fullerene
07-04 08:18 PM
If we don't raise our concerns at the moment, how can we let lawmakers understand our situations and our requests? The goal of this forum is to speak out our voice. This is a very good chance to unify all of us to speak out loudly. We shall not to care too much about the outcome of the lawsuit. As far as I understand, none of us knows better on immigration laws and litigations than these lawyers. If they has decided to do something, we shall concentrate ourselves on supporting them instead of questioning them. Meanwhile we shall urge the lawmakers to pass SKILL or at least to make a more stable and predictable process to practice the immigration law.
We shall let all the lawmakers who support the CIR understand how they can resolve problems practically for 12M without any legal documents in the USA if our problems on the process cannot be resolved. The basises for addressing 12M illegal immigrants are and only are to have an effective and efficient border control system AND an effective and efficient process to handle all the legal applicants.
We shall let all the lawmakers who support the CIR understand how they can resolve problems practically for 12M without any legal documents in the USA if our problems on the process cannot be resolved. The basises for addressing 12M illegal immigrants are and only are to have an effective and efficient border control system AND an effective and efficient process to handle all the legal applicants.
wallpaper Glamour and Boudoir
sanjaymk
07-17 12:58 PM
Hello All-
Looks like they are monitoring this website and they have removed it now. There is no misunderstanding here, I copied and pasted it from their website so the question of mis-understanding doesn't arise.
It doesn't matter because they would have sent that fax to the Senators before and the senators would have a copy of that fax.
I am trying to write a strong letter to dis-credit that organization and their smear tactics and false propoganda. If nothing, then I would like to use the lettter posted by one of the posters here as a webfax and send the fax to the senators.
Kindly, don't assume that they removed point #2 so they could be let off, what happens if they add something like this in the future and nobody notices it.
Ideally, we should ask them to expose their membership accounts so that their lie of having 455000 volunteers is proved a blatant lie.
Thanks,
Sanjay.
Looks like they are monitoring this website and they have removed it now. There is no misunderstanding here, I copied and pasted it from their website so the question of mis-understanding doesn't arise.
It doesn't matter because they would have sent that fax to the Senators before and the senators would have a copy of that fax.
I am trying to write a strong letter to dis-credit that organization and their smear tactics and false propoganda. If nothing, then I would like to use the lettter posted by one of the posters here as a webfax and send the fax to the senators.
Kindly, don't assume that they removed point #2 so they could be let off, what happens if they add something like this in the future and nobody notices it.
Ideally, we should ask them to expose their membership accounts so that their lie of having 455000 volunteers is proved a blatant lie.
Thanks,
Sanjay.
thirdworldman
03-12 11:01 AM
Haha, I didn't think anyone would actually pick up on that, Pink. Oh, well. Anyway, thanks for the comments and votes. I think everyone did a great job. Eilsoe, awesome wireframe.
2011 male to female crossdresser
prioritydate
12-20 04:26 PM
Please just dont worry about it too much , there are also chances that you may not get an RFE. There are chances that you may get an RFE but you dont know what USCIS will ask from you. You need to have RFE in hand to prepare response for that.
I know that I may or may not get an RFE. I just want to find out if any of you guys are in the same situation. I am sure that some people didn't worked due to the economic situation during 2000-2001. Since I am not entirely sure what should I do if I get an RFE, I just want to find out. If the IO ask me for a proof of work, then I may not provide it. I don't have w2, I didn't filed tax returns, don't have pay stubs; not sure what status I was in at that time. My i-94 was still valid, but I just didn't worked during that time period. If IO ask me to provide w2, I simply have to pack my bags!! :eek:
I know that I may or may not get an RFE. I just want to find out if any of you guys are in the same situation. I am sure that some people didn't worked due to the economic situation during 2000-2001. Since I am not entirely sure what should I do if I get an RFE, I just want to find out. If the IO ask me for a proof of work, then I may not provide it. I don't have w2, I didn't filed tax returns, don't have pay stubs; not sure what status I was in at that time. My i-94 was still valid, but I just didn't worked during that time period. If IO ask me to provide w2, I simply have to pack my bags!! :eek:
more...
ramus
07-02 10:40 PM
every single amont matters... Thank you for your contribution and please ask others to contribute and help us moving this thread..
Signed up for $50 monthly contribution today. Contributed since June 1st = $120. Hope this small contribution will be helpful in this endeavor.
Signed up for $50 monthly contribution today. Contributed since June 1st = $120. Hope this small contribution will be helpful in this endeavor.
srikondoji
07-04 08:58 PM
Rambha:
First hats off to you to source information and then put it on this forum.
However, how will this mistake be rectified?
What happens to us who have spend so much money on preparations?
Among these 700K or so applicants, iam not sure how many have to leave the country because of various reasons before there PDs become current again in near future.
In that case, who should reimburse the costs? If this was a case of poor customer service, then they should also follow this age old saying in business community "Customer is always right" and promptly refund the expenses incurred.
I am for requesting the congress for a special vehicle for july filers. There should be a way out for all the affected applicants no matter what their PD was.
In matter of 2 weeks, the billion dollar mistake have costed us dearly in lot many other ways.
First hats off to you to source information and then put it on this forum.
However, how will this mistake be rectified?
What happens to us who have spend so much money on preparations?
Among these 700K or so applicants, iam not sure how many have to leave the country because of various reasons before there PDs become current again in near future.
In that case, who should reimburse the costs? If this was a case of poor customer service, then they should also follow this age old saying in business community "Customer is always right" and promptly refund the expenses incurred.
I am for requesting the congress for a special vehicle for july filers. There should be a way out for all the affected applicants no matter what their PD was.
In matter of 2 weeks, the billion dollar mistake have costed us dearly in lot many other ways.
more...
shantanup
10-28 01:44 PM
Finally, notarized and faxed the letter today.
2010 heavy makeup or a dress,
logiclife
06-30 06:22 PM
The current events starting from a rumor has caused frustration in our members. The news coming out of AILA got us into action and we are working on trying to prevent this visa bulletin disaster to happen for our members. Due to weekend, There are less opportunities to pursue but we are not taking this as an excuse and please know that IV is working this weekend and have been working ever since we heard about this news and are using all measures and contacts at the appropriate levels of government to help our members. At this time we do not have a conclusive outcome for our members as the efforts are continuing. The efforts are in full swing and will continue until the bulletin comes out. We are prepared to make efforts on Monday when the offices open.
Be assured we are considering all options. We are also working with like minded organizations and on
our own to prevent this disaster to happen for our members. IV is committed to pursue measures in case of any
visa bulletin that will change the current dates.
Please be patient and continue to support us. We will continue to update on the website as we have any more
update to share. The DOS's actions, USCIS actions and the resulting litigation from USCIS or other plaintiffs will take time to materialize and core group will post updates and action items as soon as there is something actionable that we wish for all our members to participate.
Please continue with your 485 filing process and file your 485 as soon as possible. Do not be late and do not postpone or slow down your 485 filing work due to rumors or other fears. Keep doing what you are doing.
IV may post update about its course of action as early as Sunday evening.
IV team
Be assured we are considering all options. We are also working with like minded organizations and on
our own to prevent this disaster to happen for our members. IV is committed to pursue measures in case of any
visa bulletin that will change the current dates.
Please be patient and continue to support us. We will continue to update on the website as we have any more
update to share. The DOS's actions, USCIS actions and the resulting litigation from USCIS or other plaintiffs will take time to materialize and core group will post updates and action items as soon as there is something actionable that we wish for all our members to participate.
Please continue with your 485 filing process and file your 485 as soon as possible. Do not be late and do not postpone or slow down your 485 filing work due to rumors or other fears. Keep doing what you are doing.
IV may post update about its course of action as early as Sunday evening.
IV team
more...
prioritydate
12-20 07:03 PM
Please lookup 245(k).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
So basically if you are applying for employment based immigration adjustment of status(meaning I-485) under EB1 EB2 or EB3, (that's what they mean by paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) in the above text), and if you have not voilated status for over 180 days after your last legal entry into USA, and if you were in legal status at the time of applying for 485, then you may adjust status.
Now, a really good idea would be that you disclose this whole thing at the time of filing 485 and also claim the benefit under section 245(k). Since its apparent that you have not done it, I would advise to leave it alone and dont dig up old graves.
Consult an attorney for further advise, but dont go overboard in being Raja Harishchandra (the chronic truth teller) because frankly USCIS may not care about this and you can always claim the benefit under section 245(k).
However, if USCIS finds out about this (which is very very unlikely) and if the officer is a very strict person, then they may create a case of wilful misrepresentation. That's because on form I-485, it says that "have you ever been out of status or illegal and if so, provide details". In that question, if you didnt disclose your past history of being out of status ( I am assuming you were out of status and not illegal) then basically, in theory, they can say that you wilfully misrepresented (basically lied to them) by hiding this.
One option is to file an amendment to your I-485 and disclose this fact. That way, atleast they cannot make a case of wilfull misrepresentation. Nonetheless, remember, for them to find this out (about you not working and sitting at home) is difficult. Unless they somehow ask for your W-2 and paystubs for past 6-7 years and in that case it will be very easy for them to see that you were not working for 1 year.
Consult an attorney and tell the attorney all the details. I am not a lawyer and you should always ask a lawyer for legal advise.
Thanks for the clarification, Logiclife. I enter U.S in the first week of Feb, 2001. The economy was bad and I didn't manage to get a job. In fact, I didn't managed to get a job for a year. My then employer didn't revoked my H1B and the I-94 was valid until Oct, 2002. I didn't know that I was out of status till now. I don't remember seeing any section in I-485 form, asking for information about out of status. I did attach my previous H1-B approval notice(2000 -2002) while filing I-485. One thing I want to know is, did anyone got a query(RFE), asking to provide all W2 forms since their entry into this country? I am interested to know that.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
So basically if you are applying for employment based immigration adjustment of status(meaning I-485) under EB1 EB2 or EB3, (that's what they mean by paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) in the above text), and if you have not voilated status for over 180 days after your last legal entry into USA, and if you were in legal status at the time of applying for 485, then you may adjust status.
Now, a really good idea would be that you disclose this whole thing at the time of filing 485 and also claim the benefit under section 245(k). Since its apparent that you have not done it, I would advise to leave it alone and dont dig up old graves.
Consult an attorney for further advise, but dont go overboard in being Raja Harishchandra (the chronic truth teller) because frankly USCIS may not care about this and you can always claim the benefit under section 245(k).
However, if USCIS finds out about this (which is very very unlikely) and if the officer is a very strict person, then they may create a case of wilful misrepresentation. That's because on form I-485, it says that "have you ever been out of status or illegal and if so, provide details". In that question, if you didnt disclose your past history of being out of status ( I am assuming you were out of status and not illegal) then basically, in theory, they can say that you wilfully misrepresented (basically lied to them) by hiding this.
One option is to file an amendment to your I-485 and disclose this fact. That way, atleast they cannot make a case of wilfull misrepresentation. Nonetheless, remember, for them to find this out (about you not working and sitting at home) is difficult. Unless they somehow ask for your W-2 and paystubs for past 6-7 years and in that case it will be very easy for them to see that you were not working for 1 year.
Consult an attorney and tell the attorney all the details. I am not a lawyer and you should always ask a lawyer for legal advise.
Thanks for the clarification, Logiclife. I enter U.S in the first week of Feb, 2001. The economy was bad and I didn't manage to get a job. In fact, I didn't managed to get a job for a year. My then employer didn't revoked my H1B and the I-94 was valid until Oct, 2002. I didn't know that I was out of status till now. I don't remember seeing any section in I-485 form, asking for information about out of status. I did attach my previous H1-B approval notice(2000 -2002) while filing I-485. One thing I want to know is, did anyone got a query(RFE), asking to provide all W2 forms since their entry into this country? I am interested to know that.
hair of male and female,
mk26
03-12 08:26 AM
No change for EB2..... India
EB3 moved about three months
Category India Most Other Countries
F1 8 July 2004 8 July 2004
FX 1 Jan 2005 1 Jan 2005
F2A 1 June 2006 1 June 2006
F2B 1 March 2002 1 March 2002
F3 22 May 2001 22 May 2001
F4 1 March 2000 1 March 2000
E1 Current Current
E2 1 February 2005 Current
E3 8 September 2001 1 February 2003
EW 1 June 2001 1 June 2001
E4 Current Current
E4-Religious Current Current
Source
Cut Off Dates- Consulate General of the United States Mumbai, India (http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/cut_off_dates.html)
This should have been posted in DONOR's forum :)
EB3 moved about three months
Category India Most Other Countries
F1 8 July 2004 8 July 2004
FX 1 Jan 2005 1 Jan 2005
F2A 1 June 2006 1 June 2006
F2B 1 March 2002 1 March 2002
F3 22 May 2001 22 May 2001
F4 1 March 2000 1 March 2000
E1 Current Current
E2 1 February 2005 Current
E3 8 September 2001 1 February 2003
EW 1 June 2001 1 June 2001
E4 Current Current
E4-Religious Current Current
Source
Cut Off Dates- Consulate General of the United States Mumbai, India (http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/cut_off_dates.html)
This should have been posted in DONOR's forum :)
more...
rajsand
09-26 12:22 PM
Thanked her, appreciated her and also
requested her to look into our issues and come up with something similar for all of us looking to shroten the route to GC!
requested her to look into our issues and come up with something similar for all of us looking to shroten the route to GC!
hot by Rose, Makeup, Male Hair
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...
house skin sale. male and female
webm
06-20 03:01 PM
Congratulations!!! Survu,Mallu both..
