sanhari
07-21 11:24 AM
Use this forum strictly for discussions on support of EB spillover usage based on priority date. Others please look for other appropriate forums for your discussion. Not meant to hurt anybody's feelings, but to keep focused on the purpose of this forum.
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
morchu
05-08 01:51 PM
Is it still not clear for you? eb-dependents are NOT eligible for F2A.
We have to follow the regulation when law is not clear and the regulation (CFR22) mentioned specifically that eb-dependents are eligble for EB-category. Regulations and interpretations are there for a reason, and it has to be followed when law is not clear.
I agree that INA doesnt specifically says that, but at the same time INA specifically rules out eb-dependents from F2A also. To be eligible for F2A you should be dependent of a permanent resident "at the time of application".
You should probably stream line your effort to not count eb-dependents in any visa-numbers (since neither the regulation or law is clear on that part).
You are still under a mis-concept that every word and sentence has to be quoted in "INA", and can ignore all official regulations and interpretations.
Guys,
VISA BULLETIN FOR JUNE 2009 sets back EB2 priority back to 01JAN00.
Some thing needs to be done. The easist will be not counting ebdependents in ebquota. This should be very easy. There is no INA law linking ebquota with ebdependents.
I need IV Core help for this.
We have to follow the regulation when law is not clear and the regulation (CFR22) mentioned specifically that eb-dependents are eligble for EB-category. Regulations and interpretations are there for a reason, and it has to be followed when law is not clear.
I agree that INA doesnt specifically says that, but at the same time INA specifically rules out eb-dependents from F2A also. To be eligible for F2A you should be dependent of a permanent resident "at the time of application".
You should probably stream line your effort to not count eb-dependents in any visa-numbers (since neither the regulation or law is clear on that part).
You are still under a mis-concept that every word and sentence has to be quoted in "INA", and can ignore all official regulations and interpretations.
Guys,
VISA BULLETIN FOR JUNE 2009 sets back EB2 priority back to 01JAN00.
Some thing needs to be done. The easist will be not counting ebdependents in ebquota. This should be very easy. There is no INA law linking ebquota with ebdependents.
I need IV Core help for this.
pkv
01-22 08:59 PM
All,
I've to complete my landing in next 2 weeks before my visa expires.
I've to come back immediately and I need an Alerta address while entering Canada where CIC would send my PR card. I tried hard but couldn't find anyone known in Alberta.
Can someone help me here? Please let me know if you know someone who lives in Alberta and can courier my PR card to me in USA after receiving it.
Would really really appreciate any help on this.
Thanks,
I've to complete my landing in next 2 weeks before my visa expires.
I've to come back immediately and I need an Alerta address while entering Canada where CIC would send my PR card. I tried hard but couldn't find anyone known in Alberta.
Can someone help me here? Please let me know if you know someone who lives in Alberta and can courier my PR card to me in USA after receiving it.
Would really really appreciate any help on this.
Thanks,
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
ganguteli
03-07 01:02 PM
I don't think people are in reality. We are in an environment that we have to be diligent that they don't make it harder then what it is; rather then making it easier.
People started playing the devils advocate that if there is quotas on EB then there should also be quota on H-1b; sort of trying to say if there isn't quota on h-1b then there shouldn't be on EB.
A little while ago; some Indian nationals who were here on H-2 visa to help with re-construcing mississipi and louisiana after hurrican katrina got the bright idea to do a march and go public with their grievances. Their grievances were that they paid $15K to come to USA; they were given poor housing, poor working conditions and they want to get greencards.
Do you think they got greencards? No; now the law has been changed to not include India as part of H-2 visas.
Everyone should try to understand the reality that we are in.
This is exactly what I was saying. People are getting overzealous and are losing their balance. By attracting too much attention when everyone in power is being anti-immigrant you people will hurt everyone. They will impose some more restrictions on us.
We need to lay low for a while until economy improves and focus on keeping our jobs. That is the need of the hour rather than becoming a hero and trying to go against the wave.
People started playing the devils advocate that if there is quotas on EB then there should also be quota on H-1b; sort of trying to say if there isn't quota on h-1b then there shouldn't be on EB.
A little while ago; some Indian nationals who were here on H-2 visa to help with re-construcing mississipi and louisiana after hurrican katrina got the bright idea to do a march and go public with their grievances. Their grievances were that they paid $15K to come to USA; they were given poor housing, poor working conditions and they want to get greencards.
Do you think they got greencards? No; now the law has been changed to not include India as part of H-2 visas.
Everyone should try to understand the reality that we are in.
This is exactly what I was saying. People are getting overzealous and are losing their balance. By attracting too much attention when everyone in power is being anti-immigrant you people will hurt everyone. They will impose some more restrictions on us.
We need to lay low for a while until economy improves and focus on keeping our jobs. That is the need of the hour rather than becoming a hero and trying to go against the wave.
more...
arc
08-13 03:02 PM
Mine is EB2, reached July 2nd at 7.55 AM Fedex received by Robin Williams at NSC and I got the check cashed and has receipt numbers but my I140 LUD is not changed. But my I-140 was already approved and it was not concurrent filling. So if its not concurrent filing then I think I140 LUD should not change or not related to 485 receipt notice? Am I right?
Mine is 485 only my 140 was approved earlier, but mine is EB3 - PD 08/2006 what is your PD? Did you get the FP notice?
Mine is 485 only my 140 was approved earlier, but mine is EB3 - PD 08/2006 what is your PD? Did you get the FP notice?
shreekarthik
10-09 12:08 AM
How about forcing FBI remove reference files from the name check? Basically put the name check process back to how it was pre-Nov. Dec. 2002 ? Here's the story of name check
In Oct-2002 a person was cleared by FBI as having no records but INS somehow found that he was involved in foreign counter intelligence investigation. So it asked FBI how such a person could be cleared with no records. At that time FBI checked only the main files (even today FOIPA requests checks only the main files) and it didn't find that guy in the main file. It then queried the reference files and found him there. So instead of investigating why the agent did not add this record to the main file what it did was add the reference file to search. The reference file will have all sorts of records, good or bad including stuff like traffic tickets, witness to a crime, FBI Tipping etc. So now if a person has a hit FBI has to determine whether that hit was due to a good deed or bad deed from the person. What kind of stupid decision is this ? If a fellow was missed in the main file then action should be taken to fix the main file not add all and every other file to the search and start manually separating wheat from chaff.
If the name check process is reverted to pre nov. 2002 mode things will definitely move fast.
In Oct-2002 a person was cleared by FBI as having no records but INS somehow found that he was involved in foreign counter intelligence investigation. So it asked FBI how such a person could be cleared with no records. At that time FBI checked only the main files (even today FOIPA requests checks only the main files) and it didn't find that guy in the main file. It then queried the reference files and found him there. So instead of investigating why the agent did not add this record to the main file what it did was add the reference file to search. The reference file will have all sorts of records, good or bad including stuff like traffic tickets, witness to a crime, FBI Tipping etc. So now if a person has a hit FBI has to determine whether that hit was due to a good deed or bad deed from the person. What kind of stupid decision is this ? If a fellow was missed in the main file then action should be taken to fix the main file not add all and every other file to the search and start manually separating wheat from chaff.
If the name check process is reverted to pre nov. 2002 mode things will definitely move fast.
more...
desi3933
07-09 11:37 AM
Based on a quick scan of the above documents (which may not be a complete list of documents on AOS), I did not find a single reference to LAW that specifies when AOSs can (not) be submittted by GC applicants. My guess is that there is no such law That is why AILA is calling it rubbish.
I urge everyone to scan these (and othet documents) for LAW that specifies when AOSs can (not) be submittted by GC applicants.
� 245.1 Eligibility.
(a) General. Any alien who is physically present in the United States, except for an alien who is ineligible to apply for adjustment of status under paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, may apply for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident of the United States if the applicant is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and an immigrant visa is immediately available at the time of filing of the application. A special immigrant described under section 101(a)(27)(J) of the Act shall be deemed, for the purpose of applying the adjustment to status provisions of section 245(a) of the Act, to have been paroled into the United States, regardless of the actual method of entry into the United States.
[Emphasis added for clarity]
______________________
Not a legal advice.
I urge everyone to scan these (and othet documents) for LAW that specifies when AOSs can (not) be submittted by GC applicants.
� 245.1 Eligibility.
(a) General. Any alien who is physically present in the United States, except for an alien who is ineligible to apply for adjustment of status under paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, may apply for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident of the United States if the applicant is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and an immigrant visa is immediately available at the time of filing of the application. A special immigrant described under section 101(a)(27)(J) of the Act shall be deemed, for the purpose of applying the adjustment to status provisions of section 245(a) of the Act, to have been paroled into the United States, regardless of the actual method of entry into the United States.
[Emphasis added for clarity]
______________________
Not a legal advice.
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
bindoke
08-23 02:45 PM
Hi team,
Just wondering usually how long does it take to get approval notice of I -485 once PD become current ? Any idea or any comments will be really helpful.
Thank you.
no one can predict that. It could be days or months.
Just wondering usually how long does it take to get approval notice of I -485 once PD become current ? Any idea or any comments will be really helpful.
