ramus
07-19 12:08 PM
Lets keep this thread moving.
wallpaper diagram moon
ashutrip
06-22 01:55 PM
I know they have been saying this from Mid May. Lets see. I guess HOPE is the only answer!!
the only answer is ----TO HELL WITH AMERICA!!!
the only answer is ----TO HELL WITH AMERICA!!!
Desichakit
07-11 09:51 AM
This appears to be half the battle won for EB2 as it has to translated into actual approval. Also we must be mindfull of EB3 retrogression and must not lose sight of it in this Euphoria.
EB2-I-Jan08
EB2-I-Jan08
2011 Lunar-Phase-Diagram from the A
Green_Always
09-10 10:13 AM
All due to Sub Labour 485 Applications sent during July 2007.
What a wonderful system and process of USCIS where a legitimate applicant has to wait and keep on waiting..
What a wonderful system and process of USCIS where a legitimate applicant has to wait and keep on waiting..
more...
singhsa3
07-20 12:43 PM
It is still optimistic my freind. As one of our member pointed out, realstic number would be around 600K, which implies 16 months wait for some people. Also , we do not know the level of work force at USCIS engaged in processing EAD. It could be 10, it could be 100. More the better but it we it is fewer than we are doomed.
Additional Comments:
Also, any new hires will need to be trained, and infrastructure need to be set up. All these things do not happen overnight
If you assume 30 people, you get 1 year per your calculations. Make it 90 and we get it in 3 months:D
Additional Comments:
Also, any new hires will need to be trained, and infrastructure need to be set up. All these things do not happen overnight
If you assume 30 people, you get 1 year per your calculations. Make it 90 and we get it in 3 months:D
ak_2006
06-10 02:13 PM
Can you post the link of the official announcement, thanks in advance
http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1213101513448.shtm
http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1213101513448.shtm
more...
fullerene
06-03 10:25 AM
Retrogress is against the principle of laws. Think about the reason that the government wants provide a path for these undocumented people is the government wants secure the border. Before the law take effective, they need find a way to take care of these people because new law can not have retrogress. Same should apply to the legal immigrants. When the new law is being discussed, it can not terminate or replace the current law. I don’t think people interpret the words correctly. I believe introduction means the period of time before the signed new law replaces the current one.
Law execution shall favor the executed person. I don’t know how to describe it in a professional matter. I give an example,
Person A is sentenced to death and will be executed on June 15th. However, new law takes effective on June 5, and according to new law Person A shall be sentenced 20 years in prison. So Person A can appeal to change the sentence.
On the other hand, Person A is sentenced to 10 years and will be executed on June 5th. But new law will take effective which gives 20 years in prison. So will the person get a severer penalty? I don’t think so.
In addition to that, when a new law is dramatically changed, compared to the current law, an introduction period is usually applied. During this period of time dual status may apply. People may choose either law which is favorable for them. Of course, because of the uncertainty, lawyers love this dual status to get more business.
Law execution shall favor the executed person. I don’t know how to describe it in a professional matter. I give an example,
Person A is sentenced to death and will be executed on June 15th. However, new law takes effective on June 5, and according to new law Person A shall be sentenced 20 years in prison. So Person A can appeal to change the sentence.
On the other hand, Person A is sentenced to 10 years and will be executed on June 5th. But new law will take effective which gives 20 years in prison. So will the person get a severer penalty? I don’t think so.
In addition to that, when a new law is dramatically changed, compared to the current law, an introduction period is usually applied. During this period of time dual status may apply. People may choose either law which is favorable for them. Of course, because of the uncertainty, lawyers love this dual status to get more business.
2010 of the moon phases using a
gctest
09-15 04:19 PM
That memo/document you pointed out is an interpretation. We have already said that USCIS's interpretation is incorrect. We intend to correct this interpretation with this lawsuit.
Infact, it would be wrong to call this a lawsuit.
We are aiming for an injunction (or a stay order) in step 1 of the lawsuit that would prevent USCIS from working on any interfiling/PD porting requests.
If the injunction is with retroactive effect, all the EBs (not just EB3) who have ported their PDs will have their cases frozen. USCIS would not be able to work on them.
The remainder of the lawsuit can take its sweet time... the injunction should serve the primary cause.
Incorrect.
Please read this pdf document
AFM Update: Chapter 22: Employment-based Petitions (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/afm_ch22_091206R.pdf)
Please pay attention to section (3) Priority Date Based on Earlier Petition on page 28 -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If an alien is the beneficiary of two (or more) approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions, the priority of the earlier petition may be applied to all subsequently-filed employment-based petitions.
For example:
Company A files a labor certification request on behalf of an alien ("Joe") as a janitor on January 10, 2003. The DOL issues the certification on March 20, 2003. Company A later files, and USCIS approves, a relating I-140 visa petition under the EB-3 category. On July 15, 2003, Joe files a second I-140 visa petition in his own behalf as a rocket scientist under the EB-1 category, which USCIS approves. Joe is entitled to use the January 10, 2003, priority date to apply for adjustment under either the EB-1 or the EB-3 classification.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest, you talk to an attorney before using words like illegal. It may be unfair, but still be legal.
_____________________________________
Proud Indian-American and Legal Immigrant
Infact, it would be wrong to call this a lawsuit.
We are aiming for an injunction (or a stay order) in step 1 of the lawsuit that would prevent USCIS from working on any interfiling/PD porting requests.
If the injunction is with retroactive effect, all the EBs (not just EB3) who have ported their PDs will have their cases frozen. USCIS would not be able to work on them.
The remainder of the lawsuit can take its sweet time... the injunction should serve the primary cause.
Incorrect.
Please read this pdf document
AFM Update: Chapter 22: Employment-based Petitions (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/afm_ch22_091206R.pdf)
Please pay attention to section (3) Priority Date Based on Earlier Petition on page 28 -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If an alien is the beneficiary of two (or more) approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions, the priority of the earlier petition may be applied to all subsequently-filed employment-based petitions.
For example:
Company A files a labor certification request on behalf of an alien ("Joe") as a janitor on January 10, 2003. The DOL issues the certification on March 20, 2003. Company A later files, and USCIS approves, a relating I-140 visa petition under the EB-3 category. On July 15, 2003, Joe files a second I-140 visa petition in his own behalf as a rocket scientist under the EB-1 category, which USCIS approves. Joe is entitled to use the January 10, 2003, priority date to apply for adjustment under either the EB-1 or the EB-3 classification.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest, you talk to an attorney before using words like illegal. It may be unfair, but still be legal.
_____________________________________
Proud Indian-American and Legal Immigrant
more...
r_mistry
01-08 02:00 PM
Please share you experiences!!!
Thanks,
Thanks,
hair skip to main | skip to sidebar
petepatel
09-12 03:50 PM
I m in :)
more...
vedicman
05-12 09:34 AM
Called all the offices this morning. Will post the feed backs later in the afternoon. It was encouraging with a few senators.
hot The Moon Phases In Order.
ksrk
02-25 06:28 PM
I would be the most happiest person if that happens :D
NOW (no order whatsoever) is what applies during that last quarter.
So, it doesn't really do anything for certain for anyone - except get us all on the edge of our seats "while supplies last".
Well, good luck to all! Let's see what happens.
NOW (no order whatsoever) is what applies during that last quarter.
So, it doesn't really do anything for certain for anyone - except get us all on the edge of our seats "while supplies last".
Well, good luck to all! Let's see what happens.
more...
house of the Lunar atmosphere.
Googler
04-30 03:28 PM
Taking a break at work so decided to listen in. Aytes said something astonishing a little bit ago -- the FIFO was a great idea but under present circumstances it is not...something about very early PD applications may take longer...
This is an outrageous statement and he deserves to be berated and grilled about it. I hope IV core is paying attention and will bring this to Lofgren's attention.
I hope a full transcript will be made available. There should be a point by point response to all their BS.
This is an outrageous statement and he deserves to be berated and grilled about it. I hope IV core is paying attention and will bring this to Lofgren's attention.
I hope a full transcript will be made available. There should be a point by point response to all their BS.
tattoo Phases of the Moon Poster
makemygc
07-06 01:15 PM
Today.. 12:00 EST:)
SKD's next question should be, what was he wearing when you talked to him? Hope he was not in his sleepwear..just waking up from his beautiful dreams.:o
SKD's next question should be, what was he wearing when you talked to him? Hope he was not in his sleepwear..just waking up from his beautiful dreams.:o
more...
pictures Lunar Eclipse Map Diagram
Humhongekamyab
03-05 12:49 PM
My case does not have a LUD.
Same here my friend.
Same here my friend.
dresses of the moon above or below
GeetaRam
11-30 03:28 PM
Hi,
I was following this thread and it has good information.
I have EB3 labor and I-140 approved with priority date March 2005. I couldn't file my I-485 in 2007.
Recently thru same employer I filed EB2 labor which got approved in Sept 2010. I have filed my I-140 under regular processing. I asked my attorney and he said as I already have one I-140 approved I should file this one under regular processing. USCIS might reject premium processing. Any advice.
My 6th year of H1-B is getting completed on Sept 2011.
Please suggest should I file my I-140 under premium processing? Should I try to convert it???
9 years and VayuMahesh any inputs... congratulations to u both for successful I-140 approval and porting....
Thanks in advance...
I was following this thread and it has good information.
I have EB3 labor and I-140 approved with priority date March 2005. I couldn't file my I-485 in 2007.
Recently thru same employer I filed EB2 labor which got approved in Sept 2010. I have filed my I-140 under regular processing. I asked my attorney and he said as I already have one I-140 approved I should file this one under regular processing. USCIS might reject premium processing. Any advice.
My 6th year of H1-B is getting completed on Sept 2011.
Please suggest should I file my I-140 under premium processing? Should I try to convert it???
9 years and VayuMahesh any inputs... congratulations to u both for successful I-140 approval and porting....
Thanks in advance...
more...
makeup lunar phases in 1983
WeldonSprings
05-02 04:17 PM
Just responding to my quote- This question was also raised by Honorable House Democrat from Illinois Mr. Guterriez.I know everyone has looked at the Visa Bulletin. Here is a quote from it-
2. Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320.
So, don't you guys think that there more than 140,000 visas can be given away, if need me as it is this moment. So, I don't understand the retrogression???
2. Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320.
So, don't you guys think that there more than 140,000 visas can be given away, if need me as it is this moment. So, I don't understand the retrogression???
girlfriend Phases of the Moon
pappu
02-06 06:05 PM
Pappu,
I can organize weekly Conf. call, but I would need some initial input from IV Core Team about its activities. I also need to understand what were SoCal chapter targets and if any progress has been made. Maybe 485Mb4001 or Amit can guide on this?
rkotamurthy,
pls take the lead yourself for thiis chapter. Jimmi_hendrix will be no longer leading this chapter. We need someone to lead this effort. If anyone else wants to come forward pls. do so and take charge. Communicate with the northern CA foks and organize a combined call or seperate call. We need someone to take a leadership role in this chapter at this time. Contact each and every member in this thread and bring them together to work on IV agenda items as outliined on the link on IV homepage for chapters.
I can organize weekly Conf. call, but I would need some initial input from IV Core Team about its activities. I also need to understand what were SoCal chapter targets and if any progress has been made. Maybe 485Mb4001 or Amit can guide on this?
rkotamurthy,
pls take the lead yourself for thiis chapter. Jimmi_hendrix will be no longer leading this chapter. We need someone to lead this effort. If anyone else wants to come forward pls. do so and take charge. Communicate with the northern CA foks and organize a combined call or seperate call. We need someone to take a leadership role in this chapter at this time. Contact each and every member in this thread and bring them together to work on IV agenda items as outliined on the link on IV homepage for chapters.
hairstyles The lunar phase depends on the
JunRN
05-15 11:39 PM
He got info from USCIS through congressional liason that his 140 was indeed approved on the date when the IO claimed it was denied and it was indeed revoked when he got a denial. The revoke was initiated by his employer.
They seem to have all info proper. There is no faulty system. If there is faulty system, probably we have known by now with things never happening right
Thanks for the clarification. Regarding faulty system, if it's not the database, it must be the practice. We have heard not few cases of AC21 cases being improperly denied.
My take is that the system used by USCIS is not designed to check for AC21 cases and so rightfully, when IO sees denied I-140, they deny the I-485. I think their Manual is also not updated to reflect AC21. AC21 is still a memo and not in their Manual.
They seem to have all info proper. There is no faulty system. If there is faulty system, probably we have known by now with things never happening right
Thanks for the clarification. Regarding faulty system, if it's not the database, it must be the practice. We have heard not few cases of AC21 cases being improperly denied.
My take is that the system used by USCIS is not designed to check for AC21 cases and so rightfully, when IO sees denied I-140, they deny the I-485. I think their Manual is also not updated to reflect AC21. AC21 is still a memo and not in their Manual.
Edison99
04-18 09:10 AM
Congrats eb3july2003! Enjoy freedom....
chisinau
07-27 03:44 AM
There is an unconfirmed information from www.ucexchange.com about:
S.AMDT.2448 Amends: H.R.2638 , S.AMDT.2383 Sponsor: Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] (submitted 7/25/2007) (proposed 7/25/2007)
U.S. Senate Passes Bill that Might Provide "Recapture" of EB-3 Immigrant Visa Numbers that Went Unus
By unanimous consent, the U.S. Senate passed a bill sponsored by Senators Schumer (D-NY), Hutchison (R-TX), and Kennedy (D-MA) that would "recapture" employment-based, third preference (EB-3) immigrant visa numbers that went unused because of processing delays during Fiscal Years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. If this bill ultimately passes through Congress and becomes law as currently written, 50% of these "recaptured" numbers would be allocated to "Schedule A" occupations. Currently, the measure has passed through only the Senate. To become law, the bill would still have to pass through the House and be signed by President Bush.
Does any one know wheather this is true???:confused: :confused:
The official information is vice versa:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP02448:
7/26/2007:
Proposed amendment SA 2448 withdrawn in Senate.
Another BIG DISSAPOINTMENT!!!!!!! :::((((((((
S.AMDT.2448 Amends: H.R.2638 , S.AMDT.2383 Sponsor: Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] (submitted 7/25/2007) (proposed 7/25/2007)
U.S. Senate Passes Bill that Might Provide "Recapture" of EB-3 Immigrant Visa Numbers that Went Unus
By unanimous consent, the U.S. Senate passed a bill sponsored by Senators Schumer (D-NY), Hutchison (R-TX), and Kennedy (D-MA) that would "recapture" employment-based, third preference (EB-3) immigrant visa numbers that went unused because of processing delays during Fiscal Years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. If this bill ultimately passes through Congress and becomes law as currently written, 50% of these "recaptured" numbers would be allocated to "Schedule A" occupations. Currently, the measure has passed through only the Senate. To become law, the bill would still have to pass through the House and be signed by President Bush.
Does any one know wheather this is true???:confused: :confused:
The official information is vice versa:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP02448:
7/26/2007:
Proposed amendment SA 2448 withdrawn in Senate.
Another BIG DISSAPOINTMENT!!!!!!! :::((((((((
No comments:
Post a Comment