pappu
07-01 10:22 PM
Info on the lawsuit by AILA:
==============
USCIS VISA BULLETIN/
VISA AVAILABILTY LAWSUIT
Frequently Asked Questions about Participating in this Lawsuit
AILF is considering filing a lawsuit in federal district court against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) over its rejection of otherwise properly filed adjustment of status applications for the alleged reason that a visa was not available, even though the Visa Bulletin from the Department of State (DOS) states that a visa was available at the time of filing.
Any foreign national who is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status and whose adjustment of status application has been or will be returned or rejected solely on this basis may be eligible to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit. If you are considering being a participant in this lawsuit, you may find the following frequently asked questions and answers helpful.
Q: What is AILF?
A: The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of immigrants and refugees and to securing fair and just application and administration of the U.S. immigration laws. In order to achieve these goals, AILF sometimes files lawsuits involving various aspects of immigration law.
Q: What is this lawsuit about?
A: This lawsuit will be filed by plaintiffs who have been harmed because USCIS rejected or returned or is expected to reject or return a properly submitted adjustment of status application for the alleged reason that no visa was immediately available even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that a visa was available at that time.
To be eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, a foreign national must show that a visa number is “immediately available.” USCIS regulations state that the DOS Visa Bulletin is used to determine whether a visa number is immediately available. This Bulletin is published once a month and lists the visa availability dates for all categories of immigrants for the following month. Thus, for example, the July 2007 bulletin, listing visa availability dates for the entire month of July, was published in June 2007.
AILF has learned that USCIS has refused to allow certain adjustment of status applications to be filed even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that visa numbers are available for the immigrant category at that time. USCIS rejected these applications because DOS informed it in an internal communication that no visa numbers remained for that category of immigrants. To date, this has happened only in the employment-based “other worker” category. We anticipate that it may happen in a number of other types of employment-based immigrant categories beginning in July 2007.
We believe USCIS violated the law when it failed to apply the visa availability dates listed in the Visa Bulletin, as required by a federal regulation, and instead rejected properly filed adjustment applications. Through this lawsuit, we will challenge the rejection of adjustment of status applications on this basis. We will ask the court to order USCIS to accept the rejected adjustment applications and treat them as being filed as of the date they originally would have been filed had USCIS not rejected them.
Q: What is a “plaintiff” and how do I know if I am eligible to be a “plaintiff” in this lawsuit?
A: A plaintiff is a person who files a lawsuit against someone else. We are still determining the categories of plaintiffs but an eligible plaintiff for this lawsuit may include:
[other worker category]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in the “other worker” category for receipt by USCIS in June 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
[other employment-based categories]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in any employment-based category other than “other worker” for receipt by USCIS in July 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
Q: Why should I be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
2
A: If the lawsuit is successful, USCIS should accept your adjustment application and treat it as if it had been filed as of the date that you originally tried to file it. Because your adjustment application will then be considered to be pending before the agency, you may be eligible for interim benefits, including an employment authorization document, advance parole, and others.
What the lawsuit will not do is make a visa number immediately available to you if none is available. If the visa numbers have in fact been used for the current fiscal year, the court does not have the authority under the law to make a new number available to you. However, if the court orders that USCIS accept your adjustment application as of the date that you originally tried to file it, you will be at an earlier place in line when visa numbers become available again in the next fiscal year, October 1, 2007. Additionally, as mentioned, you may be eligible for interim benefits while you are waiting.
Q: What is likely to happen because of the suit?
A: Lawsuits are uncertain by nature. We cannot predict the exact outcome. However, other efforts to resolve these problems with USCIS have not succeeded. For this reason, we believe that a lawsuit is the only remaining possible way to resolve these problems.
Q: Will being a plaintiff in this lawsuit hurt my chances for permanent residence?
A: If an individual is otherwise legally entitled to have an application granted, the government cannot lawfully deny that application on the basis that the person is participating or participated in a lawsuit. If we believed the government was taking such action, we would complain to the lawyers representing the government and to the judge handling the case. In our experience, this retaliation has not happened.
