maddipati1
03-12 07:20 AM
ur and some others optimism amazes me.. :D
seems like u r already planning for getting ready for next visa bull(shit)etin ... and after parties... :D
now looks like dates would move only after july..
seems like u r already planning for getting ready for next visa bull(shit)etin ... and after parties... :D
now looks like dates would move only after july..
wallpaper funny happy birthday wishes
angelfire76
02-13 04:07 PM
His views are distorted.
Can Americans go to India on H1B or similar visa to get work? No? Well, so think about it.
They can get a work permit to work in India. The only requirement is that they have to sign on a police register every month or so. This is because Indian Immigration still has not yet computerized all their records due to little to no demand.
Companies like Infosys and Wipro do hire MBAs and Engineering undergrad students to train in their India offices to understand their business model.
Wait a minute, you are from Germany, a historically xenophobic state. :rolleyes:
Can Americans go to India on H1B or similar visa to get work? No? Well, so think about it.
They can get a work permit to work in India. The only requirement is that they have to sign on a police register every month or so. This is because Indian Immigration still has not yet computerized all their records due to little to no demand.
Companies like Infosys and Wipro do hire MBAs and Engineering undergrad students to train in their India offices to understand their business model.
Wait a minute, you are from Germany, a historically xenophobic state. :rolleyes:
rajuseattle
07-14 07:14 PM
ajthakur,
U r covered under AC-21 if I-140 is not revoked by your previous employer.
Be truthful to USCIS and using a very good attorney firm drat AC-21 and Employment verification letter to USCIS. Since your PD is current chances are after reviewing the new employment letter USCIS might approve your case.
Please dont waste time in on this forum, instead spend some money to consult Rajeev Khanna or Sheela Murthy, it is worth spending every penny on the advice and their services for invoking AC-21.
Per your RFE notice it looks like, USCIS is only interested in verifying your current employment in the similar profession. good employment verification letter and AC-21 draft is good to save your GC.
RFE might have triggered due to previous H1B transfer, it has nothing to do with your employer revoking I-140. Trust me lot of desi consulting companies dont want to take any "Panga" with USCIS and 99% of the time they just ignore employees leaving them. So dont worry, dial in Murthy or Khanna consulting services and see what's their take on your case. If you are getting any help from new Employer's attorney that will be free of cost to you.
Bottomline you need a competent attorney for answering this RFE and invoking AC-21.
U r covered under AC-21 if I-140 is not revoked by your previous employer.
Be truthful to USCIS and using a very good attorney firm drat AC-21 and Employment verification letter to USCIS. Since your PD is current chances are after reviewing the new employment letter USCIS might approve your case.
Please dont waste time in on this forum, instead spend some money to consult Rajeev Khanna or Sheela Murthy, it is worth spending every penny on the advice and their services for invoking AC-21.
Per your RFE notice it looks like, USCIS is only interested in verifying your current employment in the similar profession. good employment verification letter and AC-21 draft is good to save your GC.
RFE might have triggered due to previous H1B transfer, it has nothing to do with your employer revoking I-140. Trust me lot of desi consulting companies dont want to take any "Panga" with USCIS and 99% of the time they just ignore employees leaving them. So dont worry, dial in Murthy or Khanna consulting services and see what's their take on your case. If you are getting any help from new Employer's attorney that will be free of cost to you.
Bottomline you need a competent attorney for answering this RFE and invoking AC-21.
2011 hair funny happy birthday
sam_hoosier
01-18 04:52 PM
http://www.nelp.org/docUploads/Fact%20sheet%20formatted%2Epdf
This will help you understand the law...you didnt have to answer the police officer.
Based on this document, it looks like I-766 (EAD card) is good enough as proof of ID & immigration status.
This will help you understand the law...you didnt have to answer the police officer.
Based on this document, it looks like I-766 (EAD card) is good enough as proof of ID & immigration status.
more...
uma001
07-29 05:10 AM
Add Wachovia now acquired by Wells Fargo to the list. They don't even do H1 extensions.
That's too bad.
That's too bad.
rayoflight
06-11 09:57 AM
Sent to MD Senators
more...
greenlight
08-17 01:45 AM
hi everyone,
I want to get feedback about the possibility of pursuing PERM for EB2 and still capture my PD for EB3. Here is my situation.
I am a South Korean with PD in Dec. 04 on EB3. I filed I-485 along with EAD & AP on 7/25/07.
I recently got a master's degree in another field, and my current job can hire me in a different position.
Q1. If I ask my employer to file PERM on EB2 for the new position requiring the master's degree, I should be able to capture the PD (12/04) for my EB3, right?
Q2. Based on the september visa bulletin, should I wait on the EB-3 AOD application to be processed or would it be faster to switch to EB-2 and refile I-485? Please explain why.
Thanks.
I want to get feedback about the possibility of pursuing PERM for EB2 and still capture my PD for EB3. Here is my situation.
I am a South Korean with PD in Dec. 04 on EB3. I filed I-485 along with EAD & AP on 7/25/07.
I recently got a master's degree in another field, and my current job can hire me in a different position.
Q1. If I ask my employer to file PERM on EB2 for the new position requiring the master's degree, I should be able to capture the PD (12/04) for my EB3, right?
Q2. Based on the september visa bulletin, should I wait on the EB-3 AOD application to be processed or would it be faster to switch to EB-2 and refile I-485? Please explain why.
Thanks.
2010 house funny happy birthday
sammas
07-12 03:57 PM
E. APPLICABILITY OF INA SECTION 202(a)(5)(A)AS IT RELATES TO THE ALLOCATION OF �OTHERWISE UNUSED� NUMBERS
INA Section 202(a)(5)(A), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. This provision helps to assure that all available Employment preference numbers may be used. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)(A) has occasionally allowed oversubscribed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large quantities of Employment First and Second preference numbers that would have otherwise gone unused.
For example, let us assume that 11,600 Employment Second preference numbers are available in a calendar quarter. There is heavy Employment Second preference demand by China-mainland born and India applicants; however, each country is oversubscribed and would ordinarily be limited to about 800 of the available numbers due to the prorating provisions of INA Section 202(e). Applicants from other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit have reported a total demand of 6,500 numbers. After taking the worldwide demand into account, it is determined that as a result of the China-mainland born and India per-country limits only 8,100 of the total available Employment Second preference numbers would be used in that quarter. In this instance, the otherwise unused 3,500 numbers could then be made available to China-mainland born and India regardless of their per-country limits. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
INA Section 202(a)(5)(A), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. This provision helps to assure that all available Employment preference numbers may be used. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)(A) has occasionally allowed oversubscribed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large quantities of Employment First and Second preference numbers that would have otherwise gone unused.
For example, let us assume that 11,600 Employment Second preference numbers are available in a calendar quarter. There is heavy Employment Second preference demand by China-mainland born and India applicants; however, each country is oversubscribed and would ordinarily be limited to about 800 of the available numbers due to the prorating provisions of INA Section 202(e). Applicants from other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit have reported a total demand of 6,500 numbers. After taking the worldwide demand into account, it is determined that as a result of the China-mainland born and India per-country limits only 8,100 of the total available Employment Second preference numbers would be used in that quarter. In this instance, the otherwise unused 3,500 numbers could then be made available to China-mainland born and India regardless of their per-country limits. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
more...
desi3933
02-11 12:03 PM
The visa numbers reported as used for FY 2009 is 141,020 from http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09...ort_TableV.pdf
This was the response i got from Ron Gotcher.
"The employment based category is entitled to use the "unused" family based numbers from the previous year. Last year, the quota for EB was the base of 140,000, plus another 13,000 shifted over from FB. Unfortunately, the CIS failed once again to approve enough cases to use up the entire available quota."
If this is true, we have lost a lot of visas last year.
Now with aprox. 10,000 visas shifted from FB, we should hope they use about 150,000 (140,000 + 10,000) this year.
Is there a way to confirm this? We got to do something to resolve this problem
As per this link
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf
Page 6, the total number of family based visas (that are subject to numerical limitations) is 226,105. Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. So, family based visa numbers were fully used.
So where is 13,000 unused family numbers for FY2008 that should have been available for employment based visa numbers for FY2009?
__________________
Not a legal advice.
This was the response i got from Ron Gotcher.
"The employment based category is entitled to use the "unused" family based numbers from the previous year. Last year, the quota for EB was the base of 140,000, plus another 13,000 shifted over from FB. Unfortunately, the CIS failed once again to approve enough cases to use up the entire available quota."
If this is true, we have lost a lot of visas last year.
Now with aprox. 10,000 visas shifted from FB, we should hope they use about 150,000 (140,000 + 10,000) this year.
Is there a way to confirm this? We got to do something to resolve this problem
As per this link
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf
Page 6, the total number of family based visas (that are subject to numerical limitations) is 226,105. Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. So, family based visa numbers were fully used.
So where is 13,000 unused family numbers for FY2008 that should have been available for employment based visa numbers for FY2009?
__________________
Not a legal advice.
hair funny happy birthday wishes
tooclose
07-12 06:49 PM
Hi,
My PD is March 1st 2006. Just wondering is March 1st is in or out? i.e. cut off is March 2nd or March 1st?
thanks,
Rwe
Well my PD is 3-Mar-2006. So close but too far. :mad:
My PD is March 1st 2006. Just wondering is March 1st is in or out? i.e. cut off is March 2nd or March 1st?
thanks,
Rwe
Well my PD is 3-Mar-2006. So close but too far. :mad:
more...
Norristown
09-11 08:41 AM
I am a great admirer of IV, because it is the only organization really working for legal immigrants.
Yesterday we are all watching TV,internet for Senate voting on HR5882. Nothing happened.
We are depending on other websites , to know about bill markup. All threads are filling up with all kind of guessing and speculation.
Don't we have any channel (lobbyists) to know whether it is marked up or not?
Yesterday we are all watching TV,internet for Senate voting on HR5882. Nothing happened.
We are depending on other websites , to know about bill markup. All threads are filling up with all kind of guessing and speculation.
Don't we have any channel (lobbyists) to know whether it is marked up or not?
hot funny happy birthday wishes
venky321
08-22 09:36 AM
Seriously, why are you giving OP such a hard time? She only came here looking for help.
I am not sure if she is illegal or not, but atleast you could have told her that politely instead of taunting her with it.
OP, just so you know, the majority of the posters here have to endure long long waits for their US green cards, greater than 10 years sometimes. Because of that they tend to become hyper sensitive when it comes to immigration matters, especially when they think someone is stepping out of line and trying to manipulate the system. Dont mean to imply at all , thats what you are doing.
Your case is too complicated and I haven't come across such a scenario; I'd suggest talking to an attorney; while it might be expensive, some attorneys might be willing to talk to you free for a few minutes, for a basic consultation. Atleast you may find out if you are legal or not.
I am not sure if she is illegal or not, but atleast you could have told her that politely instead of taunting her with it.
OP, just so you know, the majority of the posters here have to endure long long waits for their US green cards, greater than 10 years sometimes. Because of that they tend to become hyper sensitive when it comes to immigration matters, especially when they think someone is stepping out of line and trying to manipulate the system. Dont mean to imply at all , thats what you are doing.
Your case is too complicated and I haven't come across such a scenario; I'd suggest talking to an attorney; while it might be expensive, some attorneys might be willing to talk to you free for a few minutes, for a basic consultation. Atleast you may find out if you are legal or not.
more...
house funny happy birthday wishes
ckichannagari
12-13 08:49 AM
That's a good idea. A good way of generating funds for IV also. This way it would seem less burden for all of the members and they will be willing to come forward.
tattoo happy birthday wishes for
gk_2000
08-10 08:41 PM
So according to this interpretation EB1 also will be retrogressed till everybody from previous years gets gc !
Good point. But there should be no holy cows where justice is concerned
Good point. But there should be no holy cows where justice is concerned
more...
pictures funny. happy birthday
Jaime
09-12 11:39 PM
Tri-State and neighboring states, you can definitely make it to DC easily! What's stopping you? Let's go! Let's make the rally a historic event!!!! TOGETHER WE CAN!!!!
dresses irthday wishes for friends
FucTheGC
06-06 02:44 PM
My 485 packet went to Nebraska from where it was transferred to Texas. My I140 was approved from Texas too.
Mine is so similar to yours !! Jan 27 instead of Jan 29 and July 2 instead of Jul 13. VA instead of OH. Hope mine will get cleared soon. But God only knows when. :)
Mine is so similar to yours !! Jan 27 instead of Jan 29 and July 2 instead of Jul 13. VA instead of OH. Hope mine will get cleared soon. But God only knows when. :)
more...
makeup funny happy birthday wishes
lvinaykumar
07-16 07:39 PM
They are really shameless
girlfriend Making Birthday Wishes Funny
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
06-10 12:50 PM
WAKE UP CALL FOR THOSE STILL SITTING ON THE SIDELINES
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
What should we do. I am in tell me what I need to do?
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
What should we do. I am in tell me what I need to do?
hairstyles funny happy birthday wishes
polapragada
02-14 01:43 PM
For those who is not seeing this is happenning,
Just look at what is happening around you...
Just look at what is happening around you...
perm2gc
12-29 02:42 PM
It good to see some activity on the thread..Please carry on the advertising..we are near to our goal ..
Thks for all who have spent their valuable time on posting about IV.
Thks for all who have spent their valuable time on posting about IV.
sumansk
01-17 02:55 PM
Just Made a my Contribution.
Thanks
Thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment