joydiptac
02-11 04:51 PM
Please note that the Form I140 is no longer valid for porting purpose under section 106� of AC21 if the I140 was revoked due to the fact that you did not meet the minimum requirements for the labor certificate at the time of filing. Due to the fact that beneficiary of the For I140 was found to be �unqualified� at the time of filing you are not eligible for relied under section 106� of AC21.
**
Is there a possibility that your previous company revoked the I140 saying that they wrongly filed your 140 and that you were not qualified based upon the labor certificate? I hope 180 days had passed after 140 approval. A little more detail on the case will be appreciated. Was it a case of substituted labor?
First try to figure out what the previous company has done.
Get the help of your attorney ASAP. Figure out if there is a way to undo the damage.
I am not very sure of the details, a person I used to know was forced to join his previous company because they threatened him in similar lines.
& please do keep us informed along the way. We may be able to be of assistance to you in some way or the other. Local IV chapters have access to local Congressmen etc.
If nothing works go kick the ass of the person who is responsible for your predicament. Interpret kick ass to more severe alternatives. Some companies are anyway taking advantage of people stuck in GC queue. On top of that if they harm us they need to pay a heavy price.
All the best!
**
Is there a possibility that your previous company revoked the I140 saying that they wrongly filed your 140 and that you were not qualified based upon the labor certificate? I hope 180 days had passed after 140 approval. A little more detail on the case will be appreciated. Was it a case of substituted labor?
First try to figure out what the previous company has done.
Get the help of your attorney ASAP. Figure out if there is a way to undo the damage.
I am not very sure of the details, a person I used to know was forced to join his previous company because they threatened him in similar lines.
& please do keep us informed along the way. We may be able to be of assistance to you in some way or the other. Local IV chapters have access to local Congressmen etc.
If nothing works go kick the ass of the person who is responsible for your predicament. Interpret kick ass to more severe alternatives. Some companies are anyway taking advantage of people stuck in GC queue. On top of that if they harm us they need to pay a heavy price.
All the best!
wallpaper Many Support Breast Cancer
samrat_bhargava_vihari
06-18 11:57 AM
One does NOT need EAD to use AC21. I don't understand the panic.
In fact, one can be working at Employer B and can claim AC-21 for Employer C as a future job.
----------------------------------
Permanent Resident since May 2002
AND ONE MORE THING. THESE PROCESSING DATES ARE FOR RENEWAL APPLICATIONS. NOT FOR NEW APPLICATIONS. FROM MY EXPERIENCE I SAW FIRST TIME FILERS ARE GETTING THEM IMMEDIATELY THAN RENEWALS WHICH WERE TAKING 2-3 MONTHS.
In fact, one can be working at Employer B and can claim AC-21 for Employer C as a future job.
----------------------------------
Permanent Resident since May 2002
AND ONE MORE THING. THESE PROCESSING DATES ARE FOR RENEWAL APPLICATIONS. NOT FOR NEW APPLICATIONS. FROM MY EXPERIENCE I SAW FIRST TIME FILERS ARE GETTING THEM IMMEDIATELY THAN RENEWALS WHICH WERE TAKING 2-3 MONTHS.
sagis99
05-22 11:25 AM
you know, they posted August 29 for I140 at Texas, i predict it will magically move back to, lets say, July 28.
2011 Heart cancer tattoo designed
burnt
06-20 07:50 PM
Hi Friends - Can someone give the list of documents & fees that are needed for AP renewal?
more...
rbharol
10-13 02:30 AM
The silicon link does not work. Have they removed the article???
Originally Posted by tdasara
http://management.silicon.com/careers/0,39024671,39163118,00.htm
send your comments to--
editorial@silicon.com
Will Sturgeon
==========
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514810
----
write to
letters@thecrimson.com
Originally Posted by tdasara
http://management.silicon.com/careers/0,39024671,39163118,00.htm
send your comments to--
editorial@silicon.com
Will Sturgeon
==========
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514810
----
write to
letters@thecrimson.com
hiralal
08-03 11:15 PM
Although officially so far, USCIS has not branded an I-485 status as "pre-adjudicated", if you haven't received any RFE and/or any other negative status about your 485, and if your case is outside the processing dates of the Service Center, then obviously dude your case is pre-adjudicated. I don't understand why most of the people are ignoring this simple fact. I think we need to stop consider USCIS a mystery box, and start treating it like an organization that processes the applications in a structured way.
I tend to believe that the offical status of being "pre-adjudicated" is coming soon. A few months back I read that USCIS is considering publishing another set of date known as "Qualifying Date" in their monthly visa bulletin. That date will define if you are "qualified" to file I-485. They will determine this date based on their workload. The idea behind is to avoid another July 2007 fiasco. They intend to process the 485's early rather than have you wait for your PD to become current. That way they will manage their workload efficiently and avoid visa wastage. They did indicate these applications to be pre-adjudicated then. I am guessing the official status of "pre-adjudicated" on your 485 application is coming soon.
well my view is that it is not that obvious !! say someone is in EB3-I with a priority date of 2004 or EB2-I with a PD of 2006 / 2007 - what would USCIS do ?
these are not the low hanging cases (as opposed to EB2 with PD of 2004 or EB3 with PD of 2001) ..or in other words - there is less chance that they will become current soon ..in that case, does USCIS close the case and put the file away or will they still pre-adjudicate ??
(I am not as informed -- since I have not read the article in detail ..and hence my post is more of a question ...)
I tend to believe that the offical status of being "pre-adjudicated" is coming soon. A few months back I read that USCIS is considering publishing another set of date known as "Qualifying Date" in their monthly visa bulletin. That date will define if you are "qualified" to file I-485. They will determine this date based on their workload. The idea behind is to avoid another July 2007 fiasco. They intend to process the 485's early rather than have you wait for your PD to become current. That way they will manage their workload efficiently and avoid visa wastage. They did indicate these applications to be pre-adjudicated then. I am guessing the official status of "pre-adjudicated" on your 485 application is coming soon.
well my view is that it is not that obvious !! say someone is in EB3-I with a priority date of 2004 or EB2-I with a PD of 2006 / 2007 - what would USCIS do ?
these are not the low hanging cases (as opposed to EB2 with PD of 2004 or EB3 with PD of 2001) ..or in other words - there is less chance that they will become current soon ..in that case, does USCIS close the case and put the file away or will they still pre-adjudicate ??
(I am not as informed -- since I have not read the article in detail ..and hence my post is more of a question ...)
more...
crystal
08-15 11:38 AM
It would give some idea I think
http://www.usvisahelp.com/art_intent.html
In order to determine whether the alien truthfully represented his or her intent to remain with his or her petitioning U.S. employer after receiving the green card, the USCIS uses the standard created by Seihoon v. Levy. That is, USCIS examines the “rapid course of events” following the alien’s receipt of his or her green card. The Department of State has reduced this rule to a 30-60-90 day formula which USCIS generally follows. If an alien ends employment with the petitioning employer within 30 days of receiving his/her green card, then it is highly likely that USCIS will decide that the alien’s intent at the Consulate interview was not, as he/she stated, to remain with the petitioning employer indefinitely. After 60 days have passed, it is less likely (but still risky) that USCIS will determine that the alien lied about his/her intent at the Consulate interview. And after 90 days, it is highly unlikely that USCIS will have a problem with the alien’s change of employment
http://www.usvisahelp.com/art_intent.html
In order to determine whether the alien truthfully represented his or her intent to remain with his or her petitioning U.S. employer after receiving the green card, the USCIS uses the standard created by Seihoon v. Levy. That is, USCIS examines the “rapid course of events” following the alien’s receipt of his or her green card. The Department of State has reduced this rule to a 30-60-90 day formula which USCIS generally follows. If an alien ends employment with the petitioning employer within 30 days of receiving his/her green card, then it is highly likely that USCIS will decide that the alien’s intent at the Consulate interview was not, as he/she stated, to remain with the petitioning employer indefinitely. After 60 days have passed, it is less likely (but still risky) that USCIS will determine that the alien lied about his/her intent at the Consulate interview. And after 90 days, it is highly unlikely that USCIS will have a problem with the alien’s change of employment
2010 cancer ribbon tattoos. Breast
bluekayal
10-17 12:05 PM
Schedule A group 2 is "exceptional ability" similar to the EB1 but with less stringent guidelines. You have to show international acclaim. I work for a non-profit that has international links.
How did u change from EB2 to SCH A worker? wahts the basis for that?
How did u change from EB2 to SCH A worker? wahts the basis for that?
more...
admin
04-03 11:22 AM
bheemi,
I am shocked at your statement after seeing such an organized effort from IV. The only conclusion that I could make is - you are sympathetic to the 'anti-immigrant sentiments' and are out here to create trouble.
Anyways, instead of criticizing someone, please let us know what you have done for the cause.
All,
These are highly stressful times and I am sure people did not mean to create trouble when they wrote such message but rather they were merely venting their frustrations.
We just need to make sure that we're able to convert this energy into some that is positive and useful. Again no offense meant to anyone and no offense taken.
I am shocked at your statement after seeing such an organized effort from IV. The only conclusion that I could make is - you are sympathetic to the 'anti-immigrant sentiments' and are out here to create trouble.
Anyways, instead of criticizing someone, please let us know what you have done for the cause.
All,
These are highly stressful times and I am sure people did not mean to create trouble when they wrote such message but rather they were merely venting their frustrations.
We just need to make sure that we're able to convert this energy into some that is positive and useful. Again no offense meant to anyone and no offense taken.
hair cancer sign tattoo. cancer
looivy
07-20 03:46 PM
Hillary just cares about vote bank. The Bay area group that invited her should not endorse her.
Shame on Dems.
The short answer is most republicans voted yes for the senator Cornyn's bill to recapture the unused employment -based visas from previous years and almost all Democrats voted No (except Murray democrat from Washington voted yes for the bill. I guess Microsoft does have influencial power on the senator from Washington state)
see the info here about bill: http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html
Yesterday, Senator Cornyn introduced on the Senate floor Amendment 2339 to H.R. 2669, FY 2008 Budget, proposing the following temporaary relieffor the employment-based immigrants. Sadly, the bill was rejected by 55 Nays, 40 Yeas, and one No Vote. Do your want to know who voted against this bill? Click here.
SEC. __. EMPLOYMENT-BASED VISAS.
(a) Recapture of Unused Employment-Based Immigrant Visas.--Section 106(d) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-313; 8 U.S.C. 1153 note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``1994, 1996, 1997, 1998,'' after ``available in fiscal year'';
(B) by striking ``or 2004'' and inserting ``2004, or 2006''; and
(C) by striking ``be available'' and all that follows and inserting the following: ``be available only to--
``(A) employment-based immigrants under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b));
``(B) the family members accompanying or following to join such employment-based immigrants under section 203(d) of such Act; and
``(C) those immigrant workers who had petitions approved based on Schedule A, Group I under section 656.5 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated by the Secretary of Labor.''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``1999 through 2004'' and inserting ``1994, 1996 through 1998, 2001 through 2004, and 2006''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by amending clause (ii) to read as follows:
``(ii) DISTRIBUTION OF VISAS.--The total number of visas made available under paragraph (1) from unused visas from fiscal years 1994, 1996 through 1998, 2001 through 2004, and 2006 shall be distributed as follows:
``(I) The total number of visas made available for immigrant workers who had petitions approved based on Schedule A, Group I under section 656.5 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated by the Secretary of Labor shall be 61,000.
