thesparky007
03-07 07:52 PM
i downloaded it yesterday and found it pretty
confusing!
i would be glad if anyone can show me some nice tuts
or help me wiht it
confusing!
i would be glad if anyone can show me some nice tuts
or help me wiht it
wallpaper The Tech Game - The ugliest
dealsnet
07-07 07:11 PM
Today I have received my GC approval email. Dependants approval is awaited. I am in this country from Jan 2001. Good luck to all.
No LUD till final approval. Last LUD on I-485 on August 2007 on finger print day. Last week I did call Nebraska by POJ method and speak with IO. She told me my file is off the shelf and in line for adjudication. I think EAD filing on June last week did the trick. (file taken from the USCIS's never ending shelf).
No LUD till final approval. Last LUD on I-485 on August 2007 on finger print day. Last week I did call Nebraska by POJ method and speak with IO. She told me my file is off the shelf and in line for adjudication. I think EAD filing on June last week did the trick. (file taken from the USCIS's never ending shelf).
she81
07-13 03:41 PM
They have a habit of coming back and saying "According to the predictions in such and such Murthy bulletin... such and such happened" - always trying to prove their reliability and claim credits. They are just out there to increase the hits on their site. Someone on this thread was correct in saying that the letter should've come out jul 2nd or 3rd if she was really concerned.
IV was the first one to report of a potential good news. Rest all followed.
"Trustworthy Lawyer" is a an oxymoron!
IV was the first one to report of a potential good news. Rest all followed.
"Trustworthy Lawyer" is a an oxymoron!
2011 ugliest person in world. The+most+ugliest+person+in+the
EdenMN
07-13 09:06 AM
I think we should not care 'Is Murthy doing for her publicity / money?' as long as it serves our purpose. We should respect people who are trying to help us . and many folks are blaming she is money minded.... but u know what she runs law firm not non-profitable organization.
In Iv many people are free riders when they can't contribute money to solve their problem why you guys expect Murthy to do charity work ....
In Iv many people are free riders when they can't contribute money to solve their problem why you guys expect Murthy to do charity work ....
more...
Administrator2
06-11 01:35 PM
If you really believe that this bogus bill will become a Law, then also see the real picture, that is why I posted the other Ifs.
This Bill is titled as "Employ America Act". By having the GC, you are not an American. If you do not know the rule here it is, GC is a "Privilege", and it is not a "Right". So if this Bill passes all these people with alerady having GC will also need to pack their Bags and Go. That is the reality, dude.
So again and again do not fall over it. If you respond to this Bill, and Vote "No" against it, you are trying to send wrong messages to the originators of the bill, that we are scared. Why you guys are making everyone scared, when there is nothing to be scared about.
Look I don't want to say this to you but I am left with no other choice. When CEOs such as Steve Ballmer and John Chambers are personally calling the Senators because they think this amendment is a real threat, it will be least of our worries what opponents would think about us getting scared. We are not scared, we are simply making our voices heard. If we were scared we won't be doing this.
Now, you have no freaking clue of what is going on behind the scenes, this is your third post in this forum and all these posts in opposition to our action item which we are coordinating with other coalition partners. Why do you think you know more than the folks who are right now speaking with the Senators?
This Bill is titled as "Employ America Act". By having the GC, you are not an American. If you do not know the rule here it is, GC is a "Privilege", and it is not a "Right". So if this Bill passes all these people with alerady having GC will also need to pack their Bags and Go. That is the reality, dude.
So again and again do not fall over it. If you respond to this Bill, and Vote "No" against it, you are trying to send wrong messages to the originators of the bill, that we are scared. Why you guys are making everyone scared, when there is nothing to be scared about.
Look I don't want to say this to you but I am left with no other choice. When CEOs such as Steve Ballmer and John Chambers are personally calling the Senators because they think this amendment is a real threat, it will be least of our worries what opponents would think about us getting scared. We are not scared, we are simply making our voices heard. If we were scared we won't be doing this.
Now, you have no freaking clue of what is going on behind the scenes, this is your third post in this forum and all these posts in opposition to our action item which we are coordinating with other coalition partners. Why do you think you know more than the folks who are right now speaking with the Senators?
roseball
07-09 03:55 PM
Yes, you are right that we cannot sue anyone for working harder. I agree with that part too.
I didnt say they broke the "law" by processing several thousands of cases. What they did is broke their own "regulations" by approving applications with incomplete security/back ground checks.....In the current environment the country is in, this could be a very serious issue. Well again they can argue that regulations can be moulded/twisted to their liking.....
From Oct 2006 - June 2007 USCIS only used 80k of 140k immigrant numbers available and by the end of June, they consumed all of the 140k quota.....There were cases where 485s were approved on 2nd and 3rd of July.....They made a complete mockery of their own regulations is alloting visa numbers as they like....
I didnt say they broke the "law" by processing several thousands of cases. What they did is broke their own "regulations" by approving applications with incomplete security/back ground checks.....In the current environment the country is in, this could be a very serious issue. Well again they can argue that regulations can be moulded/twisted to their liking.....
From Oct 2006 - June 2007 USCIS only used 80k of 140k immigrant numbers available and by the end of June, they consumed all of the 140k quota.....There were cases where 485s were approved on 2nd and 3rd of July.....They made a complete mockery of their own regulations is alloting visa numbers as they like....
more...
andycool
03-16 02:04 PM
141,020 visa numbers used in FY2009
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Hello Desi,
"Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
1. If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
2. Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Hello Desi,
"Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
1. If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
2. Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
2010 Ugliest women of the world
ItIsNotFunny
10-15 02:28 PM
I have a doubt about what can be accomplished by the flower campaign. I am totally for it if it would help but just think - it is not in USCIS hands to assign more visas to EB3 or EB2. The number of visas is limited and the number of people waiting for the visas is huge. That is the whole cause of retrogression . If there were as many visas as the people everything would be current.
This is a simple matter of demand and supply . The thing that can help is visa recapture but that again USCIS can't do and only the Congress . What we need to do is point our efforts in the right direction .
Think how the supply is controlled?
Just as a hypothetical example, if USCIS makes a spill over policy that ROW can not lead any other country by more than 3 years.
If we try we can achieve something, atleast we can see some avenues. If we sit silent - Nope, then we are loosers not fighters.
This is a simple matter of demand and supply . The thing that can help is visa recapture but that again USCIS can't do and only the Congress . What we need to do is point our efforts in the right direction .
Think how the supply is controlled?
Just as a hypothetical example, if USCIS makes a spill over policy that ROW can not lead any other country by more than 3 years.
If we try we can achieve something, atleast we can see some avenues. If we sit silent - Nope, then we are loosers not fighters.
more...
abhijitp
07-24 12:51 PM
It doesn't say that anywhere in the link. The 485 filing instructions clearly state what the initial evidence is.
There is no doubt the employer letter is required.
The only question is:
1) is it safer to wait for RN and then submit this letter as evidence quoting the A# assigned, OR
2) is it a better idea to submit a new I-485 rightaway along with the letter, OR
3) should such people just wait hoping they will receive an RFE (I don't like this one at all) whenever the case is opened?
There is no doubt the employer letter is required.
The only question is:
1) is it safer to wait for RN and then submit this letter as evidence quoting the A# assigned, OR
2) is it a better idea to submit a new I-485 rightaway along with the letter, OR
3) should such people just wait hoping they will receive an RFE (I don't like this one at all) whenever the case is opened?
hair ugliest man in the world.
GCVivek
03-21 02:37 PM
Unless you have clearly written promise that they will apply for GC, you cannot fight in court. Secondly, even if they did give you in writing, there is no time limit on when they can file.....they can effectively file labor a month before 6th year of H1 and have you out of status and therefore layed off.
In that case, employers should mention the following in the offer letter
" In case, in future, if economy goes bad and recession occurs,we cannot sponsor your green card since it is easy to find american citizens who has minimum qualification."
This should be mentioned on the offer letters given by big comapnies.Then it is up to H1B candidate whenter to take the offer(risk) or not.
Can these companies do this????
In that case, employers should mention the following in the offer letter
" In case, in future, if economy goes bad and recession occurs,we cannot sponsor your green card since it is easy to find american citizens who has minimum qualification."
This should be mentioned on the offer letters given by big comapnies.Then it is up to H1B candidate whenter to take the offer(risk) or not.
Can these companies do this????
more...
ajju
03-18 10:56 PM
USCIS director took the course and he failed. Then he went to Moscow and bought a fake BPD&R degree for $175. No wonder we are in such a mess.
funny :-) lets hope new director had passed and don't possess another fake BPD&R degree :-)
funny :-) lets hope new director had passed and don't possess another fake BPD&R degree :-)
hot house The Ugliest Man in the
makemygc
07-01 09:57 PM
Everyone is busy partying.
Please contribute and then we might be able to appreciate your right on asking status of IV core. But do not forget IV is nothing but a shadow of ours. If you can't move, do you think your shadow will move. So do your part first and then ask what IV is doing.
Please contribute and then we might be able to appreciate your right on asking status of IV core. But do not forget IV is nothing but a shadow of ours. If you can't move, do you think your shadow will move. So do your part first and then ask what IV is doing.
more...
house 2010 ugliest person in world.
good idea
09-09 03:52 PM
You know it takes serious $$$ to get anything moving.
Please consider $50/month level.
I would happily join this but would I have access to Immigration Voice accounts, so that I can find out where that money is spent? Or that option is only for founder members of Immigration Voice? Problem is not contribution, but awareness where that money will go.
Please consider $50/month level.
I would happily join this but would I have access to Immigration Voice accounts, so that I can find out where that money is spent? Or that option is only for founder members of Immigration Voice? Problem is not contribution, but awareness where that money will go.
tattoo Brits among the #39;ugliest
Legal
08-13 04:08 PM
I think thats AC21 recapture thing...
AC 21 numbers all have been used up some in 2002, some in 2005-2007. Nothing left from that. This was in a USCIS document that vdlrao posted some time ago.
AC 21 numbers all have been used up some in 2002, some in 2005-2007. Nothing left from that. This was in a USCIS document that vdlrao posted some time ago.
more...
pictures Britons are among the ugliest
mirage
02-03 08:17 AM
Guys,
I know ROW country may not like this thread, but look at EB-3 India or China, put yourself in our shoes and than you may realize how unfair this country is. In this unprecedented financial turmoil, I feel there are very remote chances for CIR or any package which increase immigration etc would pass, I am taking this initiative to gather as many people I can and go to washington. Again this is not an IV effort. If you are with me , you can spare some time or few days in Washington, please PM me. our sole agenda is bring a 2 line bill to remove country quota...
I know ROW country may not like this thread, but look at EB-3 India or China, put yourself in our shoes and than you may realize how unfair this country is. In this unprecedented financial turmoil, I feel there are very remote chances for CIR or any package which increase immigration etc would pass, I am taking this initiative to gather as many people I can and go to washington. Again this is not an IV effort. If you are with me , you can spare some time or few days in Washington, please PM me. our sole agenda is bring a 2 line bill to remove country quota...
dresses pictures Ugliest+man+in+the+world+ ugliest person in world.
tikka
07-03 10:35 AM
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/\/\/\//\
/\/\/\/\/\//\
more...
makeup World+ugliest+man+ever
eeezzz
02-14 03:22 PM
Everybody stands in one single queue......one line not five lines......one line my friend, irrespective of your nationality. so if you wait 2 years, or 2 hours..I wait the same. Unlike NOW, where some people wait 5-8 years and others 1-2 years.
I think what USCIS can do in order to achieve your "fair play" is they will start to put country limit on H-1B also and then cut off date show up for some countries for H-1 applications(PS: unused quota can't go to oversubscribed countries at 4th quarter). In this case, years later, there's no need for specific country bulletins for EB.
The current case is over 50% of H-1B issued to Indian and Chinese every year. And that is why now most people here are waiting.
Do you think RoW H-1B applicants should shout loud and ask for the country limit to be set on H-1B?
I think what USCIS can do in order to achieve your "fair play" is they will start to put country limit on H-1B also and then cut off date show up for some countries for H-1 applications(PS: unused quota can't go to oversubscribed countries at 4th quarter). In this case, years later, there's no need for specific country bulletins for EB.
The current case is over 50% of H-1B issued to Indian and Chinese every year. And that is why now most people here are waiting.
Do you think RoW H-1B applicants should shout loud and ask for the country limit to be set on H-1B?
girlfriend BE THE UGLIEST PERSON IN
gulute
06-11 02:11 PM
done
hairstyles the world#39;s ugliest person
Jaime
09-12 02:05 PM
Come on guys! We need thosands of us in DC! For those still debating, email us, we will help you with funds and logistics! LET'S GO GUYS!!! THIS IS OUR CHANCE!!!! WE HAVE GOVERNORS AND BUSINESS ON OUR SIDE, BUT ESPECIALLY WE HAVE TRUTH ON OUR SIDE!!!! LET'S GO TOGETHER TO DC!!!!
god_bless_you
12-13 11:46 AM
I think you should write an e-mail to the core team to get their attention on this idea.
Do you think no one from core team reading this thread??
Do you think no one from core team reading this thread??
polapragada
02-18 07:37 PM
I hope it will become law...
But my mind says NO way!!!
But my mind says NO way!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment