gvenkat
10-10 12:57 PM
Just to avoid all this , You can say I'm a US citizen and move on. They cannot ask for any verification can they?
wallpaper car town nissan 350z tokyo
dressking
09-28 03:39 PM
Sorry about the generalization. I was refering to Senthil1 kind of folks, not folks like you. Thanks for all the support. My friend got a green card as recently as a month back, he struggled for a long time before he got one, I asked him if he wants to come for the rally and he told me "MRRRRRRRR I GOT MY GREEN CARD, YOU ARE ASKING THE WRONG PERSON FOR THE RALLY" and the same person told me "SOMETHING MUST HAPPEN TO THESE ROTTEN CONSULTING COMPANIES, THEY ARE RUINING THE SYSTEM" he got his GC from a small consulting company and after getting his GC he says these companies must not exist - he wants to shut thee door behind him
Those Asian Americans who are against new Asian immigrants, which include some of my relatives, sadly to tell you, are just helping White Americans in this fight. It is their wish and their passion. But if White Americans don't want it, they will have no chance of getting their voices heard. Not all White Americans are against immigration. But there is a big percentage of White Americans who are either fiercely against it or do not want it. I can hardly find any White American who says he or she wants more immigrants. And a small percentage of White Americans are fiercely against immigration. They would curse at anyone who they think is a new immigrant at any opportunity they have.
Those Asian Americans who are against new Asian immigrants, which include some of my relatives, sadly to tell you, are just helping White Americans in this fight. It is their wish and their passion. But if White Americans don't want it, they will have no chance of getting their voices heard. Not all White Americans are against immigration. But there is a big percentage of White Americans who are either fiercely against it or do not want it. I can hardly find any White American who says he or she wants more immigrants. And a small percentage of White Americans are fiercely against immigration. They would curse at anyone who they think is a new immigrant at any opportunity they have.
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!
===============
2011 Nissan 350Z The Fast And The
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.
more...
glus
02-21 12:32 PM
Hi,
Can someone please tell if we can port to EB2 from EB3 even after using AC21 and statred working on EAD??
-THanks
yes, you can unless your eb3 I140 has been revoked for fraud or misrepresentation of facts.
Can someone please tell if we can port to EB2 from EB3 even after using AC21 and statred working on EAD??
-THanks
yes, you can unless your eb3 I140 has been revoked for fraud or misrepresentation of facts.
pappu
05-07 11:25 AM
I saw couple of them last week, now I searching, searching and searching, not able to see donor forums on updates except one that says "start of the donor forums".
Is there a link that shows all donor forums...
Looks like you contributed few minutes ago. You should be able to see the forums by tomorrow once we enter you in the system tonight.
On http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/index.php
you will see he 'donor forum' area as the first forum catagory once your status changes from member to donor.
Is there a link that shows all donor forums...
Looks like you contributed few minutes ago. You should be able to see the forums by tomorrow once we enter you in the system tonight.
On http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/index.php
you will see he 'donor forum' area as the first forum catagory once your status changes from member to donor.
more...
Jaime
09-10 09:13 PM
I wish these bills the best! Also, once we have a new president we will have another shot at solving our immigration woes! Let's go for it guys!
2010 3 TOKYO DRIFT 2003 NISSAN
Daisy
10-25 02:15 PM
My EB3 India PD: March 2003
June filer
June filer
more...
HV000
03-18 06:18 PM
Please see the last sentece which says "Thus, the same cut-off date for each country since the extra numbers must be made available in priority date order without regard to country".
When they use this spill over, only PD is imp not the country.
This will make prediction difficult since we do not know how many PDs are eligible in either country. Am i right?
When they use this spill over, only PD is imp not the country.
