pappu
03-25 09:49 AM
We support all bills and all legislations that help us. Whether its STRIVE act of 2007, or some new version in the House or the new version in the senate or any new name of a bill that helps us.
wallpaper is obama bin laden. obama bin
eb3retro
07-08 05:55 PM
you still didnt answer my question, who are you and why are you here and that too sneakily...(;)). Caught you pretty good eh??
To solve the EB immigration issue, we need to focus on issues that are pertinent to the problem. How and why does it matter what my status is? I know the truth hurts, but just coz someone does not like it, does not change it. I am not giving my opinion - it's the truth.
To solve the EB immigration issue, we need to focus on issues that are pertinent to the problem. How and why does it matter what my status is? I know the truth hurts, but just coz someone does not like it, does not change it. I am not giving my opinion - it's the truth.
MDix
02-13 03:15 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=97e19c337879d110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=54519c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Please share your thoughts.
Thanks,
MDix
Please share your thoughts.
Thanks,
MDix
2011 Bin Laden Celebrities Pictures
kevinkris
01-28 12:53 AM
Sorry all, i couldn't find video in english. But the video says it all.
Chip locks which are normally used against terrorists and criminals are used
on students of tri valley univeristy.
It's a human rights, privacy issue at it's peak..
It's heart breaking to see like this..
There may be scam from students, university but it's also problem from consulate, USCIS etc.
This is ridiculous..
YouTube - AP students face US deportation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxFHw56fTwE&feature=player_embedded)
Chip locks which are normally used against terrorists and criminals are used
on students of tri valley univeristy.
It's a human rights, privacy issue at it's peak..
It's heart breaking to see like this..
There may be scam from students, university but it's also problem from consulate, USCIS etc.
This is ridiculous..
YouTube - AP students face US deportation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxFHw56fTwE&feature=player_embedded)
more...
sanbaj
05-05 03:26 PM
Hi,
Here is my situation:
Company A:
EB2 PD Aug 2006
140 Approved
485 Applied July '07 (Got EAD and AP for myself and wife. I am still on H1B but wife used EAD)
Still working with Company A and intend to work with them for another couple of years.
Company B:
EB2 PD Nov 2005 (Substitution labor)
140 Approved.
Can I interfile or do the PD porting so that I can get the older PD? If so, do I have to work for Company B?
I dont have a copy of the LCA and I may not have the original of the approved 140. Can I use a copy of 140 approval notice to apply for the interfile?
Do I need any kind of document from Company B like employment letter in future ?
Does the PD need to be current to interfile?
Do I need to work for Company B?
Does this process in anyway create problems for my current 485 status? My wife used EAD but I have been on H1B with the company that filed for my 485.
I already completed 180 days after filing 485. So, I can use AC21. Will this interfiling process have any impact on that?
How would I know that interfiling process completed successfully?
If USCIS denys the interfile I submitted, does that have any impact on my current 485 process?
If I want to use AC21, does that new job need be similar to Company A or Company B job requirement?
Thank you everyone..
My case is similar to yours except for me the company was the same for both I140s. The only thing my lawyer sent with the request was the Original I140 Approval Notice on the Second (Older PD) I140 (In your case that is Company A's I140). When the AOS application was filed, the Original I140 of Company A was used. The basic content of the letter is already explained in previous posts on this thread. Read them carefully. Also, consult a prudent and capabale lawyer who has some experience in successful Interfiling cases.
If both the I140s are approved on your name, there should be no issue as they have already done all the work related to Proferred Wage, DOL work categories (SOC codes), etc. AOS is just for adjustment into PR status on the basis of approved I140, of which you have two.
I am no lawyer, therefore, please consult a good lawyer to make sure all your questions are answered.
Hope this helps.
Here is my situation:
Company A:
EB2 PD Aug 2006
140 Approved
485 Applied July '07 (Got EAD and AP for myself and wife. I am still on H1B but wife used EAD)
Still working with Company A and intend to work with them for another couple of years.
Company B:
EB2 PD Nov 2005 (Substitution labor)
140 Approved.
Can I interfile or do the PD porting so that I can get the older PD? If so, do I have to work for Company B?
I dont have a copy of the LCA and I may not have the original of the approved 140. Can I use a copy of 140 approval notice to apply for the interfile?
Do I need any kind of document from Company B like employment letter in future ?
Does the PD need to be current to interfile?
Do I need to work for Company B?
Does this process in anyway create problems for my current 485 status? My wife used EAD but I have been on H1B with the company that filed for my 485.
I already completed 180 days after filing 485. So, I can use AC21. Will this interfiling process have any impact on that?
How would I know that interfiling process completed successfully?
If USCIS denys the interfile I submitted, does that have any impact on my current 485 process?
If I want to use AC21, does that new job need be similar to Company A or Company B job requirement?
Thank you everyone..
My case is similar to yours except for me the company was the same for both I140s. The only thing my lawyer sent with the request was the Original I140 Approval Notice on the Second (Older PD) I140 (In your case that is Company A's I140). When the AOS application was filed, the Original I140 of Company A was used. The basic content of the letter is already explained in previous posts on this thread. Read them carefully. Also, consult a prudent and capabale lawyer who has some experience in successful Interfiling cases.
If both the I140s are approved on your name, there should be no issue as they have already done all the work related to Proferred Wage, DOL work categories (SOC codes), etc. AOS is just for adjustment into PR status on the basis of approved I140, of which you have two.
I am no lawyer, therefore, please consult a good lawyer to make sure all your questions are answered.
Hope this helps.
rb_248
10-29 12:00 PM
NRK,
Did you visit any country that might have triggered this?
Have you ever faced any issues with your last name being on no fly list?
You have pretty much answered no to most of the questions asked by other posters. If the answers to the above questions are no too, then it must be USCIS error.
Did you visit any country that might have triggered this?
Have you ever faced any issues with your last name being on no fly list?
You have pretty much answered no to most of the questions asked by other posters. If the answers to the above questions are no too, then it must be USCIS error.
more...
ivy55
03-26 05:54 AM
Anyone in Delaware please reply
2010 Obama Bin Laden is Dead
uslegals
11-06 11:02 AM
Thanks bharatpremi - thats a pretty comprehensive scenario.! Very helpful indeed.!
My Infopass appt. is next week in baltimore. My EAD & AP are still pending for both me and my wife. 90 days was y'day.! USCIS recd. our EAD & AP applications on 8/7.
I have scheduled my appt. for tuesday morning. I could provide only my info (A# and receipt #) online - can i take my wife along too although she hasn't officially scheduled a appt for tuesday with me.? Do you know if they may object when we have filled ii only 1 person online but 2 show up for the appt.?
Thanks.!
My Infopass appt. is next week in baltimore. My EAD & AP are still pending for both me and my wife. 90 days was y'day.! USCIS recd. our EAD & AP applications on 8/7.
I have scheduled my appt. for tuesday morning. I could provide only my info (A# and receipt #) online - can i take my wife along too although she hasn't officially scheduled a appt for tuesday with me.? Do you know if they may object when we have filled ii only 1 person online but 2 show up for the appt.?
Thanks.!
more...
LostInGCProcess
10-29 02:05 PM
I think it all started in 2007. As you guys know there were mass applications filed in 2007 from everyone who were current including EB2/ROW/I/C and EB3 /ROW/I/C.
Just my Honest Opinion.
Well said. Its absolutely true and makes sense. But to delay, it appears that some processes in the agency may be done manually. Otherwise mere increase in number of applications should not cause adverse impact to processing time. I am saying this based on my personal experience working for the state gov. with unemployment benefit system where the claims increased by 3 time, last year...and there was not much of an impact with regards to delaying in printing of checks every week. Only the batch jobs ran longer....but everything was streamline in couple of weeks after the spike.
Just my Honest Opinion.
Well said. Its absolutely true and makes sense. But to delay, it appears that some processes in the agency may be done manually. Otherwise mere increase in number of applications should not cause adverse impact to processing time. I am saying this based on my personal experience working for the state gov. with unemployment benefit system where the claims increased by 3 time, last year...and there was not much of an impact with regards to delaying in printing of checks every week. Only the batch jobs ran longer....but everything was streamline in couple of weeks after the spike.
hair obama in laden funny. obama
ChainReaction
06-24 06:56 PM
Once this Mela of accepting 485 is over ...looks like dates will retrogress to somewhere in 2003 or 2004 .. hopefully it is 2004
I hope for the same,lets see in October VB :D :D :D
I hope for the same,lets see in October VB :D :D :D
more...
