Joozz
09-21 08:39 AM
Thanks a lot guys for answers and advices.
Another interesting thing that happened to me. After I got this extension I went to Canada and got a new visa in my passport and it’s also valid for two more years. If my H1B extension was made by mistake it looks like I committed a fraud asking visa in my passport based on documents that are not valid.
I am so confused now. Can anybody please recommend a good layer who can give me a legal advice, preferably from central PA?
Another interesting thing that happened to me. After I got this extension I went to Canada and got a new visa in my passport and it’s also valid for two more years. If my H1B extension was made by mistake it looks like I committed a fraud asking visa in my passport based on documents that are not valid.
I am so confused now. Can anybody please recommend a good layer who can give me a legal advice, preferably from central PA?
poorslumdog
09-04 03:38 PM
If at this rate the people are dying, In 1-2 years every one will be finished.
Do they die because of RAT FEVER, SLUM DOG FEVER, MONKEY FEVER or SWINE FLUE ???
Man...you rock
Do they die because of RAT FEVER, SLUM DOG FEVER, MONKEY FEVER or SWINE FLUE ???
Man...you rock
pappu
11-21 06:49 AM
Should we mail paulmcd@cmp.com (Paul McDougall )of information Week.
See: http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=194700008&subSection=All+Stories
sure. send it.
The article says---
"A lobby group backed by IBM, Microsoft, Intel, and other tech industry giants is urging Congress to pass a new research and development tax credit and increase the supply of H1-B immigrant visas before the current session adjourns."
H1B visa is not an immigrant visa. It is a non immigrant visa. Everybody confuses H1B visa as the immigrant high skilled visas (Gcs). Moreover this article has no mention of greencards.
Gcs are not part of their agenda as per their website-- http://www.itaa.org/policy/immigration/
We will be neglected and our voice will not be heard if we dont do anything. IV core is working hard but they cannot do it alone without the help from each and every member. Each IV member is important to our success. We cannot afford to leave it to others to do it for us. The collective muscle of our efforts will create miracles for us. I see from a total of 450+ members that logged in yesterday only 12 people sent emails to 60 min. This kind of response to calls for action will not help our cause. Same goes for the state chapters. How many of us have actually gone to the state chapter thread and signed up? Pls. ask this yourself before posting new messages on the forum.
See: http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=194700008&subSection=All+Stories
sure. send it.
The article says---
"A lobby group backed by IBM, Microsoft, Intel, and other tech industry giants is urging Congress to pass a new research and development tax credit and increase the supply of H1-B immigrant visas before the current session adjourns."
H1B visa is not an immigrant visa. It is a non immigrant visa. Everybody confuses H1B visa as the immigrant high skilled visas (Gcs). Moreover this article has no mention of greencards.
Gcs are not part of their agenda as per their website-- http://www.itaa.org/policy/immigration/
We will be neglected and our voice will not be heard if we dont do anything. IV core is working hard but they cannot do it alone without the help from each and every member. Each IV member is important to our success. We cannot afford to leave it to others to do it for us. The collective muscle of our efforts will create miracles for us. I see from a total of 450+ members that logged in yesterday only 12 people sent emails to 60 min. This kind of response to calls for action will not help our cause. Same goes for the state chapters. How many of us have actually gone to the state chapter thread and signed up? Pls. ask this yourself before posting new messages on the forum.
BharatPremi
07-11 11:18 PM
Thanks to the person who posted the link to the Ombundsman report earlier - this is beginning to make sense now.
USCIS Ombundsman report from JUNE 2007 says:
"For example, when employment-based visas are not used during the year they are authorized, they are lost and are not available for future use without special legislation. In FY 06, over 10,000 employment-based visas were lost, even though USCIS had an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 pending applications for employment-based green cards.36 - Based on USCIS use of visa numbers as of May 2007, at present consumption rates approximately 40,000 visas will be lost in FY 07 without a dramatic increase in USCIS requests of visa numbers.37
- As illustrated below, since 1994 there have been over 218,000 un-recaptured employment-based visas lost due to underutilization of the employment-based visas."
Dept of State: Sees visa numbers not being used, chances of visas going unutilized/unused/wasted/lost again this year. Makes July visa bulletin CURRENT for all countries & categories.
USCIS: Scrambles to approve as many visas as possible to 1) Prove they're working hard, in light of the Ombundsman Report from June 2) Save themselves from the avalanche of I-485s, EADs and AP filings in June, knowing 3) Filing fees go up like crazy on 30th July.
End Result: More visa numbers requested (but they didn't complete issuing all of them, even over the weekend).
As things stand, if they approved stuff on 1st July, it means visa numbers were in fact available on 1st July.
If they approved without completing FBI check - that's going to raise a stink and isn't entirely legal anyways.
If they *still had visa numbers available on July 2* - request from DoS but not approved, they're in bigger trouble, imho.
Anybody thinks the above makes sense?
jazz
When you were Jazzing, everybody already spent time to know this...a month ago.. Anyway welcome to the party... "Der se aye Durast Aye... welcome :) :)
USCIS Ombundsman report from JUNE 2007 says:
"For example, when employment-based visas are not used during the year they are authorized, they are lost and are not available for future use without special legislation. In FY 06, over 10,000 employment-based visas were lost, even though USCIS had an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 pending applications for employment-based green cards.36 - Based on USCIS use of visa numbers as of May 2007, at present consumption rates approximately 40,000 visas will be lost in FY 07 without a dramatic increase in USCIS requests of visa numbers.37
- As illustrated below, since 1994 there have been over 218,000 un-recaptured employment-based visas lost due to underutilization of the employment-based visas."
Dept of State: Sees visa numbers not being used, chances of visas going unutilized/unused/wasted/lost again this year. Makes July visa bulletin CURRENT for all countries & categories.
USCIS: Scrambles to approve as many visas as possible to 1) Prove they're working hard, in light of the Ombundsman Report from June 2) Save themselves from the avalanche of I-485s, EADs and AP filings in June, knowing 3) Filing fees go up like crazy on 30th July.
End Result: More visa numbers requested (but they didn't complete issuing all of them, even over the weekend).
As things stand, if they approved stuff on 1st July, it means visa numbers were in fact available on 1st July.
If they approved without completing FBI check - that's going to raise a stink and isn't entirely legal anyways.
If they *still had visa numbers available on July 2* - request from DoS but not approved, they're in bigger trouble, imho.
Anybody thinks the above makes sense?
jazz
When you were Jazzing, everybody already spent time to know this...a month ago.. Anyway welcome to the party... "Der se aye Durast Aye... welcome :) :)
more...
thomachan72
05-10 09:42 AM
I am curious to know if people are sending amounts >20K by wire transfer to India or other countries from the US. People who do that regularly or have done that in past, have you encountered any problems? Wire transfers are directly informed by the bank to the IRS and you do not have to do it personally right?
Comments from those who have done this before is appreciated.
Comments from those who have done this before is appreciated.
DDash
08-30 01:07 AM
Doesn't hurt to record conversation though - the most that will happen is that the lawyer will say that it is not admissible in a court of law.
If the other party came to know that the conversation was recorded, they can counter sue.
Here is a link for laws surrounding this in each states.
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/
If the other party came to know that the conversation was recorded, they can counter sue.
Here is a link for laws surrounding this in each states.
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/
more...
krishna_brc
09-17 09:38 PM
Hi,
I recieved my green card last month through Consular Processing and now getting a good offer. Is it OK to join another company just after 1 month of green card or I should wait for some more time. NEED SUGGESTIONS from experts:D
If you have good relations with your employer ask them to terminate your employment. That way at the time of your naturalization/citizenship you will have an alibi for "as to why you changed employment" with in 6 months.
This way you can prove that you had the intent to work for sponsoring employer but things didn't go well with the employer himself.
Thanks,
Krishna
I recieved my green card last month through Consular Processing and now getting a good offer. Is it OK to join another company just after 1 month of green card or I should wait for some more time. NEED SUGGESTIONS from experts:D
If you have good relations with your employer ask them to terminate your employment. That way at the time of your naturalization/citizenship you will have an alibi for "as to why you changed employment" with in 6 months.
This way you can prove that you had the intent to work for sponsoring employer but things didn't go well with the employer himself.
Thanks,
Krishna
dreamgc_real
08-03 12:05 PM
My EAD details
Mailed Date : 5/24/10
Received Date : 5/26/10
Notice Date: 06/03/10
Checks Cashed: Yes
File Type: Paper/E-filed/Lawyer - Lawyer
Service Center/Lockbox : TSC
RFE DATE: N/A
RFE Description: N/A
SR Opened: Yes ( 07/26/2010)
InfoPass: NO
Current EAD Expiry: 9/03/10
Approval Date:
Approval Desc:
EAD Validity:
I have opened SR @( 07/26/2010) and got the reply back by mail below
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The status of the Service Request is
Case type:-- I765
The status of this service request is: Due to the high volume of expedite requests for this case type, we are strictly enforcing the criteria that has been set for these expedite requests.
Since the date we received your case, we denied your case and send a notice of explaining our decision to you on 06/25/2010 to the file we have on the file
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this denial of service request or denial of EAD Renewal?
I am confused. Lawyer or I never received any denial notice so for and online case status showing initial review with LUD of 06/26/2010.
What should I do now? Please let me know.
Thx
KPR
What does your lawyer say? He should be able to let you know exactly what the letter means - denial for SR or EAD. Check with him.
Mailed Date : 5/24/10
Received Date : 5/26/10
Notice Date: 06/03/10
Checks Cashed: Yes
File Type: Paper/E-filed/Lawyer - Lawyer
Service Center/Lockbox : TSC
RFE DATE: N/A
RFE Description: N/A
SR Opened: Yes ( 07/26/2010)
InfoPass: NO
Current EAD Expiry: 9/03/10
Approval Date:
Approval Desc:
EAD Validity:
I have opened SR @( 07/26/2010) and got the reply back by mail below
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The status of the Service Request is
Case type:-- I765
The status of this service request is: Due to the high volume of expedite requests for this case type, we are strictly enforcing the criteria that has been set for these expedite requests.
Since the date we received your case, we denied your case and send a notice of explaining our decision to you on 06/25/2010 to the file we have on the file
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this denial of service request or denial of EAD Renewal?
I am confused. Lawyer or I never received any denial notice so for and online case status showing initial review with LUD of 06/26/2010.
What should I do now? Please let me know.
Thx
KPR
What does your lawyer say? He should be able to let you know exactly what the letter means - denial for SR or EAD. Check with him.
more...
mdy_tvr
02-04 06:34 PM
yes, since she has a pending 485 she does not have to worry about status, that pending 485 keeps the status around. She can even file for an EAD.
Thanks meridiani.planum for the response.
Thanks meridiani.planum for the response.
kaisersose
08-01 01:29 PM
But dont you guys expect improvement after all this fiasco ?
Do you not agree that INS will learn some lessons from this ?
They certainly have. We will not see dates becoming C ever again.
They may also come up with a new system where the DOS bulletin is only for USCIS use and we will file 485s based on another bulletin released by USCIS, which will be a more accurate reflection of what is happening inside USCIS.
Do you not agree that INS will learn some lessons from this ?
They certainly have. We will not see dates becoming C ever again.
They may also come up with a new system where the DOS bulletin is only for USCIS use and we will file 485s based on another bulletin released by USCIS, which will be a more accurate reflection of what is happening inside USCIS.
more...
sbvw76
04-21 03:13 PM
depends on whether you are on L1B or L1A. On L1A - i have seen many GCs getting approved (from 140 filing to GC in hand) in 6 months or less.
of course - your lawyer and/or employer needs to ascertain whether your role here and also in the country where you were employed by same employer qualifies you for EB1C filing or not.......
Of course, this is not legal advice but only anecdotal experience
If you are in L1A, your company can file in EB1 which is current for all countries. If you are in L1B, then go for H1B. Because Only H1B can be extended beyond 6 years.
of course - your lawyer and/or employer needs to ascertain whether your role here and also in the country where you were employed by same employer qualifies you for EB1C filing or not.......
Of course, this is not legal advice but only anecdotal experience
If you are in L1A, your company can file in EB1 which is current for all countries. If you are in L1B, then go for H1B. Because Only H1B can be extended beyond 6 years.
gparr
May 23rd, 2005, 07:27 PM
Thanks to everyone for the feedback. All of it is very helpful and the kind of comments I hope to get for critiques.
Queen, Chris: Interesting that the white rock bothered you. It didn't me until I cloned it out. It was very distracting.
Bob: In #1 I focused on the dwarf Joshua tree in the foreground so everything beyond that should be in focus. I think the image suffers from compression and that's why the plantlife looks out of focus in the mid-ground. According to the lens, at f/10 everything beyond 3ft. should be in focus. I can see all of the individual branches in the full-sized image.
Nik: Not sure I understand what you mean about the polarizer. Didn't know I had that kind of control over the polarized light. Can you educate me?
Don, Josh, and rr3: My plan in #2 was to make the eye start at the yucca in the bottom right and flow through the image to the back left of the scene. In retrospect Don, you're right. It's too cramped. I only wish it was a crop, but it's full frame so I'm stuck with it. Josh, good point about something to balance the image. Not sure I could have done anything about it but I'll watch for a balancing element next time.
Queen: I included the path in #2 for that very reason. To get to the base of the rocks would have taken much more hiking time than I had. The next time I go to Vegas, I hope to have time to hike one of those trails and experience the rocks up close. The third image is not a crop. It's a different image shot with my 105mm macro. Wanted to show the color changes in the different rock levels. It is a portion of the second shot.
Brad: You're right. The timeframe at sunrise and sunset for excellent light is very short. Once that point is past, the light quickly becomes very harsh and seems to start bouncing all over the place. I have minimal experience shooting in such wide open spaces and with massive rock surfaces and found it very challenging both times I was there. The polarizer helped a lot this time, but much of doing these landscapes well seems to be knowing the area and timing and positioning.
Queen: I'd hire you in a heartbeat, but don't want you to have the misconception that business travel is pleasant. Getting to do a little shooting on the side is a small payback.
Gary
Queen, Chris: Interesting that the white rock bothered you. It didn't me until I cloned it out. It was very distracting.
Bob: In #1 I focused on the dwarf Joshua tree in the foreground so everything beyond that should be in focus. I think the image suffers from compression and that's why the plantlife looks out of focus in the mid-ground. According to the lens, at f/10 everything beyond 3ft. should be in focus. I can see all of the individual branches in the full-sized image.
Nik: Not sure I understand what you mean about the polarizer. Didn't know I had that kind of control over the polarized light. Can you educate me?
Don, Josh, and rr3: My plan in #2 was to make the eye start at the yucca in the bottom right and flow through the image to the back left of the scene. In retrospect Don, you're right. It's too cramped. I only wish it was a crop, but it's full frame so I'm stuck with it. Josh, good point about something to balance the image. Not sure I could have done anything about it but I'll watch for a balancing element next time.
Queen: I included the path in #2 for that very reason. To get to the base of the rocks would have taken much more hiking time than I had. The next time I go to Vegas, I hope to have time to hike one of those trails and experience the rocks up close. The third image is not a crop. It's a different image shot with my 105mm macro. Wanted to show the color changes in the different rock levels. It is a portion of the second shot.
Brad: You're right. The timeframe at sunrise and sunset for excellent light is very short. Once that point is past, the light quickly becomes very harsh and seems to start bouncing all over the place. I have minimal experience shooting in such wide open spaces and with massive rock surfaces and found it very challenging both times I was there. The polarizer helped a lot this time, but much of doing these landscapes well seems to be knowing the area and timing and positioning.
Queen: I'd hire you in a heartbeat, but don't want you to have the misconception that business travel is pleasant. Getting to do a little shooting on the side is a small payback.
Gary
more...
gova123
08-02 05:37 PM
I am sorry for posting in here, but I was wondering if someone actually went in person to the Houston Consulate to get their passport renewed. Also, do we need to have any reason to attend in person at the Consulate such as emergency, etc.
I am from India and my passport is expiring on Aug 17. I read before in the forum that it is better to go in person to renew the passport. Any experiences please let me know.
Thanks a bunch
I am from India and my passport is expiring on Aug 17. I read before in the forum that it is better to go in person to renew the passport. Any experiences please let me know.
Thanks a bunch
pointlesswait
11-26 11:18 AM
should we not ask for refund from our lobbyists..they lied to us last yearlobbying shoud be result oriented..not stuffing for their turkey...... sab hawa ke badhshah hai..;-)
more...
hemanth22
07-21 09:24 AM
What you should do immediately.
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
This is a very unfortunate happening.
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Among the senators with presidential ambitions only McCain voted in favor of the bill
I am for , contacting the local sentators who have voted nay for this bill
Are there any established methods of doing so
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
This is a very unfortunate happening.
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Among the senators with presidential ambitions only McCain voted in favor of the bill
I am for , contacting the local sentators who have voted nay for this bill
Are there any established methods of doing so
amitjoey
05-19 04:45 PM
If I assume that every year EB3-India gets 5000 GC-Visa. From 2001 - 2008 Total = 40,000 EB3-India Visas
Is number of applications in 2001 and 2002 is > 40,000.
Its very hard to believe.
Its not 40,000 labor or 140's dude every GC is minimum 2 (applicant + spouse) in some cases if you add children then it can consume 3-4 visa's from the quota and that is what is making the line even more longer.
The reason it is stuck at 2001 is because a lot of people that did not belong to the EB3 queue got visas out of EB3 IN 2001. This was because of a law that was passed in 2000 that sunset in April 2001. Thousands of so called "special immigrants".. (Illegals- I guess) got them. See: http://www.usavisanow.com/245iext.html
These were individuals that came in - illegally, but their employers could not file for them. Interestingly and Ironic is that legals were not eligible to apply under that act - LIFE ACT, 2001
http://www.brama.com/news/press/010405_lifeact2000.html
Also, add the wastage that happens every year. USCIS wastes (does not use) a lot of visas every year and they lapse.
Also some years, when there was a visa recapture (I believe 2003-2004).. 50,000 of the so-counted EB3's were given away to nurses. There was a special category.
Is number of applications in 2001 and 2002 is > 40,000.
Its very hard to believe.
Its not 40,000 labor or 140's dude every GC is minimum 2 (applicant + spouse) in some cases if you add children then it can consume 3-4 visa's from the quota and that is what is making the line even more longer.
The reason it is stuck at 2001 is because a lot of people that did not belong to the EB3 queue got visas out of EB3 IN 2001. This was because of a law that was passed in 2000 that sunset in April 2001. Thousands of so called "special immigrants".. (Illegals- I guess) got them. See: http://www.usavisanow.com/245iext.html
These were individuals that came in - illegally, but their employers could not file for them. Interestingly and Ironic is that legals were not eligible to apply under that act - LIFE ACT, 2001
http://www.brama.com/news/press/010405_lifeact2000.html
Also, add the wastage that happens every year. USCIS wastes (does not use) a lot of visas every year and they lapse.
Also some years, when there was a visa recapture (I believe 2003-2004).. 50,000 of the so-counted EB3's were given away to nurses. There was a special category.
more...
reddog
04-08 04:19 PM
All i am asking is the media they know and number of users. I dont know what you talking about.
Ok, how do we contact the state representative. Through the county representative, then the city, then street?
We are IV. I believe that is what chandu meant. Core is just a group of people who incidentally reserved the domain name and configured joomla.
Ok, how do we contact the state representative. Through the county representative, then the city, then street?
We are IV. I believe that is what chandu meant. Core is just a group of people who incidentally reserved the domain name and configured joomla.
lazycis
05-07 02:16 PM
are you sure of this ..if yes, then how does one do that ..do you need to show you can make the salary mentioned on your own ??
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
Question 8. Can an alien port to self-employment under INA �204(j)?
Answer: Yes, as long as the requirements are met. First, the key is whether the employment is in a "same or similar" occupational classification as the job for which the original I-140 petition was filed.
Second, it may be appropriate to confirm that the new employer and the job offer are legitimate through an RFE to the adjustment applicant for relevant information about these issues.
Third, as with any portability case, USCIS will focus on whether the I-140 petition represented the truly intended employment at the time of the filing of both the I-140 and the I-485. This means that, as of the time of the filing of the I-140 and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
Question 8. Can an alien port to self-employment under INA �204(j)?
Answer: Yes, as long as the requirements are met. First, the key is whether the employment is in a "same or similar" occupational classification as the job for which the original I-140 petition was filed.
Second, it may be appropriate to confirm that the new employer and the job offer are legitimate through an RFE to the adjustment applicant for relevant information about these issues.
Third, as with any portability case, USCIS will focus on whether the I-140 petition represented the truly intended employment at the time of the filing of both the I-140 and the I-485. This means that, as of the time of the filing of the I-140 and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.
spicy_guy
04-26 12:24 PM
we live in Chicagoland. PM me if you would like to talk.
Hi Evildead,
Can you check your PM pls?
Hi Evildead,
Can you check your PM pls?
ita
11-20 04:47 PM
I got only one AP paper. Is it ok to travel to India?
From what I gathered so far I guess on your way back officer will keep the AP you have.
Try to take copies of the AP and request the offcier if he would keep the copy and give you back the stamped original.
In that case you can use the stamped original for your future trips.
Otherwise you will have to apply for more AP's if your are planning to go abroad again.
This is what I gathered so far.Not sure if I'm right though .
From what I gathered so far I guess on your way back officer will keep the AP you have.
Try to take copies of the AP and request the offcier if he would keep the copy and give you back the stamped original.
In that case you can use the stamped original for your future trips.
Otherwise you will have to apply for more AP's if your are planning to go abroad again.
This is what I gathered so far.Not sure if I'm right though .
sargon
05-11 12:45 PM
You really scared me. My family is supposed to come via Delhi tomorrow. Please refrain from posting such threads.
No comments:
Post a Comment