psk79
07-18 08:37 AM
Mine reached on July 2nd 9:01 AM. I don't think they must have rejected any application. I think, if someone is saying "rejected" means USCIS refused to accept the fedex, in which case package should be returned back to lawyers in 3/4 days.
If your package was accepeted by USCIS then it would be on hold and based on yesterday's news, now it should be ready for processing. I am checking this with couple of lawyers and I will update this thread with anything I find out.
You may be right, But I didn't hear about a single case where USCIS refused to accept the Fedex. How can they do it ?because they don't know what's inside the package. if anything is sent via usps they just drop it of in the drop box.
Also, does anyone know if the package has to be transferred to Texas or wherever your I140 is approved and then that particular center issues a receipt?? That's what I heard...
If your package was accepeted by USCIS then it would be on hold and based on yesterday's news, now it should be ready for processing. I am checking this with couple of lawyers and I will update this thread with anything I find out.
You may be right, But I didn't hear about a single case where USCIS refused to accept the Fedex. How can they do it ?because they don't know what's inside the package. if anything is sent via usps they just drop it of in the drop box.
Also, does anyone know if the package has to be transferred to Texas or wherever your I140 is approved and then that particular center issues a receipt?? That's what I heard...
wallpaper Amore Tossico - Per Elisa
rakesh_one
03-07 11:47 AM
Guys....like everyone else I have been doing exhaustive research on this subject for last month or so.....I have resigned this week from my job and have decided to use AC21...... following are answers to some of your questions...
New Employer support - There is no need for the new employer to support the GC process.....After you file 485, the process is yours as an individual and not of any employer....All you are saying is that my I-140 was once approved with some employer and USCIS took forever (read more than 180 days) to give me my green card......so as long as your job is in the same profession (read occupational classification) you are okay....so NO, the new employer does not need to support the process....all they have to say in the employement verification letter is that we intend to hire this person on permenant basis after getting his Green Card...... Please read Yates Memo of 2005 and it will tell you all there is to know about AC21.....
Lawyer Support and Expenses------- I can imagine lawyers trying to make whatever case for asking whatever ammount of money for AC21 as that is a new business area for them?----- I do not think you need a lawyer for this.....there are plenty of letters on the net that show the template....also, if you are sure your employer is not going to revoke the I-140 then you are not even required to send the letter untill if and when USCIS asks for employement verification letter.....
As per charges from RK and Murthy...
Rajiv Khanna - $3000 for primary +$1000 per dependent
Murthy - $2000....
I have done some exhaustive research on this AC21 crap and have decided to change the employment......
You are wrong. New Employer has to support GC.
Since GC is for future employment, there should be an employer willing to hire you on the day 1 you got your GC. AC 21 helps you to transfer the burdon from one employer to other. In most cases, by providing an employement letter for a permanent job in the same or similar job, it is kind of implied that the new employer has assumed that burdon without themselves knowing it. It would help your case, if the new employer explicitly say that they acknowledge your pending 485 and would assure USCIS that they have a job up on approval 485.
New Employer support - There is no need for the new employer to support the GC process.....After you file 485, the process is yours as an individual and not of any employer....All you are saying is that my I-140 was once approved with some employer and USCIS took forever (read more than 180 days) to give me my green card......so as long as your job is in the same profession (read occupational classification) you are okay....so NO, the new employer does not need to support the process....all they have to say in the employement verification letter is that we intend to hire this person on permenant basis after getting his Green Card...... Please read Yates Memo of 2005 and it will tell you all there is to know about AC21.....
Lawyer Support and Expenses------- I can imagine lawyers trying to make whatever case for asking whatever ammount of money for AC21 as that is a new business area for them?----- I do not think you need a lawyer for this.....there are plenty of letters on the net that show the template....also, if you are sure your employer is not going to revoke the I-140 then you are not even required to send the letter untill if and when USCIS asks for employement verification letter.....
As per charges from RK and Murthy...
Rajiv Khanna - $3000 for primary +$1000 per dependent
Murthy - $2000....
I have done some exhaustive research on this AC21 crap and have decided to change the employment......
You are wrong. New Employer has to support GC.
Since GC is for future employment, there should be an employer willing to hire you on the day 1 you got your GC. AC 21 helps you to transfer the burdon from one employer to other. In most cases, by providing an employement letter for a permanent job in the same or similar job, it is kind of implied that the new employer has assumed that burdon without themselves knowing it. It would help your case, if the new employer explicitly say that they acknowledge your pending 485 and would assure USCIS that they have a job up on approval 485.
natrajs
08-16 03:38 PM
Participate in the Rally
Make sure our voices are heard
Support IV
Make sure our voices are heard
Support IV
2011 quot;Amore Tossicoquot; di Claudio
anurakt
01-16 07:11 AM
Ok . I too signed up for $100 monthly
20$ : 200 to go.
50$ : 100 to go
100$ : 18 to go.
let's keep the count going forward.
20$ : 200 to go.
50$ : 100 to go
100$ : 18 to go.
let's keep the count going forward.
more...
supers789
03-12 01:15 AM
is it really out
Visa Bulletin (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html)
this doesnt tell that yet
As far as dates for India goes, its out. Bulletin on USCIS website will have details for all other countries as well which doesn't matter much to us...
Visa Bulletin (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html)
this doesnt tell that yet
As far as dates for India goes, its out. Bulletin on USCIS website will have details for all other countries as well which doesn't matter much to us...
av2004
07-02 10:34 AM
Sent the e-mails to my senators.. Will update if there is any response back from the Senators. Thanks to IV for providing the simplified form!
more...
shankar_thanu
04-04 02:53 PM
This bill would affect all of us if they apply these same rules when we try to exend or transfer out existing H1s. Does it(the bill) say anything about that?
2010 Moana Pozzi - Amore Tossico
pappu
04-05 11:52 AM
One more day to go before the end of this campaign.
Here is another incentive to make these call:
I will donate $ 5 to IV, for each member that makes these call from now on till end of the day tomorrow. I know, your hourly billing rates are way higher :) but this is what I can do for now.
I already called all the people on the list, it was easy. Office staff members were patient and friendly. Show me what you got!
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=56064#post56064
Please join this campaign
Here is another incentive to make these call:
I will donate $ 5 to IV, for each member that makes these call from now on till end of the day tomorrow. I know, your hourly billing rates are way higher :) but this is what I can do for now.
I already called all the people on the list, it was easy. Office staff members were patient and friendly. Show me what you got!
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=56064#post56064
Please join this campaign
more...
newbee7
07-09 03:54 PM
I dont think legally you can sue someone, because they have worked harder.
I posted this link , so that everybody may know the legal reasons, which we can be presented in a court of law.
If this lawsuit is accepted by the court , then the USCIS lawyers would tell what exactly happened.
I till now personally believe , that the USCIS/DOS hasnt broken any law.
They may have however changed a pettern,process , but no law has been broken.
Delhiguy,
YES! They did broke law by provisioning visa numbers for applications that had not cleared FBI check. Their book clearly says the visa number needs to be alloted only after the application is 100% ready for adjudication.
I posted this link , so that everybody may know the legal reasons, which we can be presented in a court of law.
If this lawsuit is accepted by the court , then the USCIS lawyers would tell what exactly happened.
I till now personally believe , that the USCIS/DOS hasnt broken any law.
They may have however changed a pettern,process , but no law has been broken.
Delhiguy,
YES! They did broke law by provisioning visa numbers for applications that had not cleared FBI check. Their book clearly says the visa number needs to be alloted only after the application is 100% ready for adjudication.
hair amore tossico 2. | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
![amore tossico. [ED2K] Amore tossico](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vPeVBpTS05ch5yxvP2ktcLsn_RidxC8xopTfEdN4tZy6YiD8eD7H0lmhZmIgTBdOVD7EBJz8jwvPsdNzsF2qk4yoXiI6ZrlpoI80_XGdSDVMTVqdjBHoO0Zw2_fJcqck36TYv9=s0-d "[ED2K] Amore tossico")
alterego
07-04 08:31 PM
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. Former INS or current USCIS’s functions and operations were not questionable and not known to public till ombudsman office was established. Ombudsman has helped customers and keep helping to improve efficiency of CIS. Ombudsman main concern (or goal) have been over the 4 years are
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The “documentarily qualified 485 applications” mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made “current” for all EB categories. This is how they determine “current” or “over-subscribed” and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “Current.”
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be “oversubscribed” and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
Excellent analysis and reccomendations. I feel that a visa number should be assigned at the point of 485 filing. If there is a problem it can be returned to the pool. That will be the least disruptive way to allot numbers in a timely fashion. In the end, that is likely to be the change that will come out of this.
This way, it will offer prospective applicants a more clear viewpoint of what they are up against when they consider their immigration options. i.e if you know you will have to wait 10 yrs to file an AOS even if you have an approved immigrant petition ala the family based immigrants, your plans would be different. You might not feel the wait worthwhile or even if you do, you do it fully aware of the consequences, 10 yrs exploitative employer on h1b etc.
If you notice, the level of hubris and cry is less in family based immigration even though the waits are longer. Atleast they know before they apply!
Your last point about a visa recapture is on the money. It is the least disruptive and easiest of the possible changes for current EB applicants in the current hostile atmosphere. It comes across as a rectification of USCIS inefficiency rather than a request for more immigration, which the public has clearly rejected at this time. If we can get 100-150K visas recaptured, this will greatly help EVERYONE in the EB queue for various reasons. It will buy us the 1-2 yrs needed before immigration is seriously addressed again. It will help those waiting to file 485 to file, those in 485 to have a hope to get out etc. It will help heavily retrogressed countries to keep getting more visas than the annual caps etc. I think that is something everyone can agree on as well.
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The “documentarily qualified 485 applications” mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made “current” for all EB categories. This is how they determine “current” or “over-subscribed” and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “Current.”
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be “oversubscribed” and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
Excellent analysis and reccomendations. I feel that a visa number should be assigned at the point of 485 filing. If there is a problem it can be returned to the pool. That will be the least disruptive way to allot numbers in a timely fashion. In the end, that is likely to be the change that will come out of this.
This way, it will offer prospective applicants a more clear viewpoint of what they are up against when they consider their immigration options. i.e if you know you will have to wait 10 yrs to file an AOS even if you have an approved immigrant petition ala the family based immigrants, your plans would be different. You might not feel the wait worthwhile or even if you do, you do it fully aware of the consequences, 10 yrs exploitative employer on h1b etc.
If you notice, the level of hubris and cry is less in family based immigration even though the waits are longer. Atleast they know before they apply!
Your last point about a visa recapture is on the money. It is the least disruptive and easiest of the possible changes for current EB applicants in the current hostile atmosphere. It comes across as a rectification of USCIS inefficiency rather than a request for more immigration, which the public has clearly rejected at this time. If we can get 100-150K visas recaptured, this will greatly help EVERYONE in the EB queue for various reasons. It will buy us the 1-2 yrs needed before immigration is seriously addressed again. It will help those waiting to file 485 to file, those in 485 to have a hope to get out etc. It will help heavily retrogressed countries to keep getting more visas than the annual caps etc. I think that is something everyone can agree on as well.
more...
arsh007
01-30 03:49 PM
1. Asking employees to pay for H1 costs is not legal. It would be in violations of CFR.
2. That is also illegal. Employer cannot ask employee to pay for payroll taxes that the employer owes IRS, and too, when you are not even working. It would be an attempt to cover-up the violation of immigration law: Not paying on bench. The only alternative to all that is cancelling her H1 if she cannot find project and if they cannot pay her, but that again would cost money. Damn its too expensive to operate a business legally obeying every friggin law.
3. If you are paying for H1 (which is really not legal) what would you refund them?
So whether you want to tell them "Go to hell" depends on how much you want the job and how much bending/breaking of law can you do.
Point 3 was for the employer refunding the employee for the H1 costs after completing 6 months on project.
Well it is an accepted fact that Employers need to pay for H1 sponsorship but desi companies hardly follow the rules. Well I don't understand from you point above why paying for H1 expenses means I am breaking the law. Rather it should be the employer who is breaking the law.
2. That is also illegal. Employer cannot ask employee to pay for payroll taxes that the employer owes IRS, and too, when you are not even working. It would be an attempt to cover-up the violation of immigration law: Not paying on bench. The only alternative to all that is cancelling her H1 if she cannot find project and if they cannot pay her, but that again would cost money. Damn its too expensive to operate a business legally obeying every friggin law.
3. If you are paying for H1 (which is really not legal) what would you refund them?
So whether you want to tell them "Go to hell" depends on how much you want the job and how much bending/breaking of law can you do.
Point 3 was for the employer refunding the employee for the H1 costs after completing 6 months on project.
Well it is an accepted fact that Employers need to pay for H1 sponsorship but desi companies hardly follow the rules. Well I don't understand from you point above why paying for H1 expenses means I am breaking the law. Rather it should be the employer who is breaking the law.
hot Amore Tossico (1983) [Dvdrip
Tito_ortiz
02-13 03:56 PM
His views are distorted.
Can Americans go to India on H1B or similar visa to get work? No? Well, so think about it.
Can Americans go to India on H1B or similar visa to get work? No? Well, so think about it.
more...
house Crisi Di Astinenza, Amore Tossico.
newuser
10-20 01:27 PM
Faxed
tattoo Si vende amore tossico
himu73
03-29 10:46 AM
there a plan to meet/call NJ senators
more...
pictures 2010 amore tossico. amore e
diptam
06-30 06:57 PM
Sounds like a plan - let us know what's the next step.
I got little demoralized last evening but then worked from 11 thru 3 AM to double check everything and i mailed today by USPS Express Mail ( it should reach July 2nd )
Thanks again for your leadership.
Diptam
I got little demoralized last evening but then worked from 11 thru 3 AM to double check everything and i mailed today by USPS Express Mail ( it should reach July 2nd )
Thanks again for your leadership.
Diptam
dresses AMORE TOSSICO (1).avi
ilamurughu
07-11 08:44 PM
Hi...
LC filing state : CA
PD : Oct 2003
Labour approval : Sep 2006
I-140 approval : Oct 2006
I - 485 : Documents sitting with Attorney and advising to wait until Oct'07...
LC filing state : CA
PD : Oct 2003
Labour approval : Sep 2006
I-140 approval : Oct 2006
I - 485 : Documents sitting with Attorney and advising to wait until Oct'07...
more...
makeup Amore Tossico. Chiudi
jcmenon
07-24 02:08 PM
We can not file for 485 that is the reason we need to let our voices heard to USCIS, it may be waste of time for some one but at least it would be worth a try.
We did try a lot with S1932, outcome zero.
We did try a lot with CIR, outcome zero.
When so potentially yielding means(S 1932 and CIR) can fail in a same way USCIS option may also fail, but at least we know that we tried this option.
If stuck labor says it is a waste of time (No offence taken), I am not going to buy his arguement, just because he is a super moderator. maximun he can ban me from the site, but I donot worry of voicing my openion for an issue that I think might work out.
Lets do an openion poll and decide how many are in favor of this.
We did try a lot with S1932, outcome zero.
We did try a lot with CIR, outcome zero.
When so potentially yielding means(S 1932 and CIR) can fail in a same way USCIS option may also fail, but at least we know that we tried this option.
If stuck labor says it is a waste of time (No offence taken), I am not going to buy his arguement, just because he is a super moderator. maximun he can ban me from the site, but I donot worry of voicing my openion for an issue that I think might work out.
Lets do an openion poll and decide how many are in favor of this.
girlfriend mariuccio de amore tossico
thirdworldman
02-16 07:11 PM
Thanks for all the compliments folks, I appreciate the encouragement. Soulty, yes, that is the perspective I've been working toward..in fact, I've so far modeled everything around that perspective...i.e. everything looks like crap if viewed at a different angle. I'm open to suggestions though.
I also agree with what Soulty said about not quitting--especially not on my behalf. This project should be fun, and from what I've learned, every 3d project is a huge learning experience and there are so many directions you could go with it.
I also agree with what Soulty said about not quitting--especially not on my behalf. This project should be fun, and from what I've learned, every 3d project is a huge learning experience and there are so many directions you could go with it.
hairstyles amore tossico
Legal
07-13 04:49 PM
If they can approve ~ 150 k total EB cases per year @ ~12,500 / month, with EB3 used up for the remainder of this year, they can definitely process at least 25 k during Aug and Sep.
They adjudicated lot more 485s than 25 K last year. This massive adjudication was the reason behind threatened withdrawal of July 07 bulletin.
They adjudicated lot more 485s than 25 K last year. This massive adjudication was the reason behind threatened withdrawal of July 07 bulletin.
ita
09-10 11:09 AM
I'm not able to figure out how to post a mssg in chat..is it 'coz I'm restricted or something? At the bottom of the page I see my name as logged in members though..I've over 150 posts and 4 dots..not enough for access to chat or is it that I'm not able to figure out how to post mssgs? Appreciate it if someone can explain it to me.
Thank you.
Thank you.
eb2_immigrant
03-09 02:34 PM
No change for EB2-I.
VISA AVAILABILITY IN THE COMING MONTHS
During the past year, many preference categories have experienced steady and sometimes rapid cut-off date movement. Such action is normally followed by an increase in applicant demand. Heavy applicant demand for numbers in some categories could require cut-off date movements to slow, stop, or even retrogress at some point during the remainder of FY in order to hold visa use within the applicable annual numerical limits. Should such action occur, it would most likely be only temporary in nature, pending the start of the new fiscal year in October.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4438.html
VISA AVAILABILITY IN THE COMING MONTHS
During the past year, many preference categories have experienced steady and sometimes rapid cut-off date movement. Such action is normally followed by an increase in applicant demand. Heavy applicant demand for numbers in some categories could require cut-off date movements to slow, stop, or even retrogress at some point during the remainder of FY in order to hold visa use within the applicable annual numerical limits. Should such action occur, it would most likely be only temporary in nature, pending the start of the new fiscal year in October.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4438.html