desi3933
02-24 01:57 PM
If you apply for H1B, you will only whatever left in L1B and not six years.
That is not correct, snathan.
L1B+H1B can not exceed 6 years out of that L1B can not exceed 5 years.
_________________
Not a legal advice.
That is not correct, snathan.
L1B+H1B can not exceed 6 years out of that L1B can not exceed 5 years.
_________________
Not a legal advice.
wallpaper 9 Mar 2010 . Harley-Davidson
harsh
12-12 04:54 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=7dc68f236e16e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=7dc68f236e16e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190a RCRD
All of the documents in this link are written by
"Micheal Aytes /s/,
Acting Associate Director, Domestic Operations
U.S. of Citizenship and Immigration Services
Department of Homeland Security"
I wonder if he is the person we should be talking to. Although the document does not indicate which city he works in. He should at leats be able to tell us who in USCIS makes these decisions if he is not the right person.
Also I was not able to find anything about not allowing concurrently to file 140/485 applications. Where was this information published? Does anyone know?
All of the documents in this link are written by
"Micheal Aytes /s/,
Acting Associate Director, Domestic Operations
U.S. of Citizenship and Immigration Services
Department of Homeland Security"
I wonder if he is the person we should be talking to. Although the document does not indicate which city he works in. He should at leats be able to tell us who in USCIS makes these decisions if he is not the right person.
Also I was not able to find anything about not allowing concurrently to file 140/485 applications. Where was this information published? Does anyone know?
mihird
07-09 03:58 PM
I dont think legally you can sue someone, because they have worked harder.
I posted this link , so that everybody may know the legal reasons, which we can present in a court of law.
If this lawsuit is accepted by the court , then the USCIS lawyers would tell what exactly happened.
I till now personally believe , that the USCIS/DOS hasnt broken any law.
They may have however changed a pettern,process , but no law has been broken.
It took them 6 months to consume 66K visas and then another 15 days to process another 66K.
It is reasonably safe to assume, either correct procedures were not followed in the past or were not followed in the last 2 weeks. Only a judge can order USCIS to elobarte on what processes were followed in the last 2 weeks (FBI name checks and security clearances skipped...etc. etc.)
They made people expend (or rather waste) millions of dollars in preparing the paperwork...and then changed the process abruptly on July 2nd..with no advance notice...they could have published a guidance in the July bulletin itself of this possibly happening, if not published a guidance sometime later...
There is no doubt, that the entire chain of events were premeditated...and the communication mix-up as claimed by Condoleezza Rice on TV was a deliberate one..
I doubt if this will all fly in court...they certainly owe the millions of wasted dollars and thousands of wasted hours in preparing the paperwork, back to the applicants/attornies...at the least...
Keep in mind, the AILF rarely files a law suit against the government, and most of their law suits have had favorable outcomes..
I posted this link , so that everybody may know the legal reasons, which we can present in a court of law.
If this lawsuit is accepted by the court , then the USCIS lawyers would tell what exactly happened.
I till now personally believe , that the USCIS/DOS hasnt broken any law.
They may have however changed a pettern,process , but no law has been broken.
It took them 6 months to consume 66K visas and then another 15 days to process another 66K.
It is reasonably safe to assume, either correct procedures were not followed in the past or were not followed in the last 2 weeks. Only a judge can order USCIS to elobarte on what processes were followed in the last 2 weeks (FBI name checks and security clearances skipped...etc. etc.)
They made people expend (or rather waste) millions of dollars in preparing the paperwork...and then changed the process abruptly on July 2nd..with no advance notice...they could have published a guidance in the July bulletin itself of this possibly happening, if not published a guidance sometime later...
There is no doubt, that the entire chain of events were premeditated...and the communication mix-up as claimed by Condoleezza Rice on TV was a deliberate one..
I doubt if this will all fly in court...they certainly owe the millions of wasted dollars and thousands of wasted hours in preparing the paperwork, back to the applicants/attornies...at the least...
Keep in mind, the AILF rarely files a law suit against the government, and most of their law suits have had favorable outcomes..
2011 2010 Harley Davidson Fat
mbawa2574
02-15 04:59 PM
Well, US government thinks otherwise about my (or USCIS') logic. If you think it is unfair, you can sue them. I won't stop you.