Drifter
04-01 06:18 PM
I am in serious trouble, please read and comment if you can help.
- Spouse (Primary) and I filed I 485 in June 2007. (PD March 2004)
- Spouse Application is approved in July 2008
- Spouse changes employers after approval
- In October 08 we write to the law firm that initially filed the I 485 to withdraw their representation.
- In Nov 08 the Law firm incorrectly writes to USCIS to with draw the I 485 application.
- In March 08 I get an email from USCIS stating my application is withdrawn.
I obtained the notice of withdrawal and the notice says
'As a result of your request, your application is considered withdrawn, and it will recieve no further consideration by USCIS. There is no appeal to this decision.'
Neither I nor my wife have authorized the attorney to withdraw the application, we only wanted them to withdraw their representation (I have the letter we wrote to them and it clearly states it.)
what can we do.
Is it possible to reinstate our case?
Can we refile my AOS again, even thought the primary applicants green card is approved more than 6 months ago?
- Spouse (Primary) and I filed I 485 in June 2007. (PD March 2004)
- Spouse Application is approved in July 2008
- Spouse changes employers after approval
- In October 08 we write to the law firm that initially filed the I 485 to withdraw their representation.
- In Nov 08 the Law firm incorrectly writes to USCIS to with draw the I 485 application.
- In March 08 I get an email from USCIS stating my application is withdrawn.
I obtained the notice of withdrawal and the notice says
'As a result of your request, your application is considered withdrawn, and it will recieve no further consideration by USCIS. There is no appeal to this decision.'
Neither I nor my wife have authorized the attorney to withdraw the application, we only wanted them to withdraw their representation (I have the letter we wrote to them and it clearly states it.)
what can we do.
Is it possible to reinstate our case?
Can we refile my AOS again, even thought the primary applicants green card is approved more than 6 months ago?
hot video sot.obama.bin.laden.
sertasheep
07-07 09:02 PM
link to Dr. Bahrainwala's video: http://immigrationvoice.blogspot.com/2007/07/iv-member-in-news.html along, with some background info. Thanks to member mbawa2574 for capturing the video(is there a better captured version elsewhere?)
more...
house Obama Bin Laden Fox News
vbkris77
11-30 05:10 PM
Thanks for the good work. However, I saw a major potential flaw in estimating the applications from ROW. The report finds the life cycle for a ROWer to submit 485 is 1 year, thus assuming little AOS applications will be filed in the coming year from ROW. But this analysis forgot to consider those ROWers who started GC in year 2008. A person who started working in 11/2008 is ready to submit 485 now and uses one quota, even if a person who just started working won't be able to submit AOS till a year from now. With this under consideration, I feel the spillover will be much less than initially estimated.
Please correct me if I missed anything.
Good observation, but the economy wasn't good in 2008 either and most of the time both PERM centers were closed for business. Chicago was closed in mid year and Atlanta wasn't working from late 2007 till early 2009.
So the number of PERM approvals would be very low. Assuming CIS cleared most of the I140 backlog as they indicated, their I485 numbers should include the recent ROW approvals as they become real backlog applications (backlogged by CIS processing not by visa numbers)
I am still waiting for the 2009 DOL and State report to validate this information.
Please correct me if I missed anything.
Good observation, but the economy wasn't good in 2008 either and most of the time both PERM centers were closed for business. Chicago was closed in mid year and Atlanta wasn't working from late 2007 till early 2009.
So the number of PERM approvals would be very low. Assuming CIS cleared most of the I140 backlog as they indicated, their I485 numbers should include the recent ROW approvals as they become real backlog applications (backlogged by CIS processing not by visa numbers)
I am still waiting for the 2009 DOL and State report to validate this information.
tattoo Obama Bin Laden
Znan
07-25 04:49 PM
I see your point, I would still prefer browsing and having migranes than paying attention and doing all that the wife says (Impossible exists in one placec for sure-just try doing what she tells you for once:D)
It is not about you browsing on this forum continously..it is about you not paying attention to your wife continoulsy.:D:D
Even if there would no IV..wife will tell you the same for some other stuff you are following vigourously.
It is not about you browsing on this forum continously..it is about you not paying attention to your wife continoulsy.:D:D
Even if there would no IV..wife will tell you the same for some other stuff you are following vigourously.
more...
pictures Osama Bin Laden: Bush Failed,
ash0210
12-04 05:37 PM
Wow!!! if its so then its good!!!
As per new SSN statement, I have around 80K in SSN and around same equal amount of Medicare money and wondering if we can take back home SSN money, what will happen to our Medicare money?
Any News regarding Medicare money? can we take advantage of Medicare money in our country?
If you move back to India permanently, you can take you social security money with you.
As per new SSN statement, I have around 80K in SSN and around same equal amount of Medicare money and wondering if we can take back home SSN money, what will happen to our Medicare money?
Any News regarding Medicare money? can we take advantage of Medicare money in our country?
If you move back to India permanently, you can take you social security money with you.
dresses obama bin laden funny. hair
sunty
12-01 12:19 PM
Just my 2 cents, but I think the quarterly spillover might not happen (Hope I am wrong) for various reasons...
1. If they do quarterly spillovers allocating the left over EB1 to other categories, then it is theoretically possible in the last quarter that, if there is a surge in EB1 applications, CIS might be left with not enough visa numbers for EB1 , and subsequently EB1 might not reach the 28% (or whatever this number) of total employment GCs. This situation will further compound the problem for CIS...Given the situation, this might not be practical, but theoretically possible...So CIS might be thinking, "why have the headache to deal every quarter when the numbers will be clear in the last quarter"
2. Since the spillover also includes Family based to EB, this even more complicates the above issue.
3. Well, administratively it is easy for CIS to issue the spillover visas once at the end of the year, rather than do 4 times a year at the end of each quarter. I guess less work with the same result...
So, in essence USCIS/DOS are allowed to bend the law since there workloads would increase and their systems are not sophisticated enough to implement this. I guess there is no point in raising this issue anymore...:(
1. If they do quarterly spillovers allocating the left over EB1 to other categories, then it is theoretically possible in the last quarter that, if there is a surge in EB1 applications, CIS might be left with not enough visa numbers for EB1 , and subsequently EB1 might not reach the 28% (or whatever this number) of total employment GCs. This situation will further compound the problem for CIS...Given the situation, this might not be practical, but theoretically possible...So CIS might be thinking, "why have the headache to deal every quarter when the numbers will be clear in the last quarter"
2. Since the spillover also includes Family based to EB, this even more complicates the above issue.
3. Well, administratively it is easy for CIS to issue the spillover visas once at the end of the year, rather than do 4 times a year at the end of each quarter. I guess less work with the same result...
So, in essence USCIS/DOS are allowed to bend the law since there workloads would increase and their systems are not sophisticated enough to implement this. I guess there is no point in raising this issue anymore...:(
more...
makeup Obama+bin+laden+funny
kumar4875
04-29 02:18 PM
WOW --Right from relationship between coutries tot he pros and cons of war planes we are discussing here.We have people with nice political knowledge per se Ministers and Kings who can analyze how just 11 billion (bully)dollar deal can affect the Green card processing and we have Generals and colonels who knows which fghter plane is good for which country.
But still we are able to manage only around 200 for the advocasy event and large amount of donataions which barely met the expenses. what a pity ;)
But still we are able to manage only around 200 for the advocasy event and large amount of donataions which barely met the expenses. what a pity ;)
girlfriend Obama Bin Laden headline fail
prabasiodia
08-09 05:24 PM
I think these memos might have been dissected a thousand times, but here they are:
Continuing validity of I-140: http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/I140_AC21_8403.pdf
AC21 guidelines: http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21intrm051205.pdf
It's clear that the stress is on "intent". If at the filing of I-485, both the employer and the employee had the intent, it's fine. The only restriction is, one may not be looking for "same or similar" job at the time of I-485 adjudication. Why this restriction is even there is beyond me. It doesn't clearly state how much time after the adjudication, you should not be looking.
Of course, the lawyers seem to be on the cautious side. Read the last sentence under intent in the following site (AC21: Changing employer while waiting for pending adjustment of status (http://www..com/greencard/adjustmentofstatus/changing-employer.html) ). It says that ...theoretically, USCIS might be able to revisit the adjudication of I-485 and initiate revocation processing.
This inference is without any attribution.
Then again, I couldn't find a single case where the I-485 was revoked because of suspected fraud in "Intent". We do need clarification from USCIS on this.
Continuing validity of I-140: http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/I140_AC21_8403.pdf
AC21 guidelines: http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21intrm051205.pdf
It's clear that the stress is on "intent". If at the filing of I-485, both the employer and the employee had the intent, it's fine. The only restriction is, one may not be looking for "same or similar" job at the time of I-485 adjudication. Why this restriction is even there is beyond me. It doesn't clearly state how much time after the adjudication, you should not be looking.
Of course, the lawyers seem to be on the cautious side. Read the last sentence under intent in the following site (AC21: Changing employer while waiting for pending adjustment of status (http://www..com/greencard/adjustmentofstatus/changing-employer.html) ). It says that ...theoretically, USCIS might be able to revisit the adjudication of I-485 and initiate revocation processing.
This inference is without any attribution.
Then again, I couldn't find a single case where the I-485 was revoked because of suspected fraud in "Intent". We do need clarification from USCIS on this.
hairstyles obama bin laden shirt.
like_watching_paint_dry
02-27 04:23 PM
Since the CP guys are in minority here , if IV has to invest for them (read we all have to pay for them ) let us see how much they can contribute for their own provision. Let us see if each one of them contribute more than 500 dollars to IV and posts the paypal number.
Why should majority allow a provison for some minority who do not even want to first contribute.
It's not like IV is not addressing their problem with the current mandate. IV seeks to address the retrogression issue. If retrogression is addressed, it will benefit the minority CP filers just as much as the majority 485 filers.
These two (willwin and tinku) somehow fail to understand that big picture and are only interested in getting IV contributors to pay for their short term interests - all because they made a mistake, got greedy, gambled, thought they can beat the 485 filers to the finish line by going CP... bla-bla-bla.
Not on my dime.
Why should majority allow a provison for some minority who do not even want to first contribute.
It's not like IV is not addressing their problem with the current mandate. IV seeks to address the retrogression issue. If retrogression is addressed, it will benefit the minority CP filers just as much as the majority 485 filers.
These two (willwin and tinku) somehow fail to understand that big picture and are only interested in getting IV contributors to pay for their short term interests - all because they made a mistake, got greedy, gambled, thought they can beat the 485 filers to the finish line by going CP... bla-bla-bla.
Not on my dime.
arc
10-03 11:21 AM
Transfer people are stuck for FP notices... If only csc could have done the FP along with the ead/ap...
coloniel60
08-20 06:39 PM
I wish you all the best. This kind of cheating from the employer hurts the most. I wish some immigration lawywer or ILA steps up and advises what employees can do in these kind of situations. I know labor substitution is legal but in this case the employer gave false hopes to the employee that he will sponsor his GC and that should be illegal and could be used as an excuse to sue the employer.
Most of us hesitate to hire lawyer to go after these sc** bag employers because we are scared of the lawyers as well. We don't know how much it will cost us and we don't know what the outcome will be. That's why it will be helpful if some reputed lawyer or ILA comes out and tell us what our options are when these kind of things happen.
But then employers and these lawyers go hand in hand so I doubt if one goes against the other. I wish atleast USCIS gives us some guidelines.
I bet that if we can successfully sue one cheating employer then we will see hundreds of similar cases and the employers will be scared to even think about doing this again.
Most of us hesitate to hire lawyer to go after these sc** bag employers because we are scared of the lawyers as well. We don't know how much it will cost us and we don't know what the outcome will be. That's why it will be helpful if some reputed lawyer or ILA comes out and tell us what our options are when these kind of things happen.
But then employers and these lawyers go hand in hand so I doubt if one goes against the other. I wish atleast USCIS gives us some guidelines.
I bet that if we can successfully sue one cheating employer then we will see hundreds of similar cases and the employers will be scared to even think about doing this again.