go_guy123
02-09 12:15 AM
Sorry if this is not about GC or any US immigration processes...i just would like to know if anybody can help me or provide me the procedures to obtain Canadian PR. I already had an assessment done (me and my husband under H1 here in US as Accountants ) and we have I-140 and 485 pending. We are thinking of trying Canada.
I always checked and read this site but this is my first post and your help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Get a CFA level 1 done if possible that will boost your job chances a lot
I always checked and read this site but this is my first post and your help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Get a CFA level 1 done if possible that will boost your job chances a lot
wallpaper lady gaga hair album artwork.
fittan
09-28 04:23 PM
Hi
Both and spouse and I received my receipts for our I-485, I-140, EAD, AP 09/19/07. On 09/24/07 we received fingerprint notice and on 09/27/07 we received our EAD card. I am quite surprise by how fast it came. Here are my details :
Priority Date: 10/15/04
Type: EB3
I-140/I-485: Concurrently filing at NSC. Receipt date 07/07/07
Checks cashed: 09/10/07
Receipts received: 09/19/07
Fingerprint appt: 10/09/07
Fittan
Both and spouse and I received my receipts for our I-485, I-140, EAD, AP 09/19/07. On 09/24/07 we received fingerprint notice and on 09/27/07 we received our EAD card. I am quite surprise by how fast it came. Here are my details :
Priority Date: 10/15/04
Type: EB3
I-140/I-485: Concurrently filing at NSC. Receipt date 07/07/07
Checks cashed: 09/10/07
Receipts received: 09/19/07
Fingerprint appt: 10/09/07
Fittan
Openarms
05-02 02:42 PM
It seems to me that there is a discrimination going on with EB3 India. So far there are not many approvals why???? They are trying to suppress this EB3-India category why??? lot of approvals in EB2-India? why??? don't say they are less cases.
2011 Watch now cover of Lady Gaga#39;s
logiclife
06-20 12:38 AM
I would like to clarify a few things possibly misunderstood lately.
Firstly, IV core and all volunteers are fully aware and DO acknowledge that CIR, as we know today, is headed to its grave. Unless something new happens of political significance, all experts have ruled of reform before elections in November.
Secondly, IV core never has and never will bet on one bill. We have said that before and we say that again. CIR is not the only bill we are looking at for passing reforms that provide relief to legal hi-skills immigrants. We will look at the next opportunity to introduce our provisions in and are not going to sit around and wait for elections to come an go. And that means any bill. PACE, SKIL, immigration related, competitiveness related - ANYTHING.
Thirdly, no matter with IV or QGA does, or anybody does, a bill related to immigration is not going to be tabled on the House or Senate floor BEFORE CIR is officially dead. As long as CIR is even slightly in the picture, an immigration legislation will not be scheduled on Senate or House. That simply is not going to happen even if we hire 100 lobbyists and send million webfaxes. CIR has to go away first before Bill Frist or John Boehner puts another immigration bill on the schedule.
However, if CIR dies, we and other organizations like us will spare no time in making efforts to put something on schedule - from house side or senate side.
Firstly, IV core and all volunteers are fully aware and DO acknowledge that CIR, as we know today, is headed to its grave. Unless something new happens of political significance, all experts have ruled of reform before elections in November.
Secondly, IV core never has and never will bet on one bill. We have said that before and we say that again. CIR is not the only bill we are looking at for passing reforms that provide relief to legal hi-skills immigrants. We will look at the next opportunity to introduce our provisions in and are not going to sit around and wait for elections to come an go. And that means any bill. PACE, SKIL, immigration related, competitiveness related - ANYTHING.
Thirdly, no matter with IV or QGA does, or anybody does, a bill related to immigration is not going to be tabled on the House or Senate floor BEFORE CIR is officially dead. As long as CIR is even slightly in the picture, an immigration legislation will not be scheduled on Senate or House. That simply is not going to happen even if we hire 100 lobbyists and send million webfaxes. CIR has to go away first before Bill Frist or John Boehner puts another immigration bill on the schedule.
However, if CIR dies, we and other organizations like us will spare no time in making efforts to put something on schedule - from house side or senate side.
more...
dontcareanymore
07-28 12:48 AM
1) First of all this is not the response to just the quoted post, but many on the same lines, especially from delax and others.
2)I believe that that whole process is so screwed up that it is never fair and never will be. Irrespective of what Eb3s hope for and try , Eb2 folks are going to get their GCs and Eb3s will have to wait until stars align for them.
3) I don't really care one way or other , because what you wish,hope or try to do will have no bearing on the outcome.
<Those who think 2 year EADs are because of your letters , stay in the dreamland - ignorance is bliss >
4) I am really happy for Eb2 folks (No way jealous) , just pissed by some attitude here.
Now that I have the disclaimers out of the way, Here is what I have to say:
Why the heck you never made the argument that "law is law" and "There is no compassion" before law crap when you were retrogressed ?
What happened to what law says , when attempts were made to grab visas from ROW with the same "It is not fair" argument ?
What is the yardstick for EB2 ? It is just what your employer says it is. I know so many in body shops with Eb2 apps while others languish in Eb3 queue.
You can't extend the logic to all EB1 categories. At least in some of the EB categories one has to have published research work in peer reviewed journals.
Will give you an example :
Know some one who came here as postdoc with PHD in life sciences (zoology) and self filed for GC EB1and now runs an Indian grocery just after being in job for less than a year. How do you justify that GC is in the interest of US than a person who is working in a company for 10 years ?
It is true that the original number is broken up equally among all categories but the INA clearly states that if the demand within a category is not sufficient to use up all the visas in that category then the excess should be made available without any regard to country limit in that category. Here's a fact from the July bulletin - not an opinion:
There have been questions raised regarding the way numbers have been provided to the China and India in the Employment Second preference categories beginning in April. Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that if total demand for visas in an Employment preference category is insufficient to use all available visa numbers in that category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limit. (For example: If the second preference annual limit were 40,000, number use by “All Other Countries” were estimated to be only 25,000, and the China/India combined number use based on their per-country limits were 6,000, then there would be 9,000 numbers unused. Those 9,000 numbers could then be made available to China and India applicants without regard to their per-country limits.)
I dont buy the argument that length of wait (as implied in the letter) should determine eligibility for approval disregarding the clear categorization established by law AFTER the initial handout is made on an equal basis. I have always maintained that any logic used to justify shifting visas between EB2 and EB3 purely based on the length of wait can also easily be used between EB2 and EB1. The fact that EB1 has never retrogressed does not matter. Unfortunately LAW is an absolute entity - there is no compassionate interpretation in civil and common law.
If a EB3-2002 is approved before EB2-2004 purely based on length of wait and ignoring the categorization after the initial handout then the same logic or rationale can be used to approve EB2-2004 before EB1-2007 by 'holding back' the visa from the EB1 candidate and giving it to EB2.
I dont think either of us is interested in going down the path of EB2 versus EB3 but to the extent this letter implies/attempts to do that, it is detrimental to the functioning of this group. Cheers
2)I believe that that whole process is so screwed up that it is never fair and never will be. Irrespective of what Eb3s hope for and try , Eb2 folks are going to get their GCs and Eb3s will have to wait until stars align for them.
3) I don't really care one way or other , because what you wish,hope or try to do will have no bearing on the outcome.
<Those who think 2 year EADs are because of your letters , stay in the dreamland - ignorance is bliss >
4) I am really happy for Eb2 folks (No way jealous) , just pissed by some attitude here.
Now that I have the disclaimers out of the way, Here is what I have to say:
Why the heck you never made the argument that "law is law" and "There is no compassion" before law crap when you were retrogressed ?
What happened to what law says , when attempts were made to grab visas from ROW with the same "It is not fair" argument ?
What is the yardstick for EB2 ? It is just what your employer says it is. I know so many in body shops with Eb2 apps while others languish in Eb3 queue.
You can't extend the logic to all EB1 categories. At least in some of the EB categories one has to have published research work in peer reviewed journals.
Will give you an example :
Know some one who came here as postdoc with PHD in life sciences (zoology) and self filed for GC EB1and now runs an Indian grocery just after being in job for less than a year. How do you justify that GC is in the interest of US than a person who is working in a company for 10 years ?
It is true that the original number is broken up equally among all categories but the INA clearly states that if the demand within a category is not sufficient to use up all the visas in that category then the excess should be made available without any regard to country limit in that category. Here's a fact from the July bulletin - not an opinion:
There have been questions raised regarding the way numbers have been provided to the China and India in the Employment Second preference categories beginning in April. Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that if total demand for visas in an Employment preference category is insufficient to use all available visa numbers in that category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limit. (For example: If the second preference annual limit were 40,000, number use by “All Other Countries” were estimated to be only 25,000, and the China/India combined number use based on their per-country limits were 6,000, then there would be 9,000 numbers unused. Those 9,000 numbers could then be made available to China and India applicants without regard to their per-country limits.)
I dont buy the argument that length of wait (as implied in the letter) should determine eligibility for approval disregarding the clear categorization established by law AFTER the initial handout is made on an equal basis. I have always maintained that any logic used to justify shifting visas between EB2 and EB3 purely based on the length of wait can also easily be used between EB2 and EB1. The fact that EB1 has never retrogressed does not matter. Unfortunately LAW is an absolute entity - there is no compassionate interpretation in civil and common law.
If a EB3-2002 is approved before EB2-2004 purely based on length of wait and ignoring the categorization after the initial handout then the same logic or rationale can be used to approve EB2-2004 before EB1-2007 by 'holding back' the visa from the EB1 candidate and giving it to EB2.
I dont think either of us is interested in going down the path of EB2 versus EB3 but to the extent this letter implies/attempts to do that, it is detrimental to the functioning of this group. Cheers
lost_in_migration
05-01 04:36 PM
INA: ACT 203 - ALLOCATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVA...16a4cb816838a4
PART 2 [CONTD.]
(II) No permanent resident visa may be issued to an alien physician described in subclause (I) by the Secretary of State under section 204(b) , and the Attorney General may not adjust the status of such an alien physician from that of a nonimmigrant alien to that of a permanent resident alien under section 245 , until such time as the alien has worked full time as a physician for an aggregate of 5 years (not including the time served in the status of an alien described in section 101(a)(15)(J) ), in an area or areas designated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as having a shortage of health care professionals or at a health care facility under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
(III) Nothing in this subparagraph may be construed to prevent the filing of a petition with the Attorney General for classification under section 204(a) , or the filing of an application for adjustment of status under section 245 , by an alien physician described in subclause (I) prior to the date by which such alien physician has completed the service described in subclause (II).
(IV) The requirements of this subsection do not affect waivers on behalf of alien physicians approved under section 203(b)(2)(B) before the enactment date of this subsection. In the case of a physician for whom an application for a waiver was filed under section 203(b)(2)(B) prior to November 1, 1998, the Attorney General shall grant a national interest waiver pursuant to section 203(b)(2)(B) except that the alien is required to have worked full time as a physician for an aggregate of 3 years (not including time served in the status of an alien described in section 101(a)(15)(J) ) before a visa can be issued to the alien under section 204(b) or the status of the alien is adjusted to permanent resident under section 245 .
(C) Determination of exceptional ability. - In determining under subparagraph (A) whether an immigrant has exceptional ability, the possession of a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning or a license to practice or certification for a particular profession or occupation shall not by itself be considered sufficient evidence of such exceptional ability.
(3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers.-
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), to the following classes of aliens who are not described in paragraph (2):
(i) Skilled workers. - Qualified immigrants who are capable, at the time of petitioning for classification under this paragraph, of performing skilled labor (requiring at least 2 years training or experience), not of a temporary or seasonal nature, for which qualified workers are not available in the United States.
(ii) Professionals. - Qualified immigrants who hold baccalaureate degrees and who are members of the professions.
(iii) Other workers. - Other qualified immigrants who are capable, at the time of petitioning for classification under this paragraph, of performing unskilled labor, not of a temporary or seasonal nature, for which qualified workers are not available in the United States.
(B) Limitation on other workers. - Not more than 10,000 of the visas made available under this paragraph in any fiscal year may be available for qualified immigrants described in subparagraph (A)(iii).
(C) Labor certification required.- An immigrant visa may not be issued to an immigrant under subparagraph (A) until the consular officer is in receipt of a determination made by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the provisions of section 212(a)(5)(A) .
(4) Certain special immigrants. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified special immigrants described in section 101(a)(27) (other than those described in subparagraph (A) or (B) thereof), of which not more than 5,000 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants described in subclause (II) or (III) of section 101(a)(27)(C)(ii) , 2/ and not more than 100 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants, excluding spouses and children, who are described in section 101(a)(27)(M) .
(5) Employment creation. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial 4/ enterprise (including a limited partnership)--
(i) 4/ in which such alien has invested (after the date of the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1990) or, is actively in the process of investing, capital in an amount not less than the amount specified in subparagraph (C), and
(ii) 4/ which will benefit the United States economy and create full-time employment for not fewer than 10 United States citizens or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence or other immigrants lawfully authorized to be employed in the United States (other than the immigrant and the immigrant's spouse, sons, or daughters).
(B) Set-aside for targeted employment areas.-
(i) In general. - Not less than 3,000 of the visas made available under this paragraph in each fiscal year shall be reserved for qualified immigrants who 4/ invest in a new commercial enterprise described in subparagraph (A) which will create employment in a targeted employment area.
(ii) Targeted employment area defined. - In this paragraph, the term ``targeted employment area'' means, at the time of the investment, a rural area or an area which has experienced high unemployment (of at least 150 percent of the national average rate).
(iii) Rural area defined. - In this paragraph, the term ``rural area'' means any area other than an area within a metropolitan statistical area or within the outer boundary of any city or town having a population of 20,000 or more (based on the most recent decennial census of the United States).
(C) Amount of capital required. -
(i) In general. - Except as otherwise provided in this subparagraph, the amount of capital required under subparagraph (A) shall be $1,000,000. The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of State, may from time to time prescribe regulations increasing the dollar amount specified under the previous sentence.
(ii) Adjustment for targeted employment areas.- The Attorney General may, in the case of investment made in a targeted employment area, specify an amount of capital required under subparagraph (A) that is less than (but not less than 1/2 of) the amount specified in clause (i).
(iii) Adjustment for high employment areas.-In the case of an investment made in a part of a metropolitan statistical area that at the time of the investment -
(I) is not a targeted employment area, and
(II) is an area with an unemployment rate significantly below the national average unemployment rate, the Attorney General may specify an amount of capital required under subparagraph (A) that is greater than (but not greater than 3 times) the amount specified in clause (I).
(D) 4/ Full-time employment defined.--In this paragraph, the term `full-time employment' means employment in a position that requires at least 35 hours of service per week at any time, regardless of who fills the position.