``(II) The visas remaining from the total made available under subclause (I) shall be allocated equally among employment-based immigrants with approved petitions under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (and their family members accompanying or following to join).''.
(b) H-1B Visa Availability.--Section 214(g)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (vi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating clause (vii) as clause (ix); and
(3) by inserting after clause (vi) the following:
``(vii) 65,000 in each of fiscal years 2004 through 2007
``(viii) 115,000 in fiscal year 2008; and''.
This reporter asks the readers to join him to extend our "THANK YOU" to the Senator Cornyn for continuously supporting the American businesses, foreign brains, and employment-based immigration. This reporter also urges the readers to send a thank-you email for his support.
We are proud of the Senators from Minnesota, Norm Coleman (R) and Amy Klochubar, by setting aside the partisan politics and casting bi-parisan support for this bill. THANK YOU, and THANK!!
here is the list of the senators of their votes:
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Motion (Motion to Waive Cornyn Amdt No. 2339 )
Vote Number: 266 Vote Date: July 19, 2007, 11:00 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Motion Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2339 to S.Amdt. 2327 to H.R. 2669 (College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 )
Statement of Purpose: To provide interim relief for shortages in employment-based visas for aliens with extraordinary ability and advanced degrees and for nurses.
Vote Counts: YEAs 55
NAYs 40
Not Voting 5
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Shame on Dems.
The short answer is most republicans voted yes for the senator Cornyn's bill to recapture the unused employment -based visas from previous years and almost all Democrats voted No (except Murray democrat from Washington voted yes for the bill. I guess Microsoft does have influencial power on the senator from Washington state)
see the info here about bill: http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html
Yesterday, Senator Cornyn introduced on the Senate floor Amendment 2339 to H.R. 2669, FY 2008 Budget, proposing the following temporaary relieffor the employment-based immigrants. Sadly, the bill was rejected by 55 Nays, 40 Yeas, and one No Vote. Do your want to know who voted against this bill? Click here.
SEC. __. EMPLOYMENT-BASED VISAS.
(a) Recapture of Unused Employment-Based Immigrant Visas.--Section 106(d) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-313; 8 U.S.C. 1153 note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``1994, 1996, 1997, 1998,'' after ``available in fiscal year'';
(B) by striking ``or 2004'' and inserting ``2004, or 2006''; and
(C) by striking ``be available'' and all that follows and inserting the following: ``be available only to--
``(A) employment-based immigrants under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b));
``(B) the family members accompanying or following to join such employment-based immigrants under section 203(d) of such Act; and
``(C) those immigrant workers who had petitions approved based on Schedule A, Group I under section 656.5 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated by the Secretary of Labor.''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``1999 through 2004'' and inserting ``1994, 1996 through 1998, 2001 through 2004, and 2006''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by amending clause (ii) to read as follows:
``(ii) DISTRIBUTION OF VISAS.--The total number of visas made available under paragraph (1) from unused visas from fiscal years 1994, 1996 through 1998, 2001 through 2004, and 2006 shall be distributed as follows:
``(I) The total number of visas made available for immigrant workers who had petitions approved based on Schedule A, Group I under section 656.5 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated by the Secretary of Labor shall be 61,000.
``(II) The visas remaining from the total made available under subclause (I) shall be allocated equally among employment-based immigrants with approved petitions under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (and their family members accompanying or following to join).''.
(b) H-1B Visa Availability.--Section 214(g)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (vi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating clause (vii) as clause (ix); and
(3) by inserting after clause (vi) the following:
``(vii) 65,000 in each of fiscal years 2004 through 2007
``(viii) 115,000 in fiscal year 2008; and''.
This reporter asks the readers to join him to extend our "THANK YOU" to the Senator Cornyn for continuously supporting the American businesses, foreign brains, and employment-based immigration. This reporter also urges the readers to send a thank-you email for his support.
We are proud of the Senators from Minnesota, Norm Coleman (R) and Amy Klochubar, by setting aside the partisan politics and casting bi-parisan support for this bill. THANK YOU, and THANK!!
here is the list of the senators of their votes:
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Motion (Motion to Waive Cornyn Amdt No. 2339 )
Vote Number: 266 Vote Date: July 19, 2007, 11:00 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Motion Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2339 to S.Amdt. 2327 to H.R. 2669 (College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 )
Statement of Purpose: To provide interim relief for shortages in employment-based visas for aliens with extraordinary ability and advanced degrees and for nurses.
Vote Counts: YEAs 55
NAYs 40
Not Voting 5
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
more...
saint_2010
07-19 11:39 AM
EB2/Delivered July 2nd 11:34 am by USPS 2nd Day Express
hot images Cancer Tattoos For
venky321
02-15 10:11 AM
Isn't it illegal to hire out L1's as contractors? But even the large IT companies do it all the same.
more...
house Cancer Zodiac Tattoos
vivache
09-25 07:13 PM
I agree with both the ideas.
In fact the idea of the banner with 'Waiting for X years' is fantastic ..
That would be an amazing sight where everyone holds placards that say since when they have been waiting.
If it's even 400 people .. we have 400 people saying look we've been waiting since 5,7 or 9 years.
It's also important to get in heavyweights like either local folks like Google HR head or any public face. Google has always supported the Immigration issues .. since they have problems because they couldn't hire folks when the h1 lottery happenned.
In fact the idea of the banner with 'Waiting for X years' is fantastic ..
That would be an amazing sight where everyone holds placards that say since when they have been waiting.
If it's even 400 people .. we have 400 people saying look we've been waiting since 5,7 or 9 years.
It's also important to get in heavyweights like either local folks like Google HR head or any public face. Google has always supported the Immigration issues .. since they have problems because they couldn't hire folks when the h1 lottery happenned.
tattoo breast cancer tattoo
chanduv23
10-03 01:27 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
more...
pictures Breast Cancer Tattoo
BharatPremi
10-25 10:37 AM
Vkkkk,
Look at this thread...He got the RFE on I-140(NSC) in august and the I-140 approved in sept. You never know with USCIS..I know few guys who got lucky with their I-140s. i don't think he was planning to play with our feelings since septemebr...Do you?
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12905
Shimul999 may not be trying to play or may be doing so, only Shimul999 knows. But there are legitimate observations such as below (Assuming s/he provided all information for his/her case correctly) can lead any person like VKKKK to believe that.
1) He is claiming labor filed in Feb 06 and he got approval in May 06 (As per
his signature). Now if his file is in BEC this would not have happened so it is
safe to assume that either he might have used substitution labor OR his file
is filed in PERM. Now Feb 06 was the initial stage of PERM and during that
period there were lot many software glitches in the PERM system so many
lawyers were almost hesitant to file under PERM. But assuming that his
lawyer took decision to file under PERM, end to end process was almost 4
months for PERM so either his file was reached before Feb 06 then only he
could have labor approval in May 06. So there is definately something
wrong there.
2) If my labor is approved in May 06 why would I wait to file I-140 till Feb 07
(His signature)?
Now 1st point, considering Shimul lucky even that time one can assume it might have happened. For second point one can assume any reason for that long wait so it is not necessary that by looking to these both points we can fairly say that s/he is not representing the fact. It can be a fact and in that case s/he deserves our congratulations.
Look at this thread...He got the RFE on I-140(NSC) in august and the I-140 approved in sept. You never know with USCIS..I know few guys who got lucky with their I-140s. i don't think he was planning to play with our feelings since septemebr...Do you?
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12905
Shimul999 may not be trying to play or may be doing so, only Shimul999 knows. But there are legitimate observations such as below (Assuming s/he provided all information for his/her case correctly) can lead any person like VKKKK to believe that.
1) He is claiming labor filed in Feb 06 and he got approval in May 06 (As per
his signature). Now if his file is in BEC this would not have happened so it is
safe to assume that either he might have used substitution labor OR his file
is filed in PERM. Now Feb 06 was the initial stage of PERM and during that
period there were lot many software glitches in the PERM system so many
lawyers were almost hesitant to file under PERM. But assuming that his
lawyer took decision to file under PERM, end to end process was almost 4
months for PERM so either his file was reached before Feb 06 then only he
could have labor approval in May 06. So there is definately something
wrong there.
2) If my labor is approved in May 06 why would I wait to file I-140 till Feb 07
(His signature)?
Now 1st point, considering Shimul lucky even that time one can assume it might have happened. For second point one can assume any reason for that long wait so it is not necessary that by looking to these both points we can fairly say that s/he is not representing the fact. It can be a fact and in that case s/he deserves our congratulations.
dresses 2011 Cancer Tattoos For Girls
alterego
02-01 02:13 PM
Logiclife,
Below is a recent story on travel on AP. I see many posts where folks are asked at POE by CBP offcials if they are still working from the petitioning employer.
Can you advise why CBP officers are even asking to several AP travellers if they are still working for the GC petitioning employer?
My situation: I am not working for the petitioning employer anymore and dont have an attorney as well and so need to get prepared to answer the CBP officails why i am not working for the petitioning employer at POE and you know, CBP officails dont understand AC-21 etc
Please read below.
================================================== =
japs19
Junior Member Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 22
My story...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel like sharing mine as mine is the most horrifying.
After scanning my expired H-1 and reviewing my AP, I was sent to "secondary check" where they ask you few questions and verify the authenticity of the documents.
I was asked if I work for the original petitioner? I said no, currently I work for another employer. I showed them my H-1 approval (I-797). The CBP officer was about to stamp my AP and he was told by a "side-kick" that I have to be employed at the same employer otherwise what is the guarantee that I will go and work for that employer. I calmly explained the fact that GC is for future employment and per AC-21 I can change after 180 days. The CBP officer said wait here and then he walked in to some room. He returned after 20 minutes and I was told to go and wait and other officer will take care of the situation. From one officer to another and another to another. I was asked if I am trying to do any fraud. Finally after 5 hours of questioning, I somewhat lost my temper and told them that either send me back to home country or let me go. So after making few phone calls, they concluded that they don't have access to all my records on their system and it is very gray situation so the office in downtown will take care of the situation.
They took my passport, AP, H-1 approval letter and told me to go to downtown office after 30 days and they will decide what to do.
My lawyer was kind enough to accompany me as she was also upset with their act. When I went there, we were rudely asked completely out of place questions which had nothing to do with whose employer I work for or anything and I was told that "I" confused CBP officers by showing AP and H-1 and I should have just shown them AP and everything would have been fine. I am the culprit and I choose to get myself in trouble.....
I said nothing and just saw him stamping my AP and walked out. I don't know what to conclude out of it. But A friend of mine had valid H-1 and AP and they asked "has any one applied for AOS for you?" he said yes. They asked him to show 485 and AP if he had and same story,,,one officer to another and another to another which lasted for 3 hours and finally his H-1 was stamped.
So, again I am not sure what they are trying to get out of this but this is happening at the airport. I am not trying to scare anyone but just be prepared to deal with such situation and keep in mind that you are not doing any fraud and keep the honesty.
I don' think they should have been rude. However they do have a point. He should NOT have shown BOTH H1b visa and AP. You can enter on one or the other.
I have entered on AP previously and my experience was very good. Only thing is you have to undergo that "secondary inspection" process where they have to verify your pending status details.
When you hand them both, you might feel you are doing it in full disclosure,
however they perceive you are not clear in your intentions. When you show them your AP, their main verification is, whether this 485 case is still open and pending. With H1b they want to know if you are working for your visa petitioning employer.
The morale of the story is, if you have availed yourself of AC21 and moved into another job, you must use AP to reenter, either that or if you moved with a H1 transfer you can use that, however, presenting your old H1b is asking for trouble. H1b is employer specific. We always need to remember that. AP is not.
Below is a recent story on travel on AP. I see many posts where folks are asked at POE by CBP offcials if they are still working from the petitioning employer.
Can you advise why CBP officers are even asking to several AP travellers if they are still working for the GC petitioning employer?
My situation: I am not working for the petitioning employer anymore and dont have an attorney as well and so need to get prepared to answer the CBP officails why i am not working for the petitioning employer at POE and you know, CBP officails dont understand AC-21 etc
Please read below.
================================================== =
japs19
Junior Member Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 22
My story...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel like sharing mine as mine is the most horrifying.
After scanning my expired H-1 and reviewing my AP, I was sent to "secondary check" where they ask you few questions and verify the authenticity of the documents.
I was asked if I work for the original petitioner? I said no, currently I work for another employer. I showed them my H-1 approval (I-797). The CBP officer was about to stamp my AP and he was told by a "side-kick" that I have to be employed at the same employer otherwise what is the guarantee that I will go and work for that employer. I calmly explained the fact that GC is for future employment and per AC-21 I can change after 180 days. The CBP officer said wait here and then he walked in to some room. He returned after 20 minutes and I was told to go and wait and other officer will take care of the situation. From one officer to another and another to another. I was asked if I am trying to do any fraud. Finally after 5 hours of questioning, I somewhat lost my temper and told them that either send me back to home country or let me go. So after making few phone calls, they concluded that they don't have access to all my records on their system and it is very gray situation so the office in downtown will take care of the situation.
They took my passport, AP, H-1 approval letter and told me to go to downtown office after 30 days and they will decide what to do.
My lawyer was kind enough to accompany me as she was also upset with their act. When I went there, we were rudely asked completely out of place questions which had nothing to do with whose employer I work for or anything and I was told that "I" confused CBP officers by showing AP and H-1 and I should have just shown them AP and everything would have been fine. I am the culprit and I choose to get myself in trouble.....
I said nothing and just saw him stamping my AP and walked out. I don't know what to conclude out of it. But A friend of mine had valid H-1 and AP and they asked "has any one applied for AOS for you?" he said yes. They asked him to show 485 and AP if he had and same story,,,one officer to another and another to another which lasted for 3 hours and finally his H-1 was stamped.
So, again I am not sure what they are trying to get out of this but this is happening at the airport. I am not trying to scare anyone but just be prepared to deal with such situation and keep in mind that you are not doing any fraud and keep the honesty.
I don' think they should have been rude. However they do have a point. He should NOT have shown BOTH H1b visa and AP. You can enter on one or the other.
I have entered on AP previously and my experience was very good. Only thing is you have to undergo that "secondary inspection" process where they have to verify your pending status details.
When you hand them both, you might feel you are doing it in full disclosure,
however they perceive you are not clear in your intentions. When you show them your AP, their main verification is, whether this 485 case is still open and pending. With H1b they want to know if you are working for your visa petitioning employer.
The morale of the story is, if you have availed yourself of AC21 and moved into another job, you must use AP to reenter, either that or if you moved with a H1 transfer you can use that, however, presenting your old H1b is asking for trouble. H1b is employer specific. We always need to remember that. AP is not.
more...
makeup Cancer Tattoo Designs
olovera
12-14 04:29 PM
Hey Guys,
This EAD thing is really annoying, my wife got her AP and EAD last 11/21, with immediate update in USCIS.gov. I'm still waiting for mine, and I'm the principal. Anyway. I'll have an infopass appointment on 12/18. My H1-B permit expires on 02/07/08.
We applied to NSC, all documents received on August 02/2007.
This EAD thing is really annoying, my wife got her AP and EAD last 11/21, with immediate update in USCIS.gov. I'm still waiting for mine, and I'm the principal. Anyway. I'll have an infopass appointment on 12/18. My H1-B permit expires on 02/07/08.
We applied to NSC, all documents received on August 02/2007.
girlfriend pink ribbon tattoo
nashorn
12-17 01:59 PM
buddy...iv core are not magicians, they have lives too. so please stop asking for more. when you say "iv has the luxury" hopefully you mean all 25,000 who make up iv. the core is not iv. they are just volunteers already breaking their backs...
there are good reasons for the temporary stops to the checks. everything need not be publicly anounced. please leave it at that.
and while we are at it...we need help with the leg work...please complete your profile so we can get you involved with some of it...it would be great to have you as a volunteer!
With all due respect, the probelem I have with volunteers is that I don't think amtures can pull a job this big, you've got to have profesionals, somethng like a compain maneger.
I admire the courage of your guys, and think the goal is fantastic. But the way it goes, I don't see how it can be achieved.
I've learned a great deal about immigration from the forum here. I very much appreciate it. I try to give back by answering questions others may have. I think IV has been doing a great job serving as that capacity.
But you guys want do something bigger. Well, you have faith in it, I don't, at least not now, neither many others. Maybe that is why you are still asking for money and volunteers.
there are good reasons for the temporary stops to the checks. everything need not be publicly anounced. please leave it at that.
and while we are at it...we need help with the leg work...please complete your profile so we can get you involved with some of it...it would be great to have you as a volunteer!
With all due respect, the probelem I have with volunteers is that I don't think amtures can pull a job this big, you've got to have profesionals, somethng like a compain maneger.
I admire the courage of your guys, and think the goal is fantastic. But the way it goes, I don't see how it can be achieved.
I've learned a great deal about immigration from the forum here. I very much appreciate it. I try to give back by answering questions others may have. I think IV has been doing a great job serving as that capacity.
But you guys want do something bigger. Well, you have faith in it, I don't, at least not now, neither many others. Maybe that is why you are still asking for money and volunteers.
hairstyles tattoo Cancer heart anatomical
reddymjm
01-21 02:43 PM
Only way is Visa # recapture or USCIS Start interpreting the overflow rules as it was before 2007 or come up with some thing new to share between EB2/3.
capriol
06-29 01:15 PM
Friends, my AP renewal was received by SRC on June 7th (the receipts says that), but no approvals so far. Any body in the same boat waiting as of June 7 receipt, or has been approved as of that date? Please let me know.
jindhal
09-05 04:24 PM
There is another part in the I-131 rules document that you havent read,
"If you are in the United States and seek advance parole:
A. You may apply if you have an adjustment- of- status application pending and you seek to travel abroad for emergent personal or bona fide business reasons; "
which sorta makes any personal visit an eligible for AP visit.
Here is the relevant info from USCIS site (I-131 instructions)
Link (http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-131instr.pdf)
Advance parole is an extraordinary measure used sparingly to bring an otherwise inadmissible alien to the United States for a temporary period of time due to a compelling emergency. Advance parole cannot be used to circumvent the normal visa issuing procedures and is not a means to bypass delays in visa issuance.
_____________________________________
Proud Indian American and Legal Immigrant
"If you are in the United States and seek advance parole:
A. You may apply if you have an adjustment- of- status application pending and you seek to travel abroad for emergent personal or bona fide business reasons; "
which sorta makes any personal visit an eligible for AP visit.
Here is the relevant info from USCIS site (I-131 instructions)
Link (http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-131instr.pdf)
Advance parole is an extraordinary measure used sparingly to bring an otherwise inadmissible alien to the United States for a temporary period of time due to a compelling emergency. Advance parole cannot be used to circumvent the normal visa issuing procedures and is not a means to bypass delays in visa issuance.
_____________________________________
Proud Indian American and Legal Immigrant
