espoir
06-21 05:56 AM
As per my understanding, once you have a receipt notice for EAD and/or AP, it will be processed completely. Approval/rejection of EAD/AP is NOT linked with visa number availability. Many are under the misconception that they won't get their EAD and AP if the PD dates move back.
Given the current and anticipated volume, one should expect delays in processing times.
IN the same context, how about EAD.
If I file I-485 and lets say the dates retrogess and my PD is not current, then as mentioned and if an EAD is not yet issued does the EAD issuance and I-485 both are "suspended" till PD becomes current or is it just the I-485...
I guess what I want to ask is that is EAD linked to PD date ?
Given the current and anticipated volume, one should expect delays in processing times.
IN the same context, how about EAD.
If I file I-485 and lets say the dates retrogess and my PD is not current, then as mentioned and if an EAD is not yet issued does the EAD issuance and I-485 both are "suspended" till PD becomes current or is it just the I-485...
I guess what I want to ask is that is EAD linked to PD date ?
wallpaper #39;Harry Potter amp; The Deathly
BharatPremi
10-19 01:40 PM
LC Salary:- $85,000
LC Location:- New York
New Job Salary:- $74,000
New job Title and Job duties are same.
Is it advisable to invoke AC21 when new job salary is less than original LC salary but more than prevailing wage of new location.
As per Aytes memo there should not be substantial salary difference. Has anyone invoked AC21 when new job salary is less than LC salary.
I've consulted few immigration laywer and the opinion differs.
Experts.... Please help
My opinion not legal advise: One can join other employer after 180 days from the 485 Receipt date with same or high salary than prevailing wage,keeping job description and Job code similar to use AC21. If you feel you are following this then you will be fine otherwise doomed.
Only confusion remains is this: When you filed LC with current employer at that time prevailing wage was 85K so
your "LC Salary" is 85K. Now say after 5 years seeing the economic condition of the
overall job market if DOL has made prevailing wage say for an example "$74K" for the
same job code now then what? In this case should your AC21 be denied or accepted? If
some expert can guide us, we would highly appreciate for this scenario.
Notes:
1) Remuneration, bonus etc do not fit the definition of "wage". So I would negotiate 20K higher job with wage equal
to current wage and 20k bonus if I can.
2) Geographic location should not matter while changing the employer.
LC Location:- New York
New Job Salary:- $74,000
New job Title and Job duties are same.
Is it advisable to invoke AC21 when new job salary is less than original LC salary but more than prevailing wage of new location.
As per Aytes memo there should not be substantial salary difference. Has anyone invoked AC21 when new job salary is less than LC salary.
I've consulted few immigration laywer and the opinion differs.
Experts.... Please help
My opinion not legal advise: One can join other employer after 180 days from the 485 Receipt date with same or high salary than prevailing wage,keeping job description and Job code similar to use AC21. If you feel you are following this then you will be fine otherwise doomed.
Only confusion remains is this: When you filed LC with current employer at that time prevailing wage was 85K so
your "LC Salary" is 85K. Now say after 5 years seeing the economic condition of the
overall job market if DOL has made prevailing wage say for an example "$74K" for the
same job code now then what? In this case should your AC21 be denied or accepted? If
some expert can guide us, we would highly appreciate for this scenario.
Notes:
1) Remuneration, bonus etc do not fit the definition of "wage". So I would negotiate 20K higher job with wage equal
to current wage and 20k bonus if I can.
2) Geographic location should not matter while changing the employer.
bobbydalal
09-10 03:33 PM
Guys im an Eb3 applicant and my pd is 2007. I got a transfer notice of my I485 being transferred to USCIS-NBC lees summit ,mo . wHAT DOES THIS MEAN. i HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE SAME COMPANY FOR LAST 9 YEARS and had submitted all the tax returns at the time of I140 approval. Is there something i should worry about. pLEASE ADVISE.
2011 May 27, 2011. harry
rjgleason
September 27th, 2004, 08:57 AM
Rob, What have you been eating? :D
I did hear, however, from a reliable source, that Canon will be upgrading the next 1D Mark II to have an in-camera phone.
I did hear, however, from a reliable source, that Canon will be upgrading the next 1D Mark II to have an in-camera phone.
more...
maalelsi
02-22 09:46 PM
I went to web site and it still shows Jan processing dates.
How is it possible?
How is it possible?
wandmaker
07-12 08:46 PM
Our Current EAD is expiring on 10/01/2008. So we had applied for extension in june. On july 7th our application was approved and today we recieved our EAD cards. I was expecting a one year extension , which is until 10/01/2009. But USCIS send us ead cards that will expire on 01/01/2009.
What should be the course of action here. Do i need to reapply or just contact USCIS and will they be able to fix it? Any body on similiar situation.?
Service center is nebraska
You do not have to reapply, please call USCIS and let them know of this issue. CSR will tell you how to proceed further
What should be the course of action here. Do i need to reapply or just contact USCIS and will they be able to fix it? Any body on similiar situation.?
Service center is nebraska
You do not have to reapply, please call USCIS and let them know of this issue. CSR will tell you how to proceed further
more...
gcseeker2002
02-20 03:16 PM
I was looking at the flcdatacenter website for Perm labors filed in 2006, and here are the numbers of total perm filed :
Total : 105960
India : 26636 = 25.2%
China : 8222 = 7.75%
No wonder china is moving faster in the EB categories
Total : 105960
India : 26636 = 25.2%
China : 8222 = 7.75%
No wonder china is moving faster in the EB categories
2010 The Last Harry Potter Movie
talash
04-25 03:19 PM
I 140 denied.please help to start new thread.Please
more...
mayhemt
09-20 11:00 PM
If it is philosophical question, then it is something which takes away couple of years of life of some of those people born in India and China (wait and wait and wait and ...), who want to have it. In return it frees them from bond of slavery.
Wow it almost sounds like attaining Nirvana (moksha). May be USCIS/DOS/DHS/Us Govt should name it as Nirvana Card.
Wow it almost sounds like attaining Nirvana (moksha). May be USCIS/DOS/DHS/Us Govt should name it as Nirvana Card.
hair Emma watson,may , harry potter
HV000
02-17 09:59 PM
Its probably wise to lobby both Sen. Dick Durbin and Sen. John Cornyn together.
more...
Aah_GC
05-30 03:46 PM
Also when quitting what is the must-have documents we need to secure before leaving employer X.
Can someone please reply on this
If you can get your hands on photocopies of Labor certificate, that would be awesome. Otherwise, make sure you at least have the following -
1. Experience letter (with last day of attendance)
2. I140 receipt
3. I485 receipt
4. Paystubs for 6 months of employment post I1485 receive date
You are good to go from there.
Can someone please reply on this
If you can get your hands on photocopies of Labor certificate, that would be awesome. Otherwise, make sure you at least have the following -
1. Experience letter (with last day of attendance)
2. I140 receipt
3. I485 receipt
4. Paystubs for 6 months of employment post I1485 receive date
You are good to go from there.
hot Harry Potter and The Deathly
Blog Feeds
01-27 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
house harry potter logo deathly
shirish
08-31 01:46 PM
USCIS goes by country of birth, so registing a new country will not work.
OK so we're 1 million in the backlog. That could be a small country.
Instead of spending hundreds of thousands on lobbying, we can just buy a piece of land somewhere (big enough to have a passport office building), get immediate citizenship in our new country and then USCIS will be able to process our GC applications within a year.
Someone from Taiwan (and smaller neighboring countries) can get GC in 1 year but if you're from China you will wait 6-10 years. I am not sure of how much cultural differences exist between these two countries, all I know is that my Taiwanese friend speaks Chinese, goes to Chinese church. So much for diversity.
So.. if anyone has the info on how to register a new country, I'd like to know.
Sorry, its the wee hours and I just felt like posting this. Please close thread as and when desired.
Sidenote: Hear IV Rally announcement on Dallas Radio www.funasia.net (http://www.funasia.net) in the following slots (Central Time)
8/31:7.45am & 6pm;
9/3: 9.25am & 6pm;
9/4: 7.45am & 6pm;
9/5: 9.25am & 6pm;
9/6: 7.45am & 6pm;
9/7: 9.25am & 6pm;
9/10: 9.25am & 6pm;
9/11: 7.45am & 6pm;
Also live discussion for few minutes about IV Rally on Saturday during immigration show at 3pm central
Sponsored by members of TX chapter of IV (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/texasiv) &
the Law offices of Sherin Thawer http://www.thawerlaw.com and TX chapter of IV
OK so we're 1 million in the backlog. That could be a small country.
Instead of spending hundreds of thousands on lobbying, we can just buy a piece of land somewhere (big enough to have a passport office building), get immediate citizenship in our new country and then USCIS will be able to process our GC applications within a year.
Someone from Taiwan (and smaller neighboring countries) can get GC in 1 year but if you're from China you will wait 6-10 years. I am not sure of how much cultural differences exist between these two countries, all I know is that my Taiwanese friend speaks Chinese, goes to Chinese church. So much for diversity.
So.. if anyone has the info on how to register a new country, I'd like to know.
Sorry, its the wee hours and I just felt like posting this. Please close thread as and when desired.
Sidenote: Hear IV Rally announcement on Dallas Radio www.funasia.net (http://www.funasia.net) in the following slots (Central Time)
8/31:7.45am & 6pm;
9/3: 9.25am & 6pm;
9/4: 7.45am & 6pm;
9/5: 9.25am & 6pm;
9/6: 7.45am & 6pm;
9/7: 9.25am & 6pm;
9/10: 9.25am & 6pm;
9/11: 7.45am & 6pm;
Also live discussion for few minutes about IV Rally on Saturday during immigration show at 3pm central
Sponsored by members of TX chapter of IV (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/texasiv) &
the Law offices of Sherin Thawer http://www.thawerlaw.com and TX chapter of IV
tattoo harry potter and the deathly
lazycis
12-25 09:12 PM
Hello lazycis,
I have a quick question. Many of our PD were current in July 2007. If our names are stuck in FBI name check for 2 yrs, can we file for WoM? Please advise. Many of us are under the impression that the our PD dates have to be current at the time of WoM and our namecheck should be stuck at FBI atleast for 1 year during which the PD date is current. In other words, the PD date should be current over a period of 12 months at the time of filing WoM.
Q 2. Is there any limit countrywise, for issuing GC?
Thanks in advance.
If you are stuck in name check over a year and PD was current, you can file WOM. Add the Secretary of State (Rice) as a defendant. Check this order where the court ordered the government to issue visa numbers (!) to long-delayed AOS applicants.
http://immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1838094&postcount=14850
Q2. Yes, see 8 USC 1151, 8 USC 1153. Check this thread for details.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=16266
I have a quick question. Many of our PD were current in July 2007. If our names are stuck in FBI name check for 2 yrs, can we file for WoM? Please advise. Many of us are under the impression that the our PD dates have to be current at the time of WoM and our namecheck should be stuck at FBI atleast for 1 year during which the PD date is current. In other words, the PD date should be current over a period of 12 months at the time of filing WoM.
Q 2. Is there any limit countrywise, for issuing GC?
Thanks in advance.
If you are stuck in name check over a year and PD was current, you can file WOM. Add the Secretary of State (Rice) as a defendant. Check this order where the court ordered the government to issue visa numbers (!) to long-delayed AOS applicants.
http://immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1838094&postcount=14850
Q2. Yes, see 8 USC 1151, 8 USC 1153. Check this thread for details.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=16266
more...
pictures harry potter and the deathly
GotGC??
06-21 09:22 AM
Any idea what constitutes a "simple, str forward" case? At 485 stage, what are the things that could potentially make it a more complicated case?
Although that the rule..I dont think USCIS actively follows it. The reason for that being the ombudsman report that states that the adjudicating officers pick low hanging fruit first (simple strforward cases) and that is reflected on where people have been getting their 485 approved within 90 days (which the ombudsman's report states is uscis's goal). right now the processing date is holding at 9 months. maybe to dissuade people from continously calling the NSC 1800 number.
Although that the rule..I dont think USCIS actively follows it. The reason for that being the ombudsman report that states that the adjudicating officers pick low hanging fruit first (simple strforward cases) and that is reflected on where people have been getting their 485 approved within 90 days (which the ombudsman's report states is uscis's goal). right now the processing date is holding at 9 months. maybe to dissuade people from continously calling the NSC 1800 number.
dresses harry potter and the deathly
akhilmahajan
11-14 09:51 PM
It will also give one a chance to tell their story to the senator or his aide.
Right now everyone thinks there is no flaw in the legal immigration.
If we keep on meeting lawmakers, it will bring to them the hardships faced by legal immigrants, so they might pay some attention to our cause.
GO IV GO. TOGETHER WE CAN
Right now everyone thinks there is no flaw in the legal immigration.
If we keep on meeting lawmakers, it will bring to them the hardships faced by legal immigrants, so they might pay some attention to our cause.
GO IV GO. TOGETHER WE CAN
more...
makeup Harry Potter Deathly Hallows
gc_aspirant_prasad
12-07 08:42 PM
Most Project managers who get their GC in EB1 category are here on L1 A visa.
girlfriend and the Deathly Hallows,
skv
07-18 01:51 PM
Atlanta PERM Center belongs to DOL not USCIS
We need more people to know about the issue at the Atlanta PERM center.
I'm sure, our immigrationvoice will support as always. :-)
We need more people to know about the issue at the Atlanta PERM center.
I'm sure, our immigrationvoice will support as always. :-)
hairstyles Harry Potter and the Deathly
FredG
November 26th, 2005, 02:23 PM
I like the second one. There is a mystique about the darkness and what might lurk beneath the visible. As others have mentioned, more DOF would work better.
feedfront
09-16 02:51 PM
Done
gccube
03-19 07:11 PM
gccube are you EB3 -I as well?
"
FBI Namecheck -- Cleared (02/01/2008)
FP -- Cleared "
How did you find out the status of your namecheck and FP?
I called up their customer service no and was able to reach an IO at TSC and asked about the FBI name check status. I did speak to an IO 3 to 4 times over a period of 6 months and initially it was pending but later on it got cleared. I did not ask for the exact date it was cleared but it was on feb1st 2008 that I found that it was cleared. But they did tell me the exact date on which the FBI name check was initiated. It was initiated on Aug 1st 2007 where are my 485 RD is June21st 2007.
"
FBI Namecheck -- Cleared (02/01/2008)
FP -- Cleared "
How did you find out the status of your namecheck and FP?
I called up their customer service no and was able to reach an IO at TSC and asked about the FBI name check status. I did speak to an IO 3 to 4 times over a period of 6 months and initially it was pending but later on it got cleared. I did not ask for the exact date it was cleared but it was on feb1st 2008 that I found that it was cleared. But they did tell me the exact date on which the FBI name check was initiated. It was initiated on Aug 1st 2007 where are my 485 RD is June21st 2007.
No comments:
Post a Comment