Please be aware, though, that USCIS is likely to examine plaintiffs’ adjustment of status applications more closely than it otherwise might. It may ask the plaintiffs questions and ask for additional information about their adjustment applications or immigration status. See below regarding “discovery.”
Q: How much time must plaintiffs spend on this lawsuit?
A: Plaintiffs will have to provide us with the information and documentation we need in order to prepare the lawsuit. AILF will do most of the work in the lawsuit on paper. Depending on how the case proceeds, the government and its attorneys may want to ask the plaintiffs some questions about their case, either through written questions and answers or in person. This is called “discovery.” One type of discovery is a “deposition,” which is an interview where parties are asked questions about their cases.
Depositions are possible but not common in this type of case. In the event that discovery and/or depositions were required, an AILF attorney or an attorney working with us would assist plaintiffs to comply with any discovery requests, and would appear with plaintiffs at any deposition at no charge (see below). At a later stage, a plaintiff may be required to be present at
3
a hearing or a trial and possibly be asked to testify about their particular case, but this is quite rare.
Q: Will it cost me anything to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: AILF and any co-counsel will not charge any attorney’s fees for representing individuals in this lawsuit. AILF and any co-counsel also will pay the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuit, such as filing fees, copying, long distance calls, travel expenses for AILF attorneys and staff, depositions, transcripts, etc. In the unlikely event that an individual should be required to be present at a deposition, hearing or a trial, we may ask that he/she pay their own travel and lodging expenses, if any. Those expenses would be reimbursed if the lawsuit is successful and we recover costs.
Q: Will anyone know that I am a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: Lawsuits are public information, and are available as a public court document. Many courts now have lawsuits and other documents available electronically, accessible via the internet. Also, USCIS will, of course, know the identity of the plaintiffs. We also will discuss plaintiffs’ cases with any other lawyers working with us on the lawsuit. It also is possible that the media – newspapers, radio, or TV reporters – will see the court documents and decide to do a story on the lawsuit.
Q: What should I do if I am eligible and interested in being a plaintiff in the lawsuit?
A: Please quickly submit the Questionnaire for Potential Plaintiffs and send us the documents requested. If you do not have the Questionnaire, please send an email to visabulletin@ailf.org, and we will send it to you. You may also fax a request to AILF LAC at (202) 742-5619. Please indicate this is a question about the visa bulletin litigation.
If you have any questions that are not answered by this FAQ or the questionnaire, please send them to visabulletin@ailf.org or fax to (202) 742-65619, and we will respond. Thank you!
===============
==============
USCIS VISA BULLETIN/
VISA AVAILABILTY LAWSUIT
Frequently Asked Questions about Participating in this Lawsuit
AILF is considering filing a lawsuit in federal district court against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) over its rejection of otherwise properly filed adjustment of status applications for the alleged reason that a visa was not available, even though the Visa Bulletin from the Department of State (DOS) states that a visa was available at the time of filing.
Any foreign national who is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status and whose adjustment of status application has been or will be returned or rejected solely on this basis may be eligible to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit. If you are considering being a participant in this lawsuit, you may find the following frequently asked questions and answers helpful.
Q: What is AILF?
A: The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of immigrants and refugees and to securing fair and just application and administration of the U.S. immigration laws. In order to achieve these goals, AILF sometimes files lawsuits involving various aspects of immigration law.
Q: What is this lawsuit about?
A: This lawsuit will be filed by plaintiffs who have been harmed because USCIS rejected or returned or is expected to reject or return a properly submitted adjustment of status application for the alleged reason that no visa was immediately available even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that a visa was available at that time.
To be eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, a foreign national must show that a visa number is “immediately available.” USCIS regulations state that the DOS Visa Bulletin is used to determine whether a visa number is immediately available. This Bulletin is published once a month and lists the visa availability dates for all categories of immigrants for the following month. Thus, for example, the July 2007 bulletin, listing visa availability dates for the entire month of July, was published in June 2007.
AILF has learned that USCIS has refused to allow certain adjustment of status applications to be filed even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that visa numbers are available for the immigrant category at that time. USCIS rejected these applications because DOS informed it in an internal communication that no visa numbers remained for that category of immigrants. To date, this has happened only in the employment-based “other worker” category. We anticipate that it may happen in a number of other types of employment-based immigrant categories beginning in July 2007.
We believe USCIS violated the law when it failed to apply the visa availability dates listed in the Visa Bulletin, as required by a federal regulation, and instead rejected properly filed adjustment applications. Through this lawsuit, we will challenge the rejection of adjustment of status applications on this basis. We will ask the court to order USCIS to accept the rejected adjustment applications and treat them as being filed as of the date they originally would have been filed had USCIS not rejected them.
Q: What is a “plaintiff” and how do I know if I am eligible to be a “plaintiff” in this lawsuit?
A: A plaintiff is a person who files a lawsuit against someone else. We are still determining the categories of plaintiffs but an eligible plaintiff for this lawsuit may include:
[other worker category]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in the “other worker” category for receipt by USCIS in June 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
[other employment-based categories]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in any employment-based category other than “other worker” for receipt by USCIS in July 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
Q: Why should I be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
2
A: If the lawsuit is successful, USCIS should accept your adjustment application and treat it as if it had been filed as of the date that you originally tried to file it. Because your adjustment application will then be considered to be pending before the agency, you may be eligible for interim benefits, including an employment authorization document, advance parole, and others.
What the lawsuit will not do is make a visa number immediately available to you if none is available. If the visa numbers have in fact been used for the current fiscal year, the court does not have the authority under the law to make a new number available to you. However, if the court orders that USCIS accept your adjustment application as of the date that you originally tried to file it, you will be at an earlier place in line when visa numbers become available again in the next fiscal year, October 1, 2007. Additionally, as mentioned, you may be eligible for interim benefits while you are waiting.
Q: What is likely to happen because of the suit?
A: Lawsuits are uncertain by nature. We cannot predict the exact outcome. However, other efforts to resolve these problems with USCIS have not succeeded. For this reason, we believe that a lawsuit is the only remaining possible way to resolve these problems.
Q: Will being a plaintiff in this lawsuit hurt my chances for permanent residence?
A: If an individual is otherwise legally entitled to have an application granted, the government cannot lawfully deny that application on the basis that the person is participating or participated in a lawsuit. If we believed the government was taking such action, we would complain to the lawyers representing the government and to the judge handling the case. In our experience, this retaliation has not happened.
Please be aware, though, that USCIS is likely to examine plaintiffs’ adjustment of status applications more closely than it otherwise might. It may ask the plaintiffs questions and ask for additional information about their adjustment applications or immigration status. See below regarding “discovery.”
Q: How much time must plaintiffs spend on this lawsuit?
A: Plaintiffs will have to provide us with the information and documentation we need in order to prepare the lawsuit. AILF will do most of the work in the lawsuit on paper. Depending on how the case proceeds, the government and its attorneys may want to ask the plaintiffs some questions about their case, either through written questions and answers or in person. This is called “discovery.” One type of discovery is a “deposition,” which is an interview where parties are asked questions about their cases.
Depositions are possible but not common in this type of case. In the event that discovery and/or depositions were required, an AILF attorney or an attorney working with us would assist plaintiffs to comply with any discovery requests, and would appear with plaintiffs at any deposition at no charge (see below). At a later stage, a plaintiff may be required to be present at
3
a hearing or a trial and possibly be asked to testify about their particular case, but this is quite rare.
Q: Will it cost me anything to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: AILF and any co-counsel will not charge any attorney’s fees for representing individuals in this lawsuit. AILF and any co-counsel also will pay the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuit, such as filing fees, copying, long distance calls, travel expenses for AILF attorneys and staff, depositions, transcripts, etc. In the unlikely event that an individual should be required to be present at a deposition, hearing or a trial, we may ask that he/she pay their own travel and lodging expenses, if any. Those expenses would be reimbursed if the lawsuit is successful and we recover costs.
Q: Will anyone know that I am a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: Lawsuits are public information, and are available as a public court document. Many courts now have lawsuits and other documents available electronically, accessible via the internet. Also, USCIS will, of course, know the identity of the plaintiffs. We also will discuss plaintiffs’ cases with any other lawyers working with us on the lawsuit. It also is possible that the media – newspapers, radio, or TV reporters – will see the court documents and decide to do a story on the lawsuit.
Q: What should I do if I am eligible and interested in being a plaintiff in the lawsuit?
A: Please quickly submit the Questionnaire for Potential Plaintiffs and send us the documents requested. If you do not have the Questionnaire, please send an email to visabulletin@ailf.org, and we will send it to you. You may also fax a request to AILF LAC at (202) 742-5619. Please indicate this is a question about the visa bulletin litigation.
If you have any questions that are not answered by this FAQ or the questionnaire, please send them to visabulletin@ailf.org or fax to (202) 742-65619, and we will respond. Thank you!
===============
wallpaper Little Big Planet 3 - cute,
Life2Live
07-09 04:05 PM
Hatz off to that lady... Lot of us are still thinking to fill law-suit against USCIS/DOS.... We should act fast now and file law-suit rather than just waiting and discussing here. I felt bad some people even asked when will be outcome of that law-suit....That clearly tells you are going to wait till the out come of it and you will file law-suit....
Weird........Weird...Weird
Weird........Weird...Weird
PresidentO
02-03 02:06 PM
Didn't we have these discussions over and over before? and the admins telling us to stop because IV goals are set and will not change?
If you just want to argue and waste time, lookup previous threads discussing this and you'll have enough reading material for weeks to come.
Because he does not care whether his personal agenda born out of righteous anger (politics doesn't care whether your anger is righteous or frustrated) fractures the already divided community. He thinks that he can get out 15-20 guys on the hill and get a 2 line bill that will end country caps. Well, Why not talk to his friends and get them on the hill? No, he wants to ignore the bylaws/agenda of this organization and wants to carve a separate faction on IV that will work for ending country caps. If some one does not know that he is doing a mistake, we can try to help him see the mistake. If he/she knows it, Do we need to tell him/her?
If you just want to argue and waste time, lookup previous threads discussing this and you'll have enough reading material for weeks to come.
Because he does not care whether his personal agenda born out of righteous anger (politics doesn't care whether your anger is righteous or frustrated) fractures the already divided community. He thinks that he can get out 15-20 guys on the hill and get a 2 line bill that will end country caps. Well, Why not talk to his friends and get them on the hill? No, he wants to ignore the bylaws/agenda of this organization and wants to carve a separate faction on IV that will work for ending country caps. If some one does not know that he is doing a mistake, we can try to help him see the mistake. If he/she knows it, Do we need to tell him/her?
2011 on LittleBigPlanet 2,
pappu
06-10 12:28 PM
WAKE UP CALL FOR THOSE STILL SITTING ON THE SIDELINES
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
more...
vijayassr
04-16 12:34 AM
Hi, I think the best decision in current market is to go for GC with L1, following are positive points
Applying GC on L1 is faster than applying with H1.
You have your Job surity in India as well.
Current market u need to run for Jobs, on L1 I feel its cool as there is responsibility of you r company to take care of you.
If they start process now itself , you can get Labour cleared fast and I think u can change company after that. ( I dont know GC process but I got same advice, but I didnt listen).
Reason people go for H1 is to have job with US companies than MNC's who pay more, if u r not really thinking of changing company then its better to be on L1 and apply for GC. Also a lot of fredom to move companies.
Thanks for asking, if I were in your position I will go for L1 company to process GC, Since my company said they wont do it, I took the H1.
Thanks
Vijay
Applying GC on L1 is faster than applying with H1.
You have your Job surity in India as well.
Current market u need to run for Jobs, on L1 I feel its cool as there is responsibility of you r company to take care of you.
If they start process now itself , you can get Labour cleared fast and I think u can change company after that. ( I dont know GC process but I got same advice, but I didnt listen).
Reason people go for H1 is to have job with US companies than MNC's who pay more, if u r not really thinking of changing company then its better to be on L1 and apply for GC. Also a lot of fredom to move companies.
Thanks for asking, if I were in your position I will go for L1 company to process GC, Since my company said they wont do it, I took the H1.
Thanks
Vijay
amsgc
03-16 04:51 PM
It is good to see a sensible post in a long time.
Last Nov. I had gone for my biometrics and met this Chinese guy whose EB2 PD was somewhere in Jun 06 (EB2 China at the time was Jan 06). He was very confident that he will be current in a few months, and just rejected my efforts to recruit him (for IV). Well, it is now a few months later and the EB2 China PD is Dec 03. Unfortunately, because of the arbitrary movement in the visa bulletin, many people seem to think that their PD will be current soon. The truth of the matter is that the number of people in line (w/ or w/o labor sub, pd porting etc) is just very large. So, even if your PD becomes current, there is a slim chance that it will be adjudicated, and you will get the visa number assigned to your case, before the dates fall back again. Only a handful of very lucky people will get the GC, but for the majority, the frustration will continue.
The only way is to lobby congress for increasing the 140k cap. If they are not willing, then recapture numbers, exempt dependents etc. If even that is not acceptable this year then atleast lobby for admin fixes in the IV agenda - such as 3 yr. ead/ap, ability to file when PD is not current, and relax the AC21 rule further regarding proof of a valid job offer at the time of adjudication.
most people who filed LC in 2004/2005 before PERM got approvals in 2006 and 2007 and have only got a chance to apply for 485 in July VB. There are 10s of thousands of such people with that LC and EB2-India. When was the opportunity to get approval?
without an administrative fix, and with the current levels of demand and supply I would say its NIL. It needs to be a mistake...
Also, with H1 quota possibly going up this year or next, expect even more demand, and the dates will probably not be current for atleast a decade. The demand is going to go up (more H1s filing for greencards) and supply remaining the same (140k + country-limits etc)
Last Nov. I had gone for my biometrics and met this Chinese guy whose EB2 PD was somewhere in Jun 06 (EB2 China at the time was Jan 06). He was very confident that he will be current in a few months, and just rejected my efforts to recruit him (for IV). Well, it is now a few months later and the EB2 China PD is Dec 03. Unfortunately, because of the arbitrary movement in the visa bulletin, many people seem to think that their PD will be current soon. The truth of the matter is that the number of people in line (w/ or w/o labor sub, pd porting etc) is just very large. So, even if your PD becomes current, there is a slim chance that it will be adjudicated, and you will get the visa number assigned to your case, before the dates fall back again. Only a handful of very lucky people will get the GC, but for the majority, the frustration will continue.
The only way is to lobby congress for increasing the 140k cap. If they are not willing, then recapture numbers, exempt dependents etc. If even that is not acceptable this year then atleast lobby for admin fixes in the IV agenda - such as 3 yr. ead/ap, ability to file when PD is not current, and relax the AC21 rule further regarding proof of a valid job offer at the time of adjudication.
most people who filed LC in 2004/2005 before PERM got approvals in 2006 and 2007 and have only got a chance to apply for 485 in July VB. There are 10s of thousands of such people with that LC and EB2-India. When was the opportunity to get approval?
without an administrative fix, and with the current levels of demand and supply I would say its NIL. It needs to be a mistake...
Also, with H1 quota possibly going up this year or next, expect even more demand, and the dates will probably not be current for atleast a decade. The demand is going to go up (more H1s filing for greencards) and supply remaining the same (140k + country-limits etc)
more...
masaternyc
03-16 05:55 PM
Infinite_Patience_GC,
Most of these labor substitutes are sold/bought by these so called software consultancies(illegal dhanda) to so called software professionals and should be investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of law.
Most of these labor substitutes are sold/bought by these so called software consultancies(illegal dhanda) to so called software professionals and should be investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of law.
2010 Little Big Planet iPhone
GCHope2011
07-02 01:18 AM
To senators..
more...
Rajeev
01-31 04:28 PM
This is what I have come up with so far. Please everyone, feel free to modify this:
Have you been following at the snails pace movement of the priority dates? If not, here are some reminders
EB3 moved 2 weeks in 10 months!
EB2 hardly moved in 10 months!
If this is the rate at which things move, you will get your Green Card in anywhere from 5 to 15 years based on your priority dates.
Do you know how this affects you?
� Frustration of sticking to the same employer and no career growth.
� Children not being able to get state benefits.
� Spouses unable to work.
� The feeling of unsettlement.
� Above all, tons of mental stress.
Do you want be in this mess for ever. I am sure you don�t. We deserve better.
We all have to fight together to fix this broken immigration system and achieve IV�s goals to
� Remove retrogression
� Remove backlogs in labor certification
� Remove backlogs in I-140 and I-485 processing
� Revise the way visa quotas for highly skilled workers are determined
Register FREE to become a member today!
www.immigrationvoice.org
Excellent job Varsha. I would like to modify one line.
Children not being able to get scholarships, cannot work or get state tuition benefits instead of 'Children not being able to get state benefits.'
Have you been following at the snails pace movement of the priority dates? If not, here are some reminders
EB3 moved 2 weeks in 10 months!
EB2 hardly moved in 10 months!
If this is the rate at which things move, you will get your Green Card in anywhere from 5 to 15 years based on your priority dates.
Do you know how this affects you?
� Frustration of sticking to the same employer and no career growth.
� Children not being able to get state benefits.
� Spouses unable to work.
� The feeling of unsettlement.
� Above all, tons of mental stress.
Do you want be in this mess for ever. I am sure you don�t. We deserve better.
We all have to fight together to fix this broken immigration system and achieve IV�s goals to
� Remove retrogression
� Remove backlogs in labor certification
� Remove backlogs in I-140 and I-485 processing
� Revise the way visa quotas for highly skilled workers are determined
Register FREE to become a member today!
www.immigrationvoice.org
Excellent job Varsha. I would like to modify one line.
Children not being able to get scholarships, cannot work or get state tuition benefits instead of 'Children not being able to get state benefits.'
hair Little Big Planet 2 already in
nixstor
07-05 01:02 PM
And there is nothing wrong with that, right, because in the end you do not know what the financial situation of people on here is. One guy suggested a monthly contribution of 20 bucks, I laughed myself off the chair when I saw that. You're right, this is about "how not to pay" and why shouldn't it be. I don't make a lot, the lawyer's sucking me dry (in more ways than one if it were up to him), I've been waiting for this for ever, I have a family to support, etc.
Well, in the end you all do what you want, don't worry, be happy :D
Financial situation of all the non paying members is so bad that they earn 55-60K on avg and beyond. They all have all the filmi difficulties we see every day. What more reasons do we need NOT to pay?
Well, in the end you all do what you want, don't worry, be happy :D
Financial situation of all the non paying members is so bad that they earn 55-60K on avg and beyond. They all have all the filmi difficulties we see every day. What more reasons do we need NOT to pay?
more...
gunabcd
07-13 10:57 PM
http://www.murthy.com/chertoff_murthy.html
July 12, 2007
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Michael Chertoff, Esq.
Secretary
Department of Homeland Security
RE: USCIS Decision to Reject I-485 Filings
Dear Mr. Chertoff:
continue
Looks like "Jbpvisa" wanted to win the race of posting this article first, and he/she mis-spelled "Murthy" as Murphy. recently somebody came up with a "Secret News.." which was actually his own far fetched fantasy. I don't understand why some people are so thrilled about throwing around sensational sounding posts ? Isn't that similar to creating a chain email hoax?
July 12, 2007
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Michael Chertoff, Esq.
