coolmanasip
03-07 09:41 AM
see the responses......
What if my employer is definitely going to revoke my approved I-140 upon my resignation (past 180 days)? Do I need to file "Notice of I-140 Portability"?
---------->>COLOR="Blue"]In this case, you should definitely send the AC21 letter to USCIS. If you send the letter, you employer revoking your I-140 has no effect and the USCIS will keep the AC21 stuff in your file and process/examine it when your date becomes current. If you do not send the AC21 letter and your employer revokes I140, then USCIS will send you a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) and you will have to respond to that in stipulated time of one month. If you are absolutely sure that employer is going to revoke I140, please go ahead and send the AC21 letter rightaway.....[/COLOR][/I][/I][/I]
Also, in the above posts when people are saying that almost no support is needed from the new employer to keep 485 process going smoothly, is it safe to assume they are changing jobs using EAD and not doing H1B transfer?
-------->>does not matter either ways for AC21.....H1 transfer or EAD....
One more question, my employer will revoke my I-140 and my H1B. How long can I be without a job after they do that? Are the above actions of my employer very likely to result in a RFE from USCIS? If so, what will USCIS ask for in RFE?
----->>> If you fear of being out of job immediately after leaving job...DO NOT Do This........because as per your say, if your employer revokes 140, then you will get a NOID and you have to respond within a month with another job offer and AC21
Thank for all the advise.
---------------------------------
Contributed $100.
What if my employer is definitely going to revoke my approved I-140 upon my resignation (past 180 days)? Do I need to file "Notice of I-140 Portability"?
---------->>COLOR="Blue"]In this case, you should definitely send the AC21 letter to USCIS. If you send the letter, you employer revoking your I-140 has no effect and the USCIS will keep the AC21 stuff in your file and process/examine it when your date becomes current. If you do not send the AC21 letter and your employer revokes I140, then USCIS will send you a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) and you will have to respond to that in stipulated time of one month. If you are absolutely sure that employer is going to revoke I140, please go ahead and send the AC21 letter rightaway.....[/COLOR][/I][/I][/I]
Also, in the above posts when people are saying that almost no support is needed from the new employer to keep 485 process going smoothly, is it safe to assume they are changing jobs using EAD and not doing H1B transfer?
-------->>does not matter either ways for AC21.....H1 transfer or EAD....
One more question, my employer will revoke my I-140 and my H1B. How long can I be without a job after they do that? Are the above actions of my employer very likely to result in a RFE from USCIS? If so, what will USCIS ask for in RFE?
----->>> If you fear of being out of job immediately after leaving job...DO NOT Do This........because as per your say, if your employer revokes 140, then you will get a NOID and you have to respond within a month with another job offer and AC21
Thank for all the advise.
---------------------------------
Contributed $100.
wallpaper Another Motivational Quotes
gcdreamer05
03-19 07:29 AM
This is the power of Immigration Voice. Not everyone has the knowledge of all these situations, so we need to gain knowledge from the past experience of others.
I am sure thread's like this will help a lot of people who have plans to join few Full Time Employees who promise but cannot keep it up.
Please continue to share...
I am sure thread's like this will help a lot of people who have plans to join few Full Time Employees who promise but cannot keep it up.
Please continue to share...
mrdelhiite
07-23 03:47 PM
485 is not for employer, its for employee. AOS.
If you don't submit, they'll ask you as RFE.
Please do not scare anybody with half knowledge.
All you can say politely is there might be a chance instead of rejected.
Have some dignity.
""Have some dignity."" ??? just read the replies below your reply.
If you don't submit, they'll ask you as RFE.
Please do not scare anybody with half knowledge.
All you can say politely is there might be a chance instead of rejected.
Have some dignity.
""Have some dignity."" ??? just read the replies below your reply.
2011 motivational quotes posters.
saileshdude
09-14 03:27 PM
Hi Abd,
Can you send me the EVL format that you will prepate to respond to this RFE. You can take out all your personal info but leave the other wording intact. That would really help. You can send it to me via PM if you would like.
Thanks.
Here is detail. i changed job based on AC21 portability. Did not file papers.
Please note that it is imprevative that timely response is necessary to ensure continued processing as visa is currently available for your case.
A review of service record indicate that a form I-129 peition was filed on your behalf by "Previous Employer COmpany Name" was revioked on September X, 2009 . Therefore it appears you are no longer empployed by intended employer according to form I-140 immigration visa petition filed on your behalf.
Please submit a list describing your employment history since your last lawful admission to US. This list should include name and location of each employer, job title, and duties, educational /training requirements, dates you held each position and salary/wage paid. The list should be supported by documenary evidence which establishes your employment history.
Additionaly,you must submit a currently dated letter from your intended permanent employer,describing your present job duties and positioin on origanization, your proffered position(if different from current) , the date you beagn employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter should be in original and signed by an executive or office of the organized who is authorized to make an offer for employment.The letter should indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment-based visa petition (or labor petition) continues to exist.
Important: if you will no longer be employed by the original form I-140 petitioner, you may still be eligible to adjust the status under the visa portabilit provisions of section 106(c) of the Americal Competitiveness in the 21st Century act(AC21). Public Law 106-313. This legislatin permits certain adjustment applicamts to chnage employers without filing a new immigrant visa petition, provided they are
The beneficiary of an immigrant petition approved under section 204(a)(1)(F) of the Act (previously 204(a((1)(D)) and
The application for adjustment has been pending for more thna 180 days and
the new permanent position is in same or similar occupational classification as original employment.
If you cliam such eligibilty, submit a letter frm new permanent employer, describing your present job duties and postion in organizatiom your proffered position(if different from current) , the date you beagn employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter should be in original and signed by an executive or office of the organized who is authorized to make an offer for employment.The letter should indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment-based visa petition (or labor petition) continues to exist.
:) Working with attorneys to get the papers ready....
Can you send me the EVL format that you will prepate to respond to this RFE. You can take out all your personal info but leave the other wording intact. That would really help. You can send it to me via PM if you would like.
Thanks.
Here is detail. i changed job based on AC21 portability. Did not file papers.
Please note that it is imprevative that timely response is necessary to ensure continued processing as visa is currently available for your case.
A review of service record indicate that a form I-129 peition was filed on your behalf by "Previous Employer COmpany Name" was revioked on September X, 2009 . Therefore it appears you are no longer empployed by intended employer according to form I-140 immigration visa petition filed on your behalf.
Please submit a list describing your employment history since your last lawful admission to US. This list should include name and location of each employer, job title, and duties, educational /training requirements, dates you held each position and salary/wage paid. The list should be supported by documenary evidence which establishes your employment history.
Additionaly,you must submit a currently dated letter from your intended permanent employer,describing your present job duties and positioin on origanization, your proffered position(if different from current) , the date you beagn employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter should be in original and signed by an executive or office of the organized who is authorized to make an offer for employment.The letter should indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment-based visa petition (or labor petition) continues to exist.
Important: if you will no longer be employed by the original form I-140 petitioner, you may still be eligible to adjust the status under the visa portabilit provisions of section 106(c) of the Americal Competitiveness in the 21st Century act(AC21). Public Law 106-313. This legislatin permits certain adjustment applicamts to chnage employers without filing a new immigrant visa petition, provided they are
The beneficiary of an immigrant petition approved under section 204(a)(1)(F) of the Act (previously 204(a((1)(D)) and
The application for adjustment has been pending for more thna 180 days and
the new permanent position is in same or similar occupational classification as original employment.
If you cliam such eligibilty, submit a letter frm new permanent employer, describing your present job duties and postion in organizatiom your proffered position(if different from current) , the date you beagn employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter should be in original and signed by an executive or office of the organized who is authorized to make an offer for employment.The letter should indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment-based visa petition (or labor petition) continues to exist.
:) Working with attorneys to get the papers ready....
more...
Sakthisagar
06-11 11:01 AM
See below what Anti Immigrants are doing. Each and everyone visits this site should sign what IV have given the link
The following makes no sense it is utter non-sense.
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON�T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders� office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely
The following makes no sense it is utter non-sense.
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON�T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders� office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely
alisa
01-27 09:25 AM
I am glad you posted this.
I will put the numbers in the excel spreadsheet and see what comes out.
But these might give more sensible results than the preposterous wait times that we were getting.
If the average depletion rate for India is 34K per annum, then the wait times would look a lot better I think.
I am assuming that these numbers include the dependents. So, if 34K adjustment of status were awareded, then, roughly speaking, there were 17K primary applicants, and 17K dependents? Am I correct?
Also, for the accumulation rate, when we say that 65K H-1 visas are given out annually, I am assuming that does not include the dependents. Am I right??
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
I will put the numbers in the excel spreadsheet and see what comes out.
But these might give more sensible results than the preposterous wait times that we were getting.
If the average depletion rate for India is 34K per annum, then the wait times would look a lot better I think.
I am assuming that these numbers include the dependents. So, if 34K adjustment of status were awareded, then, roughly speaking, there were 17K primary applicants, and 17K dependents? Am I correct?
Also, for the accumulation rate, when we say that 65K H-1 visas are given out annually, I am assuming that does not include the dependents. Am I right??
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
more...
Ramba
07-04 09:07 PM
nixstor,
First, with out name check cleared by FBI, no 485 will be approved. Assiging visa number to a 485 appliction initally, nothing to do with name check. If the applicant is threat to the security of the country, his/her 485 will be denied and they will take back the already assigned number. Both are two different issues.
Another myth: USCIS processed 60,000 485 in June. It is wrong. They processed 60,000 485 over the period of 6 months to 5 years. And they just approved in June, based on earlier processing.
First, with out name check cleared by FBI, no 485 will be approved. Assiging visa number to a 485 appliction initally, nothing to do with name check. If the applicant is threat to the security of the country, his/her 485 will be denied and they will take back the already assigned number. Both are two different issues.
Another myth: USCIS processed 60,000 485 in June. It is wrong. They processed 60,000 485 over the period of 6 months to 5 years. And they just approved in June, based on earlier processing.
2010 As a lover of quotes,
ajay
01-16 08:56 PM
See buddy, there are some people who will cry whatever scenario they are in, and some people who will laugh and be happy in whatever scenario they are in. The key to optimism and happy life is to find someone who has it worse, and realize how fortunate you are. At least you are not having to live in the slums of India. At least you are not having your daughter breathe the polluted air of an Indian metro. At least you have a healthy family and no medical emergencies to worry about. Enjoy what you have got, not crib about what you've got.
This is what I always thank my elders and God for what I have been given in my day to day life.
This is what I always thank my elders and God for what I have been given in my day to day life.
more...
willgetgc2005
03-20 07:26 PM
We're definitely pursuing this problem also through our lobbyist, but for now given the drastic changes in the Comprehensive Immigration Bills, all the effort is going into that. Once that cools down a bit, we will concentrate on the procedural issues like FBI name check as we do realize that a large number of us are likely to get stuck there.
Admin,
Thanks for taking this into account. Including me many are affected by name check.How will this affect all eventually? As an example, consider this.
Let us say your PD becomes current in 2006 and u are waiting for name check.Name check is not cleared in 2006. So the yearly quota which was available to you could not be used because of name check. So the visa in 2006 is not used up, even though it was available.That is one precious Visa number was not used up and got lost in the yearly quota system. Then
in 2007, you get in line ahead of candidates whose PD becomes current in 2007.
So in effect all of us loose.
Admin,
Thanks for taking this into account. Including me many are affected by name check.How will this affect all eventually? As an example, consider this.
Let us say your PD becomes current in 2006 and u are waiting for name check.Name check is not cleared in 2006. So the yearly quota which was available to you could not be used because of name check. So the visa in 2006 is not used up, even though it was available.That is one precious Visa number was not used up and got lost in the yearly quota system. Then
in 2007, you get in line ahead of candidates whose PD becomes current in 2007.
So in effect all of us loose.
hair Motivational Posters
ashkam
07-24 10:06 AM
"a letter on the letterhead of the petitioning employer which confirms that the job on which the visa petition is based is still available to you"
That's the offer letter.
That's the offer letter.
more...
reddymjm
09-10 05:45 AM
for eb3 - I think things will be better than what most are expecting. I know that is not enough but atleast it is not hopeless. I guess what most can do is hope for best and be ready for worst. this is why I feel it will be better
-------------
my feeling is this - dates will move faster than what most are predicting - the reason is simple --more and more spillover. the fee increases has been a blessing in disguise and that coupled with recession, means that less visas are being used in family section.
simple math is this - earlier lot of gujrati's would get their dates current when they were in their 50's / 60's though family. earlier it would cost them around 4-5 lakhs for a family of four to immigrate. now their cost would be around 10 - 12 lakhs ..on top of it, if they come here, the jobs are scarce. hence many are staying back (which makes sense). similar thing is happening for other countries ..and hence there will be more and more spillovers from family which means dates will move faster.
True. But this is slower as this gets split in to all categories. For EB3 to get all of that or most of that will take years.
-------------
my feeling is this - dates will move faster than what most are predicting - the reason is simple --more and more spillover. the fee increases has been a blessing in disguise and that coupled with recession, means that less visas are being used in family section.
simple math is this - earlier lot of gujrati's would get their dates current when they were in their 50's / 60's though family. earlier it would cost them around 4-5 lakhs for a family of four to immigrate. now their cost would be around 10 - 12 lakhs ..on top of it, if they come here, the jobs are scarce. hence many are staying back (which makes sense). similar thing is happening for other countries ..and hence there will be more and more spillovers from family which means dates will move faster.
True. But this is slower as this gets split in to all categories. For EB3 to get all of that or most of that will take years.
hot motivational quotes posters.
hara_patta_for_rico
07-09 07:05 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
more...
house Motivational Posters
god_bless_you
03-16 01:33 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/TransformationConOps_Mar07.pdf
One more link from USCIS which has more details on the process
Adjudicator's Field Manual - Redacted Public Version from USCIS web site
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=724ce55f1a60168e48ce159d28615 0e2
One more link from USCIS which has more details on the process
Adjudicator's Field Manual - Redacted Public Version from USCIS web site
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=724ce55f1a60168e48ce159d28615 0e2
tattoo motivational-posters-japan-
imneedy
05-06 02:27 PM
I got a reply from USCIS saying that they can process the request sorted by priority date and country of birth of the applicant. Processing time will be around 15 months and that they have got their answer on priority date.
what are the next steps?
what are the next steps?
more...
pictures Motivational Posters
ameryki
03-17 03:00 PM
PD Nov 2005 filed in Aug 2007
dresses Tyson motivational posters
nixstor
07-05 12:20 PM
Who was the Einstein who came up with this suggestion...
No Desi brethren will connect if you make it paid. Just tell me how many would use google if google charged you 1c for a search.
Each one of you guys, instead send emails to big media outlets such as CNN, ABC, CBS and FOX. In the email, send I-485 story and the following link that states Rep Lofgren's statement.
http://lofgren.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1808
Rax
No one needs to be Einsten to come up with this.
IV is not desi. IV = folks affected by retrogression and othe immigration issues
Comparing Google and IV is like comparing apples and oranges. Still to answer your Q, Google has other ways to make money. IV has none.
I have sent Rep Lofgren's link to a lot of reporters.
No Desi brethren will connect if you make it paid. Just tell me how many would use google if google charged you 1c for a search.
Each one of you guys, instead send emails to big media outlets such as CNN, ABC, CBS and FOX. In the email, send I-485 story and the following link that states Rep Lofgren's statement.
http://lofgren.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1808
Rax
No one needs to be Einsten to come up with this.
IV is not desi. IV = folks affected by retrogression and othe immigration issues
Comparing Google and IV is like comparing apples and oranges. Still to answer your Q, Google has other ways to make money. IV has none.
I have sent Rep Lofgren's link to a lot of reporters.
more...
makeup Motivational Posters
ss1026
11-01 01:04 PM
Bumping..
I am myself curious to see more ppl respond to this vote but I think it might be better if you bump it on a high traffic day. I guess the visa bulletin issuance day is a good one
I am myself curious to see more ppl respond to this vote but I think it might be better if you bump it on a high traffic day. I guess the visa bulletin issuance day is a good one
girlfriend funny motivational quotes
Jaime
09-14 01:06 PM
We mean EVERYONE!!! DC is not far!!! Let's all go!!!
What will it take to change your mind????
If you are within 4-5 hour drive of Washington you shouldn't even be debating whether to go or not. The decision is: YES!!!!!
What will it take to change your mind????
If you are within 4-5 hour drive of Washington you shouldn't even be debating whether to go or not. The decision is: YES!!!!!
hairstyles and inspirational posters
senthil1
04-04 03:39 PM
If number of H1b increases obviously waiting period will increase for GC. So H1b reform will be positive in multiple aspects
1.It will satisfy anti immigrants and will give some kind of security to US citizens. There is no question that only new jobs that too no skilled worker is available in USA then only H1b should be hired. Even India we are rarely hiring foreigners in any company. Not only India any other country in the world does that(only when no personsare available they hire foreigners).
2.If no of H1b decreases automatically waiting period will reduce as no of people applying are less for gc .
And how does "reshaping current mad behavior of H1B application" help fix green card backlog. Circulating debate around H-1b is the favorite trick of large IT companies. It is also the favorite trick of anti-green card reform groups like IEEE.
Just because the quota got over the first day it implies that the system is abused, right? Let me tell who is abused. People waiting for green card are abused. Not fixing green card delays and deliberately keeping the debate around H-1b is an abuse.
1.It will satisfy anti immigrants and will give some kind of security to US citizens. There is no question that only new jobs that too no skilled worker is available in USA then only H1b should be hired. Even India we are rarely hiring foreigners in any company. Not only India any other country in the world does that(only when no personsare available they hire foreigners).
2.If no of H1b decreases automatically waiting period will reduce as no of people applying are less for gc .
And how does "reshaping current mad behavior of H1B application" help fix green card backlog. Circulating debate around H-1b is the favorite trick of large IT companies. It is also the favorite trick of anti-green card reform groups like IEEE.
Just because the quota got over the first day it implies that the system is abused, right? Let me tell who is abused. People waiting for green card are abused. Not fixing green card delays and deliberately keeping the debate around H-1b is an abuse.
leo2606
08-15 09:44 PM
That is true any bodys priority date before that date and cleared FBI name check, finger printing they will be given GC
What do these dates mean? If they are dates for who can apply in Sept, then all (those who could) have filed their AOS in July/August. Do they mean that in Sept 07 USCIS will be approving GC for those within these dates?
What do these dates mean? If they are dates for who can apply in Sept, then all (those who could) have filed their AOS in July/August. Do they mean that in Sept 07 USCIS will be approving GC for those within these dates?
ssdtm
01-31 03:15 PM
What if the H4 candidate recieves H1 but decides not to start a job at all. What will be his/her status in that case? H4 or H1?
No comments:
Post a Comment