(6) Special rules for "k" special immigrants. -
(A) Not counted against numerical limitation in year involved. - Subject to subparagraph (B), the number of immigrant visas made available to special immigrants under section 101(a)(27)(K) in a fiscal year shall not be subject to the numerical limitations of this subsection or of section 202(a).
(B) Counted against numerical limitations in following year.-
(i) Reduction in employment-based immigrant classifications. - The number of visas made available in any fiscal year under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) shall each be reduced by 1/3 of the number of visas made available in the previous fiscal year to special immigrants described in section 101(a)(27)(K) .
(ii) Reduction in per country level. - The number of visas made available in each fiscal year to natives of a foreign state under section 202(a) shall be reduced by the number of visas made available in the previous fiscal year to special immigrants described in section 101(a)(27)(K) who are natives of the foreign state.
(iii) Reduction in employment-based immigrant classifications within per country ceiling. - In the case of a foreign state subject to section 202(e) in a fiscal year (and in the previous fiscal year), the number of visas made available and allocated to each of paragraphs (1) through (3) of this subsection in the fiscal year shall be reduced by 1/3 of the number of visas made available in the previous fiscal year to special immigrants described in section 101(a)(27)(K) who are natives of the forei gn state.(C)[Subparagraph (C) was stricken by Sec. 212(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-416 , 108 Stat. 4314, Oct. 25, 1994)]
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVA...16a4cb816838a4
PART 2 [CONTD.]
(II) No permanent resident visa may be issued to an alien physician described in subclause (I) by the Secretary of State under section 204(b) , and the Attorney General may not adjust the status of such an alien physician from that of a nonimmigrant alien to that of a permanent resident alien under section 245 , until such time as the alien has worked full time as a physician for an aggregate of 5 years (not including the time served in the status of an alien described in section 101(a)(15)(J) ), in an area or areas designated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as having a shortage of health care professionals or at a health care facility under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
(III) Nothing in this subparagraph may be construed to prevent the filing of a petition with the Attorney General for classification under section 204(a) , or the filing of an application for adjustment of status under section 245 , by an alien physician described in subclause (I) prior to the date by which such alien physician has completed the service described in subclause (II).
(IV) The requirements of this subsection do not affect waivers on behalf of alien physicians approved under section 203(b)(2)(B) before the enactment date of this subsection. In the case of a physician for whom an application for a waiver was filed under section 203(b)(2)(B) prior to November 1, 1998, the Attorney General shall grant a national interest waiver pursuant to section 203(b)(2)(B) except that the alien is required to have worked full time as a physician for an aggregate of 3 years (not including time served in the status of an alien described in section 101(a)(15)(J) ) before a visa can be issued to the alien under section 204(b) or the status of the alien is adjusted to permanent resident under section 245 .
(C) Determination of exceptional ability. - In determining under subparagraph (A) whether an immigrant has exceptional ability, the possession of a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning or a license to practice or certification for a particular profession or occupation shall not by itself be considered sufficient evidence of such exceptional ability.
(3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers.-
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), to the following classes of aliens who are not described in paragraph (2):
(i) Skilled workers. - Qualified immigrants who are capable, at the time of petitioning for classification under this paragraph, of performing skilled labor (requiring at least 2 years training or experience), not of a temporary or seasonal nature, for which qualified workers are not available in the United States.
(ii) Professionals. - Qualified immigrants who hold baccalaureate degrees and who are members of the professions.
(iii) Other workers. - Other qualified immigrants who are capable, at the time of petitioning for classification under this paragraph, of performing unskilled labor, not of a temporary or seasonal nature, for which qualified workers are not available in the United States.
(B) Limitation on other workers. - Not more than 10,000 of the visas made available under this paragraph in any fiscal year may be available for qualified immigrants described in subparagraph (A)(iii).
(C) Labor certification required.- An immigrant visa may not be issued to an immigrant under subparagraph (A) until the consular officer is in receipt of a determination made by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the provisions of section 212(a)(5)(A) .
(4) Certain special immigrants. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified special immigrants described in section 101(a)(27) (other than those described in subparagraph (A) or (B) thereof), of which not more than 5,000 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants described in subclause (II) or (III) of section 101(a)(27)(C)(ii) , 2/ and not more than 100 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants, excluding spouses and children, who are described in section 101(a)(27)(M) .
(5) Employment creation. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial 4/ enterprise (including a limited partnership)--
(i) 4/ in which such alien has invested (after the date of the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1990) or, is actively in the process of investing, capital in an amount not less than the amount specified in subparagraph (C), and
(ii) 4/ which will benefit the United States economy and create full-time employment for not fewer than 10 United States citizens or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence or other immigrants lawfully authorized to be employed in the United States (other than the immigrant and the immigrant's spouse, sons, or daughters).
(B) Set-aside for targeted employment areas.-
(i) In general. - Not less than 3,000 of the visas made available under this paragraph in each fiscal year shall be reserved for qualified immigrants who 4/ invest in a new commercial enterprise described in subparagraph (A) which will create employment in a targeted employment area.