This will make prediction difficult since we do not know how many PDs are eligible in either country. Am i right?
hair TOKYO DRIFT 2003 Nissan
![nissan 350z tokyo drift. Nissan 350z [Tokyo Drift]](http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/9861/dsc0037wy.jpg "Nissan 350z [Tokyo Drift]")
sunny1000
04-09 06:31 PM
I completely agree with you . For five years EB3 is stuck in 2001 that means people who came here 10 years back are still waiting. Something needs to be done by someone somewhere but I guess no one has any idea who can ( except the congress ) .
All of my friends about 10-15 of them who came with me in 2000-2001 timeframe got their GC's and their citizenships in EB3 ( none in EB2 ) and I am still hanging .
I wonder what was that which made their application go by light speed and my application go into a blackhole :)
Probably, their labor got approved before the FY2006 when the retrogression started. All the categories were current until then due to the recapture done by AC21. I am stuck in this mess because my labor took 5 years to get approved.
All of my friends about 10-15 of them who came with me in 2000-2001 timeframe got their GC's and their citizenships in EB3 ( none in EB2 ) and I am still hanging .
I wonder what was that which made their application go by light speed and my application go into a blackhole :)
Probably, their labor got approved before the FY2006 when the retrogression started. All the categories were current until then due to the recapture done by AC21. I am stuck in this mess because my labor took 5 years to get approved.
more...
return_to_india
10-10 05:42 PM
It is unreasonable to carry a passport at all times when you are living here. What happens if you leave it behind in the grocery store by mistake or leave it in the cab or something? I think the issue reported by the OP is more relevant close to the border. Nobody asks for your passport in Vegas or Denver.
I would advise US govt. to build a system where officers can verify legality by checking the biometrics ( some handheld devices that connect to a DB ) , which should free up one to carry documents while on domestic travel. If biometrics cannot be found then proceed to grill on docs.
I would advise US govt. to build a system where officers can verify legality by checking the biometrics ( some handheld devices that connect to a DB ) , which should free up one to carry documents while on domestic travel. If biometrics cannot be found then proceed to grill on docs.
hot 2003 Nissan 350Z
BharatPremi
03-12 12:02 PM
I am worried about this financial reports. I am not sure many consulting companies will give those to employee who is leaving
Yes, I believe, most companies (new employers - mid level) would not even ask and if requested and you can not provide then generally they may not make a big deal but underlying result for asking is to check if financial strength is "Good" and I-140 is approved then no problem hiring an EAD holder.
Yes, I believe, most companies (new employers - mid level) would not even ask and if requested and you can not provide then generally they may not make a big deal but underlying result for asking is to check if financial strength is "Good" and I-140 is approved then no problem hiring an EAD holder.
more...
house But seeing it on this 350Z has
senthil1
04-04 11:43 AM
It is true. But either Corporate America or Lawyers does not want to address the issues raised by Unions or anti immigrants. They want free ride and does not care about working class. No bold leadership in congress to address both sides issues. Congress members are siding with any one of two groups. Everyone knows that compromise will easily pass. But compromise will not give free ride to any group. Basically moderate H1b and GC increase with protection to US workers without wage pressurw will get most of the congress support. Even with illegal immigration also it is easy to pass if they give citizenship to existing people and allow more workers with complete protection to US workers without wage pressure will get most of congress support.
I think it is true coporate america will not allow it to go through, but it is also true that any bill faverable to the H1B and or GC will also have the same death
as this one , do not underestimate the anti - immigration and unions clout
on democrats, if corporate america wants H1B increase it will come at a price,
more no free rides for corporate america as well.
that is the reason why we see stalemate for any kind of immigration bill, neither side is able to push anything.
thanks
I think it is true coporate america will not allow it to go through, but it is also true that any bill faverable to the H1B and or GC will also have the same death
as this one , do not underestimate the anti - immigration and unions clout
on democrats, if corporate america wants H1B increase it will come at a price,
more no free rides for corporate america as well.
that is the reason why we see stalemate for any kind of immigration bill, neither side is able to push anything.
thanks
tattoo Tokyo Drift Profile Photo
pbojja
12-10 11:45 AM
With all the porting nonsense going on eb2 will move backward and eb3 will inch forward slowly. We might end up with eb2 and eb3 in 2002. congrats to all the people who ported, the only thing you accomplished is you made sure eb2 does not progress (it does not mean you have have moved forward by porting, it just means that you have made sure you have prevented original eb2 guys from getting green card), the people who ported wont gain any benefit but they will make it worse for everyone, they have to file a second i140 which will take at least another 1 year to clear and after 1 year when the ported 140's clear the eb2 will go back to 2002. You have also accomplished another great feat, DOL is going to make it impossible to file eb2 in IT jobs so even genuine people are screwed. Before people start giving red dots and justifying there porting I have an message for you, your behavior is no different from the people who did labor substitution, the end result was DOL ended labor substitution and the result of all this porting is DOL has made it impossible to get eb2 even for genuine cases. Just because others are doing it does not mean you can do it, obviously it is wrong therefore dol removed labor substitution and now dol is making it impossible to get eb2 for IT jobs even for genuine cases. 90 % of people doing this porting are desi consulting employees, they wine and complain about desi consulting companies as blood suckers (justifiably) but they themselves are bloodsuckers on the EB2 community by doing this eb3 to eb2 porting.
Stop the non-sense . As if USCIS-DOL knows exactly how many portings are going on ..do you think all the movement of this dates make sense ? just check last year movements .. they have no theory no logic or no numbers they just move with no logic ... At the end of year they move to 2006 or 2007and back to 2003 next year ..
I m EB2 2006 and I have no problems with portings ..go for it EB3 folks ..I know it will be a year or more process but worth it , I think EB3 early 2000 folks deserve GC than a 2006-2007 EB2 folks(Dont think you are genious just because you are EB2 ..we know we all do same jobs).
I m ready for reds and dont care a bit .
Stop the non-sense . As if USCIS-DOL knows exactly how many portings are going on ..do you think all the movement of this dates make sense ? just check last year movements .. they have no theory no logic or no numbers they just move with no logic ... At the end of year they move to 2006 or 2007and back to 2003 next year ..
I m EB2 2006 and I have no problems with portings ..go for it EB3 folks ..I know it will be a year or more process but worth it , I think EB3 early 2000 folks deserve GC than a 2006-2007 EB2 folks(Dont think you are genious just because you are EB2 ..we know we all do same jobs).
I m ready for reds and dont care a bit .
more...
pictures Nissan 350z on SEVAS WHEELS R
pappu
04-05 11:52 AM
One more day to go before the end of this campaign.
Here is another incentive to make these call:
I will donate $ 5 to IV, for each member that makes these call from now on till end of the day tomorrow. I know, your hourly billing rates are way higher :) but this is what I can do for now.
I already called all the people on the list, it was easy. Office staff members were patient and friendly. Show me what you got!
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=56064#post56064
Please join this campaign
Here is another incentive to make these call:
I will donate $ 5 to IV, for each member that makes these call from now on till end of the day tomorrow. I know, your hourly billing rates are way higher :) but this is what I can do for now.
I already called all the people on the list, it was easy. Office staff members were patient and friendly. Show me what you got!
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=56064#post56064
Please join this campaign
dresses Nissan+350z+tokyo+drift+
10dulkar
03-16 01:07 PM
dont "warn" me..........you think i give a damn about your "warning"??
the right to speak is MINE. all YOU can do from your high horse is ban me from the forum.
i really dont care, i still think interfilers and substituters should get what they derserve. every single bit of it. may they really, truly, go to hell, and stay there indefinitely.
and NO, dont preach to me about trying to "fix" the system. the agenda here is mostly EB3, and mostly Indian, at best. the multitudes of diploma holders get pissed when i call them out for what they are...........why are THEY so sensitive and ashamed???
i have a RIGHT to be in the proper EB queue, which i EARNED, and did not employ cheap desi-employer tricks and other games to get into........if that does not answer your doubts my friend, then as i said earlier, ban me..........i dont really care either way.
i dont advertise what i have done or can do for IV. somehow, that is a little demeaning. sort of like going to a temple and offering some money and then coming out and proclaiming to one and all how generous a give you are....
or his posts.... they are just inflaming you to reply.... please don't......
the right to speak is MINE. all YOU can do from your high horse is ban me from the forum.
i really dont care, i still think interfilers and substituters should get what they derserve. every single bit of it. may they really, truly, go to hell, and stay there indefinitely.
and NO, dont preach to me about trying to "fix" the system. the agenda here is mostly EB3, and mostly Indian, at best. the multitudes of diploma holders get pissed when i call them out for what they are...........why are THEY so sensitive and ashamed???
i have a RIGHT to be in the proper EB queue, which i EARNED, and did not employ cheap desi-employer tricks and other games to get into........if that does not answer your doubts my friend, then as i said earlier, ban me..........i dont really care either way.
i dont advertise what i have done or can do for IV. somehow, that is a little demeaning. sort of like going to a temple and offering some money and then coming out and proclaiming to one and all how generous a give you are....
or his posts.... they are just inflaming you to reply.... please don't......
more...
makeup the Furious: Tokyo Drift
leoindiano
02-18 08:25 PM
I dont think it will be passed. They included so many things initially. After discussion they will drop the thing one after another.
There are two sections related to us.
TITLE V--LEGALIZATION FOR LONG-TERM RESIDENTS
TITLE VII--EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRATION
If this bill passed then it will create one grand huge backlog for all countries and for all category of immigration. WHY?? Because for Title V they will ask for proof and then again finger printing for FBI check and I dont know home many paper work. If they simply increase the GC #s it will work for us. We already have completed the paper work and standing in Q.
Agree,
this is such a waste if it passes. I am sure there will be another application like (I-420). Another Q you will have to stand in and wait...wait...wait...
There are two sections related to us.
TITLE V--LEGALIZATION FOR LONG-TERM RESIDENTS
TITLE VII--EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRATION
If this bill passed then it will create one grand huge backlog for all countries and for all category of immigration. WHY?? Because for Title V they will ask for proof and then again finger printing for FBI check and I dont know home many paper work. If they simply increase the GC #s it will work for us. We already have completed the paper work and standing in Q.
Agree,
this is such a waste if it passes. I am sure there will be another application like (I-420). Another Q you will have to stand in and wait...wait...wait...
girlfriend nissan 350z s-tune picture
vdlrao
06-09 02:58 AM
"It has been necessary to retrogress the Mexico Family First and Third preference cut-off dates, as well as the China Employment Second preference cut-off date for July to keep visa issuances within those annual category numerical limits. "
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4512.html
This seems to be that the Spill Over Hasnt Occured Yet for this year.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4512.html
This seems to be that the Spill Over Hasnt Occured Yet for this year.
hairstyles 1/24 scale Nissan 350Z Track
BharatPremi
03-17 04:45 PM
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?
Spillover is not handled within category: It is handled from top preference to lower preference. Spillover pattern is as under. It is circular and cyclic with broken link from EB3 to EB4.
Just for a reference read "EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCES" on following bulletin link.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4177.html
So legal pattern for spillover is as under.
--------------------------------------
EB1 -> EB2
EB1->EB2 -> EB3. ( This is legally defined but never happens as EB2 has a
larger demand.)
EB4->EB1
Note: Nothing goes from EB3 to any category and practical reality is that
nothing extra comes to EB3 as EB2 is always hungry:)
In April what happened was not "really a Spillover, the loose term what we use on this board" but the use of Section "D. INDIA EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY" in the bulletin.
USCIS found that EB2-ROW seems to be having less applicants against "total number of visas which can be granted this year" so if it does not use them then will be wasted. So USCIS again checked the database and found that EB2-India seems to be having considerable load so it decided to divert those numbers for EB2-India. USCIS can do that as per mentioned section and for such kind of awards "per country limit" is not applicable and that is perfectly legal.
Spillover is not handled within category: It is handled from top preference to lower preference. Spillover pattern is as under. It is circular and cyclic with broken link from EB3 to EB4.
Just for a reference read "EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCES" on following bulletin link.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4177.html
So legal pattern for spillover is as under.
--------------------------------------
EB1 -> EB2
EB1->EB2 -> EB3. ( This is legally defined but never happens as EB2 has a
larger demand.)
EB4->EB1
Note: Nothing goes from EB3 to any category and practical reality is that
nothing extra comes to EB3 as EB2 is always hungry:)
In April what happened was not "really a Spillover, the loose term what we use on this board" but the use of Section "D. INDIA EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY" in the bulletin.
USCIS found that EB2-ROW seems to be having less applicants against "total number of visas which can be granted this year" so if it does not use them then will be wasted. So USCIS again checked the database and found that EB2-India seems to be having considerable load so it decided to divert those numbers for EB2-India. USCIS can do that as per mentioned section and for such kind of awards "per country limit" is not applicable and that is perfectly legal.
angelfire76
02-14 09:25 PM
The pint is well made....
See the history... all big things ( godd or evil ) started small....
How can one bring US out of recession by firing 65000 H1-B when FOUR MILLION jobs are lost in a year ?????
85000 x 6 = 410k. Of which let's assume that around 30-35k are taken by Indian companies who generally don't use the H1B time to the same extent as local companies or desi consultancies. It still leaves around 300k jobs that could be vacated by force.
Even 30k jobs added "back" to the available pool for American workers is a PR victory for the administration. Besides nobody likes us anyway, which is another PR coup for the antis.
See the history... all big things ( godd or evil ) started small....
How can one bring US out of recession by firing 65000 H1-B when FOUR MILLION jobs are lost in a year ?????
85000 x 6 = 410k. Of which let's assume that around 30-35k are taken by Indian companies who generally don't use the H1B time to the same extent as local companies or desi consultancies. It still leaves around 300k jobs that could be vacated by force.
Even 30k jobs added "back" to the available pool for American workers is a PR victory for the administration. Besides nobody likes us anyway, which is another PR coup for the antis.
pappu
02-08 02:41 PM
In December, the CIS Ombudsman's Office began a pilot teleconference program on issues of concern to individuals and employers as they interface with USCIS. We have had three such pilot teleconferences so far and in February will continue with a few more. Please join us on Friday, February 16, from 11:00 a.m.-12:00 noon EST for the "Newark District Office: How Is It Working For You?" We look forward to hearing your comments, thoughts, and suggestions for improvement as well as any best practices you have noticed in your interaction with that office. We also would appreciate your thoughts regarding the Cherry Hill , NJ field office.
To participate in Friday's call, please RSVP to cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov. The first 50 people to sign up will be able to participate and will receive a return email with the call-in information. If you are unable to participate on Friday, stay tuned for similar upcoming programs which will be posted on our website, www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman. Also, if you have a topic of interest for a future call, please send it to cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov.
We appreciate your assistance with this pilot program.
Thank you,
Citizenship & Immigration Services Ombudsman
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop: 1225
Washington , DC 20528-1225
Office: 202-357-8100
www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman
To participate in Friday's call, please RSVP to cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov. The first 50 people to sign up will be able to participate and will receive a return email with the call-in information. If you are unable to participate on Friday, stay tuned for similar upcoming programs which will be posted on our website, www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman. Also, if you have a topic of interest for a future call, please send it to cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov.
We appreciate your assistance with this pilot program.
Thank you,
Citizenship & Immigration Services Ombudsman
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop: 1225
Washington , DC 20528-1225
Office: 202-357-8100
www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman
No comments:
Post a Comment