another one
09-23 06:32 PM
The congress is fully occupied with the housing issue right now. Should we sent to all congress members instead of a selected few?
wallpaper We#39;ve seen Tom Cruise jump on
poorslumdog
08-15 09:55 PM
You might want to read this warning to yourself. I am not a Muslim myself, but solely pointing to the obscureness of the system. Even Kamal Hassan payed a price for his name, it's high time this changes, and this routine harrasment is very comparable to the H1B experience at POE.
I dont see any Harashment...They are not beating you. Just its extra verification. If you dont like that you are more than welcome not to come here. Everyday hundereds of people going this process and no one is crying foul and why only this time.?
I dont see any Harashment...They are not beating you. Just its extra verification. If you dont like that you are more than welcome not to come here. Everyday hundereds of people going this process and no one is crying foul and why only this time.?
snthampi
07-30 05:12 PM
Fake to you because you never had such a chance or courage in life. :D
But this dude is a hero.
This gives others a good idea. Instead of saying NO to Amway guys, people will start flirting with both the e-commerce idea and wife. The Amway guy will now have to decide between making money and his wife.
Well, I never had this type of GOLDEN chances. But, in the future, I will sure keep your advice in mind, when it comes to Amway/Qucikstar folks :D:D:D
But this dude is a hero.
This gives others a good idea. Instead of saying NO to Amway guys, people will start flirting with both the e-commerce idea and wife. The Amway guy will now have to decide between making money and his wife.
Well, I never had this type of GOLDEN chances. But, in the future, I will sure keep your advice in mind, when it comes to Amway/Qucikstar folks :D:D:D
2011 Ages starring Tom Cruise.
raysaikat
07-14 12:10 PM
Hi,
I have an EB2 I-140 approved; PD Aug 29, 2007. The corresponding LC was filed with "Special Handling" for university teachers.
1. If I change into a non-academic job, then can the PD be retained when I refile?
2. If I go out of US for a few years (say 3-5 years) and then come back with a new job, will I be able to retain this PD when I refile?
Thanks for your time.
I have an EB2 I-140 approved; PD Aug 29, 2007. The corresponding LC was filed with "Special Handling" for university teachers.
1. If I change into a non-academic job, then can the PD be retained when I refile?
2. If I go out of US for a few years (say 3-5 years) and then come back with a new job, will I be able to retain this PD when I refile?
Thanks for your time.
more...
chanduv23
02-13 06:27 PM
hopefulgc - please dedicate some time and update your first post with more information on lawsuit, you may want to quote lazycis 's posts and other information.
A lot of people may not be very knowledgable and may backoff when they see the word "lawsuit".
Those who are saying YES on the poll - it is assumed that you will not backoff - if you have not yet updated your profile on IV - please update your complete profile - this will show that you can be counted on.
A lot of people may not be very knowledgable and may backoff when they see the word "lawsuit".
Those who are saying YES on the poll - it is assumed that you will not backoff - if you have not yet updated your profile on IV - please update your complete profile - this will show that you can be counted on.
PrayForEveryone
07-10 11:45 AM
Friends,
Its upsetting to see USCIS playing with our lives. Inviting us to file AOS and then shutting the door on us when we did all the hard work to get here LEGALLY. I remember someone mentioning "GC is a scam". Did'nt USCIS attempt to do that with us? It all about ATTITUDE and at this point I hate USCIS/DOS's attitude towards us (Legal Immigrants) and our families. Starting June 13th, we all would shorten our life-span by 2-5 years due to this tension/excitement.
Well, most people would say US wont be affected even if we relocate in some other country. May be true! But my company keeps loosing work due to not finding the right candidate for the job. So they will of course!
In the long run, if this broken immigration system is not fixed, no business can afford to lose any resources when they know that there is demand in market. Microsoft has found other ways and this is the best example and more companies would soon follow. I hope that this mess gets cleaned soon!
I am moving to Australia to start a new venture!!
Its upsetting to see USCIS playing with our lives. Inviting us to file AOS and then shutting the door on us when we did all the hard work to get here LEGALLY. I remember someone mentioning "GC is a scam". Did'nt USCIS attempt to do that with us? It all about ATTITUDE and at this point I hate USCIS/DOS's attitude towards us (Legal Immigrants) and our families. Starting June 13th, we all would shorten our life-span by 2-5 years due to this tension/excitement.
Well, most people would say US wont be affected even if we relocate in some other country. May be true! But my company keeps loosing work due to not finding the right candidate for the job. So they will of course!
In the long run, if this broken immigration system is not fixed, no business can afford to lose any resources when they know that there is demand in market. Microsoft has found other ways and this is the best example and more companies would soon follow. I hope that this mess gets cleaned soon!
I am moving to Australia to start a new venture!!
more...
Rb_newsletter
01-21 06:15 PM
I got the below email from multiple friends. I don't know what is the source, who wrote this analysis because there is no links. I did NOT mean to spread the fear. Just sharing the contents unaltered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, this is how many could read RECENT (Jan 8, 2010) actions / announcement by USCIS towards Consulting companies, which engages or merely places their employees at the client sites for various projects.
� No new H1B application will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� No new H1B extension/stamping will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� If an employee has H1B approved or extension approved, and if he/she comes back to US from a vacation or from an emergency, he/she would be deported back to his/her home country from the Port of Entry (PoE) � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
Why?
Because of 2 recent events:
1) USCIS gave new memorandum (which is now guidelines for USCIS professionals working on the H1B petitions/extensions) on Jan 08th, 2010. (Attached the PDF file for the memorandum).
2) Recently (Jan 2010) several H1B Employees were sent back (in some forum, its mentioned � all of them) to their home country from Newark, NJ and JFK, NY Port of Entry � these were the H1B employees, who went to spend Christmas/New Year vacation to their home countries.
What does the memorandum mention, specifically, about 3rd Party Consulting companies?
Link to the memorandum (PDF attached) � http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf
Employer-Employee Relationship:
As per the memorandum, some previous H1B Law defines, the definition of an �US Employer�. Somewhere in that definition (Page 2 of memo), it mentions the word �Employer-Employee relationship�. Till now, it seems that there was no clear guidance on what kind of relationship was considered having Employer-Employee relationship. So, it was being, probably, interpreted independently or ambiguously. Now, on Jan 8th, 2010, USCIS has published this memorandum for TRAINING USCIS OFFICIALS about understanding, Employer-Employee relationship. The memorandum seems to have been prepared with a clear understanding about it, along with the specific EXAMPLES.
Memorandum has given few specific examples, which would QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship, on Page 4-5 of the Memo � including the nature of the job/business. On Page 5-6, memorandum gives few specific examples, which would NOT QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship. Third Party Placement / �Job-Shop� (better version of �Body-shop�, probably) is NOT QUALIFIED for meeting Employer-Employee Relationships � meaning, 3rd Party placement (which most of the small consulting companies do) doesn�t meet H1B requirement, as defined by the law � meaning for this job, the new H1B or Extension or Stamping petitions CANNOT be approved!! Period !!
This is how memorandum has identified 3rd Party Placements and in Bold letters, why it disqualifies for the H1B petitions (comments are in Red):
�The petitioner is a computer consulting company (which is what all small consulting do). The petitioner has contract with numerous outside companies in which it supplies these companies with employee to fulfill specific staffing needs. The specific positions are not outlined in the contract between the petitioner and the third-party company but are staffed on an as-needed basis (this is nothing but, Service Agreement between the petitioner and the mid-vendor!). The beneficiary is a computer analyst (which is what many small consulting company�s employee are). The beneficiary has been assigned to work for the third-party company to fill a core position to maintain the third-party company�s payroll (this nothing but, Mid-Vendor�s or so-called Prime-Vendor�s or Consulting Partner�s Revenue). Once placed at the client company, the beneficiary reports to a manager who works for the third-party company (as it happens, when Consulting partner hires employee as a contractor). The beneficiary does not report to the petitioner for work assignments, and all work assignments are determined by the third-party company (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The petitioner does not control how the beneficiary will complete daily tasks, and no propriety information of the petitioner is used by the beneficiary to complete any work assignments (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The beneficiary�s end-product, the payroll (payroll of mid-vendor/prime vendor/consulting partner), is not in any way related to the petitioner�s line of business, which is computer consulting. The beneficiary�s progress reviews are completed by the client company, not the petitioner (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). [Petitioner Has No Right to Control; No Exercise of Control].�
Right to Control:
Supreme Court has stated the definition of Employer-Employee Relationship (Page 3 of Memo), and there it was mentioned to have �Right to Control� over the work of the employee by the employer. From the entire memo, it sounds that Right control is well-established, ONLY WHEN, at least one supervisor from the petitioner�s company works with the beneficiary at the end-client site, and supervises beneficiary�s day-to-day work. So, big Consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Accenture, Deloitte etc. will be good, as they would meet �Right to Control� and that way, they will satisfy H1B requirement by law, and their petitions for similar 3rd party consulting work, will be APPROVED, but not in case of, small consulting companies!! This is because, big consulting companies such as Accenture � have their entire or partial team � along with managers etc. � working at the same client site, where the beneficiary would be working, so they could supervise their work and so exercise control over their work etc., but that cannot be the case with the small consulting � because, their actual business has been, so far, to place employees and run pay-roll � not to get the client projects!
Why one could think that there are slim chances for this memorandum to get reversed in favor of small consulting companies?
This memorandum took care of big consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Cognizant, Accenture etc. � meaning, these companies and their employees are NOT impacted. They can travel freely to-and-fro their home country etc. Since, big companies are not impacted, there will not be any big lobbying or oppositions to this memorandum, per say!! There don�t seem to be a platform for small consulting companies to gather and lobby, plus most the small consulting may not get involved, with fear of exposing themselves more to other issues!! So, it might be east to assume that this memorandum is permanent and not temporary. The recent deportation also indicates that the changes like this memorandum is for serious, not just the warning!
How this memorandum relates to the recent deportation events from NY and NJ airports?
There seems to be an anticipated link between these 2 events � Memorandum and recent Deportations � kind of an indication about the current level of government scrutiny and seriousness of the H1B program. Hence, there have been advices by others that � each employer and employee should operate by strictly following the H1B program requirements.
Link to Murthy.com front page posting about this � MurthyDotCom : NewsFlash! Note to H1Bs Traveling to U.S., Working for Consulting Companies (http://www.murthy.com/nflash/nf_h1conc.html)
What one could predict as happening sooner (trend)?
� Since, it seems big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects)/full-time end-clients and their beneficiaries are not impacted with these changes � there could be trend � employee moving from small companies to big companies for a better shelter for full-time positions � especially, when small consulting company�s immediate preventions / actions to this memo cannot ensure safety.
� Big consulting companies could buy small consulting companies or small consulting companies could sell their companies to big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects), to save their employee�s future/transition etc.
Good Luck my Friends....!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, this is how many could read RECENT (Jan 8, 2010) actions / announcement by USCIS towards Consulting companies, which engages or merely places their employees at the client sites for various projects.
� No new H1B application will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� No new H1B extension/stamping will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� If an employee has H1B approved or extension approved, and if he/she comes back to US from a vacation or from an emergency, he/she would be deported back to his/her home country from the Port of Entry (PoE) � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
Why?
Because of 2 recent events:
1) USCIS gave new memorandum (which is now guidelines for USCIS professionals working on the H1B petitions/extensions) on Jan 08th, 2010. (Attached the PDF file for the memorandum).
2) Recently (Jan 2010) several H1B Employees were sent back (in some forum, its mentioned � all of them) to their home country from Newark, NJ and JFK, NY Port of Entry � these were the H1B employees, who went to spend Christmas/New Year vacation to their home countries.
What does the memorandum mention, specifically, about 3rd Party Consulting companies?
Link to the memorandum (PDF attached) � http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf
Employer-Employee Relationship:
As per the memorandum, some previous H1B Law defines, the definition of an �US Employer�. Somewhere in that definition (Page 2 of memo), it mentions the word �Employer-Employee relationship�. Till now, it seems that there was no clear guidance on what kind of relationship was considered having Employer-Employee relationship. So, it was being, probably, interpreted independently or ambiguously. Now, on Jan 8th, 2010, USCIS has published this memorandum for TRAINING USCIS OFFICIALS about understanding, Employer-Employee relationship. The memorandum seems to have been prepared with a clear understanding about it, along with the specific EXAMPLES.
Memorandum has given few specific examples, which would QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship, on Page 4-5 of the Memo � including the nature of the job/business. On Page 5-6, memorandum gives few specific examples, which would NOT QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship. Third Party Placement / �Job-Shop� (better version of �Body-shop�, probably) is NOT QUALIFIED for meeting Employer-Employee Relationships � meaning, 3rd Party placement (which most of the small consulting companies do) doesn�t meet H1B requirement, as defined by the law � meaning for this job, the new H1B or Extension or Stamping petitions CANNOT be approved!! Period !!
This is how memorandum has identified 3rd Party Placements and in Bold letters, why it disqualifies for the H1B petitions (comments are in Red):
�The petitioner is a computer consulting company (which is what all small consulting do). The petitioner has contract with numerous outside companies in which it supplies these companies with employee to fulfill specific staffing needs. The specific positions are not outlined in the contract between the petitioner and the third-party company but are staffed on an as-needed basis (this is nothing but, Service Agreement between the petitioner and the mid-vendor!). The beneficiary is a computer analyst (which is what many small consulting company�s employee are). The beneficiary has been assigned to work for the third-party company to fill a core position to maintain the third-party company�s payroll (this nothing but, Mid-Vendor�s or so-called Prime-Vendor�s or Consulting Partner�s Revenue). Once placed at the client company, the beneficiary reports to a manager who works for the third-party company (as it happens, when Consulting partner hires employee as a contractor). The beneficiary does not report to the petitioner for work assignments, and all work assignments are determined by the third-party company (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The petitioner does not control how the beneficiary will complete daily tasks, and no propriety information of the petitioner is used by the beneficiary to complete any work assignments (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The beneficiary�s end-product, the payroll (payroll of mid-vendor/prime vendor/consulting partner), is not in any way related to the petitioner�s line of business, which is computer consulting. The beneficiary�s progress reviews are completed by the client company, not the petitioner (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). [Petitioner Has No Right to Control; No Exercise of Control].�
Right to Control:
Supreme Court has stated the definition of Employer-Employee Relationship (Page 3 of Memo), and there it was mentioned to have �Right to Control� over the work of the employee by the employer. From the entire memo, it sounds that Right control is well-established, ONLY WHEN, at least one supervisor from the petitioner�s company works with the beneficiary at the end-client site, and supervises beneficiary�s day-to-day work. So, big Consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Accenture, Deloitte etc. will be good, as they would meet �Right to Control� and that way, they will satisfy H1B requirement by law, and their petitions for similar 3rd party consulting work, will be APPROVED, but not in case of, small consulting companies!! This is because, big consulting companies such as Accenture � have their entire or partial team � along with managers etc. � working at the same client site, where the beneficiary would be working, so they could supervise their work and so exercise control over their work etc., but that cannot be the case with the small consulting � because, their actual business has been, so far, to place employees and run pay-roll � not to get the client projects!
Why one could think that there are slim chances for this memorandum to get reversed in favor of small consulting companies?
This memorandum took care of big consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Cognizant, Accenture etc. � meaning, these companies and their employees are NOT impacted. They can travel freely to-and-fro their home country etc. Since, big companies are not impacted, there will not be any big lobbying or oppositions to this memorandum, per say!! There don�t seem to be a platform for small consulting companies to gather and lobby, plus most the small consulting may not get involved, with fear of exposing themselves more to other issues!! So, it might be east to assume that this memorandum is permanent and not temporary. The recent deportation also indicates that the changes like this memorandum is for serious, not just the warning!
How this memorandum relates to the recent deportation events from NY and NJ airports?
There seems to be an anticipated link between these 2 events � Memorandum and recent Deportations � kind of an indication about the current level of government scrutiny and seriousness of the H1B program. Hence, there have been advices by others that � each employer and employee should operate by strictly following the H1B program requirements.
Link to Murthy.com front page posting about this � MurthyDotCom : NewsFlash! Note to H1Bs Traveling to U.S., Working for Consulting Companies (http://www.murthy.com/nflash/nf_h1conc.html)
What one could predict as happening sooner (trend)?
� Since, it seems big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects)/full-time end-clients and their beneficiaries are not impacted with these changes � there could be trend � employee moving from small companies to big companies for a better shelter for full-time positions � especially, when small consulting company�s immediate preventions / actions to this memo cannot ensure safety.
� Big consulting companies could buy small consulting companies or small consulting companies could sell their companies to big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects), to save their employee�s future/transition etc.
Good Luck my Friends....!!
2010 Tom Cruise For #39;Rock Of
syzygy
09-23 02:28 AM
I have sent close to 10 emails putting subject
"Proposal to alleviate current US economic crisis"
I hope I am doing right..
"Proposal to alleviate current US economic crisis"
I hope I am doing right..
more...
snathan
09-04 03:42 PM
Like collecting money to lobby for GC we can accumalate money for Political party as well. I can tell you every Indian would contribute to such endeavor.
Please contribute to IV before start collection for political party. Thanks
Please contribute to IV before start collection for political party. Thanks
hair Tom Cruise Taylor Swift “Rock
kavita
02-13 07:20 PM
Hi,
I like the idea but I believe at this time it is crucial to continue participation in the letter campaign. If we do not get success through it, I will be glad to participate in the lawsuit. Also, like me, at that time there might be hundreds of people willing to be a part.
I like the idea but I believe at this time it is crucial to continue participation in the letter campaign. If we do not get success through it, I will be glad to participate in the lawsuit. Also, like me, at that time there might be hundreds of people willing to be a part.
more...
Googler
02-15 10:28 PM
My friend, I'm not trying to fight you. All I am saying that you cannot file a class action against USCIS because they have not done anything wrong. They are just following the law.
If you really want to have this change, it is the US congress that you can deal with.
As I've said, I work for a law firm.
Why don't ask your immigration lawyer first regarding the "class action" you are talking about.
(1) There was no shortage of laypeople and even attorneys who asserted that "USCIS isn't doing anything wrong they are just following the law" when it came to FBI name checks. Fortunately for all of us sharper legal brains and sharper judges prevailed, and brought us to this happy day.
(2) On Class Actions: Villamonte, have you read the Mocanu decision (http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08%20LEXIS.pdf)? If not I encourage you to do so -- that was just individual cases being consolidated, but the situation is not very different -- you should pay particular attention to the part where Judge Baylson recommends a multi-district class action litigation to deal with all the other name check cases (see p. 16, para numbered 6).
The parallels between the those cases and the one being proposed are very strong.
Judge Baylson is not the only judge who has recommended a class action approach to these issues. IV members should also be aware that all we need are a few named plaintiffs, it isn't as though every IV member or even everyone wanting to sue needs to be a named plaintiff. All the judge needs to recognize is that there is a large group of applicants with same or similar grounds for suing USCIS/Emilio Gonzalez. Edit to add: IV the organization doesn't even need to be the primary plaintiff, since that will necessarily cutoff any parallel discussion with the agencies. The IV forums are just a place to organize this.
(3) Preliminary Ideas on the Grounds for Suing (courtesy lazycis):
The grounds for suing USCIS is the same as in Gonzalez v Howerton -- (a) interpreting the law incorrectly (b) not following the statutory requirement that they use up all the greencards available in a given year and therefore being guilty of affirmative misconduct. At the very least, a judge is within his rights to make them make amends -- by recapturing 2003-2004 EB greencards, since they wasted them as a result of their affirmative misconduct -- they waited for name checks or simply not processing applications - no one can say there wasn't an application backlog in 2003-2004.
(4) First Steps
What we need here is to get this matter before a good legal strategist who is familiar with (a) the two sources of affirmative misconduct (FBI name checks and cessation of processing in 2003-2004) (b) precedents and caselaw (note that most immigration law firms are good with filing paperwork, but not necessarily complex litigation, so forget about the usual suspects.) The perfect legal argument will not sprout up immediately. In the same way that the legal arguments in the name check cases were honed over time (lazycis can confirm this), this too will need some serious research and thinking.
Those of you who want everything about this case sorted out, signed, sealed, guaranteed and delivered this week will need a reality check. :)
As will those of you who think that the way to approach this is to discuss these issues without familiarizing yourself with facts and legal precedents in some detail (so arguments about slavery etc are not the ones that will win the day in court, it is arguments that can show that USCIS was not interpreting the law correctly and in doing so caused harm and that the harm can be remedied through recapture.) -- if you want to see how a case like this will work read Mocanu and Galvez. This case will not be a dramatic movie-style civil rights case about slavery, it will involve the most tedious sort of nitty gritty discussion of admin misconduct.
OTOH, for most of us, all we've got is time -- I do not foresee my Jan 2003 EB-2 India PD becoming current any time soon. I'm prepared for a long legal battle. I'd rather do something constructive** that will likely change the process than sit and wait and mope.
**: Yes, I've sent off my letters too. I think of these two things as complementary projects.
If you really want to have this change, it is the US congress that you can deal with.
As I've said, I work for a law firm.
Why don't ask your immigration lawyer first regarding the "class action" you are talking about.
(1) There was no shortage of laypeople and even attorneys who asserted that "USCIS isn't doing anything wrong they are just following the law" when it came to FBI name checks. Fortunately for all of us sharper legal brains and sharper judges prevailed, and brought us to this happy day.
(2) On Class Actions: Villamonte, have you read the Mocanu decision (http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08%20LEXIS.pdf)? If not I encourage you to do so -- that was just individual cases being consolidated, but the situation is not very different -- you should pay particular attention to the part where Judge Baylson recommends a multi-district class action litigation to deal with all the other name check cases (see p. 16, para numbered 6).
The parallels between the those cases and the one being proposed are very strong.
Judge Baylson is not the only judge who has recommended a class action approach to these issues. IV members should also be aware that all we need are a few named plaintiffs, it isn't as though every IV member or even everyone wanting to sue needs to be a named plaintiff. All the judge needs to recognize is that there is a large group of applicants with same or similar grounds for suing USCIS/Emilio Gonzalez. Edit to add: IV the organization doesn't even need to be the primary plaintiff, since that will necessarily cutoff any parallel discussion with the agencies. The IV forums are just a place to organize this.
(3) Preliminary Ideas on the Grounds for Suing (courtesy lazycis):
The grounds for suing USCIS is the same as in Gonzalez v Howerton -- (a) interpreting the law incorrectly (b) not following the statutory requirement that they use up all the greencards available in a given year and therefore being guilty of affirmative misconduct. At the very least, a judge is within his rights to make them make amends -- by recapturing 2003-2004 EB greencards, since they wasted them as a result of their affirmative misconduct -- they waited for name checks or simply not processing applications - no one can say there wasn't an application backlog in 2003-2004.
(4) First Steps
What we need here is to get this matter before a good legal strategist who is familiar with (a) the two sources of affirmative misconduct (FBI name checks and cessation of processing in 2003-2004) (b) precedents and caselaw (note that most immigration law firms are good with filing paperwork, but not necessarily complex litigation, so forget about the usual suspects.) The perfect legal argument will not sprout up immediately. In the same way that the legal arguments in the name check cases were honed over time (lazycis can confirm this), this too will need some serious research and thinking.
Those of you who want everything about this case sorted out, signed, sealed, guaranteed and delivered this week will need a reality check. :)
As will those of you who think that the way to approach this is to discuss these issues without familiarizing yourself with facts and legal precedents in some detail (so arguments about slavery etc are not the ones that will win the day in court, it is arguments that can show that USCIS was not interpreting the law correctly and in doing so caused harm and that the harm can be remedied through recapture.) -- if you want to see how a case like this will work read Mocanu and Galvez. This case will not be a dramatic movie-style civil rights case about slavery, it will involve the most tedious sort of nitty gritty discussion of admin misconduct.
OTOH, for most of us, all we've got is time -- I do not foresee my Jan 2003 EB-2 India PD becoming current any time soon. I'm prepared for a long legal battle. I'd rather do something constructive** that will likely change the process than sit and wait and mope.
**: Yes, I've sent off my letters too. I think of these two things as complementary projects.
hot will join Tom Cruise,
snathan
08-16 11:35 AM
simply racial profiling.
i dont think SRK is over reacting.. many desis who are accepting that its a way of life suffer from "Slave Mentality".
When was the last time.. a US diplomat or US socialite was frisked and detained for 2 hrs in indian airports?
To all the jocks who argue "its part of life"..my advise grow some balls and realize one thing.. no matter how long u live here.. no matter whether u have GC or PC...u will always be treated like third class citizens.
In the end its the color.. do you know beta.
for the record.i am no SRK fan.
Mamooty.. who is he?
Is it their miskate... Indian politician and police are so corrupt and do not have balls to do that.
No one cares Mammoty...but he is muslim and when he was frisked no one was erupting. Why only for SRK...? Doesnt it show the real picture...? When going for stamping how many hours people are wiating in line. If he is waiting for 2 hours in line whats the big deal. He is not Abdul Kalam to be supported. He was a noble person and Former Head of State. He himself is going through the security check that too in india. He did not even speak a word about that issue. But this moron SRK saying 'Doesnt feel like steping on american soil again'. I bet $10000 if he is not steping on american soil again.
i dont think SRK is over reacting.. many desis who are accepting that its a way of life suffer from "Slave Mentality".
When was the last time.. a US diplomat or US socialite was frisked and detained for 2 hrs in indian airports?
To all the jocks who argue "its part of life"..my advise grow some balls and realize one thing.. no matter how long u live here.. no matter whether u have GC or PC...u will always be treated like third class citizens.
In the end its the color.. do you know beta.
for the record.i am no SRK fan.
Mamooty.. who is he?
Is it their miskate... Indian politician and police are so corrupt and do not have balls to do that.
No one cares Mammoty...but he is muslim and when he was frisked no one was erupting. Why only for SRK...? Doesnt it show the real picture...? When going for stamping how many hours people are wiating in line. If he is waiting for 2 hours in line whats the big deal. He is not Abdul Kalam to be supported. He was a noble person and Former Head of State. He himself is going through the security check that too in india. He did not even speak a word about that issue. But this moron SRK saying 'Doesnt feel like steping on american soil again'. I bet $10000 if he is not steping on american soil again.
more...
house Tom will play the callous rock
senthil1
03-16 01:24 PM
It depends on INS. If they notice the overlap between study and experience and they can send RFE. If you send explanation to RFE then it is upto INS to accept or reject. If thy doo not notice then no problem.Some people in INS have some idea about fake experience certificates in India. It is easy to get experience certificate even if you do not work. You can get idea by analysing similar situation.
QUOTE=Subst_labor]i am not paying anything, its a decent company from NJ. the only thing i am concerned about is that this experience was when i was IN college and it was a really small company (part time thing..)[/QUOTE]
QUOTE=Subst_labor]i am not paying anything, its a decent company from NJ. the only thing i am concerned about is that this experience was when i was IN college and it was a really small company (part time thing..)[/QUOTE]
tattoo to join Tom Cruise,
samay
07-21 08:30 PM
My dependents are out of US for almost 5 months for now and they have AP approved before they left US and they are planning to come to US in couple of weeks from now on AP. Our PD is going to be current in Aug08. Is this OK to be out of US for this much time when AOS is pending? Staying out of US for this long would effect their AOS processing in any way?
Its fine so long as they are back before their AP expires.
Its fine so long as they are back before their AP expires.
more...
pictures tom-kate.jpg
salnarayan
10-27 12:02 AM
Greetings:
My EB-2 I-140 was approved with March 2006 as priority date and I had filed for I-485 on July 2007, and the approval is still pending. I do have an EAD and AP.
However, my EB-1 I-140 petition which I had filed on February 2007 got approved in September of 2008. Since I am from India there is retrogression for my EB-2petition, I want to apply for my I-485 through EB-1 since it is current.
Is it possible to transfer my EB-2 I-485 petition which I filed in July 2007 to the recently approved EB-1 petition or should I file a new I-485 petition again.
I thank you sincerely for your time and help
My EB-2 I-140 was approved with March 2006 as priority date and I had filed for I-485 on July 2007, and the approval is still pending. I do have an EAD and AP.
However, my EB-1 I-140 petition which I had filed on February 2007 got approved in September of 2008. Since I am from India there is retrogression for my EB-2petition, I want to apply for my I-485 through EB-1 since it is current.
Is it possible to transfer my EB-2 I-485 petition which I filed in July 2007 to the recently approved EB-1 petition or should I file a new I-485 petition again.
I thank you sincerely for your time and help
dresses The #39;30 Rock#39; actor is decked
STAmisha
10-04 04:55 PM
STAmisha,
Once u sent ur application, did nt u have to go for an interview and then a Physical. Also, I have heard that to get PR stamped onto ur passport, u actually need to physically enter Canada. Kindly confirm?
I did not have interview. I had my interview waived.
Once all the processing is complete, they will ask you send you the passports. They will give you PR visas which will be valid untill 1 year from your medicals. You have to land before the visa expiry dates.Once you land in Canada, they will take a Canadian address to send the PR card to you. You can give friends address in Canada.
Once u sent ur application, did nt u have to go for an interview and then a Physical. Also, I have heard that to get PR stamped onto ur passport, u actually need to physically enter Canada. Kindly confirm?
I did not have interview. I had my interview waived.
Once all the processing is complete, they will ask you send you the passports. They will give you PR visas which will be valid untill 1 year from your medicals. You have to land before the visa expiry dates.Once you land in Canada, they will take a Canadian address to send the PR card to you. You can give friends address in Canada.
more...
makeup PDA: Tom Cruise and Katie
unitednations
02-13 12:20 PM
immigration-law.com posted country wise EB visa allocation for the year of 2005. For example, Nepal used only 70 EB3 visas. Whereas country limit is 7%. In that case how EB3 Nepal is retrogressed?
Can we sue USCIS? Let's discuss.
In that case, let's hire an attorney.