-------------------------------------
PD EB3-Ind Oct,2001
-------------------------------------
PD EB3-Ind Oct,2001
tattoo seeing makeup as
nixstor
07-04 09:25 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.
Well, Thats what I have said before as well. Its like setting the order card flag to "yes" on 60K cases with older PD's. I do not know from where Jay Solomon got the tip off about lapse of name checks, unless they are trying to make this a big issue through all possible means. There have been stories flying around that they by passed on security checks, which I thought your original post conveyed. Most of the 485's they approved have been the one's with PD's from 2003 and 2004 initially. If there are a few from the pile that were of later PD's, I don't think its a big issue. The lack of communication and implementation/interpretation at their whims and fancies has resulted in the situation at hand for every one involved in the chain. I am very very positive that the OB's office has nothing do with this and USCIS is not worried about the postmortem conducted by OB.
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.
Well, Thats what I have said before as well. Its like setting the order card flag to "yes" on 60K cases with older PD's. I do not know from where Jay Solomon got the tip off about lapse of name checks, unless they are trying to make this a big issue through all possible means. There have been stories flying around that they by passed on security checks, which I thought your original post conveyed. Most of the 485's they approved have been the one's with PD's from 2003 and 2004 initially. If there are a few from the pile that were of later PD's, I don't think its a big issue. The lack of communication and implementation/interpretation at their whims and fancies has resulted in the situation at hand for every one involved in the chain. I am very very positive that the OB's office has nothing do with this and USCIS is not worried about the postmortem conducted by OB.
more...
pictures asian female with creative
lc1978
02-16 03:41 PM
You just made a payment of $ 100.00
Your receipt number for this payment is: 4704-4941-3704-4919.
All the best
Your receipt number for this payment is: 4704-4941-3704-4919.
All the best
dresses you are male or female,
ansh78
09-26 11:34 AM
Ok I sent message to the editor...Simple copy paste the above message from vamsi.......come on everyone should do it.
more...
makeup Miss Phit Apparel: Make-up and
nixstor
10-26 10:17 PM
please send the link and doc.
Please look at the first post in the thread.
Please look at the first post in the thread.
girlfriend Male to female special effects makeup
paulavijit
03-17 09:08 AM
Guy you are forgetting the 7% per country quota for issuing GC. Applicants from a particular country can only get 7% of the total GC available in a year.
Total employment based quota per year is 140,000 and 7% of it is 9800. So at the most only 9800 Indians can get GC per year. This count also includes the dependents.
So even if your PD is current and you have filed your I-485 but there may be more than 9800 Indians with the same status and hence only the first 9800 will get GC that year.
There are more than 100,000 primary Indian applicants who have filed their I-485 and assuming a average Indian family size of 3, there are 300,000 who are waiting for GC. Only 9800 can get in a year. So if the law does not change this backlog will finish in more than 30 years.
Total employment based quota per year is 140,000 and 7% of it is 9800. So at the most only 9800 Indians can get GC per year. This count also includes the dependents.
So even if your PD is current and you have filed your I-485 but there may be more than 9800 Indians with the same status and hence only the first 9800 will get GC that year.
There are more than 100,000 primary Indian applicants who have filed their I-485 and assuming a average Indian family size of 3, there are 300,000 who are waiting for GC. Only 9800 can get in a year. So if the law does not change this backlog will finish in more than 30 years.
hairstyles 100.0% Female. 0.0% Male
GCStatus
09-17 10:57 PM
If you don't like my rant stop reading it. What the hell is 'born thinking america'. Why do you rant about GC then? Why do you care being on this board? You go get a life. I never compelled to comment on my rant? Did I? You must have gone crazy
when did i rant..haha, its funny when people are cornered they talk stuff which arent even relevant
you crack me up, no offence
when did i rant..haha, its funny when people are cornered they talk stuff which arent even relevant
you crack me up, no offence
alterego
02-20 04:39 PM
Thanks for sharing your insight.
arunmohan
03-17 01:50 PM
Hello group:
This is true that EB3 people are going to stay for longer period( no one knows how long).
I am not sure that how much would be fruitful to port from EB3->EB2. Everone knows that it is not easy.
IV team should think and decide the next course of action for EB3.
I am with them what ever they decide. I am ready to give any kind of support.
Regards
This is true that EB3 people are going to stay for longer period( no one knows how long).
I am not sure that how much would be fruitful to port from EB3->EB2. Everone knows that it is not easy.
IV team should think and decide the next course of action for EB3.
I am with them what ever they decide. I am ready to give any kind of support.
Regards
