brick2006
11-11 03:06 AM
he cant act on immigration when the economy is down and ppl are losing their jobs..so we are in a sinking boat...
better to wait and watch!!!
better to wait and watch!!!
wallpaper Black Horror Wallpapers
nomi
12-13 11:01 AM
I needed a few days to digest the argument I had last week with some members. I've been reading this entire thread since yesterday and it all make sense to me; it seems a very logic and smart thing to do, so count on me.
my Friend,
don`t worry about any arguments you had in past. I say sorry if some member say something wrong or unlogical. Please don`t waste your energy in negative thinking and come and help all of us and be our hero in this hard time. we are all here for same cause and we should be united as team and focus like a laser beam.
We need you and every member is most valueable part of IV and consider him or her right hand of core team.
I hope you got my point and let`s come and join us along with IV core team with this new option.
thx.
my Friend,
don`t worry about any arguments you had in past. I say sorry if some member say something wrong or unlogical. Please don`t waste your energy in negative thinking and come and help all of us and be our hero in this hard time. we are all here for same cause and we should be united as team and focus like a laser beam.
We need you and every member is most valueable part of IV and consider him or her right hand of core team.
I hope you got my point and let`s come and join us along with IV core team with this new option.
thx.
DSLStart
04-08 10:45 AM
Very well said. Tomorrow they can even start harrasing US citizens arriving in NY, CA etc blaming that because of you democrat voters, republicans are losing seats in congress ;)
Protecting US job is none of IO's business.
Protecting US job is none of IO's business.
2011 Scary Wallpapers
chanduv23
11-22 01:33 PM
I dont think that is correct - as per my lawyer this is what she says -
In order to move to a new employer and still continue with the same gc applications, you must meet all of the following conditions under AC21:
1. Your I-140 must be approved
2. Your I-485 must be filed and pending for at least 180 days
3. Your new job classification must be the same as in the old job
If you are missing any of the 3 conditions at the time you move to an employer, you will lose your gc application and you will need to start a new one.
So guys please make sure you give correct information. Also, I would suggest people who are asking various questions over here in IV should also talk to their own lawyers and take a decision. Please do not take decision based on comments given over here. So "LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP".
Please note that most people here give suggestions and advices based on their knowledge, experience etc... and may not be taken as legal advice. One must definitely consult an attorney before taking any career move. But also note that, Lawyers may not also be 100% aware or correct, as such no lawyer is perfect and most lawyers are commercial and you may * not really get the true picture* , exceptions and provisions are done on case to case basis and experienced and good lawyers can definitely help answer your questions.
Changing employer after 140 abd keeping PD is something new and I guess lawyers may not suggest taking that route, but in realty if u r in troubled waters, definitely u must see if u can work that option out.
In order to move to a new employer and still continue with the same gc applications, you must meet all of the following conditions under AC21:
1. Your I-140 must be approved
2. Your I-485 must be filed and pending for at least 180 days
3. Your new job classification must be the same as in the old job
If you are missing any of the 3 conditions at the time you move to an employer, you will lose your gc application and you will need to start a new one.
So guys please make sure you give correct information. Also, I would suggest people who are asking various questions over here in IV should also talk to their own lawyers and take a decision. Please do not take decision based on comments given over here. So "LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP".
Please note that most people here give suggestions and advices based on their knowledge, experience etc... and may not be taken as legal advice. One must definitely consult an attorney before taking any career move. But also note that, Lawyers may not also be 100% aware or correct, as such no lawyer is perfect and most lawyers are commercial and you may * not really get the true picture* , exceptions and provisions are done on case to case basis and experienced and good lawyers can definitely help answer your questions.
Changing employer after 140 abd keeping PD is something new and I guess lawyers may not suggest taking that route, but in realty if u r in troubled waters, definitely u must see if u can work that option out.
more...
ashwin_27
02-28 03:09 PM
I am flying in from California on Sunday (april 3rd morning) and will be flying back on tuesday evening (flight departs 5 Pm - could not get red-eye) from DCA (Reagan DC Natl Airport).
Was planning to rent a car anyway for Sunday (to attend orientation and other personal errands). Holding off on renting car for Mon/Tue depending on car pool and other commute options. Will be staying with a host from this forum.
Look forward to syncing up with other folks in the same boat.
Was planning to rent a car anyway for Sunday (to attend orientation and other personal errands). Holding off on renting car for Mon/Tue depending on car pool and other commute options. Will be staying with a host from this forum.
Look forward to syncing up with other folks in the same boat.
anurakt
12-27 06:49 PM
Dude,
That is what they are afraid off. They want you to go to your home country and not sneak into their country.
Many ppl go through European airports during transit and then ask for Political asyslum. Many Tamil Tigers did that so did sardars during khalistan times.
This all started after 9/11 , having a valid US visa means that you have gone through the security check...else when u apply for transit visa, they do these checks for you......
That is what they are afraid off. They want you to go to your home country and not sneak into their country.
Many ppl go through European airports during transit and then ask for Political asyslum. Many Tamil Tigers did that so did sardars during khalistan times.
This all started after 9/11 , having a valid US visa means that you have gone through the security check...else when u apply for transit visa, they do these checks for you......
more...
i4u
04-26 10:25 AM
Hi,
I am currently on L1B visa since Mar09, another employer is offering for my h1b visa. I have below queries for l1 to h1 conversion process :
1) How much time I can stay on H1 if I apply H1b now ? My total stay in US on L1 is 1 year 7 months, not a continuous one !!!
2) What are the good options/approach to file for H1 considering the fact that I want work with current employer on L1B for current project ?
3) Can I apply for H1 now and later do COS any time after October ?If yes, what is the max time before I need to do COS after H1 approval ?
4) How about if my current project completes before oct 1st and I have already applied for h1 ?
Kindly help me for above questions, would appreciate your help.
Thanks in advance.
Your current employer or new employer has to file the H1, and it will be subject to H1B cap; Processing times for COS petitions vary between 2-4 months.
Take advice from a lawyer for specific details. Check out the IV wikki pages
L1 Visa - Immigration Wiki (http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/L1_Visa)
I am currently on L1B visa since Mar09, another employer is offering for my h1b visa. I have below queries for l1 to h1 conversion process :
1) How much time I can stay on H1 if I apply H1b now ? My total stay in US on L1 is 1 year 7 months, not a continuous one !!!
2) What are the good options/approach to file for H1 considering the fact that I want work with current employer on L1B for current project ?
3) Can I apply for H1 now and later do COS any time after October ?If yes, what is the max time before I need to do COS after H1 approval ?
4) How about if my current project completes before oct 1st and I have already applied for h1 ?
Kindly help me for above questions, would appreciate your help.
Thanks in advance.
Your current employer or new employer has to file the H1, and it will be subject to H1B cap; Processing times for COS petitions vary between 2-4 months.
Take advice from a lawyer for specific details. Check out the IV wikki pages
L1 Visa - Immigration Wiki (http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/L1_Visa)
2010 Underworld Scary wallpaper for
GCBy3000
07-24 12:01 PM
You signature with "Saved by IVs efforts" looks good. Could you update your signature with contributions also. Thanks.
I see that USCIS release a press release on 7/20 and it says the time complaince for Nebraska Center is 8/1. Does it mean that July 2nd filers will get receipt by 8/1 ( i know i'm expecting too much from USCIS)... When can we expect the receipt notices.. I guess i'm a bit nervous now..
I see that USCIS release a press release on 7/20 and it says the time complaince for Nebraska Center is 8/1. Does it mean that July 2nd filers will get receipt by 8/1 ( i know i'm expecting too much from USCIS)... When can we expect the receipt notices.. I guess i'm a bit nervous now..
more...
nitinboston
04-09 03:38 PM
same story every month, KLPD
hair Demonios Scary Wallpapers
aquarianf
07-31 03:03 PM
I reviewed copy of I-485 packegae and found that attorney didn't include Employment letter with package. I filed in June I already received filing numbers.
When I asked attorney why it wasn't sent, her response was that there are around 15 people from company who filed in month of June/july and she didn't included EVL for all of them. Also there are around 8 people who got their GC in my company in last 2 years and she didn't included EVL for all of them.
When I asked attorney why it wasn't sent, her response was that there are around 15 people from company who filed in month of June/july and she didn't included EVL for all of them. Also there are around 8 people who got their GC in my company in last 2 years and she didn't included EVL for all of them.
more...
roseball
07-09 04:57 PM
Quote:
The agency approved some applications �when we were certain the process will be completed very shortly,� Mr. Aytes said.
/End Quote
This statement from Mr. Aytes can be used to prove the conspiracy against July filers. If they knew that the security check process would have been completed shortly, then why in the world would they have to approve them before July....They had all the time till end of the fiscal year (Sept 30th) to approve such cases once the security checks were complete and still not allow wastage of immigrant visas for the current fiscal year. They only approved it for one of the following two reasons:
-- They didnt want all of us to file under the old fee system. That would cause USCIS a loss of $225-300 million (based on guestimates from www.immigration-law.com)
-- They were not ready to accept the work load of 300-400k I-485 applications which could have led to huge backlogs for years to come because the current political situation will in no way increase the number of immigrant visas for legal immigrants. All they care for is illegal immigrants.....
The agency approved some applications �when we were certain the process will be completed very shortly,� Mr. Aytes said.
/End Quote
This statement from Mr. Aytes can be used to prove the conspiracy against July filers. If they knew that the security check process would have been completed shortly, then why in the world would they have to approve them before July....They had all the time till end of the fiscal year (Sept 30th) to approve such cases once the security checks were complete and still not allow wastage of immigrant visas for the current fiscal year. They only approved it for one of the following two reasons:
-- They didnt want all of us to file under the old fee system. That would cause USCIS a loss of $225-300 million (based on guestimates from www.immigration-law.com)
-- They were not ready to accept the work load of 300-400k I-485 applications which could have led to huge backlogs for years to come because the current political situation will in no way increase the number of immigrant visas for legal immigrants. All they care for is illegal immigrants.....
hot and Scary Wallpapers | 68
McGuffin
02-14 07:15 PM
I'm in.
more...
house Cool Scary Wallpapers
.png "scary wallpaper.")
coopheal
06-11 09:27 AM
Sent this morning.
tattoo Scary Movie Wallpapers
shivaz90
07-13 10:48 AM
As anyone in this forums know about this "may-a-times-told" joke about a bunch of people in an airplane that have to make some hard decision on dropping out some of thier own to save the flying aircraft. As one by one jumps out of the aircraft for a noble cause of saving the other person - our own Desi pushed the next one crying " Gandhiji ki Jai" - saving himself instead of others.
The moral of the story (which people never really bothered to infer) was that our Desi folks are trigger ready to pull someone down when it comes to me versus them. I hate to stereotype people - based on some unfounded and preconceived notions , but the more and more postings I see like this, it just reinforces my beliefs that we are still gullible enough to be divided no matter what the past had taught us.
I enjoy visiting IV forums - because of all the Indian based forums - this was one place where people came together rallied for a cause - something that I could not find in any other place. Now I am seeing some folks postings that spites and pits one against another - without understanding the real issue.
What or why does it matter if Murthy sending a letter to DHS or its Director is all about getting credit for her? Why do we have to think that its "us versus them" within our group - when we are all fighting for one single cause?
Need some civility here - Please!
The moral of the story (which people never really bothered to infer) was that our Desi folks are trigger ready to pull someone down when it comes to me versus them. I hate to stereotype people - based on some unfounded and preconceived notions , but the more and more postings I see like this, it just reinforces my beliefs that we are still gullible enough to be divided no matter what the past had taught us.
I enjoy visiting IV forums - because of all the Indian based forums - this was one place where people came together rallied for a cause - something that I could not find in any other place. Now I am seeing some folks postings that spites and pits one against another - without understanding the real issue.
What or why does it matter if Murthy sending a letter to DHS or its Director is all about getting credit for her? Why do we have to think that its "us versus them" within our group - when we are all fighting for one single cause?
Need some civility here - Please!
more...
pictures Gothic Scary Wallpapers
luckylavs
04-10 06:20 PM
Any idea//
dresses Scary Eye
addsf345
12-10 03:31 PM
With all the porting nonsense going on eb2 will move backward and eb3 will inch forward slowly. We might end up with eb2 and eb3 in 2002. congrats to all the people who ported, the only thing you accomplished is you made sure eb2 does not progress (it does not mean you have have moved forward by porting, it just means that you have made sure you have prevented original eb2 guys from getting green card), the people who ported wont gain any benefit but they will make it worse for everyone, they have to file a second i140 which will take at least another 1 year to clear and after 1 year when the ported 140's clear the eb2 will go back to 2002. You have also accomplished another great feat, DOL is going to make it impossible to file eb2 in IT jobs so even genuine people are screwed. Before people start giving red dots and justifying there porting I have an message for you, your behavior is no different from the people who did labor substitution, the end result was DOL ended labor substitution and the result of all this porting is DOL has made it impossible to get eb2 even for genuine cases. Just because others are doing it does not mean you can do it, obviously it is wrong therefore dol removed labor substitution and now dol is making it impossible to get eb2 for IT jobs even for genuine cases. 90 % of people doing this porting are desi consulting employees, they wine and complain about desi consulting companies as blood suckers (justifiably) but they themselves are bloodsuckers on the EB2 community by doing this eb3 to eb2 porting.
stop crying, our real problem is unfair country quota & retrogression. Help IV fight for our common goals.
I can't help but think about this story after reading your post.
A fox, upon failing to find a way to reach grapes hanging high up on a vine, retreated and said: "The grapes are sour anyway!" The moral is stated as "It is easy to despise what you cannot get". ;)
stop crying, our real problem is unfair country quota & retrogression. Help IV fight for our common goals.
I can't help but think about this story after reading your post.
A fox, upon failing to find a way to reach grapes hanging high up on a vine, retreated and said: "The grapes are sour anyway!" The moral is stated as "It is easy to despise what you cannot get". ;)
more...
makeup scary wallpaper. angel dark
imh1b
11-19 10:34 AM
why cant they spell out the damn rule.. instead of leaving it out for speculations...
insane!
Did you file the lawsuit yet?
Someone please update on the lawsuit to enforce visa spill over
insane!
Did you file the lawsuit yet?
Someone please update on the lawsuit to enforce visa spill over
girlfriend Animals Scary Wallpapers
cdeneo
03-07 02:28 PM
Can someone please shed light on this - I was looking for the same information.
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"?
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?
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?
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"?
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?
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?
Thank for all the advise.
---------------------------------
Contributed $100.
hairstyles Horror Wallpapers
vandanaverdia
09-10 03:45 PM
You have to carry a stack load of papers, documents, etc every time you go for your visa stamping & back....
McLuvin
03-12 01:55 PM
finally the bulletin has been posted in the DOS website...
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
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:
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).
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.
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
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:
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).
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.
GC_ASP
03-18 05:45 PM
Please see the last sentece which says "Thus, the same cut-off date for each country since the extra numbers must be made available in priority date order without regard to country".
When they use this spill over, only PD is imp not the country.
If that is the case, I am not sure why China didn't even move a single day. From the example, China should have gotten half of the unused visas. :confused:
When they use this spill over, only PD is imp not the country.
If that is the case, I am not sure why China didn't even move a single day. From the example, China should have gotten half of the unused visas. :confused:
