kumar1
12-10 02:02 PM
There used to be a guy called VLDRAO.....self proclaimed DOS visa bulletin expert. Where is he these days? I would love to hear from him.
VLDRAO......save us!!!!!
VLDRAO......save us!!!!!
wallpaper Amor convey love more is
pkak
07-09 10:50 PM
That really makes Sense, I believe USCIS/DOS are smart agencies, and wont do those kind of silly mistakes..
Whether they are smart people or not, a future department of justice investigation will find out.
http://s202395528.onlinehome.us/category/general/
However I see a way out for DOS/USCIS. They can avoid class action by claiming that they had warned the public in advance via the July 2 update to the July visa bulletin, and had modified the July visa bulletin only on July 6, after warning the public in advance. This way they can accept all applications received till July 5, and will be covered against any class action law suits.
Whether they are smart people or not, a future department of justice investigation will find out.
http://s202395528.onlinehome.us/category/general/
However I see a way out for DOS/USCIS. They can avoid class action by claiming that they had warned the public in advance via the July 2 update to the July visa bulletin, and had modified the July visa bulletin only on July 6, after warning the public in advance. This way they can accept all applications received till July 5, and will be covered against any class action law suits.
alterego
07-14 09:37 PM
The fundamental rule (for getting GC) is the longterm intent of having permanent employment relationship between employer and employee at the time of filing 140 and 485 (see the Q&A). The intet has to be "at the time of filing" only. The employee has worked 3 years in H1B for thr sponser. It clearly establishes the both party's intent at the time of filing. So, even if the employer revokes his approved 140, he is 100% safe.
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as the poster above said the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as the poster above said the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
2011 Repaso al amor - love,
we_can
12-27 12:43 PM
Posted classified on portland.ekNazar.com
http://portland.eknazar.com/ekClassifieds/product_desc.php?id=127180
http://portland.eknazar.com/ekClassifieds/product_desc.php?id=127180
more...
![amor love. A-M-O-R [L-O-V-E] Letraset .](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tV1vVhRtYnJGnKNwklZdxzw3D_9v7n_HQ2GgYYC4ls3F7n5kYUmrHf3m9ADff8JjXmZOIm0XKTVjzgGGgTLUHN5YSanZgLFy-3rqC5ckC1aG7DZ-MnWibWDEXGZKryls9YTF99uZbX=s0-d "A-M-O-R [L-O-V-E] Letraset .")
Legal_In_A_Limbo
03-14 05:51 PM
Thanks for sharing the info. Did you get any new attorney?
I self filed, as will be doing AC-21 in a month or so.
So wanted to make sure i revoke my company attorney.
Thanks
I self filed, as will be doing AC-21 in a month or so.
So wanted to make sure i revoke my company attorney.
Thanks
desi3933
02-03 01:04 PM
desi3933,
Thanks for your response. I did little digging on the H1 LCA front.Here's what I found out and I have one question too.
....
....
Do you have any idea ,in case of RFE, what happens if we just send W2 without LCA/ with latest LCA?
Thank you.
Like I said before, W2 should be good enough. If you get employment letter for that period, that will be better.
Typically LCAs are not needed, unless asked to prove H1-B status for job location and other related issues.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
Thanks for your response. I did little digging on the H1 LCA front.Here's what I found out and I have one question too.
....
....
Do you have any idea ,in case of RFE, what happens if we just send W2 without LCA/ with latest LCA?
Thank you.
Like I said before, W2 should be good enough. If you get employment letter for that period, that will be better.
Typically LCAs are not needed, unless asked to prove H1-B status for job location and other related issues.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
more...
Sunx_2004
10-25 11:32 AM
Priority date: April 2004
Please participate in EB3 Poll
Please participate in EB3 Poll
2010 flower showing amor love;
485Mbe4001
09-11 11:58 AM
wow..they resume discussions on sept 18th?
