peer123
07-13 09:20 AM
Agree, she is just trying to cash on the momentum and probalby later claim credit if favorable changes are made. But , it should not bother us as it only going to help us and not hurt us.
I agree with you,... Lets accept it. Nothing is FREE in this world...
There is something called corporate alignment in every aspect of the business. She doing it - if it helps her as well as us. So be it.
we should be able to combine all forces and go at it....
I agree with you,... Lets accept it. Nothing is FREE in this world...
There is something called corporate alignment in every aspect of the business. She doing it - if it helps her as well as us. So be it.
we should be able to combine all forces and go at it....
wallpaper Reece Witherspoon Hairstyle.
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
06-10 12:50 PM
WAKE UP CALL FOR THOSE STILL SITTING ON THE SIDELINES
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
What should we do. I am in tell me what I need to do?
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
What should we do. I am in tell me what I need to do?
zram1977
06-08 06:08 PM
Welcome to the club, China! :D
What is the status of unused Eb1 /Eb2 visas of ROW?
Will it spill over or be wasted?
GOK
What is the status of unused Eb1 /Eb2 visas of ROW?
Will it spill over or be wasted?
GOK
2011 REESE WITHERSPOON HAIRSTYLE
[uber]
03-11 10:39 PM
when is the poll gonna be set up?
more...
nitinboston
04-10 01:02 AM
i have been on this forum for some time now, something i still am trying to understand is, IS GC A RIGHT OR A PRIVILEGE? if its a right i am all for fighting for it but if its a privilege bestowed by this nation on immigrants why don't we just kneel and pray instead of crying foul.
eb3retro
06-10 01:54 PM
may be they r special..
:D:D:D:D
You did not submit because it was ok for you. I know people who got RFE asking for employment proof.
:D:D:D:D
You did not submit because it was ok for you. I know people who got RFE asking for employment proof.
more...
conundrum
11-06 11:54 AM
Hi,
Can somebody paste the sample letter that needed to be sent because I cant open in office.
Thanks,
brawn.
FOIA Request for number of pending Employment based AOS/I-485 Applications
John Doe,
200 Main Street,
Chicago,IL,60001
National Records Center, FOIA/PA Office
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
P. O. Box 648010
Lee�s Summit, MO 64064-8010
Dear FOIA officer,
Several Employment based categories have been retrogressed for 4 years now and the exact number of pending AOS applications sorted by priority dates in the employment-based category is unknown. Department of state has been establishing the cut off in priority dates based on educated guesses and approximations. DOS and none of the Employment based applicants know the number of applications pending per category, per country sorted by priority dates. DOS visa office expressed same concern in Oct 08 bulletin.
�Little if any forward movement of the cut-off dates in most Employment categories is likely until the extent of the CIS backlog of old priority dates can be determined.�
This information would be helpful in determining the priority dates accurately and in determining when a visa number will be available for a given priority date in a certain category. I request you to provide me with the number of pending employment based AOS applications, (excluding approved/denied) sorted by priority date from 2001 on a yearly basis broken down for each of the following country and category. (Not the combined total of pending EB AOS applications altogether)
EB-2 China : Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now
EB-2 India: Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now.
EB-3 China: Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now.
EB-3 India: Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now.
EB-3 Mexico: Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now.
EB-3 Phillippines: Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now.
EB-3 Rest of the world : Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now
Thanks,
John Doe.
Can somebody paste the sample letter that needed to be sent because I cant open in office.
Thanks,
brawn.
FOIA Request for number of pending Employment based AOS/I-485 Applications
John Doe,
200 Main Street,
Chicago,IL,60001
National Records Center, FOIA/PA Office
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
P. O. Box 648010
Lee�s Summit, MO 64064-8010
Dear FOIA officer,
Several Employment based categories have been retrogressed for 4 years now and the exact number of pending AOS applications sorted by priority dates in the employment-based category is unknown. Department of state has been establishing the cut off in priority dates based on educated guesses and approximations. DOS and none of the Employment based applicants know the number of applications pending per category, per country sorted by priority dates. DOS visa office expressed same concern in Oct 08 bulletin.
�Little if any forward movement of the cut-off dates in most Employment categories is likely until the extent of the CIS backlog of old priority dates can be determined.�
This information would be helpful in determining the priority dates accurately and in determining when a visa number will be available for a given priority date in a certain category. I request you to provide me with the number of pending employment based AOS applications, (excluding approved/denied) sorted by priority date from 2001 on a yearly basis broken down for each of the following country and category. (Not the combined total of pending EB AOS applications altogether)
EB-2 China : Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now
EB-2 India: Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now.
EB-3 China: Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now.
EB-3 India: Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now.
EB-3 Mexico: Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now.
EB-3 Phillippines: Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now.
EB-3 Rest of the world : Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now
Thanks,
John Doe.
2010 Reese Witherspoon curly
sammas
07-12 04:01 PM
F. DETERMINATION OF THE NUMERICAL LIMITS ON IMMIGRANTS REQUIRED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT (INA)
The State Department is required to make a determination of the worldwide numerical limitations, as outlined in Section 201(c) and (d) of the INA, on an annual basis. These calculations are based in part on data provided by U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (CIS) regarding the number of immediate relative adjustments in the preceding year and the number of aliens paroled into the United States under Section 212(d)(5) in the second preceding year. Without this information, it is impossible to make an official determination of the annual limits. To avoid delays in processing while waiting for the CIS data, the Visa Office (VO) bases allocations on the minimum annual limits outlined in Section 201 of the INA. On July 7th, CIS provided the required data to VO.
The Department of State has determined the Family and Employment preference numerical limits for FY-2010 in accordance with the terms of Section 201 of the INA. These numerical limitations for FY-2010 are as follows:
Worldwide Family-Sponsored preference limit: 226,000
Worldwide Employment-Based preference limit: 150,667
Under INA Section 202(A), the per-country limit is fixed at 7% of the family and employment annual limits. For FY-2010 the per-country limit is 26,367. The dependent area annual limit is 2%, or 7,533.
The State Department is required to make a determination of the worldwide numerical limitations, as outlined in Section 201(c) and (d) of the INA, on an annual basis. These calculations are based in part on data provided by U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (CIS) regarding the number of immediate relative adjustments in the preceding year and the number of aliens paroled into the United States under Section 212(d)(5) in the second preceding year. Without this information, it is impossible to make an official determination of the annual limits. To avoid delays in processing while waiting for the CIS data, the Visa Office (VO) bases allocations on the minimum annual limits outlined in Section 201 of the INA. On July 7th, CIS provided the required data to VO.
The Department of State has determined the Family and Employment preference numerical limits for FY-2010 in accordance with the terms of Section 201 of the INA. These numerical limitations for FY-2010 are as follows:
Worldwide Family-Sponsored preference limit: 226,000
Worldwide Employment-Based preference limit: 150,667
Under INA Section 202(A), the per-country limit is fixed at 7% of the family and employment annual limits. For FY-2010 the per-country limit is 26,367. The dependent area annual limit is 2%, or 7,533.
more...
eager_immi
07-24 07:09 AM
A guy with visa #current in June, his check got encashed.Guys, check this thread out. sanjay is saying he got his checks cashed.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10994&highlight=cheque
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10994&highlight=cheque
hair reese witherspoon hairstyle
Pineapple
11-18 06:59 AM
My receipt number is NRC2008064605.
more...
bec
10-15 04:53 PM
Please wait and watch for couple of months. You can keep writing to congressmen, ombudsman, push for visa recapture in lame ducks, ask for more transparency into the process but please don't send any flowers now and try to embarrass any govt organization directly. We don't know what effect its going to have.Instead go through the Ombudsman to voice your concerns.Finally, please get the consent of core IV before you attempt this.
We really, really want EB2/3-I folks, especially those who have been waiting for 5 years or more, to get out of this gc process as painlessly as possible.
We really, really want EB2/3-I folks, especially those who have been waiting for 5 years or more, to get out of this gc process as painlessly as possible.
hot Reese Witherspoon Hairstyles
sivakumar
02-22 11:57 AM
Hi Friends,
I have a question regarding the new ruling that states that if your Name check is pending for more than 180 days and your PD is current then you I-485 will be approved.
In my case I-485 was filed on 23 june 2007, FP was done on 12Aug 2007, got EAD on 23september 2007.
Since I had a RFE on I-140 it finally got approved on 25th October 2007.
NOW MY QUESTION IS AT WHAT POINT DOES USCIS SEND APPLICATION FOR NAME CHECK? Why I am asking this question is becase I want to calculate the 180 day period. will it be after finger prinitng (e.g 12august07) or after 1-140 got approved (e.g 25october07).
I am under EB2 caterory from India. My priority date is 12 March 2003.
As there is a feeling that the April visa might have 12/01/2003 as the priority date.
I may get it or I might not get it ( depending when FP started)
Please advice,
Thanks a lot in advance and anticipation of an answer :)
Siva.
I have a question regarding the new ruling that states that if your Name check is pending for more than 180 days and your PD is current then you I-485 will be approved.
In my case I-485 was filed on 23 june 2007, FP was done on 12Aug 2007, got EAD on 23september 2007.
Since I had a RFE on I-140 it finally got approved on 25th October 2007.
NOW MY QUESTION IS AT WHAT POINT DOES USCIS SEND APPLICATION FOR NAME CHECK? Why I am asking this question is becase I want to calculate the 180 day period. will it be after finger prinitng (e.g 12august07) or after 1-140 got approved (e.g 25october07).
I am under EB2 caterory from India. My priority date is 12 March 2003.
As there is a feeling that the April visa might have 12/01/2003 as the priority date.
I may get it or I might not get it ( depending when FP started)
Please advice,
Thanks a lot in advance and anticipation of an answer :)
Siva.
more...
house Reese Witherspoon – Premiere
Asian
11-21 10:46 AM
I like this posting by tjayant. Very personal and detailed message. Except for one thing. You cannot guarantee 2 years from now for those who applied in 2003 and 2004 till getting GC. That is the whole problem for all of us.
My PD is in 2003 and I am EB-3 ROW but I don't think it will happen in two years in this pace. I am trying to move on with the new degree I will get during the long waiting period. Just like many people I had worked for my current company two years before starting GC process. Not many company let you do it right away... So stuck almost five years in current company without career progress just for the hope of GC... How screwed am I?
Back in 2003, my immigration lawyer didn't care much about EB-2 even though I already had a masters degree probably because of the prevailing wage requirement. But they had no clue what was going to happen.
Here is my advice to folks trying to jump job just for $$$, even if the GC situation is bad , money should never be the only factor in moving for another job, plan long term , actually from what I know only startups have good opening but highly unstable so it is a catch 22 for most of the folks, I would suggest if you are in fortune 500 companies and the job is boring and salary is bad stick with it for 2 more years , if you cannot get the GC in the next 1-2 years I dont think you will ever get it, this is applicable for folks who applied GC during 2003/2004, 3+2=5years , for folks who has applied for GC after 2004 you can do what you want !!., here again look for favorable environment, Govt's change and policy change so make hay while the sun shine !!, so if the policy is favorable even if the job is bad but you can get the GC in 1-2 year i would stick with that company, because you will never know what will happen after 2 years , It looks to me like we might be in a cusp of policy change similar to 1999/2000, if you miss this boat you may have to wait for another 6-7 years. But again if my understanding is correct America is like a ocean and there is room for everyone , so no one need to be scared of GC etc, every one will get it in some form or other eventually , it is only a matter of time. As far myself iam still waiting for LC, but never really bothered about GC during my 9+ years stay , I just did what I wanted , but after 9 years I would like to move to a startup but controlling myself with the above logic !!!, But one good thing about waiting for GC is it made me a better person personally in learning ton's of stuff valuable for long run. so there is always pluses, everybody wants to be a Pirate (do what we wanted like jump job's at the fist obstacle/temptation $$$) but sometimes it is good to be controlled by external factors to get the best of ourselfs.
My PD is in 2003 and I am EB-3 ROW but I don't think it will happen in two years in this pace. I am trying to move on with the new degree I will get during the long waiting period. Just like many people I had worked for my current company two years before starting GC process. Not many company let you do it right away... So stuck almost five years in current company without career progress just for the hope of GC... How screwed am I?
Back in 2003, my immigration lawyer didn't care much about EB-2 even though I already had a masters degree probably because of the prevailing wage requirement. But they had no clue what was going to happen.
Here is my advice to folks trying to jump job just for $$$, even if the GC situation is bad , money should never be the only factor in moving for another job, plan long term , actually from what I know only startups have good opening but highly unstable so it is a catch 22 for most of the folks, I would suggest if you are in fortune 500 companies and the job is boring and salary is bad stick with it for 2 more years , if you cannot get the GC in the next 1-2 years I dont think you will ever get it, this is applicable for folks who applied GC during 2003/2004, 3+2=5years , for folks who has applied for GC after 2004 you can do what you want !!., here again look for favorable environment, Govt's change and policy change so make hay while the sun shine !!, so if the policy is favorable even if the job is bad but you can get the GC in 1-2 year i would stick with that company, because you will never know what will happen after 2 years , It looks to me like we might be in a cusp of policy change similar to 1999/2000, if you miss this boat you may have to wait for another 6-7 years. But again if my understanding is correct America is like a ocean and there is room for everyone , so no one need to be scared of GC etc, every one will get it in some form or other eventually , it is only a matter of time. As far myself iam still waiting for LC, but never really bothered about GC during my 9+ years stay , I just did what I wanted , but after 9 years I would like to move to a startup but controlling myself with the above logic !!!, But one good thing about waiting for GC is it made me a better person personally in learning ton's of stuff valuable for long run. so there is always pluses, everybody wants to be a Pirate (do what we wanted like jump job's at the fist obstacle/temptation $$$) but sometimes it is good to be controlled by external factors to get the best of ourselfs.
tattoo Reese Witherspoon#39;s half up
snathan
08-21 01:50 PM
I did not marry the man I was engaged to. I came here initially for ONE month and was approved at the airport customs terminal to stay that long. When I got here, it was for a visit with my fiance only. Unfortunately, things did not work out and we broke it off. Thank God! However, I was staying with his uncle and aunt, and they had a disabled man in the house. HE turned out to be my sponsor when they asked me to care for him while they were doing long haul trucking. I agreed to do this and we immediately contacted USCIS to get instructions on what needed to be filed first. With that information in hand, we filed everything they requested. All the stuff on the RFE I received has never been mentioned before now and if it had, it would have been filed along with the rest. There are tons of applications, how is one supposed to know what to file and when if there are no specific instructions? I have gone through all the copies we have of all the required applications and I still do not see anything where all these other forms were to be filed along with the I-485.
Nothing was done illegally. He filed the application on my behalf, signed, sealed and delivered it himself. I did not do this on my own, I just signed whatever I was required to sign, he did the rest.
If all of this was illegal, then why was I not informed of this nearly 6 years ago when we filed the first application? Seems a bit odd that if I was illegal and they know where I am and who I live with that they wouldn't be quick to throw me out, but they have not done so.
My former fiance has nothing to do with this, I never intended to stay here when I first came, it was merely a visit but circumstances were such that I was needed at a moment's notice so we filed the necessary paperwork as quickly as possible and thought we were doing the right thing. No one has ever said otherwise until now and I think that is rather unfair to spring it all on me at this point and expect me to get it all done within 30 days. I know I am not the only applicant out there and I realize there is a huge backlog of other applications, I'm not that stupid to think that they will make me a priority, but one measly letter informing me that I was here illegally sometime over a 6 year period is not asking to much is it? Why would they send me all the other Notices of Action if I was here illegally and they knew it?
Something is terribly screwed up and I guess I have no choice but to find an attorney who can deal with this mess.
I dont think your issuse can be fixed even by attorney. You are not coming under any category to file Green Card. So prepare for yourself to go back and build your life back in canada.
Nothing was done illegally. He filed the application on my behalf, signed, sealed and delivered it himself. I did not do this on my own, I just signed whatever I was required to sign, he did the rest.
If all of this was illegal, then why was I not informed of this nearly 6 years ago when we filed the first application? Seems a bit odd that if I was illegal and they know where I am and who I live with that they wouldn't be quick to throw me out, but they have not done so.
My former fiance has nothing to do with this, I never intended to stay here when I first came, it was merely a visit but circumstances were such that I was needed at a moment's notice so we filed the necessary paperwork as quickly as possible and thought we were doing the right thing. No one has ever said otherwise until now and I think that is rather unfair to spring it all on me at this point and expect me to get it all done within 30 days. I know I am not the only applicant out there and I realize there is a huge backlog of other applications, I'm not that stupid to think that they will make me a priority, but one measly letter informing me that I was here illegally sometime over a 6 year period is not asking to much is it? Why would they send me all the other Notices of Action if I was here illegally and they knew it?
Something is terribly screwed up and I guess I have no choice but to find an attorney who can deal with this mess.
I dont think your issuse can be fixed even by attorney. You are not coming under any category to file Green Card. So prepare for yourself to go back and build your life back in canada.
more...
pictures Reese Witherspoon Hair
neelu
12-12 10:48 AM
We have asked an immigration lawyer this question. Someone even quoted all the sections of INA and CFR(code of federal regulations) to make the point -- that you can have regulation changed to file 485.
The lawyer was of the opinion that you need change in INA to be able to file 485 when dates are not current. It cannot be done with administrative changes.
Hi Logiclife,
If an attorney says that it cannot be done with administrative changes, then I guess, we dont have much to argue.
But I cannot understand the logic behind why it cant be done. I mean, disallowing concurrent processing is possible by an administrative change, why is the reverse (or something similar like allowing 485 filing without pd being current), not possible?
I am sorry for not being to let go of this, but I thought, logic-life can see some logic in this!!! :)
Thank you.
The lawyer was of the opinion that you need change in INA to be able to file 485 when dates are not current. It cannot be done with administrative changes.
Hi Logiclife,
If an attorney says that it cannot be done with administrative changes, then I guess, we dont have much to argue.
But I cannot understand the logic behind why it cant be done. I mean, disallowing concurrent processing is possible by an administrative change, why is the reverse (or something similar like allowing 485 filing without pd being current), not possible?
I am sorry for not being to let go of this, but I thought, logic-life can see some logic in this!!! :)
Thank you.
dresses Reese Witherspoon Hairstyle
mbartosik
11-27 07:50 PM
Nrc2008065862
more...
makeup Keywords: reese witherspoon
sw33t
01-18 08:19 PM
Since my statement about making copies of offical US documents is causing confusion, let me rephrase & elaborate -
I, as many of you were, was stopped and requested to provide proof of immigration status. I had a color photocopy of my US Visa Stamp of my passport.
Besides the fact that the Border Patrol agent denied the photocopy as proof of immigration status, he did let me go as soon as I provided my College ID and a DL, warning me that it is against the law to make a photocopy of an official US IMMIGRATION document FOR PERSONAL USE. I did argue about the scenario if I ended up losing my passport and vital documents, which is why I had made copies. He shook his head and repeated the same - NO PHOTOCOPIES OF OFFICIAL US IMMIGRATION DOCUMENTS FOR PERSONAL USE. So, while you are allowed to provide photocopies of official US documents for official government purposes, you cannot make copies of official US IMMIGRATION documents for personal use. I have a pretty busy schedule so I don't have the patience to search, cut and paste the section of the law which refers to this since I did research this at that time and deemed correct the Border Agent's warning.
I, as many of you were, was stopped and requested to provide proof of immigration status. I had a color photocopy of my US Visa Stamp of my passport.
Besides the fact that the Border Patrol agent denied the photocopy as proof of immigration status, he did let me go as soon as I provided my College ID and a DL, warning me that it is against the law to make a photocopy of an official US IMMIGRATION document FOR PERSONAL USE. I did argue about the scenario if I ended up losing my passport and vital documents, which is why I had made copies. He shook his head and repeated the same - NO PHOTOCOPIES OF OFFICIAL US IMMIGRATION DOCUMENTS FOR PERSONAL USE. So, while you are allowed to provide photocopies of official US documents for official government purposes, you cannot make copies of official US IMMIGRATION documents for personal use. I have a pretty busy schedule so I don't have the patience to search, cut and paste the section of the law which refers to this since I did research this at that time and deemed correct the Border Agent's warning.
girlfriend Reese Witherspoon Hair
Dakota Newfie
07-03 12:20 PM
As I said, I expected to be "attacked" when I submitted my posts which only proves my point since the attacks are only coming from a "select group"; remember, the more you criticize my opions, the more you prove I'm right!
That being said, since I am not a member of this "select group", Administrator please remove me from the list of IMMIGRATION VOICE members. Thank you and good bye.
That being said, since I am not a member of this "select group", Administrator please remove me from the list of IMMIGRATION VOICE members. Thank you and good bye.
hairstyles Reese Witherspoon With Curly
Ramba
02-21 01:21 PM
It is very difficult to predict how the cutoff date movement from april to september. All depends on how many EB3-ROW applications are ready for approval by March 8th, due to 2 years movement. After july fiasco, there are tons of fresh 485s got filed (may be 300K to 600K). There will be considerable EB3-ROW applicants to consume all the visas remaining in this year. As USCIS processing 485s based only on recived date (not by EB catagory not by PD wise and not by and countrywise), it is very diffcult to conclude that all the EB3-ROW 485s with PD before 2005 currently pending with USCIS, will be ready by March 8th to consume all the visas. If EB3-ROW consumption by march-8 is less than what DOS projecting, there may be a further movement. Depending upon DOS staergy, the remaining movement may be in EB3-ROW or EB2-In,CH. EB1-IN,EB2-IN, & EB3-In might have alrady consumed its quota. The only available numbers for Indians are spill over. So, depending upon DOS policy there will be a movement in EB3-ROW or EB2 In-CH. Other animal that affet this situation is, new policy of USCIS for very old name check cases (about 50,000). If the EB3-ROW has more name check victims, then movement for India will not be possible. So, its is very difficult to predict.
Macaca
01-30 07:03 PM
Asking employees to pay for H1 costs is not legal. It would be in violations of CFR.
Is this a new rule? I have paid for my H1 with a check to INS (before name changed to USCIS). I think everyone else paid for H1 with pay check to INS. I was also supposed to pay for (non-company) lawyer fees for GC.
Is this a new rule? I have paid for my H1 with a check to INS (before name changed to USCIS). I think everyone else paid for H1 with pay check to INS. I was also supposed to pay for (non-company) lawyer fees for GC.
sanju
04-04 03:49 PM
are you aware of the fact that IEEE actually lobbied to get a special quota of H1B for US-educated folks? these folks are foreigners and will definitely be competing against these "racist" ppl. Because of their principled stand, they continue to have clout.
So, only "US-educated folks" are entitled for H1? Is that what you are saying? And only that is a principled stand and rest everything is falsehood?
So, only "US-educated folks" are entitled for H1? Is that what you are saying? And only that is a principled stand and rest everything is falsehood?