(ii) Targeted employment area defined. - In this paragraph, the term ``targeted employment area'' means, at the time of the investment, a rural area or an area which has experienced high unemployment (of at least 150 percent of the national average rate).
(iii) Rural area defined. - In this paragraph, the term ``rural area'' means any area other than an area within a metropolitan statistical area or within the outer boundary of any city or town having a population of 20,000 or more (based on the most recent decennial census of the United States).
(C) Amount of capital required. -
(i) In general. - Except as otherwise provided in this subparagraph, the amount of capital required under subparagraph (A) shall be $1,000,000. The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of State, may from time to time prescribe regulations increasing the dollar amount specified under the previous sentence.
(ii) Adjustment for targeted employment areas.- The Attorney General may, in the case of investment made in a targeted employment area, specify an amount of capital required under subparagraph (A) that is less than (but not less than 1/2 of) the amount specified in clause (i).
(iii) Adjustment for high employment areas.-In the case of an investment made in a part of a metropolitan statistical area that at the time of the investment -
(I) is not a targeted employment area, and
(II) is an area with an unemployment rate significantly below the national average unemployment rate, the Attorney General may specify an amount of capital required under subparagraph (A) that is greater than (but not greater than 3 times) the amount specified in clause (I).
(D) 4/ Full-time employment defined.--In this paragraph, the term `full-time employment' means employment in a position that requires at least 35 hours of service per week at any time, regardless of who fills the position.
(6) Special rules for "k" special immigrants. -
(A) Not counted against numerical limitation in year involved. - Subject to subparagraph (B), the number of immigrant visas made available to special immigrants under section 101(a)(27)(K) in a fiscal year shall not be subject to the numerical limitations of this subsection or of section 202(a).
(B) Counted against numerical limitations in following year.-
(i) Reduction in employment-based immigrant classifications. - The number of visas made available in any fiscal year under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) shall each be reduced by 1/3 of the number of visas made available in the previous fiscal year to special immigrants described in section 101(a)(27)(K) .
(ii) Reduction in per country level. - The number of visas made available in each fiscal year to natives of a foreign state under section 202(a) shall be reduced by the number of visas made available in the previous fiscal year to special immigrants described in section 101(a)(27)(K) who are natives of the foreign state.
(iii) Reduction in employment-based immigrant classifications within per country ceiling. - In the case of a foreign state subject to section 202(e) in a fiscal year (and in the previous fiscal year), the number of visas made available and allocated to each of paragraphs (1) through (3) of this subsection in the fiscal year shall be reduced by 1/3 of the number of visas made available in the previous fiscal year to special immigrants described in section 101(a)(27)(K) who are natives of the forei gn state.(C)[Subparagraph (C) was stricken by Sec. 212(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-416 , 108 Stat. 4314, Oct. 25, 1994)]
more...
ilikekilo
04-30 01:06 PM
H1B quotas for 2001, 2002 and 2003 were 195000. Three times the norm. This could be the reason they quotas were not met during those years. Sure market conditions also helped.
Yo H1tech, u r too fast, I was just gonna say that...yes I believe that quote was too large...
Yo H1tech, u r too fast, I was just gonna say that...yes I believe that quote was too large...
2010 Lady Gaga to release another
dkshitij
02-18 04:05 PM
Same for me. What do I need to do to get access to donor forum ?
You need to be signed up for recurring donations. One time donation does not count.
You need to be signed up for recurring donations. One time donation does not count.
more...
psk79
08-22 10:12 PM
Hi,
I got my EAD today...Even i received my EAD also...Mine is sent to NSC on july 2nd...I received EAD's from Texas Center...I think my application was transferred to Texas...I have approved I-140 from Texas...Are receipt numbers for EAD, 485, AP are in serial? I haven't received receipts yet...I filled G-28...my attorney did not receive my receipts...I don't know what is going on...
AWESOME !!!! CANT WAIT TO GET OUR DAMN RECEIPTS!!!!!!!!!! GLAD TO SEE THE SECOND CASE OF TExas I140 with NSC I485 filing!!!!!!!!!!
I got my EAD today...Even i received my EAD also...Mine is sent to NSC on july 2nd...I received EAD's from Texas Center...I think my application was transferred to Texas...I have approved I-140 from Texas...Are receipt numbers for EAD, 485, AP are in serial? I haven't received receipts yet...I filled G-28...my attorney did not receive my receipts...I don't know what is going on...
AWESOME !!!! CANT WAIT TO GET OUR DAMN RECEIPTS!!!!!!!!!! GLAD TO SEE THE SECOND CASE OF TExas I140 with NSC I485 filing!!!!!!!!!!
hair hair lady gaga fame album art.
intheyan
08-12 02:28 PM
That helps a lot.
Here is some more information I got from murthy's forum.
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=1474093861&m=1201040261
ADIT (I-551) stamping
�
Applicant appears at local USCIS for ADIT processing. Applicant will not be scheduled for an ADIT appointment, ADIT processing is done by "walk-in" basis ONLY.
�
Once the applicant adjusts his/her status by completing ADIT processing, s/he is given the I-551 permanent resident stamp in his/her passport.
Courtesy of --- Jackson & Hertogs
Here is some more information I got from murthy's forum.
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=1474093861&m=1201040261
ADIT (I-551) stamping
�
Applicant appears at local USCIS for ADIT processing. Applicant will not be scheduled for an ADIT appointment, ADIT processing is done by "walk-in" basis ONLY.
�
Once the applicant adjusts his/her status by completing ADIT processing, s/he is given the I-551 permanent resident stamp in his/her passport.
Courtesy of --- Jackson & Hertogs
more...
mhtanim
04-25 06:10 PM
Finally received my FP notice today after 7 months. FP appointment on 5/12.
Did you make service requests for FP?
Did you make service requests for FP?
hot lady gaga hair album cover
priderock
06-27 04:12 PM
I am really surprised that you guys are contemplating on going against your employer for a employment letter and filing your GC. I mean, how hard is it for you guys to agree to the terms of your employer that you will work till you get your GC and upto 6 months beyond that..
If you guys came before 2001-2002 and seen how the situation was for green card filers you will now what I am talking about..
1. There was no concurrent filing of I-140/485
2. There was no premium processing for Labor
3. There was no premium processing for I-140
4. There was no AC-21, so there is no way of switching jobs..
Still it used to take 4-5 years to get a GC.
And you guys are complaining about your employer because you worked for 1-2 years and you want to quit as soon as you get EAD..
Just imagine what would have happened if the dates were not CURRENT.. How many more years you would have worked, cursing USCIS
Your greed will ruin you in future, just like you are cursing your employer's greed..
Also, before you curse your employer, it was you who joined the company and you had many months to find out what kind of employer you have and it quit the company long time back.. You could have switched to different company long time back..
I agree , and if the cost of leaving this stupid employer is just $10K, I would gladly pay and have some peace of mind.
Also don't make decissions based on the current provisions/laws only. It is safe to assume you are going to be with your employer (who filed your GC) until you get your GC. You make a decision assuming that you can use AC21 after 6 months, but what happens if they remove AC21 in two months ??? People got burned when they assume status quo with the laws/provisions and they subsequently change.
If you guys came before 2001-2002 and seen how the situation was for green card filers you will now what I am talking about..
1. There was no concurrent filing of I-140/485
2. There was no premium processing for Labor
3. There was no premium processing for I-140
4. There was no AC-21, so there is no way of switching jobs..
Still it used to take 4-5 years to get a GC.
And you guys are complaining about your employer because you worked for 1-2 years and you want to quit as soon as you get EAD..
Just imagine what would have happened if the dates were not CURRENT.. How many more years you would have worked, cursing USCIS
Your greed will ruin you in future, just like you are cursing your employer's greed..
Also, before you curse your employer, it was you who joined the company and you had many months to find out what kind of employer you have and it quit the company long time back.. You could have switched to different company long time back..
I agree , and if the cost of leaving this stupid employer is just $10K, I would gladly pay and have some peace of mind.
Also don't make decissions based on the current provisions/laws only. It is safe to assume you are going to be with your employer (who filed your GC) until you get your GC. You make a decision assuming that you can use AC21 after 6 months, but what happens if they remove AC21 in two months ??? People got burned when they assume status quo with the laws/provisions and they subsequently change.
more...
house album cover, Lady Gaga
%25252520Lady%25252520Gaga%25252520-%25252520Born%25252520this%25252520way.jpg "Album art: Lady Gaga - Born")
sb15
08-25 10:33 AM
When i initially got RFE, i didn't know at that time that there were already few H1-B's denied from my company. I believe last year when CSC started processing H1-B's they issued RFE's to lot of companies. Most of them got through even though they had few issues but unfortunately my ex-employer got caught and they have denied majority of extensions and new petitions with the reasons i have mentioned before. Till that time, i didn't had much knowledge about the process. I thought i was safe coz my W-2's were almost double the amount that stated on the labor and i was employed, i have provided all the client details, PO and everything. Inspite of that, my extension was denied. Coming to your questions, i have moved out of the company after 6 months of my 485 filing. I haven't filed any H1-B, No AC21(just change of attorney) and i also have an another 140 pending with my new employer and i don't think that 140 is going to work coz there are lot of complexities. Talk to your employer about this. Are you the only person in this situation or anyone else with you in your company. Are there any other petitions that are recently being approved or denied? He is the right person who can tell you about your petition. If you think your employer is not that good by sticking with all the rules,you still have time to move to another company. Even if your petition gets denied, if you want to maintain H1-B status, you can still do that, but there is little bit of extra money involved to get back on to it.
There is nothing to be nervous about this coz there is very little that you can do about this. Majority of the companies got this RFE and lot of them got out of it. Looks like you have a good relation with your company ( 5 years is a good amount of time ). Please talk to them and make a decision based on what they have to say..Hope everything goes well .. never know u could be green before your extension decision is made..Good luck..
Thanks sankar_203.....I would like to talk to you more on this...do you mind giving contact number ?
Thanks for the response, I really appreciate it...
s
There is nothing to be nervous about this coz there is very little that you can do about this. Majority of the companies got this RFE and lot of them got out of it. Looks like you have a good relation with your company ( 5 years is a good amount of time ). Please talk to them and make a decision based on what they have to say..Hope everything goes well .. never know u could be green before your extension decision is made..Good luck..
Thanks sankar_203.....I would like to talk to you more on this...do you mind giving contact number ?
Thanks for the response, I really appreciate it...
s
tattoo Lady Gaga, Hair
waitforgc123
09-18 10:39 AM
My 485 was recvd at Jul 3rd - R Williams 9:03 - No information yet on it ...
more...
pictures Artist - Lady Gaga Album
map_boiler
09-16 10:17 AM
http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5701
GCStatus, I like your enthusiasm, but am a little skeptical regarding whether a class-action lawsuit is really feasible here.
GCStatus, I like your enthusiasm, but am a little skeptical regarding whether a class-action lawsuit is really feasible here.
dresses Lady Gaga Unveils #39;Hair#39; Cover
amitjoey
07-09 05:14 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovhoH0ZW0No
Please rate it with 5 stars.
Please rate it with 5 stars.
more...
makeup album lady gaga hair single.
diptam
07-04 09:58 PM
First of all - Stay away from X ( be it american/russian or whatever company)
From your post it seems like Y is a kind of better in behaviour, closer to Home
, wants to help you in GC ( FROM SCRATCH) but you dont want to pay for GC cost of 8000-9000 again ( what you wasted already ).
I'm not a legal counsel/mentor or lawyer but in mY opinion - You find a company Z which has similar criteria as Y but only additional criteria is they will bear the cost of your GC - Its not difficult to find such Z ( worst case they may ask you to sign a bond of 7-10K if you leave them 1 yr after GC) ....
After you get GC or EAD at hand you have lots of avenues open to tackle any bond that Z might have made you sign.
Does this helps ??
When I joined Company X (prior employer) I paid for H1b transfer fee and h1b renewal fee(total $3200 + $3000).
They agreed to sponsor my green card(just to give required paperwork) and they asked me to pay GC cost, So far I have paid $1500 for labor +$1700 advertisement + $1700 for I-140 + $3750 just now to file I-485 for me and for my spouse as dates were current to my lawyer . I have labor and I-140 approved from Company X.
I was compromising my personal life by staying away from my family and company X didn't find any client near to my home. I decided to stay at home hoping Company X will find some client near to my home. I was on a bench(no salary for a month).When I asked for a "employment letter "to file I-485 Comapny X said they can't give because they are
not paying me , I said I will resign and then you give me "future employement letter". I resiged Company X( i found company Y near to my home), in 10 days they cancelled my H1b visa without informing me, gladly I found Company Y and H1b transfer took place before they could cancel my H1b. Company X is reluctant even today to give future emplyement
letter.They are ready to do corp-to-corp, for that I have to pay them H1b tranfer cost of $3200(as my prior h1b got cancelled by company X) . I don't beleive its worth going back to them , but at the same time never wanted to lose $8650 green card cost. To join Company Y again I paid h1b transfer fee and , company Y expects me to pay Green card cost again. I am on 7th year extension. New H1b is valid till 2010(3 yr extension on I-140 approval from company X).
Shall I start green card again with company Y ?
Company X doesn't respond to emails/calls. There should some law to protect us from such employers. BTW Employer X was an american employer and wants to follow book-rules.Example .. informing USCIS to windraw H1b petition.
From your post it seems like Y is a kind of better in behaviour, closer to Home
, wants to help you in GC ( FROM SCRATCH) but you dont want to pay for GC cost of 8000-9000 again ( what you wasted already ).
I'm not a legal counsel/mentor or lawyer but in mY opinion - You find a company Z which has similar criteria as Y but only additional criteria is they will bear the cost of your GC - Its not difficult to find such Z ( worst case they may ask you to sign a bond of 7-10K if you leave them 1 yr after GC) ....
After you get GC or EAD at hand you have lots of avenues open to tackle any bond that Z might have made you sign.
Does this helps ??
When I joined Company X (prior employer) I paid for H1b transfer fee and h1b renewal fee(total $3200 + $3000).
They agreed to sponsor my green card(just to give required paperwork) and they asked me to pay GC cost, So far I have paid $1500 for labor +$1700 advertisement + $1700 for I-140 + $3750 just now to file I-485 for me and for my spouse as dates were current to my lawyer . I have labor and I-140 approved from Company X.
I was compromising my personal life by staying away from my family and company X didn't find any client near to my home. I decided to stay at home hoping Company X will find some client near to my home. I was on a bench(no salary for a month).When I asked for a "employment letter "to file I-485 Comapny X said they can't give because they are
not paying me , I said I will resign and then you give me "future employement letter". I resiged Company X( i found company Y near to my home), in 10 days they cancelled my H1b visa without informing me, gladly I found Company Y and H1b transfer took place before they could cancel my H1b. Company X is reluctant even today to give future emplyement
letter.They are ready to do corp-to-corp, for that I have to pay them H1b tranfer cost of $3200(as my prior h1b got cancelled by company X) . I don't beleive its worth going back to them , but at the same time never wanted to lose $8650 green card cost. To join Company Y again I paid h1b transfer fee and , company Y expects me to pay Green card cost again. I am on 7th year extension. New H1b is valid till 2010(3 yr extension on I-140 approval from company X).
Shall I start green card again with company Y ?
Company X doesn't respond to emails/calls. There should some law to protect us from such employers. BTW Employer X was an american employer and wants to follow book-rules.Example .. informing USCIS to windraw H1b petition.
girlfriend So, apparently Lady Gaga was
life99f
07-08 09:14 PM
Give me a link to DC thread...
Thanks
Can you post this on DC thread..
We have so far 46...
Thanks
Can you post this on DC thread..
We have so far 46...
hairstyles lady gaga hair single album
mirage
03-08 10:23 PM
While your story is interesting, but I beg to differ again, because, immigration is not something which would be discussed in the Congress for the first time, if we are successfull in bringing something. Each and every single lawmaker in this country understand immigration to the extent that you may not even start to guess...People who oppose us have been putting their restrictive bills again and again so they are going to continue doing that despite of us do something or sleep, do you think Numbersusa wait for us to do something, their anti.... mill will keep churning.
Let me give you a story:
On one of my teams; there was a super star supervisor. He was accused of having inappropriate e-mails.
HR wanted him fired and opened up a big investigation. His manager comes to me and tells me that we have to do everything possible to save him as he is a very key person and irreplaceable.
I went upto HR with my boss to tell them that this particular person could not be fired under any circumstance and that we should let this indiscretion go.
They should be and my boss the e-mails. The e-mails basically were so male chaveunistic and racist. I probably had sent these types of funny jokes in my career and so had my boss and probably so have all of us. We didn't think it was a big deal when taken in context but we had to risk our own credibility and fight with HR to save him. In the process of doing so; we would have lost our credibility with the evidence against him. Even if we fought it; we would have still lost but it would have stained our reputation with HR area by trying to fight for this guy.
Now; senators/congressmen who don't have much knowledge and you present to them why the country quota, etc., should be changed; will be given evidence through their research of what is going on with h-1b, labors in fast procesing states, etc., In this environment where there is sentiment against immigration it will fall on deaf ears and maybe even skew things in the future for you with the politicians because they are getting insight into this stuff at the wrong time.
Take my example of adopting newphew. As I said this isn't the only case; when they start seeing that number of people from India is due to many causes (arranged marriage and adding dependents always from India after they arrive here; staffing companies, h-1b violations, etc, etc.,); the circumstances are not on your side. This is the fourth recession I am living through in this country. In just about each one; immigrants bore a dispropritanate share of blame for the countries ills.
Let me give you a story:
On one of my teams; there was a super star supervisor. He was accused of having inappropriate e-mails.
HR wanted him fired and opened up a big investigation. His manager comes to me and tells me that we have to do everything possible to save him as he is a very key person and irreplaceable.
I went upto HR with my boss to tell them that this particular person could not be fired under any circumstance and that we should let this indiscretion go.
They should be and my boss the e-mails. The e-mails basically were so male chaveunistic and racist. I probably had sent these types of funny jokes in my career and so had my boss and probably so have all of us. We didn't think it was a big deal when taken in context but we had to risk our own credibility and fight with HR to save him. In the process of doing so; we would have lost our credibility with the evidence against him. Even if we fought it; we would have still lost but it would have stained our reputation with HR area by trying to fight for this guy.
Now; senators/congressmen who don't have much knowledge and you present to them why the country quota, etc., should be changed; will be given evidence through their research of what is going on with h-1b, labors in fast procesing states, etc., In this environment where there is sentiment against immigration it will fall on deaf ears and maybe even skew things in the future for you with the politicians because they are getting insight into this stuff at the wrong time.
Take my example of adopting newphew. As I said this isn't the only case; when they start seeing that number of people from India is due to many causes (arranged marriage and adding dependents always from India after they arrive here; staffing companies, h-1b violations, etc, etc.,); the circumstances are not on your side. This is the fourth recession I am living through in this country. In just about each one; immigrants bore a dispropritanate share of blame for the countries ills.
americandesi
12-16 02:53 PM
See Just take a trip to Brooklyn, NY
You will see lots of souls in a such condition, you will start feeling better.
You're right. Watch the following video on homeless people and you will realize that our problems are nothing compared to what these people are going through
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tr_nqvCzqo
You will see lots of souls in a such condition, you will start feeling better.
You're right. Watch the following video on homeless people and you will realize that our problems are nothing compared to what these people are going through
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tr_nqvCzqo
Karthik Thambidurai
07-13 07:57 AM
NPR news coverage on July 2007 visa bulletin
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11945381
:)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11945381
:)
No comments:
Post a Comment