US government thinks that Indians and Chinese don't mix up with other races. Are u on drugs ??????????????????:mad:
US government thinks that Indians and Chinese don't mix up with other races. Are u on drugs ??????????????????:mad:
more...
ArunAntonio
04-21 11:02 PM
I was at the meeting / Rally today. There was a decent turn out for the Legal Immigration reformsupporters. The one thing that stuck out when I walked out after the meeting was "NUMBERS MATTER" and this is the first time I saw it first hand. The Supporters of refrom for Undocumented workers were present in VAST numbers when compared to the supporters of Legal Immigration reforms. The other thing I noticed is that Rep. Gutierrez seems to be a grassroots level person who connects with the issues faced by the common man dues to the obsolete immigraiton policies.
However we have some thing from our end to do and that is to:
- Call the lawmakers and ask them to support the STRIVE act
- Keep reminding the lawmakers that our issues need to be addressed
- Make sure our issues get as much attention and coverage as possible
- Make our presence felt
- contribute, so that even though we may not have the numbers, we can make a difference with the $$
- Keep at it.
So my comments to all those who were there today and felt that it was not very productive, Please do not get disheartened, it did make a difference, the congressman saw and noticed that the people backlogged in the Legal Immigration channel are also willing to come out and get their word out. It also showed that we all in the IV community are connected enough to generate a showing agaisnt such small notice, we need to keep doing this, but in much bigger numbers and keep active and get out message out.
- Peace.
However we have some thing from our end to do and that is to:
- Call the lawmakers and ask them to support the STRIVE act
- Keep reminding the lawmakers that our issues need to be addressed
- Make sure our issues get as much attention and coverage as possible
- Make our presence felt
- contribute, so that even though we may not have the numbers, we can make a difference with the $$
- Keep at it.
So my comments to all those who were there today and felt that it was not very productive, Please do not get disheartened, it did make a difference, the congressman saw and noticed that the people backlogged in the Legal Immigration channel are also willing to come out and get their word out. It also showed that we all in the IV community are connected enough to generate a showing agaisnt such small notice, we need to keep doing this, but in much bigger numbers and keep active and get out message out.
- Peace.
squishy
02-23 03:54 PM
ohhhhhhhh my goddddddddddddd
tht is cool
man!
i want to do those stuff
i will learn
tell me a good program
If you want a free program blender not free and cheaper than $500 animtion master $300
tht is cool
man!
i want to do those stuff
i will learn
tell me a good program
If you want a free program blender not free and cheaper than $500 animtion master $300
more...
vandanaverdia
09-11 04:31 PM
One more person can add strength...
One more person can make a difference...
That ONE person can be YOU!!!
What is stopping you from coming to DC....
Come to DC & lets all join hands as ONE!!!!!!
TOGETHER WE CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN!!!!!
One more person can make a difference...
That ONE person can be YOU!!!
What is stopping you from coming to DC....
Come to DC & lets all join hands as ONE!!!!!!
TOGETHER WE CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN!!!!!
2010 used-2010-harley~davidson-
richi121175
01-17 02:38 PM
Sent PM... and FYI... I am not a non-contributor as wellPlease send me a message if you have contributed. I don't want to any non-contrbuting members.... The day is not far when IV will have a cease operations due to non-contributing members. !!
ONE THING IS FOR SURE, EITHER IT'S THIS YEAR OR NEVER ....CHOICE IS YOURS
ONE THING IS FOR SURE, EITHER IT'S THIS YEAR OR NEVER ....CHOICE IS YOURS
more...
sweet_jungle
02-13 01:15 AM
most of the desi consultants seem to be concentrated in NJ or Chicago. Are there any reliable desi consultants for H-1 in CA? What are the websites which give info in this direction?
What are the steps to be followed and things to watch out for in selecting a desi consultant?
What are the steps to be followed and things to watch out for in selecting a desi consultant?
hair 2010 Harley-Davidson Fat
udaykiran82
06-11 12:48 PM
sent
more...
sunty
11-10 11:27 PM
vin13,
I was not aware of any conference call being organized by IV, otherwise I would have certainly been there, for I really believe quarterly spillover can ease a lot of our pain and can be a good starting point to re-galvanize the community.
I think IV leadership should show the way here so that there is a chance we might see quarterly spillover in the January Bulletin. First it was the USCIS and now its the DOS that we need to wake from its slumber.
I was not aware of any conference call being organized by IV, otherwise I would have certainly been there, for I really believe quarterly spillover can ease a lot of our pain and can be a good starting point to re-galvanize the community.
I think IV leadership should show the way here so that there is a chance we might see quarterly spillover in the January Bulletin. First it was the USCIS and now its the DOS that we need to wake from its slumber.
hot Pictures of 2010 Harley-Davidson FLSTF Softail Fat Boy
gsc999
04-23 01:17 AM
I was the first person in the QnA - disappointed at the intent of this meeting - they really care about illegal immigration - not once legal immigrants were discussed. It was a farce and IV was just used as an organization to show support to him - very disappointed.:mad:
---
Say What????
I agree with Sanju, Janak and Arun. Many other IV members I met had negative feedback about your question. Irrelevant to our cause.
Btw, I was the guy wearing IV T-shirt.
---
Say What????
I agree with Sanju, Janak and Arun. Many other IV members I met had negative feedback about your question. Irrelevant to our cause.
Btw, I was the guy wearing IV T-shirt.
more...
house Harley Davidson 2010 Fatboy.
new_horizon
10-21 12:03 AM
reasoning with you. I can easily refute all your claims, and also prove my point. but I think it'll be a waste of my time. 'coz I am not trying to convert anybody to vote for the repubs. just can't help it, never heard anybody hiring a CEO just because he has experience organizing the company picnic :D . peace.
tattoo Fat Boy Lo
sammas
07-12 03:57 PM
E. APPLICABILITY OF INA SECTION 202(a)(5)(A)AS IT RELATES TO THE ALLOCATION OF �OTHERWISE UNUSED� NUMBERS
INA Section 202(a)(5)(A), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. This provision helps to assure that all available Employment preference numbers may be used. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)(A) has occasionally allowed oversubscribed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large quantities of Employment First and Second preference numbers that would have otherwise gone unused.
For example, let us assume that 11,600 Employment Second preference numbers are available in a calendar quarter. There is heavy Employment Second preference demand by China-mainland born and India applicants; however, each country is oversubscribed and would ordinarily be limited to about 800 of the available numbers due to the prorating provisions of INA Section 202(e). Applicants from other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit have reported a total demand of 6,500 numbers. After taking the worldwide demand into account, it is determined that as a result of the China-mainland born and India per-country limits only 8,100 of the total available Employment Second preference numbers would be used in that quarter. In this instance, the otherwise unused 3,500 numbers could then be made available to China-mainland born and India regardless of their per-country limits. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
INA Section 202(a)(5)(A), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. This provision helps to assure that all available Employment preference numbers may be used. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)(A) has occasionally allowed oversubscribed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large quantities of Employment First and Second preference numbers that would have otherwise gone unused.
For example, let us assume that 11,600 Employment Second preference numbers are available in a calendar quarter. There is heavy Employment Second preference demand by China-mainland born and India applicants; however, each country is oversubscribed and would ordinarily be limited to about 800 of the available numbers due to the prorating provisions of INA Section 202(e). Applicants from other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit have reported a total demand of 6,500 numbers. After taking the worldwide demand into account, it is determined that as a result of the China-mainland born and India per-country limits only 8,100 of the total available Employment Second preference numbers would be used in that quarter. In this instance, the otherwise unused 3,500 numbers could then be made available to China-mainland born and India regardless of their per-country limits. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
more...
pictures 2010 Harley-Davidson FLSTF
Openarms
08-11 03:20 PM
As far I am concerned they are one of the organizations that injected this EB2 vs EB3 allocation... at that movement they might have their own reasons... but it might change now... We kinda know where IV stands on this...
They do....
How come a person with EB2 category applied GC in 2006 doing the same thing that a EB3 person does who applied GC in 2002 gets their Green Cards approved?? Again not against any category...What in the world of kinda rationale is this is??
They do....
How come a person with EB2 category applied GC in 2006 doing the same thing that a EB3 person does who applied GC in 2002 gets their Green Cards approved?? Again not against any category...What in the world of kinda rationale is this is??
dresses 2010 Fat Boy Lo - I like
GCMan007
05-08 10:44 PM
Hi
After long haul of almost 5 years , today I got the approval email for my 485 filed in June - 2007.I guess my wife's case should be approved soon.Last when spoke to TCS IO , I was told that biometrics is needed in my case but still they can approve & later send me the notice. I guess only after that I might get the physical card.
Had anyone experienced this scenario ?
Anyways I want to thank everyone on this forum,immigration portals, folks & every other support that I have got in this long process.
I will always be there for everyone on this forum or in any other way I can help to every legal immigrant who is waiting for the Green Card.
Thanks a lot
Priority date - 05/2003
140 approved - 10/2006 from TSC
485,131,765 RD-6/04/2007 at TSC, notices received - 06/07/2007
CA, EB2
Wife's case returned due to some error,send it again & received on 06/17/2007 as per Fedex
Wife's case RD- 7/10/2007
I131,I765 approved for both -Nov 2007
I485 approval mail - 04/24/08 - Myself
Waiting for spouse approval, physical Cards
Congrats Dude!
My PD is EB2- Dec 2003, but my RD is Aug 2nd, 07. TSC currently procsses June end 485 applications. Do they pick application for process purely on RD? Considering large # of applications filed during July 07' ,do I have to wait for long time to see my magic email..?
After long haul of almost 5 years , today I got the approval email for my 485 filed in June - 2007.I guess my wife's case should be approved soon.Last when spoke to TCS IO , I was told that biometrics is needed in my case but still they can approve & later send me the notice. I guess only after that I might get the physical card.
Had anyone experienced this scenario ?
Anyways I want to thank everyone on this forum,immigration portals, folks & every other support that I have got in this long process.
I will always be there for everyone on this forum or in any other way I can help to every legal immigrant who is waiting for the Green Card.
Thanks a lot
Priority date - 05/2003
140 approved - 10/2006 from TSC
485,131,765 RD-6/04/2007 at TSC, notices received - 06/07/2007
CA, EB2
Wife's case returned due to some error,send it again & received on 06/17/2007 as per Fedex
Wife's case RD- 7/10/2007
I131,I765 approved for both -Nov 2007
I485 approval mail - 04/24/08 - Myself
Waiting for spouse approval, physical Cards
Congrats Dude!
My PD is EB2- Dec 2003, but my RD is Aug 2nd, 07. TSC currently procsses June end 485 applications. Do they pick application for process purely on RD? Considering large # of applications filed during July 07' ,do I have to wait for long time to see my magic email..?
more...
makeup Fat Boy 2010-dsc00002.jpg
concorde
07-23 04:32 PM
Mine reached NSC on July 2 at 9:02 AM. Got Fedex delivery confirmation and no receipt from CIS yet. Will check with my lawyer for advise.
You must be joking :-) about asking the attorney for advise :-). See http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=122613&postcount=39
Unfortunately most of the attorneys don't seem to be on top of the situation
and will only list out the "obvious" possible outcomes which we ourselves can list out.!! So far, at least 2 attorneys I have approaced haven't been able to tell me how 2 485 applications for a single person are handled. Godammit, it is not some rocket science question; it has to be there in some USCIS manual/rule book or a section of the immigration law.
You must be joking :-) about asking the attorney for advise :-). See http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=122613&postcount=39
Unfortunately most of the attorneys don't seem to be on top of the situation
and will only list out the "obvious" possible outcomes which we ourselves can list out.!! So far, at least 2 attorneys I have approaced haven't been able to tell me how 2 485 applications for a single person are handled. Godammit, it is not some rocket science question; it has to be there in some USCIS manual/rule book or a section of the immigration law.
girlfriend Harley-Davidson FLSTFB Softail
willgetgc2005
02-15 08:05 PM
Retrohatao,
You are right. This seems more like a luck factor. If Your stars are good, name check is cleared. Else it just stays stuck. It is ridiculous, they should check a persons background at the time of issuing a visa to come into the USA. Not when he/she has been in the US for several years. IV should raise this issue. This is even more farcical than retrogression. At least in case of retrogression they publish cut off dates. Well, in the case of name check you just don�t know where u stand.
You are right. This seems more like a luck factor. If Your stars are good, name check is cleared. Else it just stays stuck. It is ridiculous, they should check a persons background at the time of issuing a visa to come into the USA. Not when he/she has been in the US for several years. IV should raise this issue. This is even more farcical than retrogression. At least in case of retrogression they publish cut off dates. Well, in the case of name check you just don�t know where u stand.
hairstyles Fat Boy 2010 for sale
Madhuri
11-22 07:39 PM
If you changed the project and the new project is giving better hourly rate then if you are working on percentage basis, your share will go up.
And in this case if you have a labor and I 140 approved, will there be any problem?
Please note the job title does not change in the above case.
It is my understanding that when applying for a GC, until you have your LC approved (and possibly I-140), you cannot change your title or salary, beyond what was submitted in the LC application. Technically, the DOL is verifying a 'job' (and the salary related to that job), so in theory, that can't change, not because the employer doesn't want to, but because the law doesn't allow it.
Now, an employer may unofficially get around this (by increasing your bonus payout, or giving you stock, or changing the internal level of your job), but these are 'handouts' that you may get if your employer is fair.
With the backlogs that are in effect for pre-PERM LC approvals, employees can go from 1-3 years without a salary or promotion/job title change, and that is the law! Go figure.
And in this case if you have a labor and I 140 approved, will there be any problem?
Please note the job title does not change in the above case.
It is my understanding that when applying for a GC, until you have your LC approved (and possibly I-140), you cannot change your title or salary, beyond what was submitted in the LC application. Technically, the DOL is verifying a 'job' (and the salary related to that job), so in theory, that can't change, not because the employer doesn't want to, but because the law doesn't allow it.
Now, an employer may unofficially get around this (by increasing your bonus payout, or giving you stock, or changing the internal level of your job), but these are 'handouts' that you may get if your employer is fair.
With the backlogs that are in effect for pre-PERM LC approvals, employees can go from 1-3 years without a salary or promotion/job title change, and that is the law! Go figure.
vin13
11-13 12:27 PM
The 1st quarter ends Dec 31. So technically, USCIS has until that to allocate the total of 35,000 visas. Now, let's assume they have only approved 5000 visas across all categories thus far, then that doesn't mean they can go and allocate the remaining 30,000 in December to the retrogressed countries.
I think the way the spillover works (except for the last month of last quarter) is at the end of the quarter (technically Jan bulletin is published around Dec 15) based on the demand for the last 2 weeks for that quarter, USCIS will spillover visas. So I think we should wait until the Jan bulletin that comes out in December before we push for a lawsuit. If you want to send letters to people, then so be it, but I am pretty sure USCIS is well within its operating procedure wrt spillover. If spillover doesn't happen in the Jan bulletin, then we have ground for a strong case.
I guess we will be fine if they are not able to complete the spillover within the calandar quarter and issue them the month after (except when it is end of fiscal year). I hope you are right that the spillover happens in January for the 1st quarter.
But look at previous visa bulletins. Do you see major movements 4 times a year. Its always the end of the year. So we are asking for clarification on following the law which seems to say that spillover need to happen during the remainder of the calander quarter.
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
I think the way the spillover works (except for the last month of last quarter) is at the end of the quarter (technically Jan bulletin is published around Dec 15) based on the demand for the last 2 weeks for that quarter, USCIS will spillover visas. So I think we should wait until the Jan bulletin that comes out in December before we push for a lawsuit. If you want to send letters to people, then so be it, but I am pretty sure USCIS is well within its operating procedure wrt spillover. If spillover doesn't happen in the Jan bulletin, then we have ground for a strong case.
I guess we will be fine if they are not able to complete the spillover within the calandar quarter and issue them the month after (except when it is end of fiscal year). I hope you are right that the spillover happens in January for the 1st quarter.
But look at previous visa bulletins. Do you see major movements 4 times a year. Its always the end of the year. So we are asking for clarification on following the law which seems to say that spillover need to happen during the remainder of the calander quarter.
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
fcres
07-23 04:15 PM
Well according to this FAQ dated 07/23 they will accept application without medical report (Qn# 13) which is also an initial evidence. So i hope EVL is also ok.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf