Madhuri
10-12 02:41 PM
PD Mar 2006
485 pending
Recd EAD
485 pending
Recd EAD
wallpaper Skull Cover Up Tattoo
webm
05-08 10:00 PM
I had checked the status earlier this morning (as every other day) and as every other day there was no LUD. When I got home this evening saw the following email (got one for my wife's application too)
I still remember very vividly the day I handed my papers to our HR in Sept 2002. It took our HR nine months to complete recruiting and send it to DoL. I am sure I will remember today and the day we get the physical cards better :)
Receipt Number: SRC07192xxxxx
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident.
On May 8, 2008, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within 60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later.
Congrats!! pal..
I still remember very vividly the day I handed my papers to our HR in Sept 2002. It took our HR nine months to complete recruiting and send it to DoL. I am sure I will remember today and the day we get the physical cards better :)
Receipt Number: SRC07192xxxxx
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident.
On May 8, 2008, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within 60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later.
Congrats!! pal..
gc_chahiye
08-21 02:15 AM
Thanks for your response. ;)
So will AOD processing for EB-2 be a lot faster than EB-3 as long as I capture the PD of 12/04?
yes, EB2 dates have been better than EB3 for all countries, but in your case this would be especially big. All this while that EB3-ROW has been retrogressed back so much, EB2-ROW has been current. If you are from ROW (Rest-Of-World, ie not from India/China/Mexico/Philippines) and get a chance to go from EB3 to EB2, JUMP AT THAT CHANCE!
As someone pointed out earlier you need your EB3 I-140 to be approved, then when you file the new I-140 (for EB2) include a copy of the previous I-140 approval notice requesting that the PD be ported over. They will port it.
Once that I-140 is approved, send that approval notice to USCIS with your I-485 receipt, asking them to replace the current I-140 (the EB3 one) with the new (EB2) one (google "interfiling")
This might make a difference of a couple of years in your approval if the dates move like they did in the past!
So will AOD processing for EB-2 be a lot faster than EB-3 as long as I capture the PD of 12/04?
yes, EB2 dates have been better than EB3 for all countries, but in your case this would be especially big. All this while that EB3-ROW has been retrogressed back so much, EB2-ROW has been current. If you are from ROW (Rest-Of-World, ie not from India/China/Mexico/Philippines) and get a chance to go from EB3 to EB2, JUMP AT THAT CHANCE!
As someone pointed out earlier you need your EB3 I-140 to be approved, then when you file the new I-140 (for EB2) include a copy of the previous I-140 approval notice requesting that the PD be ported over. They will port it.
Once that I-140 is approved, send that approval notice to USCIS with your I-485 receipt, asking them to replace the current I-140 (the EB3 one) with the new (EB2) one (google "interfiling")
This might make a difference of a couple of years in your approval if the dates move like they did in the past!
2011 dc-tattoo-cover-up-4a
wonderlust
09-19 10:00 PM
I TOTOALLY AGREE. WE NEED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT WE ARE LEGAL. WE DON'T BASH ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, BUT WE CAN EMPHASIZE OUR OWN LEGALITY!!
I like LIV.ORG. Live and let live!!
Wonderlust
I was there and I am proud of our ImmigrationVoice members for this FANTASTIC effort!
1. We must immediately change our name to LegalImmigrationVoice.org( LIV.org)...But still Immigrationvoice.org should work....This should be done ASAP...like within next week...Please conduct a poll for this ASAP.
I like LIV.ORG. Live and let live!!
Wonderlust
I was there and I am proud of our ImmigrationVoice members for this FANTASTIC effort!
1. We must immediately change our name to LegalImmigrationVoice.org( LIV.org)...But still Immigrationvoice.org should work....This should be done ASAP...like within next week...Please conduct a poll for this ASAP.
more...
logiclife
04-20 02:22 PM
I will be coming with my other friend. We are commuting from Tracy / Stockton area. Anybody bringing the banners / hand signs to support STRIVE ACT?
Maybe no banners or signs because this is a town-hall style meeting and not a rally. I'll let you know if its ok to do that.
But surely, it would be good if you bring a sign/banner saying "www.immigrationvoice.org" which would help us get more coverage is its caught by the media.
Maybe no banners or signs because this is a town-hall style meeting and not a rally. I'll let you know if its ok to do that.
But surely, it would be good if you bring a sign/banner saying "www.immigrationvoice.org" which would help us get more coverage is its caught by the media.
McLuvin
03-12 01:55 PM
finally the bulletin has been posted in the DOS website...
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
more...
morpheus
07-24 10:21 AM
I believe you are overlooking three very important facts.
1. The USCIS main priority at the moment is to reduce backlogs. Unfortunately retrogression works in their favor because it reduces the processing they have to do. Your proposal would increase the processing by forcing them to accept 485 filings and building up a backlog.
2. The USCIS administrator would not be allowed to make a decision like this without input from Congress. It's radically different from concurrent processing, which is a minor administrative change. With AC21, filing 485 without a visa number would allow people to change jobs etc, so it is in the realm of political decisions, not administrative.
3. The USCIS can't even manage to get premium I140 processing (planned since 2002), multi-year EAD's (overdue for years now) or issue regulations on AC21 (due since 2000). Even Congress can barely get them to act!
1. The USCIS main priority at the moment is to reduce backlogs. Unfortunately retrogression works in their favor because it reduces the processing they have to do. Your proposal would increase the processing by forcing them to accept 485 filings and building up a backlog.
2. The USCIS administrator would not be allowed to make a decision like this without input from Congress. It's radically different from concurrent processing, which is a minor administrative change. With AC21, filing 485 without a visa number would allow people to change jobs etc, so it is in the realm of political decisions, not administrative.
3. The USCIS can't even manage to get premium I140 processing (planned since 2002), multi-year EAD's (overdue for years now) or issue regulations on AC21 (due since 2000). Even Congress can barely get them to act!
2010 to cover up the tattoos.
ndbhatt
06-10 09:04 PM
I disagree that it effects EB Community for EAD holders. COming on to options if the amendment stands it might take the form of TARP - God Forbid. Everyone of us predicted Financial industry has so much clout etc.. but those days are gone. I think US companies have decided to bend to laws and find ways to overcome them.
Reg. Options : we are here to earn bread. Just FYI for countries like Canada they have already closed gates. for Ppl who already have PR's over there life is not easy as "is" here right now in getting jobs. Moving the all operations to different country is only possible for companies like Microsoft. not all. btw no one will hire undocumented.
So we need to really motivate ourselves and friends against this headless draft version. This is not first time it came in to light everytime there was a immigration issue it used to come on top. But it failed as climate was cordial for immigrants or economy was good. Things have changed far far beyond in 2008 and TARP bill restrictions is one example where companies decided not to hire H1B at all (mostly) even it applies to TARP recipients.
My thoughts.
I humbly disagree with you on TARP analogy. TARP was due to direct funding by Government to save "Too Big to Fail" companies and obviously they had a say in that case since it was tax payers money. The focus was only on those limited companies. Having said that this text has a wider repercussions and doesn't spare anyone, whether they are financially sound or goverment funded.
I completely agree with you that US offers better job prospects and earning potential. However, when the noose around the neck turns tighter with such "headless" bills, people will sooner or later, start looking at options.
Trust me companies don't hesitate to move on if the environment isn't business friendly(reasons are higher tax, difficulty hiring immigrants, finding people with right skillsets, and so on) as they are more accountable to shareholders and they would care less if it is US today or Brazil tomorrow, the show must go on.
You have heard of horrific stories of people getting CDN PR and hard to find jobs. Failure stories show up lot quicker than the success stories. I have known three close ones who are well placed in Canada.
There are always two sides of coin and so is the half glass full, a half glass empty.
Bottomline is if such bills turn into bill, its not just immigrant community but the economy as whole gets impacted.
