Almond
07-05 12:18 PM
So many more places to go to on the internet and get free info and free forums to post on that making this one a paid members only forum would ensure you and a handful of others like you will be best friends posting and viewing on here by yourselves. At least it'll last for a couple of years, you know, longer than a western marriage because you're bound to be waiting considering the USCIS snail work pace. This forum should stay free so everyone can have access to it and be able to communicate with others in similar situations. If one feels like they can/want to contribute for whatever reason, it should be of their own choosing. I just joined so I don't have that sense of gratefulness that longer term posters have but I can see how that could change after being here for a while.
wallpaper city lights modern buildings
keshtwo
07-09 04:40 PM
I hope this lawsuit fails. Looking ahead this lawsuit, if it succeeds might do us more damage than good. Law of unintended consequences states that something can happen we haven't thought of.
Supposing, if lawsuit goes ahead and wins, one outcome might be - USCIS might start adhering to strict interpretation of 7% per country, or curtail spillovers drastically. Then we are in deep shit.
Supposing, if lawsuit goes ahead and wins, one outcome might be - USCIS might start adhering to strict interpretation of 7% per country, or curtail spillovers drastically. Then we are in deep shit.
rajesh_kamisetty
01-16 08:10 PM
Helping myself.
2011 City Lights of Montreal,
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
more...
neoneo
09-26 10:47 PM
senthil1 makes more sense then this!
I don't know who senthil1 is, nor do i care. If you nothing to reply please don't waste white space. My comments are not to stir up arguments but an observation.
I don't know who senthil1 is, nor do i care. If you nothing to reply please don't waste white space. My comments are not to stir up arguments but an observation.
jetguy777
07-11 03:20 PM
Why didnt the EB2 ROW number trickle to ROW EB3 first?
Previously, the policy was that all worldwide numbers would fall down into worldwide third and then from there, fall across to the countries impacted by retrogression (i.e. India, China). The policy was recently clarified and today the unused numbers are allocated within the same preference classification.
Previously, the policy was that all worldwide numbers would fall down into worldwide third and then from there, fall across to the countries impacted by retrogression (i.e. India, China). The policy was recently clarified and today the unused numbers are allocated within the same preference classification.
more...
looivy
06-11 10:36 PM
Emaied IL senator and will snail mail as well. Same for my spouse.
2010 Auckland City lights
am100
07-06 01:23 AM
Did u Used AC21 or changes job after applying I-485 Or is it a stright forward case.
Thanks in advance for the reply.
Sorry for the late response. I was actually out of country when my GC got approved. Just got back today.
I did not use AC 21. I have been with the same employer throughout the process. However, I changed job location after 140 approval. Hence, I had to refile labor (PERM) from new location but ported the older PD. Since, my PD was not current, I did not loose any time even with refiling labor. Hope this helps. Please let me know if if you have any more questions.
Thanks in advance for the reply.
Sorry for the late response. I was actually out of country when my GC got approved. Just got back today.
I did not use AC 21. I have been with the same employer throughout the process. However, I changed job location after 140 approval. Hence, I had to refile labor (PERM) from new location but ported the older PD. Since, my PD was not current, I did not loose any time even with refiling labor. Hope this helps. Please let me know if if you have any more questions.
more...
WaldenPond
02-19 07:45 AM
Hello retrohatao,
Thanks for coming forward to take the responsibility. I have sent you a private message. I will wait for your response.
You have described the problem very well. I have tried every way to get name check done. I have gone for FP four times (three times after 15 months expiration as they screwed up twice) but still no end in sight. For FP, each time I have to travel to a city that is couple of hours away. Both, my spouse and I have to take a day off from work. So it usually costs us couple of hundred dollars just to get each FP done. We have contacted both the Senators of the state and my congressman. We have made some good contacts with the staff of the congressman and this is helping with this effort. They have all communicated that it is in name check and they cannot do anything. We have tried every suggestion that is posted on the web but nothing seem to work. So we completely understand and go through the same frustration and relate to everything that you and willgetgc2005 wam4wam & stirGC maybe going through.
Hello willgetgc2005 wam4wam & stirGC,
I would request you to please help retrohatao and all of us to make this effort a success. It would be great if you could please come forward and join this effort actively. It would be great if you could encourage others to join. Please tell others that simply reading/posting messages and not actively participating is like watching a game from the sidelines and still expect to win without even playing. Please tell others that no one can win by watching from the sidelines. Together we can make it happen. I will eagerly look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
-WP
Thanks for coming forward to take the responsibility. I have sent you a private message. I will wait for your response.
You have described the problem very well. I have tried every way to get name check done. I have gone for FP four times (three times after 15 months expiration as they screwed up twice) but still no end in sight. For FP, each time I have to travel to a city that is couple of hours away. Both, my spouse and I have to take a day off from work. So it usually costs us couple of hundred dollars just to get each FP done. We have contacted both the Senators of the state and my congressman. We have made some good contacts with the staff of the congressman and this is helping with this effort. They have all communicated that it is in name check and they cannot do anything. We have tried every suggestion that is posted on the web but nothing seem to work. So we completely understand and go through the same frustration and relate to everything that you and willgetgc2005 wam4wam & stirGC maybe going through.
Hello willgetgc2005 wam4wam & stirGC,
I would request you to please help retrohatao and all of us to make this effort a success. It would be great if you could please come forward and join this effort actively. It would be great if you could encourage others to join. Please tell others that simply reading/posting messages and not actively participating is like watching a game from the sidelines and still expect to win without even playing. Please tell others that no one can win by watching from the sidelines. Together we can make it happen. I will eagerly look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
-WP
hair City likghts ackground
varshadas
02-09 06:35 PM
Hello All,
Can you all please let me know where you all are wrt to contacting the Congressmen Rajeev and Shekhar, I haven't heard from you guys in a while.
Where are you?
Thanks,
Varsha
Can you all please let me know where you all are wrt to contacting the Congressmen Rajeev and Shekhar, I haven't heard from you guys in a while.
Where are you?
Thanks,
Varsha
more...
ashwin_27
07-01 03:47 PM
I think the new reference # for the Sanders Amendment is now
Senate Amendment 4439 to the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act (H.R. 5297).. Correct??
People will be sending emails to senators with reference to the wrong amendment if this text is not corrected!!
Senate Amendment 4439 to the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act (H.R. 5297).. Correct??
People will be sending emails to senators with reference to the wrong amendment if this text is not corrected!!
hot CITY LIGHTS WALLPAPER Image
coolmanasip
03-07 09:41 AM
see the responses......
What if my employer is definitely going to revoke my approved I-140 upon my resignation (past 180 days)? Do I need to file "Notice of I-140 Portability"?
---------->>COLOR="Blue"]In this case, you should definitely send the AC21 letter to USCIS. If you send the letter, you employer revoking your I-140 has no effect and the USCIS will keep the AC21 stuff in your file and process/examine it when your date becomes current. If you do not send the AC21 letter and your employer revokes I140, then USCIS will send you a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) and you will have to respond to that in stipulated time of one month. If you are absolutely sure that employer is going to revoke I140, please go ahead and send the AC21 letter rightaway.....[/COLOR][/I][/I][/I]
Also, in the above posts when people are saying that almost no support is needed from the new employer to keep 485 process going smoothly, is it safe to assume they are changing jobs using EAD and not doing H1B transfer?
-------->>does not matter either ways for AC21.....H1 transfer or EAD....
One more question, my employer will revoke my I-140 and my H1B. How long can I be without a job after they do that? Are the above actions of my employer very likely to result in a RFE from USCIS? If so, what will USCIS ask for in RFE?
----->>> If you fear of being out of job immediately after leaving job...DO NOT Do This........because as per your say, if your employer revokes 140, then you will get a NOID and you have to respond within a month with another job offer and AC21
Thank for all the advise.
---------------------------------
Contributed $100.
What if my employer is definitely going to revoke my approved I-140 upon my resignation (past 180 days)? Do I need to file "Notice of I-140 Portability"?
---------->>COLOR="Blue"]In this case, you should definitely send the AC21 letter to USCIS. If you send the letter, you employer revoking your I-140 has no effect and the USCIS will keep the AC21 stuff in your file and process/examine it when your date becomes current. If you do not send the AC21 letter and your employer revokes I140, then USCIS will send you a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) and you will have to respond to that in stipulated time of one month. If you are absolutely sure that employer is going to revoke I140, please go ahead and send the AC21 letter rightaway.....[/COLOR][/I][/I][/I]
Also, in the above posts when people are saying that almost no support is needed from the new employer to keep 485 process going smoothly, is it safe to assume they are changing jobs using EAD and not doing H1B transfer?
-------->>does not matter either ways for AC21.....H1 transfer or EAD....
One more question, my employer will revoke my I-140 and my H1B. How long can I be without a job after they do that? Are the above actions of my employer very likely to result in a RFE from USCIS? If so, what will USCIS ask for in RFE?
----->>> If you fear of being out of job immediately after leaving job...DO NOT Do This........because as per your say, if your employer revokes 140, then you will get a NOID and you have to respond within a month with another job offer and AC21
Thank for all the advise.
---------------------------------
Contributed $100.
more...
house city, City Lights of
imneedy
05-12 08:37 AM
insbaby we are unable to verify your contribution. Could you send us your transaction details, IV handle and the email used to contribute. We can check and get back to you if there was an error.
I thought this message is for insbaby. Seems there was a problem with paypal, I checked with Paypal and subscribed again. Here are the details:
Subscription Payment Sent (Unique Transaction ID #74J34454G6282325F)
In reference to: S-4R794075S5203161T
I thought this message is for insbaby. Seems there was a problem with paypal, I checked with Paypal and subscribed again. Here are the details:
Subscription Payment Sent (Unique Transaction ID #74J34454G6282325F)
In reference to: S-4R794075S5203161T
tattoo titled: Blurred Lights Of
signifer123
02-15 07:25 AM
Well, then i guess me and you can make a subway
more...
pictures City Lights - city lights,
nandakumar
11-21 02:30 AM
I also got a letter with same information.
Today I got the second letter from USCIS regarding this request. The letter says they accepted the request and put in the pending que.
Also the letter says, "your request is deemed to constitute an agreement to pay any fees that may be chargeable up to $25.00" and continues and finally it says "most requests do not require any fees and if fees in excess of $25.00 are required, we will notify you beforehand"
Jusy wondering any one got this reply..
Today I got the second letter from USCIS regarding this request. The letter says they accepted the request and put in the pending que.
Also the letter says, "your request is deemed to constitute an agreement to pay any fees that may be chargeable up to $25.00" and continues and finally it says "most requests do not require any fees and if fees in excess of $25.00 are required, we will notify you beforehand"
Jusy wondering any one got this reply..
dresses Wallpaper, Background
tushar123
02-13 05:26 PM
Its funny to see that people call this ethinic cleansing.... it is the right of America to punish people who disobey the law. reservation now in india is a better example which deprives people from certain community to persue higher education or employment in govt jobs.
more...
makeup city lights begin to dim.
mbawa2574
02-17 08:56 AM
I am sorry if I offended anyone. I don't recall how.
and by the way, my friend, you really really need a life :-) That's the last thing you'll hear from me on this subject.
peace out
Thanks again for supporting IV. Only point I was against was your support of racism of 40's. Anywaz I understand that you want to convey some other message but probably used the wrong link. Peace and Unity !!
and by the way, my friend, you really really need a life :-) That's the last thing you'll hear from me on this subject.
peace out
Thanks again for supporting IV. Only point I was against was your support of racism of 40's. Anywaz I understand that you want to convey some other message but probably used the wrong link. Peace and Unity !!
girlfriend Neon city lights seamless
DDD
02-16 08:41 PM
looking good eilsoe.... I wish I had time to join. Wanna give myself a modo project.
hairstyles City Lights Building Water
alterego
07-14 09:37 PM
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.
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as the poster above said the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as the poster above said the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
sands_14
09-23 10:03 AM
I e-filed my EAD and AP;but when I sent the supporting documentation to the PO Box in Mesquite,Texas;it was not delivered on Friday,a notice was left.I am very anxious if it comes back.Is there a Phone Number I can call to ask them Reason for Non-delivery;what should I do???Is there an address different from the PO Box where I can FEDEX
Ramba
07-09 07:44 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
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...
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
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...
No comments:
Post a Comment