abhijitp
03-09 02:39 PM
Hi,
I have 6,355 miles from Delta. I want to donate these miles to someone who is travelling to DC. Please let me know if I can do this and how to do it.
Thank you and good luck to you all.
1) Get in touch with someone who wants to use the miles
2 ) How to Contribute Frequent Flyer Miles | eHow.com (http://www.ehow.com/how_7193899_contribute-frequent-flyer-miles.html)
I have 6,355 miles from Delta. I want to donate these miles to someone who is travelling to DC. Please let me know if I can do this and how to do it.
Thank you and good luck to you all.
1) Get in touch with someone who wants to use the miles
2 ) How to Contribute Frequent Flyer Miles | eHow.com (http://www.ehow.com/how_7193899_contribute-frequent-flyer-miles.html)
wallpaper ICC Cricket World Cup 2011
transpass
04-10 12:07 PM
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
tjayant
11-20 07:08 PM
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.
2011 world cup final match 2011.
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
07-13 03:44 PM
I am current now (PD: Feb 16th,06) and last time when i was current in 2008 for a month i got an RFE. Even though the attorney replied to the RFE in 3 days, all my case status shows is RFE response received.
Ours is a big company and close 2000 people applied for 485 during the July 2007 fiasco and we were asked to send the G28 forms to the attorney by mail with no signature reqd. Apparently almost every got an RFE for that.
I wish i could get to know if RFE was all taken care of and my case is pending for a VISA number. Any way to know if thats the case gurus?
Why did you not open an SR. I was in the same situation, my company replied back to the RFE and the status still says we recieved your RFE. I opened an SR to find out my position this March, they said they are waiting for visa to get current.
Try opening an SR and just find status.
Ours is a big company and close 2000 people applied for 485 during the July 2007 fiasco and we were asked to send the G28 forms to the attorney by mail with no signature reqd. Apparently almost every got an RFE for that.
I wish i could get to know if RFE was all taken care of and my case is pending for a VISA number. Any way to know if thats the case gurus?
Why did you not open an SR. I was in the same situation, my company replied back to the RFE and the status still says we recieved your RFE. I opened an SR to find out my position this March, they said they are waiting for visa to get current.
Try opening an SR and just find status.
more...
h1techSlave
11-10 10:20 PM
Pushing for such small changes is the right thing to do.
IV has people on the national advisory board that include the previous USCIS ombudsman, what is their take on this? I have not seen any thoughts from such experts that support this organization on this issue of quarterly spillover
IV has people on the national advisory board that include the previous USCIS ombudsman, what is their take on this? I have not seen any thoughts from such experts that support this organization on this issue of quarterly spillover
singhsa3
03-03 06:44 PM
Some of the data can be obtained from here
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/PERM_Data_FY07_Announcement.pdf
of course it is not complete but gives a good glimpse.
Now, you show me your 10 billion dollars :)
Might not be extrapolation, but gross misrepresentation. Have you taken a poll or do you have any data to justify all the numbers you are including in the e-mail? If yes, then include the links for that in the letter, otherwise no one is going to believe you.
Why, I can say, I have 10 billion dollars which I will donate to USCIS to improve their system if I get a GC right now.
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/PERM_Data_FY07_Announcement.pdf
of course it is not complete but gives a good glimpse.
Now, you show me your 10 billion dollars :)
Might not be extrapolation, but gross misrepresentation. Have you taken a poll or do you have any data to justify all the numbers you are including in the e-mail? If yes, then include the links for that in the letter, otherwise no one is going to believe you.
Why, I can say, I have 10 billion dollars which I will donate to USCIS to improve their system if I get a GC right now.
more...
svr_76
06-10 12:51 PM
@hpandey : I dont think that this is any "racist" amendment. I think this amendment is more geared towards the perception that Microsoft (US) (and the simmilars) when firing ppl in US fire citizen and "hire" (H1B ppl immediately). I think if at all it needs improvement on what they mean by "same title" as within the same title people skills/trade would be different.
2010 world cup final match 2011
GooblyWoobly
03-20 02:09 PM
I have no idea why u guys get riled up about EB3->EB2 conversion? It's Not your Ration line FIFO. Are you trying to say someone who has 10 years of experience (5 years in the last company, so EB3) stands to get GC AFTER someone with no experience but a MS? There are many other loopholes through which EB3's can fall through. Just because you are frustrated with the wait, don't take it out on someone who is also on the same boat.
Also your assumption of "Reputed companies don't do EB3->EB2" is outright wrong. I work for one of the most reputed companies in the valley, and they do it on a selective basis (read, if you're good enough, they'll do it for you).
Remember this, someone can move to EB2 only if he qualifies to. It's not that you can just jump boat with no qualification. And if someone qualifies, I don't see why he/she should stay back!!
I'm a original EB2 filer (no EB3->EB2 conversion) and not a LC transfer. EB3->EB2 increases timeline for getting my GC. But I do not believe that's wrong.
Each one to his own!! My 2c.
Hi Coopheal:
With Due respects to your Seniority and Agony/ Frustration being retrogessed.
Standard Companies donot opt for having two I140s approved for a particular employees which is a "Logical Fallacy" of EB concept. Leave alone Rat Desi Companies.. They can do anything and turn the boards off..
If your arguement is right: first you have to stop L1s getting Gcs in less than 10 months.. (on an average). Porting EB3 to Eb2 is a big junk and disrepct to the EB2 Qualifier. Now, Qualifying Eb2, if you feel, is not a big deal, why the companies did not preferred it out for Eb3s in first place because lack of Job Requirements. (infact, this portings have to be highlighted to USCIS as Junk technique and illegal).
So the whole arguement doesnot workout. Soon, wait and see Portings would bestopped, with Desi companies messing itaround like Approved labors (infact, it isa refined version of approved labor scams).
Please donot jump on me.. its a waste of time.. But the logic holds good EB2 Vs. EB3. If allowed, People may even qualify for EB1, (People would work it out also sooner or later) Let's respect each other profiles.. and its a matter of time we are all there.
This is my Honest Advice.. Trust me. I am a 2003 eb3 victim.. No way to jump lines.. its inhuman.
Thanks,
Also your assumption of "Reputed companies don't do EB3->EB2" is outright wrong. I work for one of the most reputed companies in the valley, and they do it on a selective basis (read, if you're good enough, they'll do it for you).
Remember this, someone can move to EB2 only if he qualifies to. It's not that you can just jump boat with no qualification. And if someone qualifies, I don't see why he/she should stay back!!
I'm a original EB2 filer (no EB3->EB2 conversion) and not a LC transfer. EB3->EB2 increases timeline for getting my GC. But I do not believe that's wrong.
Each one to his own!! My 2c.
Hi Coopheal:
With Due respects to your Seniority and Agony/ Frustration being retrogessed.
Standard Companies donot opt for having two I140s approved for a particular employees which is a "Logical Fallacy" of EB concept. Leave alone Rat Desi Companies.. They can do anything and turn the boards off..
If your arguement is right: first you have to stop L1s getting Gcs in less than 10 months.. (on an average). Porting EB3 to Eb2 is a big junk and disrepct to the EB2 Qualifier. Now, Qualifying Eb2, if you feel, is not a big deal, why the companies did not preferred it out for Eb3s in first place because lack of Job Requirements. (infact, this portings have to be highlighted to USCIS as Junk technique and illegal).
So the whole arguement doesnot workout. Soon, wait and see Portings would bestopped, with Desi companies messing itaround like Approved labors (infact, it isa refined version of approved labor scams).
Please donot jump on me.. its a waste of time.. But the logic holds good EB2 Vs. EB3. If allowed, People may even qualify for EB1, (People would work it out also sooner or later) Let's respect each other profiles.. and its a matter of time we are all there.
This is my Honest Advice.. Trust me. I am a 2003 eb3 victim.. No way to jump lines.. its inhuman.
Thanks,
more...
minimalist
09-10 12:29 PM
girijas, your comment is both funny and sad... we are behind horses.. :(
The picture is not pretty.
The picture is not pretty.
hair world cup cricket final match
hara_patta_for_rico
07-09 07:54 PM
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
Do you know that July 1st was a Sunday? A non-working day.
my 2 cents...
Do you know that July 1st was a Sunday? A non-working day.
more...
dreamgc_real
07-06 09:45 AM
sent the emails to my senators. Is there a way of sending it to the Senators Grassley, Harkin, Sanders themselves letting them know that we do not agree with their policies??
(Not that they will change their the minds, but if they do not see our logic, they will never waver in their intent)
(Not that they will change their the minds, but if they do not see our logic, they will never waver in their intent)
hot 2011 ICC World Cup Final
HOPE_GC_SOON
08-02 03:13 PM
Folks,
This is a good beginning for a cause which gives us some relief in these retrogressed life.
We can atleast propose to USCIS, to accept 485 (if not approval), for those case, where I140 is approved, and the approval can be given in the normal PD schema.
This would lessen the burden on USCIS and facilitate the GC applicant to avail of AC21 PROVISION.
Also, we can highlight here that EAD renewal could be a great source of revenue for USCIS.
Please start this movement.
best wishes and thanks for all the great Volunteers.
No doubt if, IV wish, it can achieve... No Wonders
thanks
To the core group/Senior Members,
If I understand it right, the ability to concurrently file I40/I485 was introduced by the legacy INS through a memo in July of 2002 and it went effective almost immediately on July 31st 2002. I've tried to search for news archives on different law websites and to best of my knowledge it was purely an executive decision taken by INS governing body and no congressional or judicial intervention was needed to allow concurrent filing. In a very similar fashion, the new USCIS has indicated that it wants to discontinue concurrent filing in near future...an executive decision again.
Is it a possibility to get an audience with the USCIS director/start a letter campaign with the goal of getting them issue a memo allowing filing of I485/EAD even if the visa number is not available? The adjucation of the case would obviously happen only after visa number becomes available but as we all know this will be a big relief for all those who want to use AC21 provisions.
Passage of CIR/SKIL is very important in the longer run to reduce the overall greencard processing time and alleviate heavy backlogs but if we get this small relief right now it would help a lot of individuals from retrogressed countries waiting to file I485...and the good thing is, it looks like USCIS might have the ability to effect this change without a lengthy legislative process.
Any thoughts ??
This is a good beginning for a cause which gives us some relief in these retrogressed life.
We can atleast propose to USCIS, to accept 485 (if not approval), for those case, where I140 is approved, and the approval can be given in the normal PD schema.
This would lessen the burden on USCIS and facilitate the GC applicant to avail of AC21 PROVISION.
Also, we can highlight here that EAD renewal could be a great source of revenue for USCIS.
Please start this movement.
best wishes and thanks for all the great Volunteers.
No doubt if, IV wish, it can achieve... No Wonders
thanks
To the core group/Senior Members,
If I understand it right, the ability to concurrently file I40/I485 was introduced by the legacy INS through a memo in July of 2002 and it went effective almost immediately on July 31st 2002. I've tried to search for news archives on different law websites and to best of my knowledge it was purely an executive decision taken by INS governing body and no congressional or judicial intervention was needed to allow concurrent filing. In a very similar fashion, the new USCIS has indicated that it wants to discontinue concurrent filing in near future...an executive decision again.
Is it a possibility to get an audience with the USCIS director/start a letter campaign with the goal of getting them issue a memo allowing filing of I485/EAD even if the visa number is not available? The adjucation of the case would obviously happen only after visa number becomes available but as we all know this will be a big relief for all those who want to use AC21 provisions.
Passage of CIR/SKIL is very important in the longer run to reduce the overall greencard processing time and alleviate heavy backlogs but if we get this small relief right now it would help a lot of individuals from retrogressed countries waiting to file I485...and the good thing is, it looks like USCIS might have the ability to effect this change without a lengthy legislative process.
Any thoughts ??
more...
house world cup final match 2011.
senthil1
06-12 02:29 PM
It looks like without H1b restrictions you may not get anything. That is mood in the Senate. If CIR is not coming what is your idea? Skill bill seperately is difficult if not impossible. Last minute they may increase H1b for a few years(But last minute increase of GC is impossible. You might have learned lesson on last lame duck session and February 2007) that will further screw up Gc waiting persons.If CIR comes you can have a chance of some favorable amendment in House if not happens in Senate. Also if you oppose CIR you are joining with your enemy and you have risk of losing crediblity. Compete America does not oppose CIR and they are opposing some portions and trying Amendments and they did not advice to any Senator to oppose the bill
So what is your point, you say only CIR can bring any relief to eb immigrants and no other bill like skil will be considered, but cir will not gives us any relief at all, so you would prefer a cir without any relief for us rather than not having any bill?
all this talk about cantwell amendment, what does cantwell amendment offer us, it offers us nothing that we dont already have. Canwell amendment is the best amednment we have so far, that should give you an idea of the pathetic situation we are in. Please start opposing this bill. If not, can somebody enlighten me what is the "good stuff" i am missing in this bill.
So what is your point, you say only CIR can bring any relief to eb immigrants and no other bill like skil will be considered, but cir will not gives us any relief at all, so you would prefer a cir without any relief for us rather than not having any bill?
all this talk about cantwell amendment, what does cantwell amendment offer us, it offers us nothing that we dont already have. Canwell amendment is the best amednment we have so far, that should give you an idea of the pathetic situation we are in. Please start opposing this bill. If not, can somebody enlighten me what is the "good stuff" i am missing in this bill.
tattoo World Cup 2011 final Match
permfiling
11-08 06:14 PM
Congrats ! How long did it take for CPO email since u recieved the 485 , I-797 and which service center
Guys,
Today I spent around $300 to start medical exam report. I've to still to do lab work and may need x-ray. I was working with my swollen arm and got this message..
Your Case Status: Card/ Document Production On September 22, 2010 we mailed the document to the address we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.
-----
Now I have to wait.. I will skip tomorrow's lab :rolleyes: and talk to my attorney. Confused yet happy
Guys,
Today I spent around $300 to start medical exam report. I've to still to do lab work and may need x-ray. I was working with my swollen arm and got this message..
Your Case Status: Card/ Document Production On September 22, 2010 we mailed the document to the address we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.
-----
Now I have to wait.. I will skip tomorrow's lab :rolleyes: and talk to my attorney. Confused yet happy
more...
pictures world cup final match 2011.
anilsal
12-12 01:17 PM
If the attorneys have determined that there needs to be a INA change to allow I-485 filing during retrogression, has anybody bothered to find out what USCIS interpretation is?
USCIS interpretation can be binding!
USCIS interpretation can be binding!
dresses ICC World Cup 2011 Final Match
fide_champ
04-09 08:33 AM
It's sad that such a thing happened if it ever happened. The POE officer definitely is going out of his jurisdiction to deny entry to the H1B person. Personally i never had any issues while entering US from Newark,NJ POE. The last time i entered the only question he asked me was "who makes more money, you or your wife" and the officer was very friendly and cracked some jokes as well.
So i have to question the validity of such news if it's coming from a third-party.
So i have to question the validity of such news if it's coming from a third-party.
more...
makeup world cup final match 2011
Ramba
07-14 06:18 PM
You are correct but his case could be that his employer cancelled his 140 which could damage his case more than the use of AC21 to change employers.
The fundamental rule (for getting GC) is the longterm intent of having permanent employment relationship between employer and employee at the time of filing 140 and 485 (see the Q&A). The intet has to be "at the time of filing" only. The employee has worked 3 years in H1B for thr sponser. It clearly establishes the both party's intent at the time of filing. So, even if the employer revokes his approved 140, he is 100% safe.
The fundamental rule (for getting GC) is the longterm intent of having permanent employment relationship between employer and employee at the time of filing 140 and 485 (see the Q&A). The intet has to be "at the time of filing" only. The employee has worked 3 years in H1B for thr sponser. It clearly establishes the both party's intent at the time of filing. So, even if the employer revokes his approved 140, he is 100% safe.
girlfriend world cup final match 2011.
Jerrome
08-07 11:02 AM
June processing numbers are available
I485 Receipt I485 Pending I485-processed FB I-485 EB I-485
June-08 46024 740969 44989 42500 2489
Very much what i expected.
Means we had(have) 25K visas to be used(only from EB Quota) in July,August and September rt.
I485 Receipt I485 Pending I485-processed FB I-485 EB I-485
June-08 46024 740969 44989 42500 2489
Very much what i expected.
Means we had(have) 25K visas to be used(only from EB Quota) in July,August and September rt.
hairstyles world cup final match 2011
trueguy
04-06 05:55 PM
Do you know the POE?
trueguy
07-03 05:50 PM
Everyone,
Can we stick to the subject please?
Where is the online petition and how soon can we collect all the signature so they can help in getting those three bills approved.
Thanks
Can we stick to the subject please?
Where is the online petition and how soon can we collect all the signature so they can help in getting those three bills approved.
Thanks
obviously
07-16 08:03 PM
Folks, as someone with a background in public policy, permit me to remind us all that the MAJORITY of the lawmakers' inputs and influence comes from their staffers. Most lawmakers have dedicated staffers who focus on immigration. I would urge EVERYONE who reads this to send a message addressed to:
Staffers and Aides on Immigration Policy
c/o Office of the {Insert respective lawmaker's name and address}
with a PROFESSIONAL, easy to ready, point-by-point, clear outlining of TOP MYTHS promoted around high skilled legal immigration.
In order to be effective, we should have an efficient and sustained mechanism in messaging out.
Also, in speaking with a few lawmakers' aides (and former aides), a repeated refrain was a suggestion that we NOT PREACH to them, because many of them are well aware of the facts and circumstances. What they ask for is easy to read and digest FACTS, *not* our opinions and emotions on how to fix the problem. They get paid to address matters of public policy.
So, I will ask everyone if they can take a few moments to send such a note and eventually build a relation with each of their respective immigration aides so that they can get to send them such factual information.
EMPATHIZE with those who lose jobs in the US, but RECOGNIZE that outsourcing etc is a function of Wall Street, not immigrants squatting on Main Street!
Cheers!
Staffers and Aides on Immigration Policy
c/o Office of the {Insert respective lawmaker's name and address}
with a PROFESSIONAL, easy to ready, point-by-point, clear outlining of TOP MYTHS promoted around high skilled legal immigration.
In order to be effective, we should have an efficient and sustained mechanism in messaging out.
Also, in speaking with a few lawmakers' aides (and former aides), a repeated refrain was a suggestion that we NOT PREACH to them, because many of them are well aware of the facts and circumstances. What they ask for is easy to read and digest FACTS, *not* our opinions and emotions on how to fix the problem. They get paid to address matters of public policy.
So, I will ask everyone if they can take a few moments to send such a note and eventually build a relation with each of their respective immigration aides so that they can get to send them such factual information.
EMPATHIZE with those who lose jobs in the US, but RECOGNIZE that outsourcing etc is a function of Wall Street, not immigrants squatting on Main Street!
Cheers!
No comments:
Post a Comment