Secretary
Department of Homeland Security
RE: USCIS Decision to Reject I-485 Filings
Dear Mr. Chertoff:
continue
Looks like "Jbpvisa" wanted to win the race of posting this article first, and he/she mis-spelled "Murthy" as Murphy. recently somebody came up with a "Secret News.." which was actually his own far fetched fantasy. I don't understand why some people are so thrilled about throwing around sensational sounding posts ? Isn't that similar to creating a chain email hoax?
hot LittleBigPlanet Wallpaper by
paula
03-21 05:44 PM
EB3
Labor PD - 6/2/2004
Labor cleared - February 2007
485 filed - August 17
140 cleared - September 2007
EAD card - November 2007
AP - December 2007
485 pending.
Labor PD - 6/2/2004
Labor cleared - February 2007
485 filed - August 17
140 cleared - September 2007
EAD card - November 2007
AP - December 2007
485 pending.
more...
house The game LittleBigPlanet is on
andy garcia
01-26 09:40 AM
I had trouble sifting through all that data and figuring out what that was all about.
Could you give the specific report that you used for these numbers. And, if possible, any hints on how you arrived at the data below. I would appreciate that.
Thanks....
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
Could you give the specific report that you used for these numbers. And, if possible, any hints on how you arrived at the data below. I would appreciate that.
Thanks....
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
tattoo Little Big Planet Wallpaper
gc_chahiye
12-21 01:04 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but you've had unexpired H1B while you were out of work. This is not considered unlawful presence. On top of that, violation of status determination can be done only by the USCIS (IO). If they did not inform you that you violated status, you are good to go.
correct. out of status != unlawful presence.
So being out of status for >180 days does not trigger the 3 year ban. Either USCIS must make the determination that you are out of status, or your original period of authorized stay (I-94 date) must expire.
however being out of status >180 days since your last entry into the US is problematic for your adjustment of status.
correct. out of status != unlawful presence.
So being out of status for >180 days does not trigger the 3 year ban. Either USCIS must make the determination that you are out of status, or your original period of authorized stay (I-94 date) must expire.
however being out of status >180 days since your last entry into the US is problematic for your adjustment of status.
more...
pictures Little Big Planet video game
abhijitp
03-23 07:34 PM
I am from bay area, CA and would like to travel to DC to participate in the advocacy effort! If there is a group traveling from here, I want to get in touch with you. Please let me know. Thanks!
We can help you! Please check your PM
We can help you! Please check your PM
dresses LittleBigPlanet Wallpaper by
joydiptac
02-13 06:37 PM
Ethnic cleansing or not. I somehow knew this was coming. It was obvious, people not getting GCs for so many years. Disaster waiting to happen - count down till the next downturn.
People from Britain and Germany if you are not affected please do not comment. We are smart people we know what is happening no need to rationalize. I would like to see your reaction if you were asked to move back to your country after building a life here for almost a decade.
People from Britain and Germany if you are not affected please do not comment. We are smart people we know what is happening no need to rationalize. I would like to see your reaction if you were asked to move back to your country after building a life here for almost a decade.
more...
makeup Little Big Planet Wallpaper 4
rajuseattle
07-14 08:23 PM
ajthakur,
dont worry about LUD on 07/13, that was a generic update.
My wife's approved I-539 (H-4) from 2005 received LUD on 07/13, so that's nothing to do with your current RFE situation.
I think you are scared of your past employer or you are worrying too much, god knows what he has asked you to do which you dont want to mention on this forum, but if he has threatened you or if he is doing some illegal activities you have the protection under AC-21 for reporting such employers to USCIS and DoL. Please read the USCIS (Neufield) Memo published in May 2008.
Please let us know whats going on with your ex-employer, if he is trying to get some money from you or abusing you, you can very well report him to DoL and you will be fine under the new AC-21 memo which protects such employees who are whistle blowers and you are fully protected under US laws.
Lot of the times desi blood suckers abuse their employees and this is the reason USCIS came up with whistle blower protection under AC-21. your competent attorney can use this special provision and argue with USCIS why you were forced to change employment after filing your I-485 back in July 2007 and you switch the job under AC-21 provisions in August 2007.
dont worry too much, try preparing your AC-21 letter and Employment verification letter to answer the RFE.
dont worry about LUD on 07/13, that was a generic update.
My wife's approved I-539 (H-4) from 2005 received LUD on 07/13, so that's nothing to do with your current RFE situation.
I think you are scared of your past employer or you are worrying too much, god knows what he has asked you to do which you dont want to mention on this forum, but if he has threatened you or if he is doing some illegal activities you have the protection under AC-21 for reporting such employers to USCIS and DoL. Please read the USCIS (Neufield) Memo published in May 2008.
Please let us know whats going on with your ex-employer, if he is trying to get some money from you or abusing you, you can very well report him to DoL and you will be fine under the new AC-21 memo which protects such employees who are whistle blowers and you are fully protected under US laws.
Lot of the times desi blood suckers abuse their employees and this is the reason USCIS came up with whistle blower protection under AC-21. your competent attorney can use this special provision and argue with USCIS why you were forced to change employment after filing your I-485 back in July 2007 and you switch the job under AC-21 provisions in August 2007.
dont worry too much, try preparing your AC-21 letter and Employment verification letter to answer the RFE.
girlfriend St.Joseph#39;s Youth Banpong.
varshadas
01-25 10:00 AM
Date: Saturday, January 27, 2007
Start Time: 10:00 AM Eastern Std Time
End Time: 10:40 AM Eastern Std Time
Dial-in Number: 1-605-725-1900 (South Dakota)
Organizer Access Code: *938581 (you must include the leading star key)
Participant Access Code 34645
Thanks,
Varsha
Start Time: 10:00 AM Eastern Std Time
End Time: 10:40 AM Eastern Std Time
Dial-in Number: 1-605-725-1900 (South Dakota)
Organizer Access Code: *938581 (you must include the leading star key)
Participant Access Code 34645
Thanks,
Varsha
hairstyles little big planet wallpaper. LittleBig Planet Review
psaxena
03-09 02:50 PM
I think this fits for everyone of us. :eek:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/blog.php?b=56
lol..dont say 2019..my PD is almost same as yours and I aint hanging around till 2019..by that time I will be old and no idea what will I do with..GC..probaly hope for citizenship and apply for retirement benefits :confused::confused::confused:
Edit: Never mind..yours is EB3..so may be mine will come in 2015
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/blog.php?b=56
lol..dont say 2019..my PD is almost same as yours and I aint hanging around till 2019..by that time I will be old and no idea what will I do with..GC..probaly hope for citizenship and apply for retirement benefits :confused::confused::confused:
Edit: Never mind..yours is EB3..so may be mine will come in 2015
partha_vus
10-26 11:35 AM
PD Jan 2001(ported priority Date)
I-140 Approed June 2007
I485 Applied RD:July 2, 2007
EAD cards received
thanks
I-140 Approed June 2007
I485 Applied RD:July 2, 2007
EAD cards received
thanks
bfadlia
02-03 12:37 PM
Guys,
I know ROW country may not like this thread, but look at EB-3 India or China, put yourself in our shoes and than you may realize how unfair this country is. In this unprecedented financial turmoil, I feel there are very remote chances for CIR or any package which increase immigration etc would pass, I am taking this initiative to gather as many people I can and go to washington. Again this is not an IV effort. If you are with me , you can spare some time or few days in Washington, please PM me. our sole agenda is bring a 2 line bill to remove country quota...
Didn't we have these discussions over and over before? and the admins telling us to stop because IV goals are set and will not change?
If you just want to argue and waste time, lookup previous threads discussing this and you'll have enough reading material for weeks to come.
I know ROW country may not like this thread, but look at EB-3 India or China, put yourself in our shoes and than you may realize how unfair this country is. In this unprecedented financial turmoil, I feel there are very remote chances for CIR or any package which increase immigration etc would pass, I am taking this initiative to gather as many people I can and go to washington. Again this is not an IV effort. If you are with me , you can spare some time or few days in Washington, please PM me. our sole agenda is bring a 2 line bill to remove country quota...
Didn't we have these discussions over and over before? and the admins telling us to stop because IV goals are set and will not change?
If you just want to argue and waste time, lookup previous threads discussing this and you'll have enough reading material for weeks to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment