acecupid
06-25 11:29 AM
You could argue that you don't need to have a job now, just that you need to be in a "same or similar"position when the 485 is approved. if your priority date is very backlogged, you have lots of time to find a job.
Elaine,
Thanks for your response. I am very curious to know if you have been successful in responding to an RFE in the manner you mentioned and USCIS accepted the agrument and continued with AOS for any of your clients. I understand that given the circumstances the OP does not have much of an option since he does not have a job right now. But it would be interesting to know if USCIS has accepted such an argument in the past.
Elaine,
Thanks for your response. I am very curious to know if you have been successful in responding to an RFE in the manner you mentioned and USCIS accepted the agrument and continued with AOS for any of your clients. I understand that given the circumstances the OP does not have much of an option since he does not have a job right now. But it would be interesting to know if USCIS has accepted such an argument in the past.
wallpaper hot cute love quotes and
suryamnb
12-07 04:11 PM
If you are taking online classes, why would your status matter?? i understand you need to have legal status to take regular (in-class) courses, but dont really feel an online university would really care. when you can pretty much log in from any where in the world, why would they worry about you being here illegally?
just my opinion.
I was worried because in the application, the admissions advisor was asking em to fill SSN & Visa status information. I was a bit worried to give that information if that is going to be voilated in any way.
just my opinion.
I was worried because in the application, the admissions advisor was asking em to fill SSN & Visa status information. I was a bit worried to give that information if that is going to be voilated in any way.
Quest99
09-14 03:30 PM
Here is my story:
I work for Company A. Got an offer from Company B who is a consulting company. Got placed in a project which is like 1.5 hrs away from my home (I accepted this opportunity for my GC and everything was fine). Company B filed for my LCA for the H1-B transfer. They accepted to pay all the H1-B transfer fees.
Here is my problem:
1 week after my LCA was filed, I came to know that my wife was pregnant. As per the doctor she needs some close attention and care because of her health condition(atleast for 2 months). Also, I have to take her for tests minimum once per week at a hospital which is quite opposite in direction where company B placed me (2hrs ride).
I came to a conclusion not to take this opportunity because of my wife's health and also keeping in mind how the new job will treat me (in terms of flexibility. leaving early, WFH etc - for my wife's treatment). I felt this was a genuine reason from my side.
I informed Company B about this change of plan because I cannot commute such a long distance having these constraints in mind (not good for me as well as not good for the new project).
Company B is asking me pay $3000 for some damages and they say that it is as per the contract.
To my true knowledge I did not sign any kind of contract with them neither the recruiter told me anything. Now Company B is saying that minimum 3 months is required or I have to pay for H1-B transfer and all other fees.
The offer letter that I signed clearly stated that the employment is "At Will" in nature which when asked now, Company B is saying that is for GC and Citizens (which is not mentioned anywhere in the offer letter).
The thing is that they are threatening me and they were so rough and hard when I finally spoke to them. They said that they will be sending the vouchers for me to pay them back.
I thank God for not joining this company as I came to know about their true colors now, they are so money minded and the words they spoke were so harmful. I am pretty sure they would have created more problems for some other reasons if I had joined them.
Even though I did not sign any bond, I am really scared by the way they spoke to me. Any help or advice will be greatly appreciated.
I work for Company A. Got an offer from Company B who is a consulting company. Got placed in a project which is like 1.5 hrs away from my home (I accepted this opportunity for my GC and everything was fine). Company B filed for my LCA for the H1-B transfer. They accepted to pay all the H1-B transfer fees.
Here is my problem:
1 week after my LCA was filed, I came to know that my wife was pregnant. As per the doctor she needs some close attention and care because of her health condition(atleast for 2 months). Also, I have to take her for tests minimum once per week at a hospital which is quite opposite in direction where company B placed me (2hrs ride).
I came to a conclusion not to take this opportunity because of my wife's health and also keeping in mind how the new job will treat me (in terms of flexibility. leaving early, WFH etc - for my wife's treatment). I felt this was a genuine reason from my side.
I informed Company B about this change of plan because I cannot commute such a long distance having these constraints in mind (not good for me as well as not good for the new project).
Company B is asking me pay $3000 for some damages and they say that it is as per the contract.
To my true knowledge I did not sign any kind of contract with them neither the recruiter told me anything. Now Company B is saying that minimum 3 months is required or I have to pay for H1-B transfer and all other fees.
The offer letter that I signed clearly stated that the employment is "At Will" in nature which when asked now, Company B is saying that is for GC and Citizens (which is not mentioned anywhere in the offer letter).
The thing is that they are threatening me and they were so rough and hard when I finally spoke to them. They said that they will be sending the vouchers for me to pay them back.
I thank God for not joining this company as I came to know about their true colors now, they are so money minded and the words they spoke were so harmful. I am pretty sure they would have created more problems for some other reasons if I had joined them.
Even though I did not sign any bond, I am really scared by the way they spoke to me. Any help or advice will be greatly appreciated.
2011 cute love quotes and sayings
gsc999
01-25 08:18 PM
Great!
THAT is the spirit, thank you my friend!
The drive will happen on
all weekday evenings (5pm - 7pm)
between
Tuesday 1/29/2008- Friday 2/8/2008
Are you a part of the NorCal yahoogroup?
Thanks again!
THAT is the spirit, thank you my friend!
The drive will happen on
all weekday evenings (5pm - 7pm)
between
Tuesday 1/29/2008- Friday 2/8/2008
Are you a part of the NorCal yahoogroup?
Thanks again!
more...
Blog Feeds
01-26 08:40 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
Berkeleybee
04-07 11:50 PM
We need to involve all those forces so that he does not resist our just and fair provisions. He must be made to realise that to have a clear moral argument about the illegals he must clearly support the legal immigrant provisions.
Posmd, this current fracas is about the battle over undocumented workers. That is the part that has to get past Sensenbrenner. I doubt he will waste his energies on us.
And please everyone, do give our strategic counsel and the people who are much closer to the battlefield than you a bit of credit -- do you think we aren't lying awake thinking of every stragem and counter-strategem? Have we shown signs of stupidity? BTW, it is IV volunteers who have written every memo in our resources page, not our strategic counsel -- you'll have to agree the people who did that have brains. :)
Posmd, this current fracas is about the battle over undocumented workers. That is the part that has to get past Sensenbrenner. I doubt he will waste his energies on us.
And please everyone, do give our strategic counsel and the people who are much closer to the battlefield than you a bit of credit -- do you think we aren't lying awake thinking of every stragem and counter-strategem? Have we shown signs of stupidity? BTW, it is IV volunteers who have written every memo in our resources page, not our strategic counsel -- you'll have to agree the people who did that have brains. :)
more...
JazzByTheBay
07-11 10:03 PM
Thanks to the person who posted the link to the Ombundsman report earlier - this is beginning to make sense now.
USCIS Ombundsman report from JUNE 2007 says:
"For example, when employment-based visas are not used during the year they are authorized, they are lost and are not available for future use without special legislation. In FY 06, over 10,000 employment-based visas were lost, even though USCIS had an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 pending applications for employment-based green cards.36 - Based on USCIS use of visa numbers as of May 2007, at present consumption rates approximately 40,000 visas will be lost in FY 07 without a dramatic increase in USCIS requests of visa numbers.37
- As illustrated below, since 1994 there have been over 218,000 un-recaptured employment-based visas lost due to underutilization of the employment-based visas."
Dept of State: Sees visa numbers not being used, chances of visas going unutilized/unused/wasted/lost again this year. Makes July visa bulletin CURRENT for all countries & categories.
USCIS: Scrambles to approve as many visas as possible to 1) Prove they're working hard, in light of the Ombundsman Report from June 2) Save themselves from the avalanche of I-485s, EADs and AP filings in June, knowing 3) Filing fees go up like crazy on 30th July.
End Result: More visa numbers requested (but they didn't complete issuing all of them, even over the weekend).
As things stand, if they approved stuff on 1st July, it means visa numbers were in fact available on 1st July.
If they approved without completing FBI check - that's going to raise a stink and isn't entirely legal anyways.
If they *still had visa numbers available on July 2* - request from DoS but not approved, they're in bigger trouble, imho.
Anybody thinks the above makes sense?
jazz
USCIS Ombundsman report from JUNE 2007 says:
"For example, when employment-based visas are not used during the year they are authorized, they are lost and are not available for future use without special legislation. In FY 06, over 10,000 employment-based visas were lost, even though USCIS had an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 pending applications for employment-based green cards.36 - Based on USCIS use of visa numbers as of May 2007, at present consumption rates approximately 40,000 visas will be lost in FY 07 without a dramatic increase in USCIS requests of visa numbers.37
- As illustrated below, since 1994 there have been over 218,000 un-recaptured employment-based visas lost due to underutilization of the employment-based visas."
Dept of State: Sees visa numbers not being used, chances of visas going unutilized/unused/wasted/lost again this year. Makes July visa bulletin CURRENT for all countries & categories.
USCIS: Scrambles to approve as many visas as possible to 1) Prove they're working hard, in light of the Ombundsman Report from June 2) Save themselves from the avalanche of I-485s, EADs and AP filings in June, knowing 3) Filing fees go up like crazy on 30th July.
End Result: More visa numbers requested (but they didn't complete issuing all of them, even over the weekend).
As things stand, if they approved stuff on 1st July, it means visa numbers were in fact available on 1st July.
If they approved without completing FBI check - that's going to raise a stink and isn't entirely legal anyways.
If they *still had visa numbers available on July 2* - request from DoS but not approved, they're in bigger trouble, imho.
Anybody thinks the above makes sense?
jazz
2010 girlfriend cute love quotes
new_horizon
04-22 09:56 PM
I think this banned person was only against the illegal people here. He/she mentioned that US should not welcome uneducated poor people who would be a drain on the US resources. But what he means is that US should welcome educated people like us who have contributed tremendously to the US economy. I think he's somewhat aware of the differences between illegals and legals.
more...
485Mbe4001
06-13 01:12 PM
you should be ok by october - november, cheers...
Hello everyone,
I am on the EB3 category and have a PD of March 19, 2002. Also, I am from a non-retrogressed country (Brazil). Would any of the wise members of this forum be willing to estimate how much longer I'd have to wait until I am concurrent? Thanks in advance.
Hello everyone,
I am on the EB3 category and have a PD of March 19, 2002. Also, I am from a non-retrogressed country (Brazil). Would any of the wise members of this forum be willing to estimate how much longer I'd have to wait until I am concurrent? Thanks in advance.
hair 2010 cute love quotes and
garybanz
06-02 04:21 PM
Thats a really bad idea!!
Tell the new employer that you need H1 to work for them, if they don't want to do it then find another job or stick to your current job.
It sucks but that's the law.
Regards.
Tell the new employer that you need H1 to work for them, if they don't want to do it then find another job or stick to your current job.
It sucks but that's the law.
Regards.
more...
Hello_Hello
01-20 06:29 AM
1. Ravi Venkatesh
2. Rani Swami
3. Hema Prabhu
4. Dayal Sharma
5. Chin Chu
6. Dang Wang
These are some of the people I am proud of who are EB-3. Are you proud of them too ?
2. Rani Swami
3. Hema Prabhu
4. Dayal Sharma
5. Chin Chu
6. Dang Wang
These are some of the people I am proud of who are EB-3. Are you proud of them too ?
hot 2011 cute love quotes and
satishku_2000
02-21 11:02 AM
Hey
I thought I am the only poor soul looking for whole month to see the processing dates, Finally they have published today.
I have seen that I-140 EB3 moved siginificantly But still away from the my receipt date.
Hopefully you have a good news :)
I thought I am the only poor soul looking for whole month to see the processing dates, Finally they have published today.
I have seen that I-140 EB3 moved siginificantly But still away from the my receipt date.
Hopefully you have a good news :)
more...
house makeup cute love quotes and
mpadapa
10-09 12:56 PM
Please provide additional details regarding U'r labor like EB1/2/3
GC approval process is a long process, U just started U'rs. I don't understand whatz the panic..
Pleaseprovide appropriate titles when U create a thread...
I came to the USA on 3rd November, 2006 in company A. I did not work a single day in company A. I joined to company B on 17th January, 2007. I have no idea how my employer filed my H1B in company B without any paystub. I joined to company C on 24th July as they started my GC process right away. My H1B with company B and C are still pending. Company C has filed my labor on 31st August and got approval on 11th September. I am planning to file I-140, I-485, I-765 and I-131 together. So my questions are:
1) Is there any possibility to get denied/RFE for my GC as my last two H1B are still pending ?
2) What are the risks to be considered if I go back to my country and come back on AP as I don't have a visa stamp on my passport ? I am from a non-retrogressed country.
3) I heard that it takes too much time to bring spouse here if I marry after GC approval. I am planning to go back and marry and come back but don't want to bring my future wife on H4. Will it help me later to avoid unnecessesary waiting time to bring her here once my GC is approved ?
I shall be thankful to you to get my answer.
Thanks & regards,
SU1979
GC approval process is a long process, U just started U'rs. I don't understand whatz the panic..
Pleaseprovide appropriate titles when U create a thread...
I came to the USA on 3rd November, 2006 in company A. I did not work a single day in company A. I joined to company B on 17th January, 2007. I have no idea how my employer filed my H1B in company B without any paystub. I joined to company C on 24th July as they started my GC process right away. My H1B with company B and C are still pending. Company C has filed my labor on 31st August and got approval on 11th September. I am planning to file I-140, I-485, I-765 and I-131 together. So my questions are:
1) Is there any possibility to get denied/RFE for my GC as my last two H1B are still pending ?
2) What are the risks to be considered if I go back to my country and come back on AP as I don't have a visa stamp on my passport ? I am from a non-retrogressed country.
3) I heard that it takes too much time to bring spouse here if I marry after GC approval. I am planning to go back and marry and come back but don't want to bring my future wife on H4. Will it help me later to avoid unnecessesary waiting time to bring her here once my GC is approved ?
I shall be thankful to you to get my answer.
Thanks & regards,
SU1979
tattoo hot cute love quotes from
rsayed
04-27 08:08 PM
there is no strive in senate....what r they goona debate? I don't think they are going to discuss other than circus if at all they do
Yep, true. But, sounds like there's just too many Bills floating around, this year!
Yep, true. But, sounds like there's just too many Bills floating around, this year!
more...
pictures cute love quotes photos. cute
estrela21
02-09 12:03 AM
thank you,,,,i will..
have a good night
have a good night
dresses tattoo cute love quotes and
53885
05-12 01:02 PM
Sent to 40 media orgs in Nevada.
more...
makeup house cute love quotes and
ravi.shah
01-06 01:33 PM
As always, lets hope that some or the other bill materializes and provides much needed relief to those waiting in line :)
girlfriend Cute love sayings for a
rajuseattle
04-27 07:55 PM
According to USCIS's interpretation of the backlog the pending applicants from retrogressed countries do not count as the backlog because they can not process those petitions until VISA dates moves further.
I hope once they make this information available on their WEB site or to respond to IV's request to disclose the pending AoS applicants based on country of chargeability and category, we will know how many AoS pending and can judge how long it will take to receive our GCs.
I am glad atleast they r acknowledging the fact that their is backlog and they are serious about clearing the backlogs. I can imagine the July-Aug 2007 concurrent filers are now receiving their I-140 approvals. In this bad economy one need to have I-140 approval to use AC-21 provision in case of layoffs.
No hopes on CIR , that debate will be their for a while until economy starts improving, until then no reform or any releif for legal immigrants....people just talking baout US protectionism and bla bla bla...nobody cares few thousand indians and chinese applicant's petitions rotting in the USCIS service centres for years for no VISA numbers.
I hope once they make this information available on their WEB site or to respond to IV's request to disclose the pending AoS applicants based on country of chargeability and category, we will know how many AoS pending and can judge how long it will take to receive our GCs.
I am glad atleast they r acknowledging the fact that their is backlog and they are serious about clearing the backlogs. I can imagine the July-Aug 2007 concurrent filers are now receiving their I-140 approvals. In this bad economy one need to have I-140 approval to use AC-21 provision in case of layoffs.
No hopes on CIR , that debate will be their for a while until economy starts improving, until then no reform or any releif for legal immigrants....people just talking baout US protectionism and bla bla bla...nobody cares few thousand indians and chinese applicant's petitions rotting in the USCIS service centres for years for no VISA numbers.
hairstyles cute love quotes for her.
sroyc
08-03 12:32 PM
There is no box for A#. The fields are - Receipt #, Case Type (I-140), Receipt Date, Priority Date, Petitioner, Notice Date, Page (1 of 1), Beneficiary, Law firm's name and address, Notice Type (Approval, Preference category).
This was around April 2006. Maybe they changed the format?
There should be a box for A number, is it blank?
This was around April 2006. Maybe they changed the format?
There should be a box for A number, is it blank?
fide_champ
06-25 02:28 PM
It looks like my lawyer has already mailed the application to USCIS. The priority dates becomes current only on July 1st.
What are my options here? Does anyone has faced such a situation?
What are my options here? Does anyone has faced such a situation?
bluez25
10-28 07:26 PM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21572&highlight=leaving
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
No comments:
Post a Comment