grinch
03-07 05:56 PM
alright eilsoe, good entry man, pissed that you couldnt get time, but heck, no one has time eh?
Its ok, good work!
Its ok, good work!
wallpaper star tattoos for men Âŧ Free
neelu
12-13 01:01 PM
All , this subject has been raised very often and every time new members join in they start a thread and start questioning it.
- IV has indepth explored and studied this option and have found that this change is not possible administratively.
- we have not just met a lawyer. we have met few lawyers. we also have communicated with USCIS in the past.
- In the past some administrative changes have been done by USCIS, but this change cannot be done by them. All, we already had this idea long long ago and we also thought that why dont we do it if it so simple and then we dont have to go through all the legislative hurdles. But NO it cannot be done by USCIS.
- Faxing USCIS will not work. USCIS does not take policy decisions. We need to approach policy makers to get it done and that is what we are doing. By coming up with ideas, endlessly discussing despite explaination by IV and not working with IV action items we will all go in divergent directions and lose focus on the main action items we want each every member should focus. If you really feel for some idea and want to help, instead of asking IV to give explanation to every question on the forum, contact any of the active IV core members on the forum and bounce ideas. We need people with ideas and also same people willing to work on them too.
- If it was possible to get it done administratively, then in the current Skil bill push we would have/ and lawmakers would also have just asked USCIS to implement it.
Hope this explains this topic. Thanks
Our dear Pappu,
I understand how difficult it must be to respond to so many questions directed towards core members, and can understand how frustrating it can be to answer repetitive questions.
So thanks for clarifying this again for many of us who thought an easy route was available (but half knew that it was there, it would have been taken).
But can I please add that if this question has been asked repetitively, I think it warrants to be added to the "The Employment-Based Green Card: Process and Problems" section on the home page, so people can find the answer easily that searching our huge forum database. I understand that each of you are very busy and feel bad that I am adding additional work.
Thank you.
Neelu
- IV has indepth explored and studied this option and have found that this change is not possible administratively.
- we have not just met a lawyer. we have met few lawyers. we also have communicated with USCIS in the past.
- In the past some administrative changes have been done by USCIS, but this change cannot be done by them. All, we already had this idea long long ago and we also thought that why dont we do it if it so simple and then we dont have to go through all the legislative hurdles. But NO it cannot be done by USCIS.
- Faxing USCIS will not work. USCIS does not take policy decisions. We need to approach policy makers to get it done and that is what we are doing. By coming up with ideas, endlessly discussing despite explaination by IV and not working with IV action items we will all go in divergent directions and lose focus on the main action items we want each every member should focus. If you really feel for some idea and want to help, instead of asking IV to give explanation to every question on the forum, contact any of the active IV core members on the forum and bounce ideas. We need people with ideas and also same people willing to work on them too.
- If it was possible to get it done administratively, then in the current Skil bill push we would have/ and lawmakers would also have just asked USCIS to implement it.
Hope this explains this topic. Thanks
Our dear Pappu,
I understand how difficult it must be to respond to so many questions directed towards core members, and can understand how frustrating it can be to answer repetitive questions.
So thanks for clarifying this again for many of us who thought an easy route was available (but half knew that it was there, it would have been taken).
But can I please add that if this question has been asked repetitively, I think it warrants to be added to the "The Employment-Based Green Card: Process and Problems" section on the home page, so people can find the answer easily that searching our huge forum database. I understand that each of you are very busy and feel bad that I am adding additional work.
Thank you.
Neelu
yabayaba
06-11 10:41 AM
Done
2011 male star tattoos. male star
reddymjm
09-10 12:38 PM
EB2 I/C won't be current in the next 4-5 Years, the EB2 I/C demand till date (Today’s Date) is in the 100K - 120K Range. The EB2I/C demand till Jul/Aug 2007 is easily in the 40-45K Range so it will require a very over optimistic scenario to clear by Sep 2011. EB3 ROW will reach end of 2006 by FY 2011. So there is a very long way to go. All the movement is under many assumptions most important being the economy and unemployment, anytime this changes all spillover will collapse and there will really be no difference between EB2 I/C and EB3 I/C.
where is this 120k EB2I and C coming up from, those who haven't filed 485 yet? So you are expecting another july 2007 making all EB2 Current.
where is this 120k EB2I and C coming up from, those who haven't filed 485 yet? So you are expecting another july 2007 making all EB2 Current.
more...
Dhundhun
10-19 09:46 PM
Folks,
I was just looking at the Obama and McCain websites just to see how they look from design standpoint (I'm a UI designer by profession). I happened to read their views on Immigration. I was surprised to see that Obama's views were extremely vague and offered no solutions to retain or encourage highly skilled immigrant workers. McCain on the other hand has section on highly skilled immigrant workers and talks about retaining them after US education, H1B cap reform, greencard increase to reflect demand etc.
I heard them talking on same issue. Your findings are consistent with what ever I heard from their mouth.
Still it is hard to believe. Specially most of my GC holder friends have blind faith in Obama.
I was just looking at the Obama and McCain websites just to see how they look from design standpoint (I'm a UI designer by profession). I happened to read their views on Immigration. I was surprised to see that Obama's views were extremely vague and offered no solutions to retain or encourage highly skilled immigrant workers. McCain on the other hand has section on highly skilled immigrant workers and talks about retaining them after US education, H1B cap reform, greencard increase to reflect demand etc.
I heard them talking on same issue. Your findings are consistent with what ever I heard from their mouth.
Still it is hard to believe. Specially most of my GC holder friends have blind faith in Obama.
Administrator2
06-11 12:22 PM
Everyone is again talking about ifs and buts. Guys why do not you put your hard work on what is more important than what is never ever going to happen. People with a GC, if this Bill passes, they are not going to renew your GC also. How's about that? People with a US citizenship, with previous GC status, they will not renew the USA passport, if this Bill passes. How's about that?
So forget all these bogus bills, and support our main agenda, which is to remove the Backlogs. If you do not have any new news, then sit idle, but please do not spread these bogus out-of-world stories.
Don’t think you understand so let me give it a shot.
We just got off a conference call with our coalition partners. This is a real threat. Everyone, including some of the largest of companies on the planet think this is a real threat. It you are a lawyer or if you represent some law firm, then please go back and get busy with entering items like first and last name in a simple immigration form. This is not your area of expertise.
Experts with this are saying that the language is deliberately kept vague. Some of the terms used in the language of the amendment do not have direct corresponding visa. Since we don’t trust the guys behind this amendment, we think they have deliberately kept the language which is not precise.
Consider this as a kick-off for the election campaign. The real risk is, even if this amendment is defeated, between now and the elections we will all see many similar amendments. At some point Senators will be forced to vote on an issue which is pitched as “American citizens” v/s “foreign workers”. Experts believe that anti immigrants will try to push this amendment in middle of the night in the must pass bills.
Some lawyer, for the purpose of pandering to the client base, is of the opinion that this amendment does not affect EADs. In the grand scheme of things this is plain wrong because he/she will not be asked to leave the country if such an amendment passes in the middle of the night. Just engaging in name calling Senator Grassley or calling the Senator pig face is not going to stop the amendment. Please grow up and get real. Your pandering may get innocent audience to believe that there is no real threat even when everyone with any real sense of expertise is scrambling to oppose this amendment.
Immigration Voice and its coalition partners do not see this amendment in isolation. We are hoping for the best and preparing for the worst. And for the lack of clarity from the amendment language, we think that the intent of the amendment sponsors is to see us all out of here.
There is no simple way for the anti-immigrants to throw us all out in a single stroke. They will always engage in systematic elimination of everyone starting from the most vulnerable. The language is vague and it could be interpreted in lot of different ways. It is not wise to look for the most favorable interpretation of the language to find reasons for not doing anything because in the end our interpretation will mean nothing.
Let’s be smart, think for ourselves and act on our own behalf to send simple message requesting the Senate offices to oppose this amendment. What is so complicated about this? And if you don't want to participate, that's fine, but why would you discourage others from sending a simple message to the Senators from their state? Don't you have anything better to do?
So forget all these bogus bills, and support our main agenda, which is to remove the Backlogs. If you do not have any new news, then sit idle, but please do not spread these bogus out-of-world stories.
Don’t think you understand so let me give it a shot.
We just got off a conference call with our coalition partners. This is a real threat. Everyone, including some of the largest of companies on the planet think this is a real threat. It you are a lawyer or if you represent some law firm, then please go back and get busy with entering items like first and last name in a simple immigration form. This is not your area of expertise.
Experts with this are saying that the language is deliberately kept vague. Some of the terms used in the language of the amendment do not have direct corresponding visa. Since we don’t trust the guys behind this amendment, we think they have deliberately kept the language which is not precise.
Consider this as a kick-off for the election campaign. The real risk is, even if this amendment is defeated, between now and the elections we will all see many similar amendments. At some point Senators will be forced to vote on an issue which is pitched as “American citizens” v/s “foreign workers”. Experts believe that anti immigrants will try to push this amendment in middle of the night in the must pass bills.
Some lawyer, for the purpose of pandering to the client base, is of the opinion that this amendment does not affect EADs. In the grand scheme of things this is plain wrong because he/she will not be asked to leave the country if such an amendment passes in the middle of the night. Just engaging in name calling Senator Grassley or calling the Senator pig face is not going to stop the amendment. Please grow up and get real. Your pandering may get innocent audience to believe that there is no real threat even when everyone with any real sense of expertise is scrambling to oppose this amendment.
Immigration Voice and its coalition partners do not see this amendment in isolation. We are hoping for the best and preparing for the worst. And for the lack of clarity from the amendment language, we think that the intent of the amendment sponsors is to see us all out of here.
There is no simple way for the anti-immigrants to throw us all out in a single stroke. They will always engage in systematic elimination of everyone starting from the most vulnerable. The language is vague and it could be interpreted in lot of different ways. It is not wise to look for the most favorable interpretation of the language to find reasons for not doing anything because in the end our interpretation will mean nothing.
Let’s be smart, think for ourselves and act on our own behalf to send simple message requesting the Senate offices to oppose this amendment. What is so complicated about this? And if you don't want to participate, that's fine, but why would you discourage others from sending a simple message to the Senators from their state? Don't you have anything better to do?
more...
quizzer
04-08 04:19 PM
I look at this bill in a different perspective:
1. This will give the Indian IT companies an opportunity to move up the value chain. Rather than body shop its employees to clients...they can have all the IT work done at its development locations. Also they can fill americans for half of its US workforce.
2. It will put an end to 100% H1b bodyshoppers who just make money without having any office and putting their employees onto client locations. These scrupulous bodyshops even dont pay on bench.
Thanks
1. This will give the Indian IT companies an opportunity to move up the value chain. Rather than body shop its employees to clients...they can have all the IT work done at its development locations. Also they can fill americans for half of its US workforce.
2. It will put an end to 100% H1b bodyshoppers who just make money without having any office and putting their employees onto client locations. These scrupulous bodyshops even dont pay on bench.
Thanks
2010 star tattoos for guys.
GCanyMinute
08-02 02:21 PM
you have already filed ur I485 right ? so what do u mean "y am i still waiting ?"
yes I did, but that's the thing.... what is the relation between "visa number" and the "greencard" ??? i'm confused.... whether I am still waiting for a "visa number" or for the "greencard".... please help!! :)
yes I did, but that's the thing.... what is the relation between "visa number" and the "greencard" ??? i'm confused.... whether I am still waiting for a "visa number" or for the "greencard".... please help!! :)
more...
GreenLantern
02-15 09:19 PM
Jesus man, that is sick!
I don't think I can keep up with you guys.
I don't think I can keep up with you guys.
hair star tattoos for guys.
snathan
06-10 04:11 PM
Done...
more...
Ramba
07-09 07:44 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
hot makeup stars tattoos for men.
kumar1
12-11 12:05 PM
Agreed! But when you call your bank to send you a debit card, they send it in days if not in weeks....that shows a sign of inter-dependability and a sense of need for each other. Sort of...I need you, you need me. You do not have to file MTR if they don't send you a debit card within 10 days.
Compare that with US consulate and DOS VISA bulletin and GC process...
Everyone goes to Bank and do transactions , that doesn't mean that we only need Bank and Bank doesn't need us and our deposits.
Compare that with US consulate and DOS VISA bulletin and GC process...
Everyone goes to Bank and do transactions , that doesn't mean that we only need Bank and Bank doesn't need us and our deposits.
more...
house tattoo star tattoos
perm2gc
01-18 06:20 PM
http://www.immigrationforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1990
tattoo mens star tattoos.
xlr8r
06-11 08:55 AM
Done.
more...
pictures star tattoos for guys. star
pappu
04-10 11:09 PM
Brain less Ganguteli,
Looks like you are a pest in this community. All the time I hear from you update your profile. What the heck are you goign to do with that other than just saying something. Chillout dude.
You are driving people away from this site. Sanju is another guy talks like a moron.
With your PD and category, how were you able to file your I485 in 2006?
I do agree that these guys get a bit irritating at times. I have warned Sanju once when he crossed the line.
But I do request everyone to fill in the correct profile data. This data is very useful to us. Pls check IV wiki for an explanation of this.
Looks like you are a pest in this community. All the time I hear from you update your profile. What the heck are you goign to do with that other than just saying something. Chillout dude.
You are driving people away from this site. Sanju is another guy talks like a moron.
With your PD and category, how were you able to file your I485 in 2006?
I do agree that these guys get a bit irritating at times. I have warned Sanju once when he crossed the line.
But I do request everyone to fill in the correct profile data. This data is very useful to us. Pls check IV wiki for an explanation of this.
dresses star tattoos for guys. star
gcformeornot
03-16 12:54 PM
dude, you don't know jack.........there is no "eligibility" when it comes to EB2 or EB3.
The FUC@#NG job has to demand a Master's for EB2.
It's not like the monkey-jobs that you fools do for fuc@#ng two-bit desi employers who are anywhere from 5-100 people strong NEED an EB2 !!!!
any monkey can do 99% of the jobs that desi EB3 people do on the West Coast and the East Coast...........that's reality. It's YOUR problem if you cannot stomach this reality.
And all these folks have the audacity to call themselves "highly skilled"!!! hahahahahaha..............errr, by the way, what school did most of these people go to? Lemme guess..........some SDNMDFDF Institute of Tech in some freakin village in India??
If they did not qualify for EB2, then they should have FU@#%NG worked HARDER when they could.............should have gotten a good degree........and landed a respectable job in a BIG company....
And don't preach what you have no knowledge about, ok buddy?
For the record, i have NEVER used any legal shortcut ever.
that's the best way to get rid of such fools......
The FUC@#NG job has to demand a Master's for EB2.
It's not like the monkey-jobs that you fools do for fuc@#ng two-bit desi employers who are anywhere from 5-100 people strong NEED an EB2 !!!!
any monkey can do 99% of the jobs that desi EB3 people do on the West Coast and the East Coast...........that's reality. It's YOUR problem if you cannot stomach this reality.
And all these folks have the audacity to call themselves "highly skilled"!!! hahahahahaha..............errr, by the way, what school did most of these people go to? Lemme guess..........some SDNMDFDF Institute of Tech in some freakin village in India??
If they did not qualify for EB2, then they should have FU@#%NG worked HARDER when they could.............should have gotten a good degree........and landed a respectable job in a BIG company....
And don't preach what you have no knowledge about, ok buddy?
For the record, i have NEVER used any legal shortcut ever.
that's the best way to get rid of such fools......
more...
makeup star tattoos for guys. star
gbarquero
09-11 04:38 PM
Once for all, let's get this thing over NOW!!!
LET'S GO TO DC NOW, OR WAIT FOREVER TO BE FREE!!!!!
