ganguteli
07-08 11:11 AM
Where is Moira from Buisnessweek?
Why can't she cover this?
Why can't she cover this?
wallpaper traditional heart tattoo
vinamit
09-16 01:49 PM
My 485,AP,EAD checks were cashed on 9/11/07
Application filed on August 2nd
Nebraska
Application filed on August 2nd
Nebraska
vbkris77
09-24 01:53 PM
We tend to forget that we are not lawmakers :p
When EB3 talked about the fair share or EB2 talks about porting, its an unnecessary fight that gets us nowhere..
When we talk about CIS wasting the visas in the past that led us here and racist remnants of INA in establishing country limits on top of free enterprise selection, We all win..
I don't know how better I can say..
I agree.. Remember labor substitution was also legal once upon a time. However when people reported the facts to USCIS the labor substitution was banned..
But buy then major damage was done..
Therefore EB2 guys wake up till there is time.
The priority date should be always based on the particular labor filling or the filing of I140 (which ever applicable)
I am not against anyone getting GC. If everyome gets GC today, I am all for it. But no solution is in sight. But that does not mean someone elase will try to push EB2 back.
Therefore just wanted to let EB2 guys realize what will happen to them if no action is taken.
This is very simillar to labor substitution...
I have no problem with porting, but the priority date should be starting from when they acquired required qualifications for the job.
Example, if someone with B.S and 2 years experience had applied in EB3 in 2005 and tries to port now I think it is fair to have the ported PD not in 2005, but 2008 when the person acquired B.S + 5 years experience.
This would automatically address all those folks who deserved to be in EB2 but couldnt either becuase lawyer screwed up or issues with sponsoring company.
When EB3 talked about the fair share or EB2 talks about porting, its an unnecessary fight that gets us nowhere..
When we talk about CIS wasting the visas in the past that led us here and racist remnants of INA in establishing country limits on top of free enterprise selection, We all win..
I don't know how better I can say..
I agree.. Remember labor substitution was also legal once upon a time. However when people reported the facts to USCIS the labor substitution was banned..
But buy then major damage was done..
Therefore EB2 guys wake up till there is time.
The priority date should be always based on the particular labor filling or the filing of I140 (which ever applicable)
I am not against anyone getting GC. If everyome gets GC today, I am all for it. But no solution is in sight. But that does not mean someone elase will try to push EB2 back.
Therefore just wanted to let EB2 guys realize what will happen to them if no action is taken.
This is very simillar to labor substitution...
I have no problem with porting, but the priority date should be starting from when they acquired required qualifications for the job.
Example, if someone with B.S and 2 years experience had applied in EB3 in 2005 and tries to port now I think it is fair to have the ported PD not in 2005, but 2008 when the person acquired B.S + 5 years experience.
This would automatically address all those folks who deserved to be in EB2 but couldnt either becuase lawyer screwed up or issues with sponsoring company.
2011 traditional heart tattoo
madras1
02-10 12:37 PM
Donated $100.
Your receipt number for this payment is: 4760-7942-7070-8340.
Your receipt number for this payment is: 4760-7942-7070-8340.
more...
reddymjm
06-07 05:55 AM
It is better to take your time and make sure everything is sound, then hurry and miss something.
Can you guys let me know whether your checks payable to "Department of Homeland Security" has been canceled? They received my application on June/4 but my check has not been cashed yet. I heard your priority date is the date they actually get your money. Is this true?
My attorney said the checks should be payable to USCIS not DHS. The PD is always ur LC filed date. Receipt date is when the application is received and notice date is when they assing a LIN/wac number and take ur money.
Can you guys let me know whether your checks payable to "Department of Homeland Security" has been canceled? They received my application on June/4 but my check has not been cashed yet. I heard your priority date is the date they actually get your money. Is this true?
My attorney said the checks should be payable to USCIS not DHS. The PD is always ur LC filed date. Receipt date is when the application is received and notice date is when they assing a LIN/wac number and take ur money.
Kodi
07-24 11:33 AM
EAD Paper filed at TCS EB2 ROW
USCIS Receipt date: April 18, 08
FP done: July 22, 08
No LUDs, No EAD yet.
USCIS Receipt date: April 18, 08
FP done: July 22, 08
No LUDs, No EAD yet.
more...
gjoe
10-08 04:01 PM
Your post is a classic example to show how everybody will not understand the other person the same way.
If a person isn't contributing money, isn't participating in state chapters, isn't going to any rally and his/her sole contribution is 'brilliant ideas' that get posted on the forums... only use he/she can be put to is inter-breeding donkeys and horses, like you said!
However, unfortunately, IV is not a farm.
If a person isn't contributing money, isn't participating in state chapters, isn't going to any rally and his/her sole contribution is 'brilliant ideas' that get posted on the forums... only use he/she can be put to is inter-breeding donkeys and horses, like you said!
However, unfortunately, IV is not a farm.
2010 traditional heart tattoo
gcformeornot
01-29 05:54 PM
in trouble. I am not on H1 but I think the moment you get H1, in this case COS from H4 to H1 within few months you should have paying job. There will be problem at time of extension if no paystubs are present. Bench or not employer need to Pay H1b if he has hired one.
more...
bigboy007
07-02 10:31 AM
Mine delivered 9:00 AM via Fedex shipped on 6/30
lets see what others have i did it on saturday late evening.
lets see what others have i did it on saturday late evening.
hair Traditional heart tattoo
fromnaija
11-18 10:17 AM
Done!
more...
gc4me
04-23 02:50 PM
This guy is a deshi employer. He is on H1 so he is a silent partner & that why scratching his head.
There are attorneys who will charge only after recovering money. The stupid employer can be sued for lost wages along with civil penalties from which the attorney's fee will be paid.
I just read first page of this thread and would advice that don't follow most of reply because they are lawyers or they have not gone through the experience you are going through. $4000 may not be big amount compared to hassle of law suite , piece of mind or the amount of increase you may have received by switching employer. I know a close person who had gone through exactly same situation in NJ and had to pay 12,000 to settle the case. I have seen bunch of people in same situation and my friend always adviced them to stay away from law suite. If your current employer is not big then there are greater chances that it will turn away from you in case of law suite.
If you are not working with same client that you were working when you were in company A then non-compete may not hold against you.
Also can you get in writing from you current employer that they will support you in case of law suite?
There are attorneys who will charge only after recovering money. The stupid employer can be sued for lost wages along with civil penalties from which the attorney's fee will be paid.
I just read first page of this thread and would advice that don't follow most of reply because they are lawyers or they have not gone through the experience you are going through. $4000 may not be big amount compared to hassle of law suite , piece of mind or the amount of increase you may have received by switching employer. I know a close person who had gone through exactly same situation in NJ and had to pay 12,000 to settle the case. I have seen bunch of people in same situation and my friend always adviced them to stay away from law suite. If your current employer is not big then there are greater chances that it will turn away from you in case of law suite.
If you are not working with same client that you were working when you were in company A then non-compete may not hold against you.
Also can you get in writing from you current employer that they will support you in case of law suite?
hot sacred heart tattoo style wall
pa_arora
07-09 02:39 PM
I was talking abut this from the past 1 year approx (going on the streets). Good that we have finally decided to get ourselves heard on those deaf ears.
I am in for SJ.
One more suggestion, even if we dont see too much gathering there we should not stop here & should keep doing this atleast every couple of months.
I am in for SJ.
One more suggestion, even if we dont see too much gathering there we should not stop here & should keep doing this atleast every couple of months.
more...
house Heart Tattoo Traditional.
Ram_C
11-06 03:42 PM
I had taken an infopass appointment after filing an SR. All the IO said was I should call NSC. I don't think the IO's at the local USCIS office can issue FP notices.
Shall try again sometime this week or next and update the same here. I am a NSC->CSC->NSC transferee.
has it been more than a month since you opened SR??
Shall try again sometime this week or next and update the same here. I am a NSC->CSC->NSC transferee.
has it been more than a month since you opened SR??
tattoo 2010 Heart Tattoos Designs
fromnaija
11-18 10:17 AM
Done!
more...
pictures 2011 Girly Heart Tattoos.
test101
07-10 08:02 AM
sorry do not have fax ..... but if you make new thread asking people for help maybe someone can do it with you
dresses Heart and Banner - Traditional
manchala
11-19 09:39 AM
Done and I got it done with few friends also.
I will try contacting them today and will keep u posted..
Best..
RV
I will try contacting them today and will keep u posted..
Best..
RV
more...
makeup bleeding heart tattoos
sanjay
02-10 04:56 PM
and good job on the funds raised so far. I will contribute 50$ when we reach 5K. This is in addition to my recurring monthly contribution
Santb1975,
Make it to 2.5K instead of 5K. By the speed we are in right now, I don't think we will reach your destination so early. But contribution is being very slow. Sorry for being -ve.
Had this been a call to build some temple or religious place I bet we would had been collected 5 - 10 times more than what we are at now.
I took the example here from a temple collection in my area, which when planned to upgrade it's kitchen, collected more than 175K in 15 days.
Santb1975,
Make it to 2.5K instead of 5K. By the speed we are in right now, I don't think we will reach your destination so early. But contribution is being very slow. Sorry for being -ve.
Had this been a call to build some temple or religious place I bet we would had been collected 5 - 10 times more than what we are at now.
I took the example here from a temple collection in my area, which when planned to upgrade it's kitchen, collected more than 175K in 15 days.
girlfriend traditional wing heart chest
svgupta
05-23 11:43 AM
to everyone on the list.
Folks! who are still procrastinating .. plz DO send the mail right away. It won't matter if you do it later.
And sure, you can always think others are anyways, doing it... that should be enough. It won't be... Go ahead and send mails... (ref: 1st page of this thread).
GO IV!
Folks! who are still procrastinating .. plz DO send the mail right away. It won't matter if you do it later.
And sure, you can always think others are anyways, doing it... that should be enough. It won't be... Go ahead and send mails... (ref: 1st page of this thread).
GO IV!
hairstyles Heart Tattoos Designs Skin-Art
dingudi
03-18 11:24 AM
No FP yet for me either. spouse received and completed FP couple of weeks ago.
I do not understand why the national center tells that FP is based on local availability and local center tells no FP because name check pending . These are so inconsistent and different answers we get from same organization.
I do not understand why the national center tells that FP is based on local availability and local center tells no FP because name check pending . These are so inconsistent and different answers we get from same organization.
glus
05-23 11:26 AM
Fax numbers to key senators in DC offices:
Clinton: 202-228-2082
Schumer: 202-228-3027
Lott: 202-224-2262
Reid: 202-224-7327
Cornyn: 202-228-2856
Hagel: 202-224-5213
Martinez: 202-228-5171
McConnell: 202-224-2499
Kennedy: 202-224-2417
I faxed them....do it tooo......its for our good and our future.
Clinton: 202-228-2082
Schumer: 202-228-3027
Lott: 202-224-2262
Reid: 202-224-7327
Cornyn: 202-228-2856
Hagel: 202-224-5213
Martinez: 202-228-5171
McConnell: 202-224-2499
Kennedy: 202-224-2417
I faxed them....do it tooo......its for our good and our future.
kondur_007
07-28 02:08 PM
As I mentioned in my previous post in this thread, I am now posting information that explains why this "horizontal" spill occurred and no amount of campaign will reverse it (other than change in law).
If this is repetition of what has already been discussed elsewhere on the site, I apologize.
First, let me point out when and how the interpretation changed:
Following is from immigration-information.com site (Ron Gotcher):
�Last week, I wrote to Charles Oppenheim of the State Department, asking several specific questions. This morning, I had a long talk with him, when he very graciously called to respond to the questions I e-mailed him earlier. In the course of our discussion, I learned a great deal about the present backlog situation and what is being done about it. First, let me deal with the questions I had asked.
Mr. Oppenheim explained that while the Visa Office initially took the view that visa numbers had to fall down into employment third preference before the could fall across to the individual country quotas, but after further review, additional legislation, and consultation with Congress, they concluded that they have to allocate the fall across within individual preference petitions first.�
Direct link to above post:
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5456
Some more information from Ron Gotcher�s site can be found at following link
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5703
Now, let�s look at the actual law on this (above is only the interpretation from Mr Oppenheim, following is the actual text of the law: (my comment is in italics)
8 CFR Sec 202(a)
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS-
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph (read as under that EB category: if it is EB1, it goes to EB1 and if it is EB2 it goes to EB2) shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
Read the entire Sec 202 (a) here:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe
A glimpse of Sec 203(b) is:
b) Preference Allocation for Employment-Based Immigrants. - Aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 201(d) for employment-based immigrants in a fiscal year shall be allotted visas as follows:
(1) Priority workers. - Visas shall first be made available in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (4) and (5), to qualified immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): �.
Please read the entire section 203(b) here:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe
So, in nutshell:
1. The law is actually clear on this.
2. Now Mr. Oppenheim has interpreted it correctly as well.
3. It don�t think we can convince anyone to change the interpretation (because interpretation appears to be correct. If it was interpreted differently in past, then that was a mistake).
4. The only way to deal with it is to CHANGE THE LAW.
5. More importantly, push for bills to increase overall numbers (recapture, STEM exemption) etc�
6. The big picture: All these is likely to look completely different once CIR comes in, and we need to include our agenda in CIR that would benefit every category for several years to come (not just my GC or your GC).
If this is repetition of what has already been discussed elsewhere on the site, I apologize.
First, let me point out when and how the interpretation changed:
Following is from immigration-information.com site (Ron Gotcher):
�Last week, I wrote to Charles Oppenheim of the State Department, asking several specific questions. This morning, I had a long talk with him, when he very graciously called to respond to the questions I e-mailed him earlier. In the course of our discussion, I learned a great deal about the present backlog situation and what is being done about it. First, let me deal with the questions I had asked.
Mr. Oppenheim explained that while the Visa Office initially took the view that visa numbers had to fall down into employment third preference before the could fall across to the individual country quotas, but after further review, additional legislation, and consultation with Congress, they concluded that they have to allocate the fall across within individual preference petitions first.�
Direct link to above post:
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5456
Some more information from Ron Gotcher�s site can be found at following link
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5703
Now, let�s look at the actual law on this (above is only the interpretation from Mr Oppenheim, following is the actual text of the law: (my comment is in italics)
8 CFR Sec 202(a)
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS-
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph (read as under that EB category: if it is EB1, it goes to EB1 and if it is EB2 it goes to EB2) shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
Read the entire Sec 202 (a) here:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe
A glimpse of Sec 203(b) is:
b) Preference Allocation for Employment-Based Immigrants. - Aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 201(d) for employment-based immigrants in a fiscal year shall be allotted visas as follows:
(1) Priority workers. - Visas shall first be made available in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (4) and (5), to qualified immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): �.
Please read the entire section 203(b) here:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe
So, in nutshell:
1. The law is actually clear on this.
2. Now Mr. Oppenheim has interpreted it correctly as well.
3. It don�t think we can convince anyone to change the interpretation (because interpretation appears to be correct. If it was interpreted differently in past, then that was a mistake).
4. The only way to deal with it is to CHANGE THE LAW.
5. More importantly, push for bills to increase overall numbers (recapture, STEM exemption) etc�
6. The big picture: All these is likely to look completely different once CIR comes in, and we need to include our agenda in CIR that would benefit every category for several years to come (not just my GC or your GC).
No comments:
Post a Comment