Bhattji
Reg. Options : we are here to earn bread. Just FYI for countries like Canada they have already closed gates. for Ppl who already have PR's over there life is not easy as "is" here right now in getting jobs. Moving the all operations to different country is only possible for companies like Microsoft. not all. btw no one will hire undocumented.
So we need to really motivate ourselves and friends against this headless draft version. This is not first time it came in to light everytime there was a immigration issue it used to come on top. But it failed as climate was cordial for immigrants or economy was good. Things have changed far far beyond in 2008 and TARP bill restrictions is one example where companies decided not to hire H1B at all (mostly) even it applies to TARP recipients.
My thoughts.
I humbly disagree with you on TARP analogy. TARP was due to direct funding by Government to save "Too Big to Fail" companies and obviously they had a say in that case since it was tax payers money. The focus was only on those limited companies. Having said that this text has a wider repercussions and doesn't spare anyone, whether they are financially sound or goverment funded.
I completely agree with you that US offers better job prospects and earning potential. However, when the noose around the neck turns tighter with such "headless" bills, people will sooner or later, start looking at options.
Trust me companies don't hesitate to move on if the environment isn't business friendly(reasons are higher tax, difficulty hiring immigrants, finding people with right skillsets, and so on) as they are more accountable to shareholders and they would care less if it is US today or Brazil tomorrow, the show must go on.
You have heard of horrific stories of people getting CDN PR and hard to find jobs. Failure stories show up lot quicker than the success stories. I have known three close ones who are well placed in Canada.
There are always two sides of coin and so is the half glass full, a half glass empty.
Bottomline is if such bills turn into bill, its not just immigrant community but the economy as whole gets impacted.
Bhattji
more...
When485
09-19 11:53 AM
I think its a wonderful and meaningful suggestion. we need to stress on the "LEGAL".
I get pricked when I read about contribution, bec I have not done so far as a single bread winner, I am struggling to pay the tuition fee of my Son who is in University. we are not able to get any loan or financial funding so far.. I will definitely contribute atleast a token amount in the immediate future
Thanks for the understanding
I get pricked when I read about contribution, bec I have not done so far as a single bread winner, I am struggling to pay the tuition fee of my Son who is in University. we are not able to get any loan or financial funding so far.. I will definitely contribute atleast a token amount in the immediate future
Thanks for the understanding
hair Coverup tattoos,
coopheal
11-12 09:58 AM
IV core should have two focus: long term plan and a short term plan.
Long term plan is anything that involves visa increase.
Short term plan is anything that does not involve visa increase, but that provides some kind of releif to us. A no-nonsense, non-controversial and simple measure that can be added to an appropriation bill is a best example.
I hope the core is reading this post...
If you have an idea, and possibly a suggestion on how to implement it, post it. Even an old idea with innovative implementation may help us.
However, please do not wait on contribution thinking until something happens I don�t have to contribute. IV core is already working on many issues, and your monthly contribution would help stabilize resource needs for current items.
Long term plan is anything that involves visa increase.
Short term plan is anything that does not involve visa increase, but that provides some kind of releif to us. A no-nonsense, non-controversial and simple measure that can be added to an appropriation bill is a best example.
I hope the core is reading this post...
If you have an idea, and possibly a suggestion on how to implement it, post it. Even an old idea with innovative implementation may help us.
However, please do not wait on contribution thinking until something happens I don�t have to contribute. IV core is already working on many issues, and your monthly contribution would help stabilize resource needs for current items.
more...
CSPAvictim
07-09 07:55 PM
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. The remaining number was splitted for Consular porcessing.
my 2 cents...
Well, I didn't think Sunday, JULY 1 counted as a business day for USCIS. Isn't there a law prohibiting government employees from working on weekends? If there isn't any such law and if it really is a working day, maybe people should have hand delivered applications at the service centers on sunday. I read in some other thread that someone had his/her application delivered via USPS on sunday night :confused: No wonder this is all such a horrible mess!
my 2 cents...
Well, I didn't think Sunday, JULY 1 counted as a business day for USCIS. Isn't there a law prohibiting government employees from working on weekends? If there isn't any such law and if it really is a working day, maybe people should have hand delivered applications at the service centers on sunday. I read in some other thread that someone had his/her application delivered via USPS on sunday night :confused: No wonder this is all such a horrible mess!
hot Cover Up Dragon tattoo - Rate
acecupid
07-13 11:22 AM
And has your lawyer sent a letter - if not, why is he/she still waiting to do so. Did you exhort her to do so. Will you exclude yourself from any AILF lawsuit benefit.
You are missing the forest for the trees friend - Its not one agianst the other. Focus on the objective.
I am not saying my lawyer is any better, all these lawyers are nothing but blood suckers just like the employers. I'm just disgusted that people can stoop so low. The objective might be the same, but the intentions are far from it. I hope you understand that my friend and stop being a PR rep for murthy or any lawyer. :)
You are missing the forest for the trees friend - Its not one agianst the other. Focus on the objective.
I am not saying my lawyer is any better, all these lawyers are nothing but blood suckers just like the employers. I'm just disgusted that people can stoop so low. The objective might be the same, but the intentions are far from it. I hope you understand that my friend and stop being a PR rep for murthy or any lawyer. :)
more...
house good tattoos. to cover up
GreenCard4US
06-10 06:24 PM
For whatever reason, rumors are flying all over the Internet that the end of H1B and EAD employment authorization is at hand. This is complete nonsense. The purported basis for these rumors is an amendment offered in the Senate (S. Amdt. 4319) to a tax bill previously passed by the House (HR 4213). As written, this proposal would prohibit companies from filing H1B petitions if the company has laid off any employees in the last year. It would also void all existing H petitions for a company if the company lays off personnel.
Let's put this in context. Microsoft decides to lay off some of its loading dock personnel because they want to outsource that work. Under this proposal, they would then have to terminate all of their H1B engineers. That simply doesn't pass the laugh test.
Like most of Grassley's proposals, this amendment is pure idiocy. I suppose that's what happens when your parents are siblings. This bill has absolutely no chance of ever becoming law. .
Let's put this in context. Microsoft decides to lay off some of its loading dock personnel because they want to outsource that work. Under this proposal, they would then have to terminate all of their H1B engineers. That simply doesn't pass the laugh test.
Like most of Grassley's proposals, this amendment is pure idiocy. I suppose that's what happens when your parents are siblings. This bill has absolutely no chance of ever becoming law. .
tattoo hibiscus, a cover-up
spicy_guy
07-13 06:38 PM
August 2010 Visa Bulletin – EB-2 and EB-3 Substantial Forward Movement (http://www.cilawgroup.com/news/2010/07/13/august-2010-visa-bulletin-%E2%80%93-eb-2-and-eb-3-substantial-forward-movement/)
"
Forward Movement Is Temporary
Note that the substantial forward movement does not indicate a trend; instead, the last two visa bulletins� forward movement was to ensure that no available visa numbers remain unused due to poor allocation of the unused numbers. We expect that there be some retrogression over the next 1-3 months.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or if we can help you prepare and file your I-485 adjustment application, should your priority date become current.
"
"
Forward Movement Is Temporary
Note that the substantial forward movement does not indicate a trend; instead, the last two visa bulletins� forward movement was to ensure that no available visa numbers remain unused due to poor allocation of the unused numbers. We expect that there be some retrogression over the next 1-3 months.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or if we can help you prepare and file your I-485 adjustment application, should your priority date become current.
"
more...
pictures heart tattoo cover ups
ak27
01-09 10:02 AM
Hi Guys,
I was out last week. I am back now. Last time when we had a conference call, we decided to post flyers about immigration voice in our local communities and also getting in touch with the local newspapers. Since everyone is back from the holidays now, lets have a conference call next Wednesday. Till then, please post as many flyers as possible to increase IV's awareness.
Thanks,
Varsha
Varsha,
Are we on for concall. Please post it again...
I was out last week. I am back now. Last time when we had a conference call, we decided to post flyers about immigration voice in our local communities and also getting in touch with the local newspapers. Since everyone is back from the holidays now, lets have a conference call next Wednesday. Till then, please post as many flyers as possible to increase IV's awareness.
Thanks,
Varsha
Varsha,
Are we on for concall. Please post it again...
dresses sharpie tattoo cover up
tooclose
07-12 09:13 PM
Thanks for good wishes and congratulations to all who become current.
Regarding cutoff date I'm hearing multiple theories -
A. if it says 1st March - then prior to that consider as active - 1st of March is not included
B. some says 1st March is included because it is like UNTIL 1st March
C. Someone told me if cutoff date fall on weekend then consider that date in. 1st March in 2006 was Wednesday - just FYI.
D. someone also told me if it falls during weekdays then consider whole week - until Friday. USCIS taking cases for whole week for processing.
Wow so many options looks like I need to poll this and then wait until next bulletin :)
Once again thanks for good wishes and Congratulations who were waiting for longer period.
-Rwe
wow... too many options ... do u know the source for any of these ?
Regarding cutoff date I'm hearing multiple theories -
A. if it says 1st March - then prior to that consider as active - 1st of March is not included
B. some says 1st March is included because it is like UNTIL 1st March
C. Someone told me if cutoff date fall on weekend then consider that date in. 1st March in 2006 was Wednesday - just FYI.
D. someone also told me if it falls during weekdays then consider whole week - until Friday. USCIS taking cases for whole week for processing.
Wow so many options looks like I need to poll this and then wait until next bulletin :)
Once again thanks for good wishes and Congratulations who were waiting for longer period.
-Rwe
wow... too many options ... do u know the source for any of these ?
more...
makeup cover-up
asia2america
01-19 09:40 PM
Hi! I am planning to apply EAD on my own as I could no longer afford to pay my expensive lawyer, but there I am not sure how to answer question 13 in the form which says, "Have you ever before applied for employment authorization from USCIS? Since I was and still am on H1, should I answer yes? Please help. Thanks.
girlfriend Tattoos Coverup
nyte_crawler
04-09 12:13 AM
It is very strange, even if it is true. Was he coming to USA for the first time ? I think if he is into US even with 5 days of I-94, he could probably go to the local USCIS office and furnish evidence for extension I hope.
hairstyles Client had an existing tattoo
Openarms
08-11 03:20 PM
As far I am concerned they are one of the organizations that injected this EB2 vs EB3 allocation... at that movement they might have their own reasons... but it might change now... We kinda know where IV stands on this...
They do....
How come a person with EB2 category applied GC in 2006 doing the same thing that a EB3 person does who applied GC in 2002 gets their Green Cards approved?? Again not against any category...What in the world of kinda rationale is this is??
They do....
How come a person with EB2 category applied GC in 2006 doing the same thing that a EB3 person does who applied GC in 2002 gets their Green Cards approved?? Again not against any category...What in the world of kinda rationale is this is??
r2i2009
11-14 09:06 PM
Guys,
Let us wait till April 09. Pres has more priorities....if he does not revive the economy.....there is no user of our GCs.....let him work on that for a while
With such a bad economy.......ECONOMY takes the highest.
Why are we bothered ....we have EADs....so relax.
If he takes up the immigration issue next year....people will get pissed off
Not for us but for some one they will meet and discuss
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/calendar.html
If Zoe can bring this up then we may be able to push for HR 5882. Seems like no one is interested in HR 5882.
Come on ! some one from california should help us in this one.. Call Zoe's office and find out where we are on HR 5882.
Let us wait till April 09. Pres has more priorities....if he does not revive the economy.....there is no user of our GCs.....let him work on that for a while
With such a bad economy.......ECONOMY takes the highest.
Why are we bothered ....we have EADs....so relax.
If he takes up the immigration issue next year....people will get pissed off
Not for us but for some one they will meet and discuss
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/calendar.html
If Zoe can bring this up then we may be able to push for HR 5882. Seems like no one is interested in HR 5882.
Come on ! some one from california should help us in this one.. Call Zoe's office and find out where we are on HR 5882.
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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment