gc_rip
09-10 12:01 PM
Hi IV team, and all,
Can we come up with certain organized campaign, just like the flower campaign back in Aug 07? I am sure if we have such campaign, the participation would definitely be more.
Ofcourse we need to choose a right time and right message to put through.
Please share your ideas.
Thanks!
Can we come up with certain organized campaign, just like the flower campaign back in Aug 07? I am sure if we have such campaign, the participation would definitely be more.
Ofcourse we need to choose a right time and right message to put through.
Please share your ideas.
Thanks!
wallpaper Mexico globe map locator world
belmontboy
05-23 05:56 PM
Why we dont like gultis ? - eCharcha.Com (http://www.echarcha.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18691)
This link might help you understand the different definitions.
get out of your stereotyped moronic attitude.
If Indians cannot respect fellow Indians, how do you expect to be respected by others in this country??
This link might help you understand the different definitions.
get out of your stereotyped moronic attitude.
If Indians cannot respect fellow Indians, how do you expect to be respected by others in this country??
JalwaeJana
11-10 10:00 PM
I agree this is the easiest thing that can be done with out any lobbying effort. Let me know what number to call
2011 2010 map of mexico flag of
sts_seeker
02-07 01:15 PM
I support country quota otherwise all the greencards will be taken by Indians and Chinese and the people from small countries will not even get a chance. I am sorry but of you are born on one of these countries then you have to wait before everyone who filed earlier.
more...
Libra
06-13 09:56 AM
not banning sub contracting H1b's but they should impose strict rules for companies that every dick and harry, whoever get GC, starts a company by sitting on the couch in his apt and do sub vendoring......these people are responsible for low pays. I am one of the victim of such companies and hate these kind of people, today they get GC tomorrow they start a desi consulting company.
uma001
07-29 05:10 AM
Add Wachovia now acquired by Wells Fargo to the list. They don't even do H1 extensions.
That's too bad.
That's too bad.
more...
hebron
08-10 06:13 PM
I feel frustrated at some peoples' unwillingness to admit that EB3 needs IV's help now more than ever. They are saying that nothing much can be done for EB3, as INS merely corrected its wrong interpretation in visa allocation
But, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
Hi gk_2000, May be I am the only one who doesn't understand the idea. If you don't mind could you please explain what you proposed with examples?
But, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
Hi gk_2000, May be I am the only one who doesn't understand the idea. If you don't mind could you please explain what you proposed with examples?
2010 mexico flag, mexico map,
gc_in_30_yrs
07-17 10:48 AM
Sanjay,
I did not find Point Number 2 in their website that you mentioned here. Can you post link to it? It may be that they removed it now, or you might understood something differently.
thanks.
gc_in_30_yrs.
Following up on the NYTimes article about the NumbersUSA group, I visited their website and saw that they have a free FAX program where they can easily send faxes to their senators.
One of their fax letters is below, which is a complete mis-representation of truth - look at point #2.
================================
Dear [This fax will go to Your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative ]
I oppose any increase in the annual H-1B visa cap, including those in the SKIL Act. I am counting on you to oppose it.
Here are just a few reasons why I hope you will oppose the SKIL Act:
(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies.
(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers.
(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.
(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.
The result of the SKIL Act would be to further depress the wages of Americans working in high-tech and scientific fields and to cause additional job displacement for those workers.
Sincerely, [Your Name Will Appear Here]
==============================================
Is there any way we could let the senators know that this is complete lie, misinformation and mis-representation of facts?. We should also let the senators know that the credibility of these organizations are questionable and following the news/faxes from these organizations would in turn put the credibility of these senators at a BIG RISK. We also should let the senators know that these groups are artificially "hiking" up the count by sending in duplicate faxes.
Also, I recommend creating a similar page in IV website, where we can have an automated 1-2-3 STEP fax facility where we can automatically fax a letter to senators. It should be as simple as selecting the state and pressing the Send Fax button. Please let me know if you need any programming help from me.
Thanks,
Sanjay.
I did not find Point Number 2 in their website that you mentioned here. Can you post link to it? It may be that they removed it now, or you might understood something differently.
thanks.
gc_in_30_yrs.
Following up on the NYTimes article about the NumbersUSA group, I visited their website and saw that they have a free FAX program where they can easily send faxes to their senators.
One of their fax letters is below, which is a complete mis-representation of truth - look at point #2.
================================
Dear [This fax will go to Your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative ]
I oppose any increase in the annual H-1B visa cap, including those in the SKIL Act. I am counting on you to oppose it.
Here are just a few reasons why I hope you will oppose the SKIL Act:
(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies.
(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers.
(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.
(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.
The result of the SKIL Act would be to further depress the wages of Americans working in high-tech and scientific fields and to cause additional job displacement for those workers.
Sincerely, [Your Name Will Appear Here]
==============================================
Is there any way we could let the senators know that this is complete lie, misinformation and mis-representation of facts?. We should also let the senators know that the credibility of these organizations are questionable and following the news/faxes from these organizations would in turn put the credibility of these senators at a BIG RISK. We also should let the senators know that these groups are artificially "hiking" up the count by sending in duplicate faxes.
Also, I recommend creating a similar page in IV website, where we can have an automated 1-2-3 STEP fax facility where we can automatically fax a letter to senators. It should be as simple as selecting the state and pressing the Send Fax button. Please let me know if you need any programming help from me.
Thanks,
Sanjay.
more...
yabadaba
07-28 09:03 AM
Would you be offended if the image of Ganesh is used on a sack of rice or sugar or a bottle of cooking oil? If not, then what's the problem in using it on an alcoholic beverage bottle?
its amrit..drink of the gods...so its befitting.
its amrit..drink of the gods...so its befitting.
hair Custom Wedding Map
logiclife
12-20 04:54 PM
Please lookup 245(k).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
(k) Inapplicability of certain provisions for certain employment-based immigrants
An alien who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) of this title (or, in the case of an alien who is an immigrant described in section 1101 (a)(27)(C) of this title, under section 1153 (b)(4) of this title) may adjust status pursuant to subsection (a) of this section and notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8) of this section, if—
(1) the alien, on the date of filing an application for adjustment of status, is present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission;
(2) the alien, subsequent to such lawful admission has not, for an aggregate period exceeding 180 days—
(A) failed to maintain, continuously, a lawful status;
(B) engaged in unauthorized employment; or
(C) otherwise violated the terms and conditions of the alien’s admission.
So basically if you are applying for employment based immigration adjustment of status(meaning I-485) under EB1 EB2 or EB3, (that's what they mean by paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) in the above text), and if you have not voilated status for over 180 days after your last legal entry into USA, and if you were in legal status at the time of applying for 485, then you may adjust status.
Now, a really good idea would be that you disclose this whole thing at the time of filing 485 and also claim the benefit under section 245(k). Since its apparent that you have not done it, I would advise to leave it alone and dont dig up old graves.
Consult an attorney for further advise, but dont go overboard in being Raja Harishchandra (the chronic truth teller) because frankly USCIS may not care about this and you can always claim the benefit under section 245(k).
However, if USCIS finds out about this (which is very very unlikely) and if the officer is a very strict person, then they may create a case of wilful misrepresentation. That's because on form I-485, it says that "have you ever been out of status or illegal and if so, provide details". In that question, if you didnt disclose your past history of being out of status ( I am assuming you were out of status and not illegal) then basically, in theory, they can say that you wilfully misrepresented (basically lied to them) by hiding this.
One option is to file an amendment to your I-485 and disclose this fact. That way, atleast they cannot make a case of wilfull misrepresentation. Nonetheless, remember, for them to find this out (about you not working and sitting at home) is difficult. Unless they somehow ask for your W-2 and paystubs for past 6-7 years and in that case it will be very easy for them to see that you were not working for 1 year.
Consult an attorney and tell the attorney all the details. I am not a lawyer and you should always ask a lawyer for legal advise.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
(k) Inapplicability of certain provisions for certain employment-based immigrants
An alien who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) of this title (or, in the case of an alien who is an immigrant described in section 1101 (a)(27)(C) of this title, under section 1153 (b)(4) of this title) may adjust status pursuant to subsection (a) of this section and notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8) of this section, if—
(1) the alien, on the date of filing an application for adjustment of status, is present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission;
(2) the alien, subsequent to such lawful admission has not, for an aggregate period exceeding 180 days—
(A) failed to maintain, continuously, a lawful status;
(B) engaged in unauthorized employment; or
(C) otherwise violated the terms and conditions of the alien’s admission.
So basically if you are applying for employment based immigration adjustment of status(meaning I-485) under EB1 EB2 or EB3, (that's what they mean by paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) in the above text), and if you have not voilated status for over 180 days after your last legal entry into USA, and if you were in legal status at the time of applying for 485, then you may adjust status.
Now, a really good idea would be that you disclose this whole thing at the time of filing 485 and also claim the benefit under section 245(k). Since its apparent that you have not done it, I would advise to leave it alone and dont dig up old graves.
Consult an attorney for further advise, but dont go overboard in being Raja Harishchandra (the chronic truth teller) because frankly USCIS may not care about this and you can always claim the benefit under section 245(k).
However, if USCIS finds out about this (which is very very unlikely) and if the officer is a very strict person, then they may create a case of wilful misrepresentation. That's because on form I-485, it says that "have you ever been out of status or illegal and if so, provide details". In that question, if you didnt disclose your past history of being out of status ( I am assuming you were out of status and not illegal) then basically, in theory, they can say that you wilfully misrepresented (basically lied to them) by hiding this.
One option is to file an amendment to your I-485 and disclose this fact. That way, atleast they cannot make a case of wilfull misrepresentation. Nonetheless, remember, for them to find this out (about you not working and sitting at home) is difficult. Unless they somehow ask for your W-2 and paystubs for past 6-7 years and in that case it will be very easy for them to see that you were not working for 1 year.
Consult an attorney and tell the attorney all the details. I am not a lawyer and you should always ask a lawyer for legal advise.
more...
gcformeornot
03-16 12:54 PM
dude, you don't know jack.........there is no "eligibility" when it comes to EB2 or EB3.
The FUC@#NG job has to demand a Master's for EB2.
It's not like the monkey-jobs that you fools do for fuc@#ng two-bit desi employers who are anywhere from 5-100 people strong NEED an EB2 !!!!
any monkey can do 99% of the jobs that desi EB3 people do on the West Coast and the East Coast...........that's reality. It's YOUR problem if you cannot stomach this reality.
And all these folks have the audacity to call themselves "highly skilled"!!! hahahahahaha..............errr, by the way, what school did most of these people go to? Lemme guess..........some SDNMDFDF Institute of Tech in some freakin village in India??
If they did not qualify for EB2, then they should have FU@#%NG worked HARDER when they could.............should have gotten a good degree........and landed a respectable job in a BIG company....
And don't preach what you have no knowledge about, ok buddy?
For the record, i have NEVER used any legal shortcut ever.
that's the best way to get rid of such fools......
The FUC@#NG job has to demand a Master's for EB2.
It's not like the monkey-jobs that you fools do for fuc@#ng two-bit desi employers who are anywhere from 5-100 people strong NEED an EB2 !!!!
any monkey can do 99% of the jobs that desi EB3 people do on the West Coast and the East Coast...........that's reality. It's YOUR problem if you cannot stomach this reality.
And all these folks have the audacity to call themselves "highly skilled"!!! hahahahahaha..............errr, by the way, what school did most of these people go to? Lemme guess..........some SDNMDFDF Institute of Tech in some freakin village in India??
If they did not qualify for EB2, then they should have FU@#%NG worked HARDER when they could.............should have gotten a good degree........and landed a respectable job in a BIG company....
And don't preach what you have no knowledge about, ok buddy?
For the record, i have NEVER used any legal shortcut ever.
that's the best way to get rid of such fools......
hot mexico flag emblem.
alterego
07-15 11:03 AM
If your ex-employer already revoked I-140, how can he give employment verification letter now? He is saying that he is no-longer intend to employ you in the revokation , on the other hand he is giving offer letter now. It is contradictory; it will appear to CIS that you & your employer is doing fradulant practice. If the I-140 was already revoked, then there is no use from it, unless if it is revoked after 180 days of your 485 pending. If it is revoked after 180 days, you can use your new employment to port the job based on AC21 to keep the 485 valid. Otherwise forget it.
Speak with a lawyer. Your lawyer may be able to file a response, stating that the job offer stands and that the petition was withdrawn in error. Ac21 does not protect you, so I do not see any other options here. However, as tricky as this situation is, you should not take the advise of any of the posters here. Use these responses only to have an intelligent discussion with a good immigration attorney. The worst outcome of all for you would be a rejection for fraud or willful misrepresentation, in which case your future petitions would be in jeopardy and you would be unable to retain your PD also.
Speak with a lawyer. Your lawyer may be able to file a response, stating that the job offer stands and that the petition was withdrawn in error. Ac21 does not protect you, so I do not see any other options here. However, as tricky as this situation is, you should not take the advise of any of the posters here. Use these responses only to have an intelligent discussion with a good immigration attorney. The worst outcome of all for you would be a rejection for fraud or willful misrepresentation, in which case your future petitions would be in jeopardy and you would be unable to retain your PD also.
more...
house wall map of mexico flag
amsgc
07-02 09:36 PM
Regarding your argument on fairness:
On the contrary, under the current system immigrants from all nations do not have an equal opportunity to apply for a green card. Immigrants from the retrogressed countries are at an unfair disadvantage.
It is easy to see: A guy from ROW and a guy from India both are equally qualified engineers who have a EB2 PD of Jan 2008. The guy from ROW can apply to adjust status now, but the guy from India cannot apply until five years from now. That doesn't tell me that both immigrants have an equal opportunity.
Both immigrants would have had an equal opportunity if both could apply for GC at the same time. Once you have entered the country, have been gainfully employed, and your immigrant petition has been approved, how does it matter whether you came from India, china or Timbuktu? Your employer needs you for your skills, not your place of birth. Do you resolve your day to day office problems with your birth certificate pasted to your forehead?
Regarding your argument on diversity:
You need to understand that the country cap (set up 50 years ago) was NOT set up to give all countries an equal shot at sending EB immigrants to the US. The cap was based and an already existing xenophobic tendency (formally expressed way back in 1924) and the desire to retain the cultural and racial character of the US of '65. They would do fine with only handful of you if you didn't eat, drink, talk, walk and look like them.
Now, you need to understand another important point - The world has changed by leaps and bounds in the last fifty years, all made possible by advances in technology and a conscientious effort by governments to educate their people. As a result there are highly skilled people all over the world, who bring their own unique character and experience to the work place. And things have changed dramatically in the US too. Among other things, the US has become more accommodating to people of different cultural identities. Economically, the US is in need of more high skilled people than ever before. This is an irreversible trend, where the US of today is more interested in who you are and what you bring to the table than what you look like. If a few thousand Indians or Chinese are given the green card, based on their SKLLS, it will not alter the racial and cultural character of 300000000 Americans (that's 300 followed by six zeros). Rather it will only make it richer.
Usually politicians work in reactionary mode – they will espouse an idea once it is obvious that they can’t do without it. The fact that discussion to remove country caps in EB has come up in the congress means that the American people have already written it off as an absurd idea.
The law will change, whether you like it or not.
Read here and get yourself some education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Services_Act_of_1965
Regarding the agenda:
The agenda of this organization is pretty darn obvious if you care to go through the home page. The idea is to get as close as possible to a system of immigration that appropriately addresses the needs of the US economy and is fair to both Peter and Paul. A system which gives out a green card in a timely fashion, based on skills, job requirements, and the time when the process was started. We need to advocate a change because the current system says to Paul "screw you" and rewards Peter.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't see how the per country limit is unfair! It was set up so that immigrants from ALL nations would have EQUAL opportunity to immigrate to the U.S. and to prevent any one (or two) countries from monopolizing the visa numbers. Getting rid of the per country limit would most certainly lead to immigration from a limited number of sources (countries) and thus jeopardize the diversity of the immigration process. Getting rid of it would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul because those countries who are severely retrogressed now would only see limited benefits and those who are not all that retrogressed would fall backwards - is that fair!? It seems these forms are dominated by "certain" groups who have their own agenda and don't really care about ROW! It makes me feel uncomfortable being an IV member from ROW!
On the contrary, under the current system immigrants from all nations do not have an equal opportunity to apply for a green card. Immigrants from the retrogressed countries are at an unfair disadvantage.
It is easy to see: A guy from ROW and a guy from India both are equally qualified engineers who have a EB2 PD of Jan 2008. The guy from ROW can apply to adjust status now, but the guy from India cannot apply until five years from now. That doesn't tell me that both immigrants have an equal opportunity.
Both immigrants would have had an equal opportunity if both could apply for GC at the same time. Once you have entered the country, have been gainfully employed, and your immigrant petition has been approved, how does it matter whether you came from India, china or Timbuktu? Your employer needs you for your skills, not your place of birth. Do you resolve your day to day office problems with your birth certificate pasted to your forehead?
Regarding your argument on diversity:
You need to understand that the country cap (set up 50 years ago) was NOT set up to give all countries an equal shot at sending EB immigrants to the US. The cap was based and an already existing xenophobic tendency (formally expressed way back in 1924) and the desire to retain the cultural and racial character of the US of '65. They would do fine with only handful of you if you didn't eat, drink, talk, walk and look like them.
Now, you need to understand another important point - The world has changed by leaps and bounds in the last fifty years, all made possible by advances in technology and a conscientious effort by governments to educate their people. As a result there are highly skilled people all over the world, who bring their own unique character and experience to the work place. And things have changed dramatically in the US too. Among other things, the US has become more accommodating to people of different cultural identities. Economically, the US is in need of more high skilled people than ever before. This is an irreversible trend, where the US of today is more interested in who you are and what you bring to the table than what you look like. If a few thousand Indians or Chinese are given the green card, based on their SKLLS, it will not alter the racial and cultural character of 300000000 Americans (that's 300 followed by six zeros). Rather it will only make it richer.
Usually politicians work in reactionary mode – they will espouse an idea once it is obvious that they can’t do without it. The fact that discussion to remove country caps in EB has come up in the congress means that the American people have already written it off as an absurd idea.
The law will change, whether you like it or not.
Read here and get yourself some education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Services_Act_of_1965
Regarding the agenda:
The agenda of this organization is pretty darn obvious if you care to go through the home page. The idea is to get as close as possible to a system of immigration that appropriately addresses the needs of the US economy and is fair to both Peter and Paul. A system which gives out a green card in a timely fashion, based on skills, job requirements, and the time when the process was started. We need to advocate a change because the current system says to Paul "screw you" and rewards Peter.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't see how the per country limit is unfair! It was set up so that immigrants from ALL nations would have EQUAL opportunity to immigrate to the U.S. and to prevent any one (or two) countries from monopolizing the visa numbers. Getting rid of the per country limit would most certainly lead to immigration from a limited number of sources (countries) and thus jeopardize the diversity of the immigration process. Getting rid of it would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul because those countries who are severely retrogressed now would only see limited benefits and those who are not all that retrogressed would fall backwards - is that fair!? It seems these forms are dominated by "certain" groups who have their own agenda and don't really care about ROW! It makes me feel uncomfortable being an IV member from ROW!
tattoo map of mexico; flag
stucklabor
07-25 08:43 PM
Guys,
This argument is not new. I had started a thread a while back http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=556&highlight=bkarnik
which met with essentially the same reply from the IV moderators. My underlying issue is that the term "EAD" or anything remotely similar does not even appear in the INA unless I missed it and if so, I would really appreciate it if someone show me where it is.
Once more unto the breach, my English friends.
BKarnik, there are sections in INA that use the phrase "Employment Authorization". For instance, see this base page for INA.
http://www.uscis.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/slb/slb-1/slb-20?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-act
Sec. 106 deals with Employment authorization of battered spouses, right on the front page of the link. There are other sections in INA that deal specifically with Employment Authorization. The problem obviously is that each class of aliens eligible for Employment Authorization has their EAD specified in their own section. 8CFR ties all of these classes together in a single place.
This argument is not new. I had started a thread a while back http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=556&highlight=bkarnik
which met with essentially the same reply from the IV moderators. My underlying issue is that the term "EAD" or anything remotely similar does not even appear in the INA unless I missed it and if so, I would really appreciate it if someone show me where it is.
Once more unto the breach, my English friends.
BKarnik, there are sections in INA that use the phrase "Employment Authorization". For instance, see this base page for INA.
http://www.uscis.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/slb/slb-1/slb-20?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-act
Sec. 106 deals with Employment authorization of battered spouses, right on the front page of the link. There are other sections in INA that deal specifically with Employment Authorization. The problem obviously is that each class of aliens eligible for Employment Authorization has their EAD specified in their own section. 8CFR ties all of these classes together in a single place.
more...
pictures of mining map mexico raiso
Raj2006
06-10 04:49 PM
done.
dresses mexico map, canada flag
singhsa3
03-04 11:21 AM
I am expectin WSJ to pay a visit. So I changed the first message.
more...
makeup has Guanajuato+mexico+flag
minimalist
09-10 03:08 PM
So there you have it - no vote on the bill today...
I don't get it guys - what's up with this country - is this really what it's come down? Give me your tired, your poor - but DEFINITELY don't give me your talented, your educated and your promising. Because really - what are we going to do with people who actually pay taxes, contribute to the community and help bring prosperity.
We would love to have just your best cotton-pickers...this is just a little disappointing - and yet I ask, what should we do now? We have 2 months to go - it's time to make a HUGE difference...
Is the bill tabled or something?
I don't get it guys - what's up with this country - is this really what it's come down? Give me your tired, your poor - but DEFINITELY don't give me your talented, your educated and your promising. Because really - what are we going to do with people who actually pay taxes, contribute to the community and help bring prosperity.
We would love to have just your best cotton-pickers...this is just a little disappointing - and yet I ask, what should we do now? We have 2 months to go - it's time to make a HUGE difference...
Is the bill tabled or something?
girlfriend FALSE-FLAG ATTACK?
dhesha
03-18 02:26 PM
Any idea how far will it move? Will it come to Dec 2005 ;)
hairstyles MEXICO
cowboy
07-18 11:14 AM
My case was sent by my attorney June 29th (current July bulletin) USPS certified mail.
As per USPS online tracking record it was delivered July 2nd 12.45 PM.
No receipt yet. So far sounds okay.
But I got the copy of actual delivery receipt stamped by F.Heinauer (Director NSC USCIS) with the date 062907.
It is a stamp so some of their employee clearly has stamped it.
Now I am confused if that’s the receipt date they are going to go with and may reject the application.
And with this many application it may take more than AUG 17th to receive anything back.
I am very sure it was reached on July 2nd. It was only sent June 29th afternoon.
And USPS is telling there is no delivery can reach so fast. According to USPS the guy who might have stamped the delivery did not changed the stamp date from 0629 to 0702 since it was a weekend.
Anybody in the same situation? Any advice?
Thanks
As per USPS online tracking record it was delivered July 2nd 12.45 PM.
No receipt yet. So far sounds okay.
But I got the copy of actual delivery receipt stamped by F.Heinauer (Director NSC USCIS) with the date 062907.
It is a stamp so some of their employee clearly has stamped it.
Now I am confused if that’s the receipt date they are going to go with and may reject the application.
And with this many application it may take more than AUG 17th to receive anything back.
I am very sure it was reached on July 2nd. It was only sent June 29th afternoon.
And USPS is telling there is no delivery can reach so fast. According to USPS the guy who might have stamped the delivery did not changed the stamp date from 0629 to 0702 since it was a weekend.
Anybody in the same situation? Any advice?
Thanks
gc_rip
09-09 12:36 PM
I get this question every day, what are the hopes for EB3-I, or rather are there any hopes for EB3-I? Are we fighting a lost battle?
What do people here really think?
1. There are X % chance that there would be some immigration bill that would help us and we will have GC in next couple of years?
2. Keep going on with life as is, till the time we can renew EAD every 2 years, and AP every year.
3. Wait for another X years, and then go back.
4. Hopefully my son/daughter will be 21 by 2020, and will sponsor my GC.
--- Hoping family based GC would still be allowed by then
5. Don't know, confused?
What do people here really think?
1. There are X % chance that there would be some immigration bill that would help us and we will have GC in next couple of years?
2. Keep going on with life as is, till the time we can renew EAD every 2 years, and AP every year.
3. Wait for another X years, and then go back.
4. Hopefully my son/daughter will be 21 by 2020, and will sponsor my GC.
--- Hoping family based GC would still be allowed by then
5. Don't know, confused?
nixstor
07-04 09:44 PM
Please stop posting this on every thread. In one line you are just spamming. We all visit Attorney Oh's website often. He does not need any publicity
immigration-law.com
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
immigration-law.com
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.