logiclife
08-03 02:30 PM
Copying from the reply I posted here:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=133404#post133404
I consulted a high profile ($200 per 15 minutes) lawyer to discuss this issue. 1) He told me that he would re-submit the AOS. The comparison to the medical clearance requirement, according to him, was pointless, as they are two different things. If USCIS issues a statement they will not reject solely based on the EVL, then we can assume that is the truth. Their statement on Medical clearance cannot be interpreted to say they won't reject on the basis of another missing requirement, say the EVL.
2) Filing two AOS packets can indeed also cause confusion, but it is a smaller risk according to him, and should be mitigated by a covering letter that says you are re-submitting to provide the XYZ document that was missed from the first packet.
Based on this info, I have asked my lawyer to get a confirmation from the USCIS on the document that he missed in my case-- the EVL. If USCIS okays that, we do not resubmit. If they don't do that within a week, I will try to re-submit... not going to be easy considering my lawyer may not be in agreement... but that is what would be the correct way out of this, according to the second opinion I got today.
Thanks
If you are resubmmitting or planning to resubmit, one tip...you need medical originals again, so call your doctor and ask him to create new sealed envelopes with original I-693...do this ahead of time coz this is only thing not in your control when filing a second 485. I am sure you might have thought about this, but just in case if you havent, then remember you will need I-693 original with your and doctor's signature with other stuff in sealed envelopes again.
Wish you all the luck Abhijit.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=133404#post133404
I consulted a high profile ($200 per 15 minutes) lawyer to discuss this issue. 1) He told me that he would re-submit the AOS. The comparison to the medical clearance requirement, according to him, was pointless, as they are two different things. If USCIS issues a statement they will not reject solely based on the EVL, then we can assume that is the truth. Their statement on Medical clearance cannot be interpreted to say they won't reject on the basis of another missing requirement, say the EVL.
2) Filing two AOS packets can indeed also cause confusion, but it is a smaller risk according to him, and should be mitigated by a covering letter that says you are re-submitting to provide the XYZ document that was missed from the first packet.
Based on this info, I have asked my lawyer to get a confirmation from the USCIS on the document that he missed in my case-- the EVL. If USCIS okays that, we do not resubmit. If they don't do that within a week, I will try to re-submit... not going to be easy considering my lawyer may not be in agreement... but that is what would be the correct way out of this, according to the second opinion I got today.
Thanks
If you are resubmmitting or planning to resubmit, one tip...you need medical originals again, so call your doctor and ask him to create new sealed envelopes with original I-693...do this ahead of time coz this is only thing not in your control when filing a second 485. I am sure you might have thought about this, but just in case if you havent, then remember you will need I-693 original with your and doctor's signature with other stuff in sealed envelopes again.
Wish you all the luck Abhijit.
wallpaper Wedding Dresses For Winter
dreamworld
11-17 05:14 PM
guys, looks positive to me. if you can get better job, beat the Green Card suffering for good-prof-experience.
Can I switch at this time and i need your advice.
I am on 7th year (visa valid until 2008 March) and Waiting for LC approval.
Lets say, switching to company B.
Company B files LC, Say LC does not come in 1 year
At company B after 1 year of pending GC during 7th year.
Can I get H1B extension based on my pending Company-B's LC?
If I can, then i will consider switching.
Want to move on and keep competitive...
Can I switch at this time and i need your advice.
I am on 7th year (visa valid until 2008 March) and Waiting for LC approval.
Lets say, switching to company B.
Company B files LC, Say LC does not come in 1 year
At company B after 1 year of pending GC during 7th year.
Can I get H1B extension based on my pending Company-B's LC?
If I can, then i will consider switching.
Want to move on and keep competitive...
ronhira
04-09 07:02 PM
- the problem is with the congress, not with cis
Congress did not ask USCIS/DOS to subtract dependent visa numbers from 140K. If USCIS/DOS excludes dependent numbers from 140k, congress cannot question that because law doesn't mandate to include the dependent numbers in 140K.
-y the hell do u blame cis...... r they not allocating 140K per year
If USCIS/DOS doesn't agree to change their administration policy to exclude dependent visas from 140K after seeing our backlog, then who else do we have to blame.
Yes they are allocating 140K per year. But to who? In my view to the same applicant; one for primary applicant, another for his spouse, another for his kid, ....
Most of us here are 'keyboard ninjas'. Only very few contribute in actions and that contribution is hidden under donor forums. Without awareness of the good things happening, these keyboard-ninjas are not going to contribute in actions.
We all understand that blaming is not going to help anyone. But what else to do.
u'r saying that all these years uscis & dos was misinterpreting the law for counting dependents in the 140K count..... well, what is the army of 10,000 impotent immigration lawyers doing for last 15 years..... i know they r all dumb & sleazy..... but if that were the case someone in that useless army of 10,000 would have cared to file a lawsuit or someone in congress would have questioned uscis/dos..... the fact that no one questioned or filed for a suit just proves that uscis is interpreting the law correctly..... as much as i would like...... i am actually not convinced that its uscis fault for counting depends.... again here its the fault of the congress for framing the law like the way it is....
there are sleazy immigration lawyers who throw out this bullshit material hoping that some of it will stick, & guys like will think they r the gods..... in that sense its our fault to play right into the hands of sleazy immigration lawyers.... here r some of the creepiest of things thrown by some of these scam artist lawyers -
- fix backlog without immigration bill
- vb dates all current in 2 months
- spillover crap (this one is my favorite)
all that i'm trying to say is that we can do lot of things.... and beating down on uscis/dos is the last thing we all want to do....... becoz otherwise we waste the energy from our frustration/anger @ the wrong target......
Congress did not ask USCIS/DOS to subtract dependent visa numbers from 140K. If USCIS/DOS excludes dependent numbers from 140k, congress cannot question that because law doesn't mandate to include the dependent numbers in 140K.
-y the hell do u blame cis...... r they not allocating 140K per year
If USCIS/DOS doesn't agree to change their administration policy to exclude dependent visas from 140K after seeing our backlog, then who else do we have to blame.
Yes they are allocating 140K per year. But to who? In my view to the same applicant; one for primary applicant, another for his spouse, another for his kid, ....
Most of us here are 'keyboard ninjas'. Only very few contribute in actions and that contribution is hidden under donor forums. Without awareness of the good things happening, these keyboard-ninjas are not going to contribute in actions.
We all understand that blaming is not going to help anyone. But what else to do.
u'r saying that all these years uscis & dos was misinterpreting the law for counting dependents in the 140K count..... well, what is the army of 10,000 impotent immigration lawyers doing for last 15 years..... i know they r all dumb & sleazy..... but if that were the case someone in that useless army of 10,000 would have cared to file a lawsuit or someone in congress would have questioned uscis/dos..... the fact that no one questioned or filed for a suit just proves that uscis is interpreting the law correctly..... as much as i would like...... i am actually not convinced that its uscis fault for counting depends.... again here its the fault of the congress for framing the law like the way it is....
there are sleazy immigration lawyers who throw out this bullshit material hoping that some of it will stick, & guys like will think they r the gods..... in that sense its our fault to play right into the hands of sleazy immigration lawyers.... here r some of the creepiest of things thrown by some of these scam artist lawyers -
- fix backlog without immigration bill
- vb dates all current in 2 months
- spillover crap (this one is my favorite)
all that i'm trying to say is that we can do lot of things.... and beating down on uscis/dos is the last thing we all want to do....... becoz otherwise we waste the energy from our frustration/anger @ the wrong target......
2011 The one-shoulder gown will not
ksairi
08-15 04:32 PM
D. EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY FOR SEPTEMBER
Due to the return of unused July numbers by consular posts abroad, and the limited amount of pending demand eligible for final processing at consular posts, it has been possible to reestablish cut-off dates in many of the Employment preference categories.
Please link it.
Due to the return of unused July numbers by consular posts abroad, and the limited amount of pending demand eligible for final processing at consular posts, it has been possible to reestablish cut-off dates in many of the Employment preference categories.
Please link it.
more...
nivasch
12-13 10:43 AM
Hi, I am from NJ, srini_chenna@yahoo.com
:)
:)
va_labor2002
07-24 12:38 PM
Hi rpatel,
I agree with your points.You are totally right. We should atleast try this channel. I think IV should address this issue to USCIS.
I concur with the fact that manner in which the law is written/interpreted currently, its going to be an uphill task to convince the USCIS of letting us file I485 without a visa number available. Did the core group make any effort in this direction or is it their foregone conclusion that its non starter at all?
I believe we should try to make an effort in this direction however small the chance of success may be. My reasons are following:
1. Even if the USCIS director might not have an authority to change the procedure without congressional intervention first, the effort required to convince a congress man/ congressional committe on this issue will be smaller compared to pushing them to take up SKIL immediately.
2. I dont know if Dept of Homeland Security might have any say in this but again we can try getting an audience with Negroponte to appraise him of the situation.
3. Thirdly since CIR/SKIL are currently in dormant stage, coregroup/volunteers might be more open to pursuing low potential/high yield effort like this one is.
I agree with your points.You are totally right. We should atleast try this channel. I think IV should address this issue to USCIS.
I concur with the fact that manner in which the law is written/interpreted currently, its going to be an uphill task to convince the USCIS of letting us file I485 without a visa number available. Did the core group make any effort in this direction or is it their foregone conclusion that its non starter at all?
I believe we should try to make an effort in this direction however small the chance of success may be. My reasons are following:
1. Even if the USCIS director might not have an authority to change the procedure without congressional intervention first, the effort required to convince a congress man/ congressional committe on this issue will be smaller compared to pushing them to take up SKIL immediately.
2. I dont know if Dept of Homeland Security might have any say in this but again we can try getting an audience with Negroponte to appraise him of the situation.
3. Thirdly since CIR/SKIL are currently in dormant stage, coregroup/volunteers might be more open to pursuing low potential/high yield effort like this one is.
more...
svr_76
06-10 02:04 PM
exactly..and our best approach would be to also reach other lobbying/groups that represents the employers impact by this to determine a directed/specific approach.
2010 Royal Wedding Dresses
abstractvision
03-19 09:02 PM
Lets review this whole page. Assumptions...and inferences...not sure how many are true and helpful. I will abstain from commenting anything.
more...
reddymjm
06-03 05:06 PM
Hi friends,
Please advise me on this situation.
I am currently in US with L1B with Company A.
Company B has already filed H1B petition for me.
Assuming it gets selected & approved, Is it Possible for me to Continue with Company A after Oct1 2007 with the L1 itself.
Thanks.
As soon as the H1B gets approved your L1 b goes invalid. The options you have is if you have ur L1 validity after oct go out of the country and come back on L1. Or if it is expiring in Oct or close to Oct your company can file extension if it gets approved you may be ok but the period you work during that might be illlegal. But as USCIS has no way of tracking all these last issued status is a valid status making ur H1b invalid. But I suggest to do the other way.
Please advise me on this situation.
I am currently in US with L1B with Company A.
Company B has already filed H1B petition for me.
Assuming it gets selected & approved, Is it Possible for me to Continue with Company A after Oct1 2007 with the L1 itself.
Thanks.
As soon as the H1B gets approved your L1 b goes invalid. The options you have is if you have ur L1 validity after oct go out of the country and come back on L1. Or if it is expiring in Oct or close to Oct your company can file extension if it gets approved you may be ok but the period you work during that might be illlegal. But as USCIS has no way of tracking all these last issued status is a valid status making ur H1b invalid. But I suggest to do the other way.
hair 2011 Winter bridal dresses
mk26
03-12 08:26 AM
No change for EB2..... India
EB3 moved about three months
Category India Most Other Countries
F1 8 July 2004 8 July 2004
FX 1 Jan 2005 1 Jan 2005
F2A 1 June 2006 1 June 2006
F2B 1 March 2002 1 March 2002
F3 22 May 2001 22 May 2001
F4 1 March 2000 1 March 2000
E1 Current Current
E2 1 February 2005 Current
E3 8 September 2001 1 February 2003
EW 1 June 2001 1 June 2001
E4 Current Current
E4-Religious Current Current
Source
Cut Off Dates- Consulate General of the United States Mumbai, India (http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/cut_off_dates.html)
This should have been posted in DONOR's forum :)
EB3 moved about three months
Category India Most Other Countries
F1 8 July 2004 8 July 2004
FX 1 Jan 2005 1 Jan 2005
F2A 1 June 2006 1 June 2006
F2B 1 March 2002 1 March 2002
F3 22 May 2001 22 May 2001
F4 1 March 2000 1 March 2000
E1 Current Current
E2 1 February 2005 Current
E3 8 September 2001 1 February 2003
EW 1 June 2001 1 June 2001
E4 Current Current
E4-Religious Current Current
Source
Cut Off Dates- Consulate General of the United States Mumbai, India (http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/cut_off_dates.html)
This should have been posted in DONOR's forum :)
more...
aadimanav
09-26 11:57 AM
IV members won.
Wordings changed:
"..The demonstrators were protesting long delays in securing green cards for highly-skilled workers already in the U.S. ....."
Wordings changed:
"..The demonstrators were protesting long delays in securing green cards for highly-skilled workers already in the U.S. ....."
hot 2010 style Ball Gown V-neck
Administrator2
06-10 09:20 PM
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE SEND THE MESSAGE. WE WILL ALSO START WITH THE PHONE CAMPAIGN IN THE MORNING.
Reason being, the other side is writing letters to other Senators to seek their support. They want to see this amendment pass. Here is the letter.
************************************************** ***************
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON’T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders’ office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely,
____________________ ____________________
BERNARD SANDERS CHARLES E. GRASSLEY
UNITED STATES SENATOR UNITED STATES SENATOR
************************************************** ***************
Reason being, the other side is writing letters to other Senators to seek their support. They want to see this amendment pass. Here is the letter.
************************************************** ***************
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON’T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders’ office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely,
____________________ ____________________
BERNARD SANDERS CHARLES E. GRASSLEY
UNITED STATES SENATOR UNITED STATES SENATOR
************************************************** ***************
more...
house Popular ridal Wedding dresses
natrajs
06-06 03:40 PM
We got the "welcome" and "card production ordered" email for my wife and I today too. It was a long frustrating wait at times but I am glad its over for us now. Our best wishes to those that are still waiting.
No RFE at any stage, straight forward case, never called them for status or infopass. Took them about 4.5 years.
Here are our dates for those interested in tracking.
PD: Jan 29, 2004, EB2
Ohio labor approved - Oct 2004
45 day letter - Jan 2005
Labor approved from Dalla BEC - June 2006
I I140 regular, non concurrent approved - Sept 2006
I 485 sent to Nebraska - July 13 2007
EAD approved - Oct 2007
I485 approval email - June,06, 2008
Congrats and Best Wishes
No RFE at any stage, straight forward case, never called them for status or infopass. Took them about 4.5 years.
Here are our dates for those interested in tracking.
PD: Jan 29, 2004, EB2
Ohio labor approved - Oct 2004
45 day letter - Jan 2005
Labor approved from Dalla BEC - June 2006
I I140 regular, non concurrent approved - Sept 2006
I 485 sent to Nebraska - July 13 2007
EAD approved - Oct 2007
I485 approval email - June,06, 2008
Congrats and Best Wishes
tattoo 2011. wedding dresses
SGP
08-12 04:30 PM
I feel frustrated at some peoples' unwillingness to admit that EB3 needs IV's help now more than ever. They are saying that nothing much can be done for EB3, as INS merely corrected its wrong interpretation in visa allocation
But, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
I Agree with you. Count me in.
But, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
I Agree with you. Count me in.
more...
pictures ridal Bridal gowns 2011
ashkam
02-12 04:10 PM
Are you people daft? Using terms like ethnic cleansing, lynching or comparing our plight to the holocaust borders on the hysterical. Please do not lose your perspective on life.
dresses Wedding Dress White 2011 For
crystal
02-15 04:19 PM
Are you sure this is the reason why they have per country limits :confused:
Or you dont want that way :D
It is just that the policy is here since they don't want everyone (waiters, DMV clerks, etc) in Silicon Valley to be forced to learn Mandarin or Persian or whatever.
Or you dont want that way :D
It is just that the policy is here since they don't want everyone (waiters, DMV clerks, etc) in Silicon Valley to be forced to learn Mandarin or Persian or whatever.
more...
makeup ivy aster wedding dresses 2011
ksiddaba
07-04 07:39 PM
Thanks for the information. It's helpful to understand the ombudsman role. However, it still remains a violation of the law to pull VISA numbers without name check being done, since it has not been approved by Congress, although as you point our, the ombudsman did report to Congress along those lines.
IT is also incompetence, on the part of DOS not to understand the implication of making all categories current.
The question of whether a lawsuit is the most effective method will have to be seen. It may bring enough media/ political attention to the issue at hand so that legislation may become possible.
IT is also incompetence, on the part of DOS not to understand the implication of making all categories current.
The question of whether a lawsuit is the most effective method will have to be seen. It may bring enough media/ political attention to the issue at hand so that legislation may become possible.
girlfriend Winter 2011 bridal gown
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.
hairstyles Vera Wang 2011 Winter Wedding
eb3retro
08-18 08:52 PM
Alright retro I'm sorry I upset you so much,it was not a remark which was meant to be taken seriously.I know there is no difference in intelligence between the two.Hope you will get cheered now and maybe drop in for a beer sometime.And I hope you get you green card soon too.
thanks for the beer offer, but i dont drink..just an fyi - i got the receipts long back..
thanks for the beer offer, but i dont drink..just an fyi - i got the receipts long back..
nozerd
01-27 10:47 AM
I went back and reread the July 2001 Bulletin.
How difficult would it be to lobby for extending the same logic for removing per country cap ? I am sure removing 7% cap would definitely help.
Also since EB3 World has a cut off does it mean that no visas will be left from the world pool which can be recaptured ?
How difficult would it be to lobby for extending the same logic for removing per country cap ? I am sure removing 7% cap would definitely help.
Also since EB3 World has a cut off does it mean that no visas will be left from the world pool which can be recaptured ?
genius
11-21 08:51 PM
Guy..i am just too tired of waiting ...but will still keep working towards it...
i wanted some suggestions...my laywer screwed up my H1B by putting up a wrong start date due to which my application was returned by USCIS and I cud not make it FY 2007.I am currently on my OPT which expires in May 2007.I was wondering whether there was a way other than coming back on F1.
Thanks in advance.!!
i wanted some suggestions...my laywer screwed up my H1B by putting up a wrong start date due to which my application was returned by USCIS and I cud not make it FY 2007.I am currently on my OPT which expires in May 2007.I was wondering whether there was a way other than coming back on F1.
Thanks in advance.!!
No comments:
Post a Comment