LET'S GO TO DC NOW, OR WAIT FOREVER TO BE FREE!!!!!
girlfriend star tattoos for men on chest.
sunny1000
07-24 11:26 PM
The below is the answer I got from my attorney.
"You are right in stating there should be a employer letter, which would be required if we are filing the I-485 with an approved I-140. It would not be required if it is filed currently with the I-140, which is submitted with the employer letter."
"You are right in stating there should be a employer letter, which would be required if we are filing the I-485 with an approved I-140. It would not be required if it is filed currently with the I-140, which is submitted with the employer letter."
hairstyles star tattoos for guys. puerto
chanduv23
11-11 03:44 PM
I am not sure what lobbying efforts would do for us, haven't worked so far...In my opinion we need more media visibility which makes politicians to take notice of us. In these troubled times they are open to any kind of ideas that would help the housing market.
Just show the real numbers to the media -
Approx 0.5 million people (well educated with decent earnings)
Atleast 50 to 60% of these people could potentially buy houses if immigration related uncertainities are gone
Potentially quarter of million buyers for houses, that is a lot!!
I leave it up to IV core to followup on these ideas. I repeat, as I have done so many times, it is all about marketing + media presence. We won the July 2007 visa bulletin battle because of adverse media reaction to the state department. Grass roots stuff is all good, but no one will ever notice it.
Please come up with ideas. Remember - IV core looks at all the posts and get ideas from the forums. You may want to start a thread saying - Lets all put our constructive thoughts about moving ahead with Obama administration here. People can posts their ideas, plans, implementations, strategies ...... and we can all discuss.
Rajuram - your concern is valid and basically what is happening is - IV now needs some dedicated new generation members who can make a difference. thats how IV has been working from the beginnibg, people come and go - so do admins.
You can help in this way by opening a thread to share new ideas and strategies.
Just show the real numbers to the media -
Approx 0.5 million people (well educated with decent earnings)
Atleast 50 to 60% of these people could potentially buy houses if immigration related uncertainities are gone
Potentially quarter of million buyers for houses, that is a lot!!
I leave it up to IV core to followup on these ideas. I repeat, as I have done so many times, it is all about marketing + media presence. We won the July 2007 visa bulletin battle because of adverse media reaction to the state department. Grass roots stuff is all good, but no one will ever notice it.
Please come up with ideas. Remember - IV core looks at all the posts and get ideas from the forums. You may want to start a thread saying - Lets all put our constructive thoughts about moving ahead with Obama administration here. People can posts their ideas, plans, implementations, strategies ...... and we can all discuss.
Rajuram - your concern is valid and basically what is happening is - IV now needs some dedicated new generation members who can make a difference. thats how IV has been working from the beginnibg, people come and go - so do admins.
You can help in this way by opening a thread to share new ideas and strategies.
neelu
12-11 05:09 PM
USCIS cannot do anything on the matter. INA is clear on the AOS conditions, one of which is "An immigrant visa is IMMEDIATELY available at time of filing for adjustment of status" (INA 245, 8 USC 1225)
INA should be changed which should be done through a legislative process, not through any rule making.
As I understand the above, the law only says when you can file for AOS (to change which a legislative process is required).
The above still does not throw any more light on the technicality which disallows concurrent filing. Does it?
Was concurrent processing facility removed through a congressional action (legislation)? If not, why is it required to reinstate it?
Is this a valid argument? If it is, then this particular request should be directed towards a body such as USCIS, etc and not the congress.
Any comments?
INA should be changed which should be done through a legislative process, not through any rule making.
As I understand the above, the law only says when you can file for AOS (to change which a legislative process is required).
The above still does not throw any more light on the technicality which disallows concurrent filing. Does it?
Was concurrent processing facility removed through a congressional action (legislation)? If not, why is it required to reinstate it?
Is this a valid argument? If it is, then this particular request should be directed towards a body such as USCIS, etc and not the congress.
Any comments?
ramus
07-03 06:25 AM
Lets contribute... We have big day ahead of us..
No comments:
Post a Comment