This is a valid point of why they don't drill rest of the world down further.
From a global perspective; if they drilled down rest of the world and took all countries and evenly divided the visas then perhaps the per country limit would be less then 1%. 100% divided by number of countries in the world and you would get less then 1%. Then any country who doesn't use up that visa would get re-allocated to other countries. Pretty difficult thing to do; I would imagine.
Can we sue USCIS? Let's discuss.
In that case, let's hire an attorney.
This is a valid point of why they don't drill rest of the world down further.
From a global perspective; if they drilled down rest of the world and took all countries and evenly divided the visas then perhaps the per country limit would be less then 1%. 100% divided by number of countries in the world and you would get less then 1%. Then any country who doesn't use up that visa would get re-allocated to other countries. Pretty difficult thing to do; I would imagine.
girlfriend Tom Cruise In #39;Rock Of Ages#39;:
snathan
03-30 01:26 PM
Left parties are the worst no doubt about that. Have you gone through the BJP manifesto, its IT vision document and also have you heard about Friends of BJP forums started by Indian businessmen. Yes, Advani runs his politics on religion and Ram temple. Do you think congress does not use religion? Do you hear the news that in Kerala congress has fielded candidates supported by church? Tomorrow if Sri Sri Ravi Shankar or Ramdev baba do the same thing with BJP, our media will shout from the roof top that this is communalism. Do you know Congress is allied with Muslim League in Kerala?
Snathan, all parties use the dirty tricks. Congress, BJP, Communists. But I will always support the party which builds Ram Temple rather than the party which destroys Ram Setu and even denies the existence of Ram.
Yes...We had them in power for five years. It was a joke. India was Shining and we had to wear sun glass.
I am not supporting the congress party. I am only supporting the MMS. To me, he is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarr better than Mr.Advani or Mayavathi
Snathan, all parties use the dirty tricks. Congress, BJP, Communists. But I will always support the party which builds Ram Temple rather than the party which destroys Ram Setu and even denies the existence of Ram.
Yes...We had them in power for five years. It was a joke. India was Shining and we had to wear sun glass.
I am not supporting the congress party. I am only supporting the MMS. To me, he is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarr better than Mr.Advani or Mayavathi
hairstyles TOM CRUISE DOESN#39;T STAND SO
angelfire76
05-29 09:19 PM
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/fraud_faqs_07-13-07.pdf
Specifically this provision applies to Cognizant
Willful provision or assistance in the provision of false or inaccurate information for an application for labor certification;
Yeah but EB1 does not even need labor certification. So you can't apply the willful misrepresentation. What we can apply willful misrepresentation is in the 140. Also since EB1 is current , these guys also apply 485 at the same time and get EAD and AP.
Specifically this provision applies to Cognizant
Willful provision or assistance in the provision of false or inaccurate information for an application for labor certification;
Yeah but EB1 does not even need labor certification. So you can't apply the willful misrepresentation. What we can apply willful misrepresentation is in the 140. Also since EB1 is current , these guys also apply 485 at the same time and get EAD and AP.
dagabaaj
07-07 11:59 AM
My wife applied for her EAD in Dec 2007. We recd the EAD in May 2008 but with incorrect A#. Our Corp lawyer advised us to return the EAD card to USCIS with a new I-765 Application and correct information on it.
1) Was this the correct course of action. Could she have used the EAD card and then sent it for correction?
2) What is the time frame for a correction on the card? Also it has been a month since we sent it back and we have not yet recd rect# or notice in response?
3) What should be our further course of action?
1) Was this the correct course of action. Could she have used the EAD card and then sent it for correction?
2) What is the time frame for a correction on the card? Also it has been a month since we sent it back and we have not yet recd rect# or notice in response?
3) What should be our further course of action?
sreeni.k
06-12 06:13 PM
Dillip good luck with your new challenge man. I understand you are currently in a difficult situation hope you will come out of it. Just one note though. Having graduated from a top school doesnt give anybody a right to top pay check and job security. I myself an IIT grad with a PhD from US- currently with Intel. I was expecting everybody to lap me up right out of undergrad. All I got was a chance. I learnt my ways- u have to demonstrate your skills today and dont expect a 10 year old paper diploma to make your living. Anyway I am also in a 485 EB2 Q. I am not fretting though- if it comes its a bonus for me, but doesnt change anything for me. I will still live in same home, get same pay, drive same car and get my patents published with same skills. :D
