nomi
12-11 02:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by god_bless_you
SO if USCIS wants to make a new rule of filing I485 for the one whose I 140 is cleared and priority date is not current, It CAN DO That RULE Right?
We do not need any Congress approval for that Right?
If so can we explore this option??
Yes, I was wondering the same thing.
The only plausible explanation for requiring congress' approval, that I am able to come up with, is that we bundled many requests along with the request for concurrent processing of 140/485, like additional visa numbers etc., which I think are not in the hands of USCIS.
We would need congress approval to increase visa numbers, etc. But for changing the rule to allow concurrent 140/485 processing is probably within the jurisdiction of the USCIS.
Originally Posted by god_bless_you
SO if USCIS wants to make a new rule of filing I485 for the one whose I 140 is cleared and priority date is not current, It CAN DO That RULE Right?
We do not need any Congress approval for that Right?
If so can we explore this option??
Yes, I was wondering the same thing.
The only plausible explanation for requiring congress' approval, that I am able to come up with, is that we bundled many requests along with the request for concurrent processing of 140/485, like additional visa numbers etc., which I think are not in the hands of USCIS.
We would need congress approval to increase visa numbers, etc. But for changing the rule to allow concurrent 140/485 processing is probably within the jurisdiction of the USCIS.
wallpaper Casio G-Shock Data Bank
gsc999
07-13 12:38 PM
Can members posting on this thread please explain to me why this thread is more visible than our San Jose rally thread.
Is this issue so important to you? If you have some spare time, help spread media awareness about this rally.
Other option is to go to this attorney's website and discuss it there.
Is this issue so important to you? If you have some spare time, help spread media awareness about this rally.
Other option is to go to this attorney's website and discuss it there.
thesparky007
02-17 06:15 PM
kirupa.com
uhhh, look at the post in the very first part of the thread i set up this (http://%0ahttp://www.gamedev.net/community/fo...topic_id=202348) link for a list of a bunch of 3d programs varying from free to over 5k
cool
thx man!
uhhh, look at the post in the very first part of the thread i set up this (http://%0ahttp://www.gamedev.net/community/fo...topic_id=202348) link for a list of a bunch of 3d programs varying from free to over 5k
cool
thx man!
2011 Quality Goods CASIO G SHOCK
![eminem g shock watch. Eminem ) [USERSHARE]](http://www.mixmatters.com/hot/2008/images/Karina_Pasian-First_Love.jpg "Eminem ) [USERSHARE]")
pappu
04-24 12:03 PM
Congrats and best wishes.
more...
zuhail
03-29 07:29 PM
Hi,
It appears that Visa Re-capturing for EB categories is not high in IV's agenda.
I wrote to the IV team about 3 weeks ago and no response so far.
So if you are interested to personally take part in this effort,
please write to me at fermion_boson@ymail.com and we can do something about it.
I guess everybody have to start somewhere.
Thanks.
It appears that Visa Re-capturing for EB categories is not high in IV's agenda.
I wrote to the IV team about 3 weeks ago and no response so far.
So if you are interested to personally take part in this effort,
please write to me at fermion_boson@ymail.com and we can do something about it.
I guess everybody have to start somewhere.
Thanks.
retrohatao
02-07 10:32 AM
Admin,
I beg to differ. As far as USCIS is concerned, it just forwards the security clearance request to FBI/Homeland security. It does not follow up unless you sue USCIS. As far as they are concerned, the "ball is in FBI's court" ( exact words of the representative). So NameCheck need to be a separate issue.
I beg to differ. As far as USCIS is concerned, it just forwards the security clearance request to FBI/Homeland security. It does not follow up unless you sue USCIS. As far as they are concerned, the "ball is in FBI's court" ( exact words of the representative). So NameCheck need to be a separate issue.
more...
Sunx_2004
03-12 10:21 AM
I do not believe that one person (Pappu) should be held responsible for whatever going on You should not blame Pappu alone.
However, I agree that donor forum proved to be disastrous and driving people away from IV. Someone in core team should do analysis on how much it helped the IV cause and whether it should exist going forward. Lack of transparency is clearly hurting IV cause.
IV needs to OPEN ITS BOOKS
And show DONORS where their money is going? Where is the sponsors money going? and what is this ORGANIZATION planning to do. IF not, one these days they will find themselves in a audit and public scrutiny.
Any yes people who says open your eyes? Have you got your GC? EAD is only a means and not the destination
PAPU, you need to explain to all IV members and disclose the books and what you are doing as IV head, and dont give me the bull, of we are working, you want our support, we want clarity and real action.
However, I agree that donor forum proved to be disastrous and driving people away from IV. Someone in core team should do analysis on how much it helped the IV cause and whether it should exist going forward. Lack of transparency is clearly hurting IV cause.
IV needs to OPEN ITS BOOKS
And show DONORS where their money is going? Where is the sponsors money going? and what is this ORGANIZATION planning to do. IF not, one these days they will find themselves in a audit and public scrutiny.
Any yes people who says open your eyes? Have you got your GC? EAD is only a means and not the destination
PAPU, you need to explain to all IV members and disclose the books and what you are doing as IV head, and dont give me the bull, of we are working, you want our support, we want clarity and real action.
2010 Casio G-Shock teams up with
laborchic
09-12 11:06 AM
So many people in NJ Thread... How many are coming for the rallly....
Please forrward the Businessweek article to everyone.. This may give us a good bump in increasing the attendance..
Please forrward the Businessweek article to everyone.. This may give us a good bump in increasing the attendance..
more...
coopheal
11-11 08:32 AM
If we are in sinking boat then lets sink rather than try to survive.
Guy is telling lets try to survive. Lets try.... Its far from success but towards it.
IV Core any updates?
Guy is telling lets try to survive. Lets try.... Its far from success but towards it.
IV Core any updates?
hair Eminem ) [USERSHARE]
shukla77
01-02 08:03 PM
I have posted about immigrationvoice.org in following yahoo groups
IIT- Global (2526 members)
IIT-midwest(317 members)
IITK-westcoast(766 members)
Inter IIT (4654 members)
I hope this helps.
Good Luck to All
-Shukla
IIT- Global (2526 members)
IIT-midwest(317 members)
IITK-westcoast(766 members)
Inter IIT (4654 members)
I hope this helps.
Good Luck to All
-Shukla
more...
newuser
04-20 08:41 PM
Anyone from West Coast?
hot Nib Ape Bape Casio G Shock
akilhere
10-14 10:09 AM
That's better. Collect the radiologist's report and send them at the earliest. Make sure your attorney sends it to addressed mentioned in the letter. Someone's attorney in this forum used FedEx's service (sent to non-PO Box address) and took longer time to reach right department.
As I said earlier, my doctor was not in USCIS's current list. So, I had to redo everything. My status has changed to 'Respone to RFE review'
FeedFront
I got the radiologist's report. Its on an official letterhead of the hospital and it includes his findings, recommendations etc. but it doesn't contain his signature. It only says "Read By: Dr. XXX and Prepared by: Dr. XXX. Nothing is handwritten, its all in print and the top portion says Radiology Report. It includes all my information including my DOB etc.
But the RFE says that the Radiologist's report should be on an official letterhead and signed by the Radiologist.
When i called the Doctor's office, they said that these documents are received electronically and are E-Signed so there won't be any signatures as such. They have mailed me a sealed copy but I'm wondering if this will be a problem since it doesn't contain the Radiologists's signature.
Any inputs on this would be appreciated.
Thanks,
As I said earlier, my doctor was not in USCIS's current list. So, I had to redo everything. My status has changed to 'Respone to RFE review'
FeedFront
I got the radiologist's report. Its on an official letterhead of the hospital and it includes his findings, recommendations etc. but it doesn't contain his signature. It only says "Read By: Dr. XXX and Prepared by: Dr. XXX. Nothing is handwritten, its all in print and the top portion says Radiology Report. It includes all my information including my DOB etc.
But the RFE says that the Radiologist's report should be on an official letterhead and signed by the Radiologist.
When i called the Doctor's office, they said that these documents are received electronically and are E-Signed so there won't be any signatures as such. They have mailed me a sealed copy but I'm wondering if this will be a problem since it doesn't contain the Radiologists's signature.
Any inputs on this would be appreciated.
Thanks,
more...
house G-Shock Watch (LI) Images
vshar
03-12 09:59 AM
Priyah Dosto,
Visa Bulletin Gaand Mein Ley Lao Ab..... Kuch nahi hone waala.
believe me I laughed for 2-3 minutes after reading your comment. Keep it up.:D
Visa Bulletin Gaand Mein Ley Lao Ab..... Kuch nahi hone waala.
believe me I laughed for 2-3 minutes after reading your comment. Keep it up.:D
tattoo Casio G-Shock Watch Hyper
vbkris77
04-10 12:28 PM
What you said is absolutely true. EB1 Last year and the year before saw lot more approvals than usual. My reasoning is that even though EB1 was current for all along, they never really approved I140s to give them GC. So In the overall clearing of I140s, CIS cleared lot more EB1 cases and became approved during last 2 years. If you look at the I140 completion in the dash board, it will be very much clear that the completions came down to 4 digits for each month from 5 digits. Receipts continued to be less than 5K per month.
This year, we may see a big dip in EB1 cases and larger EB2 spillover. EB4 spillover is ruled out after this bulletin.
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
This year, we may see a big dip in EB1 cases and larger EB2 spillover. EB4 spillover is ruled out after this bulletin.
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
more...
pictures justin bieber watches for
gc_aspirant_prasad
06-22 04:46 PM
My attorney didnt ask for DL copies, but did require color copies of passport.
Guess, its different with each lawyer based on their experience.
Guess, its different with each lawyer based on their experience.
dresses G-Shock Japan keeps the
InTheMoment
07-13 11:39 PM
Thanks for the latest info. Would be interested to know about this change...
I read somewhere that now all the applications - 485/EAD/AP, for one particular applicant, are adjudicated by the same officer. This is a new process change to improve efficiency. I think the article I read indicated that it was already working that way at TSC.
Unfortunately, i don't have the link, but I will post it if i come across it.
I read somewhere that now all the applications - 485/EAD/AP, for one particular applicant, are adjudicated by the same officer. This is a new process change to improve efficiency. I think the article I read indicated that it was already working that way at TSC.
Unfortunately, i don't have the link, but I will post it if i come across it.
more...
makeup Celebs Hit Casio G-Shock#39;s
grinch
03-04 03:21 PM
Yeah I've been working on my entry slowly, learning some new things I never knew.
Almost done!
Almost done!
girlfriend G Camera x G-Shock Watch
cal_dood
07-05 01:43 PM
I'll just go back to forums of the leading lady immigration lawyer....
hairstyles G-Shock Japan introduces a new
feedfront
10-14 12:18 PM
FeedFront
I got the radiologist's report. Its on an official letterhead of the hospital and it includes his findings, recommendations etc. but it doesn't contain his signature. It only says "Read By: Dr. XXX and Prepared by: Dr. XXX. Nothing is handwritten, its all in print and the top portion says Radiology Report. It includes all my information including my DOB etc.
But the RFE says that the Radiologist's report should be on an official letterhead and signed by the Radiologist.
When i called the Doctor's office, they said that these documents are received electronically and are E-Signed so there won't be any signatures as such. They have mailed me a sealed copy but I'm wondering if this will be a problem since it doesn't contain the Radiologists's signature.
Any inputs on this would be appreciated.
Thanks,
I've not seen any report with person's signature. It's valid/acceptable as long as it is on letterhead. Even my last two reports (X-ray) did not bear Radiologist's signature and is same as you mentioned. Hope it helps.
I got the radiologist's report. Its on an official letterhead of the hospital and it includes his findings, recommendations etc. but it doesn't contain his signature. It only says "Read By: Dr. XXX and Prepared by: Dr. XXX. Nothing is handwritten, its all in print and the top portion says Radiology Report. It includes all my information including my DOB etc.
But the RFE says that the Radiologist's report should be on an official letterhead and signed by the Radiologist.
When i called the Doctor's office, they said that these documents are received electronically and are E-Signed so there won't be any signatures as such. They have mailed me a sealed copy but I'm wondering if this will be a problem since it doesn't contain the Radiologists's signature.
Any inputs on this would be appreciated.
Thanks,
I've not seen any report with person's signature. It's valid/acceptable as long as it is on letterhead. Even my last two reports (X-ray) did not bear Radiologist's signature and is same as you mentioned. Hope it helps.
mbawa2574
02-15 04:33 PM
Well, I do have a vested interest in maintaining status quo, at least with regard to the per country caps. :)
But, working in one of the Valley companies, I see a lot of people from India and China who just don't mix with rest of the people, say, from Poland or Germany or France or Iran. US (the whole government, including USCIS) likes the idea of 'Melting pot' when it comes to immigration. When you melt a lot of metals with each other, you don't end up with a fragmented alloy, since you've capped the amount of each metal in your pot. That is how you get 'Little Italy's and 'China Town's and the latest one in San Jose, CA: 'Saigon Business district'
You are blaming Indians and Chinese as a community to be racists. I will rather not mix with people who think like you. It is your perception, not a chinese or Indian problem.
But, working in one of the Valley companies, I see a lot of people from India and China who just don't mix with rest of the people, say, from Poland or Germany or France or Iran. US (the whole government, including USCIS) likes the idea of 'Melting pot' when it comes to immigration. When you melt a lot of metals with each other, you don't end up with a fragmented alloy, since you've capped the amount of each metal in your pot. That is how you get 'Little Italy's and 'China Town's and the latest one in San Jose, CA: 'Saigon Business district'
You are blaming Indians and Chinese as a community to be racists. I will rather not mix with people who think like you. It is your perception, not a chinese or Indian problem.
like_watching_paint_dry
04-06 11:10 PM
If we come across a few cases we can explore options. Is there an appeal process? This can be in media and can help future cases. With few case examples, a legal opinion can also be sought if this is legal at POE.
In the absence of real cases, there is no way any action can be taken and it will stay as a forum rumor.
No no. This is very true. This happened to my friend's friend.
My friend's friend was visiting my friend and was traveling with his dog. The VO asked my friend's friend what his plan was with the dog. My friend's friend said he was just planning to stay with my friend and take the dog to walk in nearby park where he can poop in the grass and pee on a tire. The VO immediately called my friend and asked if he can take a US dog and have it poop in the park and pee on tire. My friend said yes! And the VO immediately deported my friend's friend along with dog!! :eek: My friend's friend very upset, not in shape to talk about it for 3 months.
IV should do something about this before too late! ;)
In the absence of real cases, there is no way any action can be taken and it will stay as a forum rumor.
No no. This is very true. This happened to my friend's friend.
My friend's friend was visiting my friend and was traveling with his dog. The VO asked my friend's friend what his plan was with the dog. My friend's friend said he was just planning to stay with my friend and take the dog to walk in nearby park where he can poop in the grass and pee on a tire. The VO immediately called my friend and asked if he can take a US dog and have it poop in the park and pee on tire. My friend said yes! And the VO immediately deported my friend's friend along with dog!! :eek: My friend's friend very upset, not in shape to talk about it for 3 months.
IV should do something about this before too late! ;)