out" children
Often, a principal alien who has filed a visa petition or labor
certification application will have a "child" who reaches the age of 21,
and thus no longer meet the statutory definition of child, before the
petition or application is approved or the principal alien adjusts
status. However, such an "aged-out" beneficiary will remain a
beneficiary for the purpose of determining whether he or she may use
section 245(i) to adjust status.
Eligibility: An alien who is included in the categories of
restricted aliens under 245.1(b) and meets the definition of a
``grandfathered alien'' may apply for adjustment of status under section
245 of the Act if the alien meets the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)
through (b)(7) of this section:
(1) Is physically present in the United States;
(2) Is eligible for immigrant classification and has an immigrant visa
number immediately available at the time of filing for adjustment of
status;
(3) Is not inadmissible from the United States under any provision of
section 212 of the Act, or all grounds for inadmissibility have been
waived;
(4) Properly files Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent
Residence or Adjust Status on or after October 1, 1994, with the
required fee for that application;
(5) Properly files Supplement A to Form I-485 on or after October 1,
1994;
(6) Pays an additional sum of $1,000, unless payment of the additional
sum is not required under section 245(i) of the Act; and
(7) Will adjust status under section 245 of the Act to that of lawful
permanent resident of the United States on or after October 1, 1994.
hypocrisy as its best...... need another quote from gandhi....
u'r saying its crime for others to file application of their spouse & children...... aren't u waiting for the aos approval for u'r child...... but if other files for their family member..... according to u its a crime....
This may be helpful
245(i), Adjustment of Status Permanent Residence, Life Act | V Visa, K Visa (http://www.callyourlawyers.com/245%28i%29revival.html)
GRANDFATHERED DERIVATIVE FAMILY MEMBERS
Grandfathered children and spouses: Accepting Applications for Adjustment of Status Under Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 06/10/1999 INS memo
Section 245(i) defines the term "beneficiary" to include a spouse or
child "eligible to receive a visa under section 203(d) of the Act." This
applies to spouses or children "accompanying or following to join" the
principal alien.
An alien who is accompanying or following to join an alien who is a
grandfathered alien is thus also the "beneficiary" of the grandfathered
petition or labor certification application and is also grandfathered.
Since an alien's ability to characterize himself or herself as
"accompanying or following to join" the principal alien depends on the
existence of a qualifying relationship at the time of the principal's
adjustment, adjudicators must determine whether the relationship existed
prior to the time the alien adjusted status. Officers should remember
that the burden of proof to establish the qualifying relationship rests
with the applicant.
The spouse or child of a grandfathered alien as of January 14 is also
grandfathered for 245(i) purposes. This means that the spouse or child
is grandfathered irrespective of whether the spouse or child adjusts
with the principal. The pre-January 15 spouse or child also are
grandfathered even after losing the status of spouse or child, such as
by divorce or by becoming 21 years of age, by the petitioner�s
naturalization, through the parents� divorce, or even if the principal
or petitioner dies. Grandfathered eligibility attaches to the person and
not the petition. Many aliens with pending, grandfathered petitions or
labor certification applications will marry or have children after the
qualifying petition or application was filed but before adjustment of
status. These "after-acquired" children and spouses are allowed to
adjust under 245(i) as long as they acquire the status of a spouse or
child before the principal alien ultimately adjusts status.
An alien who becomes the child or spouse of a grandfathered alien
after the alien adjusts status or immigrates cannot adjust status under
section 245(i) unless he or she has an independent basis for
grandfathering.
"Aged-out" children
Often, a principal alien who has filed a visa petition or labor
certification application will have a "child" who reaches the age of 21,
and thus no longer meet the statutory definition of child, before the
petition or application is approved or the principal alien adjusts
status. However, such an "aged-out" beneficiary will remain a
beneficiary for the purpose of determining whether he or she may use
section 245(i) to adjust status.
Eligibility: An alien who is included in the categories of
restricted aliens under 245.1(b) and meets the definition of a
``grandfathered alien'' may apply for adjustment of status under section
245 of the Act if the alien meets the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)
through (b)(7) of this section:
(1) Is physically present in the United States;
(2) Is eligible for immigrant classification and has an immigrant visa
number immediately available at the time of filing for adjustment of
status;
(3) Is not inadmissible from the United States under any provision of
section 212 of the Act, or all grounds for inadmissibility have been
waived;
(4) Properly files Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent
Residence or Adjust Status on or after October 1, 1994, with the
required fee for that application;
(5) Properly files Supplement A to Form I-485 on or after October 1,
1994;
(6) Pays an additional sum of $1,000, unless payment of the additional
sum is not required under section 245(i) of the Act; and
(7) Will adjust status under section 245 of the Act to that of lawful
permanent resident of the United States on or after October 1, 1994.
hypocrisy as its best...... need another quote from gandhi....
u'r saying its crime for others to file application of their spouse & children...... aren't u waiting for the aos approval for u'r child...... but if other files for their family member..... according to u its a crime....
hot wallpaper cartoon emo. emo i
go_gc_way
01-13 10:37 PM
http://www.laborlawtalk.com/showthread.php?p=850460#post850460
http://www.indiacause.com/services/advt/advt_lst_one.asp?srno=10394
perm2gc, very good efforts .... I am hopeful, with members like you , we will inch towards our goal "GC".
At the same time, I hope other members take time and help IV action items.
http://www.indiacause.com/services/advt/advt_lst_one.asp?srno=10394
perm2gc, very good efforts .... I am hopeful, with members like you , we will inch towards our goal "GC".
At the same time, I hope other members take time and help IV action items.
more...
house Cartoon: Emo-Problem (medium)
hoolahoous
03-16 12:37 AM
And, please, gimme a break. H1B = high skilled? .....Most H1Bs, according to PUBLISHED research, earn less than $50,000.
Dude, IT and software are low skill jobs..........wake up and smell the coffee. Your saying "highly skilled" and holding up a placard won't change that reality. No one wants any more low skilled EB3 types in this country anymore. They are found dime a dozen.
wow.. u disciple of lou dobb ?? 50k !!!! in our company average salary of h1b is 125k (meaning some get much more than that, including me)!!
IT and software is low skill ?? now I am not sure what YOU are smelling . h1b requires minimum 4 year engg. degree (what do u have ?? maybe you got it using some non academic skills)
Yes i AM selfish..........
exactly.. i agree
Dude, IT and software are low skill jobs..........wake up and smell the coffee. Your saying "highly skilled" and holding up a placard won't change that reality. No one wants any more low skilled EB3 types in this country anymore. They are found dime a dozen.
wow.. u disciple of lou dobb ?? 50k !!!! in our company average salary of h1b is 125k (meaning some get much more than that, including me)!!
IT and software is low skill ?? now I am not sure what YOU are smelling . h1b requires minimum 4 year engg. degree (what do u have ?? maybe you got it using some non academic skills)
Yes i AM selfish..........
exactly.. i agree
tattoo Emo Cartoon Love - Emo Cartoon
Madhuri
11-10 05:24 PM
I received receipt number from USCIS for my letter.
more...
pictures emo cartoons in love. cartoons
virald
07-18 12:54 AM
Plus the July 2nd bulletin has been reversed (meaning totally void). So the July 2nd filers should be ok. Infact there is a grim possibility that you may be assigned the remaining yearly visa numbers (as per Greg Siskind's blog entry).
Instead of really worrying, why don't you become a paid member of IV on a monthly recurring basis? This way you are supporting the IV cause (which is your/our cause).
Guys,
I don't like to worry but here is Greg Siskind's comment --(don't know what to make of it)
Just to clarify, some cases received on July 2nd were rejected according to the USCIS' own announcement. I am not sure if people have started to get those applications back or not yet. Perhaps people on the blog can weigh in. The dilemma is what to do if you don't know whether the case is in or not. No clear answer yet. AILA may get some info on this when it presumably meets with USCIS on this very soon.
Posted by: Greg Siskind | July 17, 2007 at 09:17 PM (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/faqs-part-1.html#comment-76226938)
Instead of really worrying, why don't you become a paid member of IV on a monthly recurring basis? This way you are supporting the IV cause (which is your/our cause).
Guys,
I don't like to worry but here is Greg Siskind's comment --(don't know what to make of it)
Just to clarify, some cases received on July 2nd were rejected according to the USCIS' own announcement. I am not sure if people have started to get those applications back or not yet. Perhaps people on the blog can weigh in. The dilemma is what to do if you don't know whether the case is in or not. No clear answer yet. AILA may get some info on this when it presumably meets with USCIS on this very soon.
Posted by: Greg Siskind | July 17, 2007 at 09:17 PM (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/faqs-part-1.html#comment-76226938)
dresses emo i love you cartoon.
kanaihya
09-26 12:22 PM
What paragraph ? what is the update in the CNN link ? i don't see any, every where its h1B..can somebody pl. help..
more...
makeup Emo I Love You Cartoon
bheemi
07-02 09:35 AM
YOU PEOPLE understand first what i kept in the reply. I did not blame IV for doing other efforts..I am talking about facts about USCIS..So dont make fool us or yourself as IV or any other organization will not be able to attack USCIS..Bcoz USCIS is monarch..
girlfriend emo i love you cartoon. emo i
hsm2007
09-20 07:37 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.
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.
hairstyles emo i love you cartoon. pics
anilsal
12-11 03:44 PM
I think USCIS is under department of homeland security.
Department of State is mainly for travel.
Department of State is mainly for travel.
snathan
08-21 11:11 PM
Have the chubby guy u take care of contact the local congressman/senator/newspaper and tell them a sob story about how no one will take care of him except you and maybe you will get lucky.
One thing you can do, when you are deported, take the porky along. Less expense for the US health care.:D
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.
One thing you can do, when you are deported, take the porky along. Less expense for the US health care.:D
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.
lordoftherings
07-04 07:47 PM
Yes, if all this is true, then going the lawsuit way is not the right step. They should now use this to force USCIS make some changes. One of them would allowing to file I-485 right after I-140 approval irrespective of whatever the PD is. When PDs become current the processing will start. This change will give releif to a lot of victims and future filers.
No comments:
Post a Comment