Thank you.
no one can predict that. It could be days or months.
more...
subdhar
08-31 02:28 PM
How am I being a racist? I'm just pointing out the fact that North and South Indians belong to different races and USCIS should stop clubbing them together.
get well soon.........
get well soon.........
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
sam2006
07-20 03:57 PM
I am willing to Contribute $150 for Aman.
thank you venkat
thank you venkat
more...
arnet
05-04 02:55 PM
what about country limit or quota (hard country limit too)?
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
thomachan72
05-23 06:18 AM
SORRY Fellas, I cannot send this out unless the provision for H1b nenewal be added to it. I know IVs main concern is reg the backlogged GC cases, however, I would request that future of the H1b should also be addresed. I now feel that even contributing to the IV was a mistake because you are not taking a broader view of this issue. Please try to include the clauses affecting H1bs also in your letters. Particularly simple technical aspects like renewing H1b beyond the 6 years period is a MUST and one of the things that can be MOST easily achieved if asked for.
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
h1techSlave
09-26 08:08 AM
I think your idea is good. But this could be very difficult to implement, at least for USCIS.
Another suggestion is that porting should be automatic. As soon as a person acquires the required qualification for EB2 + a letter from the company that the person's future job will be of EB2 caliber, UCSIS should put him/her in EB2 category. This is some thing we should work on.
I have no problem with porting, but the priority date should be starting from when they acquired required qualifications for the job.
Example, if someone with B.S and 2 years experience had applied in EB3 in 2005 and tries to port now I think it is fair to have the ported PD not in 2005, but 2008 when the person acquired B.S + 5 years experience.
This would automatically address all those folks who deserved to be in EB2 but couldnt either becuase lawyer screwed up or issues with sponsoring company.
Another suggestion is that porting should be automatic. As soon as a person acquires the required qualification for EB2 + a letter from the company that the person's future job will be of EB2 caliber, UCSIS should put him/her in EB2 category. This is some thing we should work on.
I have no problem with porting, but the priority date should be starting from when they acquired required qualifications for the job.
Example, if someone with B.S and 2 years experience had applied in EB3 in 2005 and tries to port now I think it is fair to have the ported PD not in 2005, but 2008 when the person acquired B.S + 5 years experience.
This would automatically address all those folks who deserved to be in EB2 but couldnt either becuase lawyer screwed up or issues with sponsoring company.
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
YesGC_NoGC
06-27 10:48 AM
So they are bining you for 1 year after getting the GC. What is you leave them prior to getting GC that's after 180 days of filing?
or remain on the bench by not clearing the interview and see for how long they can continue to pay you!!
May end i had 11 day bench but they paid in full... They are good in some aspects that's why i stayed with them for 2.5 yrs....
But signing a binding contract for an indeterminate period ( I yr after GC)
is making me worried !!
or remain on the bench by not clearing the interview and see for how long they can continue to pay you!!
May end i had 11 day bench but they paid in full... They are good in some aspects that's why i stayed with them for 2.5 yrs....
But signing a binding contract for an indeterminate period ( I yr after GC)
is making me worried !!
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
srikondoji
07-09 10:48 AM
Logiclife,
I do understand that our biggest goal is to reduce backlog. With due respect to your opinion, i suggest that we restrict to july fiasco first and then when we get enough traction with this issue, we can then focus on larger issues like backlog reduction etc.
Now that each one of us breathing hot and cold about july error, we better trade on that line.
Just my 2 cents.
sri
Bay area residents:
Please begin the process of getting permit from the city to do this in the time-frame and route mentioned. But please move the date to either saturday July 14th or July 21st.
People wont be able to come tommorow so this must be done July 14th or July 21. Also, the rally should not be about just the July bulletin. It should be about backlogs and numerical caps as the root cause of this mess.
But do get city permit for around 100 people (that's what I expect will show up in Bay area based on past experience with Gutierrez rally).
Let's get some attention from CEOs of Oracle, Cisco, Sun and Google and also some attention from Rep. Zoe Lofgren and Nancy Pelosi. There couldnt be a better place than Bay area to do this, especially San Jose.
Let's do this.
I do understand that our biggest goal is to reduce backlog. With due respect to your opinion, i suggest that we restrict to july fiasco first and then when we get enough traction with this issue, we can then focus on larger issues like backlog reduction etc.
Now that each one of us breathing hot and cold about july error, we better trade on that line.
Just my 2 cents.
sri
Bay area residents:
Please begin the process of getting permit from the city to do this in the time-frame and route mentioned. But please move the date to either saturday July 14th or July 21st.
People wont be able to come tommorow so this must be done July 14th or July 21. Also, the rally should not be about just the July bulletin. It should be about backlogs and numerical caps as the root cause of this mess.
But do get city permit for around 100 people (that's what I expect will show up in Bay area based on past experience with Gutierrez rally).
Let's get some attention from CEOs of Oracle, Cisco, Sun and Google and also some attention from Rep. Zoe Lofgren and Nancy Pelosi. There couldnt be a better place than Bay area to do this, especially San Jose.
Let's do this.
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
delhiguy
07-08 08:47 PM
macaca, This is really good point
There could be 3 reasons , which i could think of
1. The CIR, which was providing amnesty to aroun 12 million illegal residents in the US,so they wanted to keep the legal residents happy.
2.The DOS wanted to force USCIS to finish its backlog, if the dates were current and USCIS would have to accept our applications then they would have to process a lot of EAD/AP and would required a lot of work, They could put the 485 in queue but not AP/EAD. So the only way for USCIS was to process the backlog(At least many legal residents got GCS)
3.USCIS wanted to avoid accepting these applications till July 30, to get more fees( I think this is the least possible reason)
There could be 3 reasons , which i could think of
1. The CIR, which was providing amnesty to aroun 12 million illegal residents in the US,so they wanted to keep the legal residents happy.
2.The DOS wanted to force USCIS to finish its backlog, if the dates were current and USCIS would have to accept our applications then they would have to process a lot of EAD/AP and would required a lot of work, They could put the 485 in queue but not AP/EAD. So the only way for USCIS was to process the backlog(At least many legal residents got GCS)
3.USCIS wanted to avoid accepting these applications till July 30, to get more fees( I think this is the least possible reason)
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
guchi472000
09-09 05:57 PM
Visa Bulletin October 2009 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4575.html)
All
Charge-ability
Areas
Except
Those
Listed
CHINA-
mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIP-PINES
Employ-ment
-Based
1st C C C C C
2nd C 22MAR05 22JAN05 C C
3rd 01JUN02 22FEB02 15APR01 01MAY02 01JUN02
Other
Workers 01JUN01 01JUN01 15APR01 01JUN01 01JUN01
4th C C C C C
Certain Religious Workers U U U U U
5th C C C C C
Targeted Employ-ment Areas/
Regional Centers C C C C C
5th Pilot Programs U U U U U
All
Charge-ability
Areas
Except
Those
Listed
CHINA-
mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIP-PINES
Employ-ment
-Based
1st C C C C C
2nd C 22MAR05 22JAN05 C C
3rd 01JUN02 22FEB02 15APR01 01MAY02 01JUN02
Other
Workers 01JUN01 01JUN01 15APR01 01JUN01 01JUN01
4th C C C C C
Certain Religious Workers U U U U U
5th C C C C C
Targeted Employ-ment Areas/
Regional Centers C C C C C
5th Pilot Programs U U U U U
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
pd2001_12
09-10 02:54 PM
Thats right. I don't see any issues with EB1 or EB2 movement, For gods sake EB2 came to 2005, EB1 is current. It is funny when the other poster said we need to work for EB1 also(It is current, what else you want to do there?).
I feel IV has to concentrate on EB3 now. Period.
That should not be the case. It should just concentrate on EB3-I. Period Because that is the only category that has to wait for centruries to get any movement.
I feel IV has to concentrate on EB3 now. Period.
That should not be the case. It should just concentrate on EB3-I. Period Because that is the only category that has to wait for centruries to get any movement.
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
Kushal
04-22 06:20 PM
Hi Admin,
Please close this thread untill we can plan and do some help to Mehul's family. Its really painful and not sure how just sympathy is going to help them.
How many of you ready to donate if we raise fund to help Mehul's family?
please create a thread for donation and let us know...
Please close this thread untill we can plan and do some help to Mehul's family. Its really painful and not sure how just sympathy is going to help them.
How many of you ready to donate if we raise fund to help Mehul's family?
please create a thread for donation and let us know...
laborchic
07-06 04:46 PM
Does IV Core have a say on sending flowers??
how about sending it to Michael Chertoff and Condelezza Rice??
how about sending it to Michael Chertoff and Condelezza Rice??
sam0407
09-20 04:20 PM
Just got update from my layer that they have received 6 RN's for me and my wife. I filed our AOS on 9th-July-2007 at NSC. My I-140 was filed at NSC last year but it was not approved at the time of my AOS filing. Last week I also got my I-140 approved. I am on EB2.
Wish everybody get their RN's soon.. It should be just matter of days.
Wish everybody get their RN's soon.. It should be just matter of days.
No comments:
Post a Comment