Here is the info from NumbersUSA:
Vote on Foreign-Worker Bills Postponed Amid Growing Opposition
Updated Thursday, September 11, 2008, 10:00 AM
The House Judiciary Committee yesterday postponed consideration of bills containing massive foreign worker increases (H.R. 5882 and H.R. 5924) after the committee's debate stalled during discussions on the armed forces amnesty bill (H.R. 6020). The committee is expected to resume consideration of all three bills on September 18
Here is the info from NumbersUSA:
Vote on Foreign-Worker Bills Postponed Amid Growing Opposition
Updated Thursday, September 11, 2008, 10:00 AM
The House Judiciary Committee yesterday postponed consideration of bills containing massive foreign worker increases (H.R. 5882 and H.R. 5924) after the committee's debate stalled during discussions on the armed forces amnesty bill (H.R. 6020). The committee is expected to resume consideration of all three bills on September 18
more...
desi3933
02-09 03:14 PM
And reply you will never get.
141,020 visa numbers used in FY2009
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
141,020 visa numbers used in FY2009
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
hair Anime Love Couple Kiss
bigboy007
06-11 11:11 AM
See below what Anti Immigrants are doing. Each and everyone visits this site should sign what IV have given the link
The following makes no sense it is utter non-sense.
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON�T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders� office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely
Called up my friends, forwarded to dozens of my friends and asked them to forward.
The following makes no sense it is utter non-sense.
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON�T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders� office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely
Called up my friends, forwarded to dozens of my friends and asked them to forward.
more...
Ramba
07-04 08:13 PM
Source:
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0482.shtm
others: various law firm sites, including
www.ilw.com
http://pubweb.fdbl.com/news1.nsf/9abe5d703b986cff86256e310080943a/41399c23bb40f2ff8525730c007f830a?OpenDocument
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated new 485 filings. : 700K is conservative. May be wrong too.
LC s certified from BEC: about 200K (from 2001 to 2005 filings)
PERM Certifed labor: About 200K (from Mar 2005 to June 2007)
Total LC: 400K. Let us assume 100K already appliled. Lets say 300K is affected by retrogression.
The dependents for 300k will be 450K (1.5 times primary)
So total AOS applicants will be 750K just based on LC. Excluding EB1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0482.shtm
others: various law firm sites, including
www.ilw.com
http://pubweb.fdbl.com/news1.nsf/9abe5d703b986cff86256e310080943a/41399c23bb40f2ff8525730c007f830a?OpenDocument
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated new 485 filings. : 700K is conservative. May be wrong too.
LC s certified from BEC: about 200K (from 2001 to 2005 filings)
PERM Certifed labor: About 200K (from Mar 2005 to June 2007)
Total LC: 400K. Let us assume 100K already appliled. Lets say 300K is affected by retrogression.
The dependents for 300k will be 450K (1.5 times primary)
So total AOS applicants will be 750K just based on LC. Excluding EB1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
hot A-M-O-R [L-O-V-E] Letraset .
vandanaverdia
09-11 12:45 PM
This aint my fight... This aint your fight..
THIS IS OUR FIGHT!!!
We need to come together & let our voices be heard!!!
Come to DC...
There is very little time & lots to achieve...
There are miles to go before I sleep.....
THIS IS OUR FIGHT!!!
We need to come together & let our voices be heard!!!
Come to DC...
There is very little time & lots to achieve...
There are miles to go before I sleep.....
more...
house amor backgrounds. wallpapers
dreamgc_real
07-02 09:21 AM
I think the new reference # for the Sanders Amendment is now
Senate Amendment 4439 to the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act (H.R. 5297).. Correct??
People will be sending emails to senators with reference to the wrong amendment if this text is not corrected!!
Cannot find the change on the reference in thomas.gov
Sent the message to my senators
Senate Amendment 4439 to the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act (H.R. 5297).. Correct??
People will be sending emails to senators with reference to the wrong amendment if this text is not corrected!!
Cannot find the change on the reference in thomas.gov
Sent the message to my senators
tattoo I love you cosas de amor I
NKR
10-16 03:24 PM
So to put extensive blame on USCIS for the "reaction" (I assume you are talking about the backlogs) is not right.
Read your above sentence, then read your below sentence. If I try to find a relation between these two sentences I do not know what you are talking.
Firstly: If USCIS was reacting, they would not have approved the so called "newer" applications.
Second: When you say "approving" newer applications, are you saying approving older applications by PD or older applications by RD/ND (with older being 3-4 year older RD/PD)?? USCIS has never had to process applications by PD, only factor they have is RD/ND. PD just tells when someone can be approved (or apply), it doesn't get you any priority in the processing queue. I am sure you dont want the situation where you have your later PD, earlier RD, but someone who chose to delay his app to come with an ancient PD, but a fresh RD to get processed ahead of you (when both of you are current) do you?
Again I am not sure what you are saying but MY PD is in early 2004 and RD was in Aug, they moved my application to another centre and my new RD is Oct. then I saw 2006 and 2007 cases getting approved. This is not right, why are they going by RD and not on PD?.
I am bit out of touch, but isn't PERM/BEC a DoL operation not USCIS. Then again, those were the factors you have no control. Even when it was just the Labor Cert process, there had been disparities between various processing centers. Some people made use of provisions (sometimes fraudulently) to get their LCs through these "fast" process centers. I too have been affected by the Perm/LC situation, but I don't think USCIS is to take blame on that.
Exactly dude, there should be some synchronization between DOL and USCIS. Just saying that USCIS is not responsible for DOL�s actions does not solve the problem, they can conveniently blame each other and take till eternity to process applications and you will keep saying the same thing that USCIS is not to be blamed.
Am I defending USCIS: No, I am just saying if people want a Flower campaign, they should go ahead with it. No point putting FUD to stop people from doing what they want.
No, you did not say that, all you said was USCIS is not doing anything wrong.
Read your above sentence, then read your below sentence. If I try to find a relation between these two sentences I do not know what you are talking.
Firstly: If USCIS was reacting, they would not have approved the so called "newer" applications.
Second: When you say "approving" newer applications, are you saying approving older applications by PD or older applications by RD/ND (with older being 3-4 year older RD/PD)?? USCIS has never had to process applications by PD, only factor they have is RD/ND. PD just tells when someone can be approved (or apply), it doesn't get you any priority in the processing queue. I am sure you dont want the situation where you have your later PD, earlier RD, but someone who chose to delay his app to come with an ancient PD, but a fresh RD to get processed ahead of you (when both of you are current) do you?
Again I am not sure what you are saying but MY PD is in early 2004 and RD was in Aug, they moved my application to another centre and my new RD is Oct. then I saw 2006 and 2007 cases getting approved. This is not right, why are they going by RD and not on PD?.
I am bit out of touch, but isn't PERM/BEC a DoL operation not USCIS. Then again, those were the factors you have no control. Even when it was just the Labor Cert process, there had been disparities between various processing centers. Some people made use of provisions (sometimes fraudulently) to get their LCs through these "fast" process centers. I too have been affected by the Perm/LC situation, but I don't think USCIS is to take blame on that.
Exactly dude, there should be some synchronization between DOL and USCIS. Just saying that USCIS is not responsible for DOL�s actions does not solve the problem, they can conveniently blame each other and take till eternity to process applications and you will keep saying the same thing that USCIS is not to be blamed.
Am I defending USCIS: No, I am just saying if people want a Flower campaign, they should go ahead with it. No point putting FUD to stop people from doing what they want.
No, you did not say that, all you said was USCIS is not doing anything wrong.
more...
pictures love-amor-enamorados
BharatPremi
03-07 09:23 AM
It is bit shocking to know that one will have to pay for just AC21 notification. I mean, if you already have lawyer associated with your GC file, which I believe, most of us should have either appointed by our employer OR hired by ourselves (Many companies give a choice to hire "your own" lawyer). I understand that since one change the employment, the general criteria is to assume that the lawyer (If paticularly appointed by past employer) is now no more attached to the case. But in truth it is not. Fulfilling AC21 notification is part of the whole end to end package since case remains same unless you notify USCIS to change your attorney. In my case I was given a choice to hire "My Own lawyer" and once I started to work on EAD, virtually now he is my lawyer not "my employer's lawyer" and hence he will be sending AC21 related paperwork to USCIS though he told me that he would not do it right now as he is busy with H1 filing load. And yes no extra cost involved..
dresses amor heart. heart, love
v7461558
07-17 11:23 AM
See? It works. Nothing like instant gratification!
Go after the lies one by one. We have the power to disassemble lies, because knowledge is power.
Anyone want to take on #3?
After a while, they'll get tired and take the whole thing down. Whatever other methods of propagating lies they try, we have the power to expose them. And, the laws are on our side.
Go after the lies one by one. We have the power to disassemble lies, because knowledge is power.
Anyone want to take on #3?
After a while, they'll get tired and take the whole thing down. Whatever other methods of propagating lies they try, we have the power to expose them. And, the laws are on our side.
more...
makeup Drawing #39;Amor-love#39; captioned
a_yaja
01-16 09:49 PM
How can you pan to live long term without being a resident is something I don't understand..
I am assuming that by this you mean "long term plans without having a GC". While it might be difficult to imagine setting roots in this country without a GC, it also means that for some reason you think that the GC will be denied and so you don't want to set roots in this country.
If you don't think your GC will be denied, I don't see any problem in making long term plans and setting roots here while waiting for the GC. It is going to happen - it is just a matter of time.
I am assuming that by this you mean "long term plans without having a GC". While it might be difficult to imagine setting roots in this country without a GC, it also means that for some reason you think that the GC will be denied and so you don't want to set roots in this country.
If you don't think your GC will be denied, I don't see any problem in making long term plans and setting roots here while waiting for the GC. It is going to happen - it is just a matter of time.
girlfriend SIMPLESMENTE AMOR LOVE
gvenkat
10-21 12:38 PM
/* Last 8 years, Republicans have done nothing to improve GC system. Lets give democrats a chance this time. */
Do you have a voting right? Look whoever comes will not care abt EB3 India... for some time. The system has to fix itself or needs to be changed. If ppl with priority date of 2003 gets the GC around 2010. We should thank our stars and be happy.:)
Do you have a voting right? Look whoever comes will not care abt EB3 India... for some time. The system has to fix itself or needs to be changed. If ppl with priority date of 2003 gets the GC around 2010. We should thank our stars and be happy.:)
hairstyles lovea love Album posted by
mahujam
10-15 04:51 PM
What are you suggesting? Please speak in lay man's terms.
All I am suggesting is that people who need copies of their LCA/I-140 should apply for that now before the queue gets saturated with this request.
Given this economy, there is a good chance that a whole lot of us will need to use EAD and do a AC-21. Not all of us have our job descriptions and O*net codes to do a successful AC-21 application.
And my question is: will sending multiple copies of this make any difference ?? How many copies are really required to get their attention??
All I am suggesting is that people who need copies of their LCA/I-140 should apply for that now before the queue gets saturated with this request.
Given this economy, there is a good chance that a whole lot of us will need to use EAD and do a AC-21. Not all of us have our job descriptions and O*net codes to do a successful AC-21 application.
And my question is: will sending multiple copies of this make any difference ?? How many copies are really required to get their attention??
feedfront
11-02 12:43 PM
RFE : Sep 10 2010,
Did you receive physical card?
Did you receive physical card?
venkataramesh
07-02 01:14 PM
Done