simple1
06-16 03:34 PM
--
Who actually controls the work? The client.
Regardless of Fixed bid scenarios. The work is actually controlled by the client. You may be responsible for a part of the work.
--
I am talking about projects here. The project-sponsor is the client. They control the work.
Not about product implementations for the products that were developed internally inside the visa-sponser's company.
Repeating your quote here
L-1B temporary workers can no longer work primarily at a worksite other than their petitioning employer if the work will be controlled and supervised by a different employer
I have put color coding for better understanding. Please read it again.
This is what I wrote
I hope this clears your confusion.
Who actually controls the work? The client.
Regardless of Fixed bid scenarios. The work is actually controlled by the client. You may be responsible for a part of the work.
--
I am talking about projects here. The project-sponsor is the client. They control the work.
Not about product implementations for the products that were developed internally inside the visa-sponser's company.
Repeating your quote here
L-1B temporary workers can no longer work primarily at a worksite other than their petitioning employer if the work will be controlled and supervised by a different employer
I have put color coding for better understanding. Please read it again.
This is what I wrote
I hope this clears your confusion.
wallpaper images had hair under their arms. julia roberts hair under arms. dresses
pod1
03-30 02:08 PM
When they say May are they referring to May bulleting(coming in April) or the bulletin which is going to be released in May(which is June bulletin)?
gc_peshwa
03-29 10:38 AM
12000 visas would certainly translate to more than a week's advance IMHO:D
DOS has not said by how much will be the forward movement.
The Department of State announced that the Indian EB2 category is expected to advance one week in the May Visa Bulletin. The demand for EB1visa numbers has decreased by 50 percent this fiscal year. Last year from October 2009 to February 2010, 22,000 EB1 numbers were used. During the same period this year, only 10,000 to 11,000 have been used. EB1 will be current worldwide all fiscal year. This will free up an estimated 12,000 visa numbers to fall down from EB1 to EB2 this year
EB2 India Expected to Advance in May 2011
Posted 29.Mar.2011
The cutoff date for EB2, India, is expected to advance in May 2011. This advancement will occur in the U.S. Department of State (DOS) Visa Bulletin for May 2011. The Visa Bulletin for May 2011 will be published in early to mid April 2011.
On March 29, 2011, the DOS advised that demand for visa numbers in the EB1 category has declined significantly. Thus, approximately 12,000 unused EB1 numbers will be available to shift downward to the EB2 category, starting in May 2011. There was no estimate of the expected amount of forward movement in the cutoff date for EB2 India due to the availability of these additional visa numbers.
DOS has not said by how much will be the forward movement.
The Department of State announced that the Indian EB2 category is expected to advance one week in the May Visa Bulletin. The demand for EB1visa numbers has decreased by 50 percent this fiscal year. Last year from October 2009 to February 2010, 22,000 EB1 numbers were used. During the same period this year, only 10,000 to 11,000 have been used. EB1 will be current worldwide all fiscal year. This will free up an estimated 12,000 visa numbers to fall down from EB1 to EB2 this year
EB2 India Expected to Advance in May 2011
Posted 29.Mar.2011
The cutoff date for EB2, India, is expected to advance in May 2011. This advancement will occur in the U.S. Department of State (DOS) Visa Bulletin for May 2011. The Visa Bulletin for May 2011 will be published in early to mid April 2011.
On March 29, 2011, the DOS advised that demand for visa numbers in the EB1 category has declined significantly. Thus, approximately 12,000 unused EB1 numbers will be available to shift downward to the EB2 category, starting in May 2011. There was no estimate of the expected amount of forward movement in the cutoff date for EB2 India due to the availability of these additional visa numbers.
2011 Julia Roberts, 43, showed up
senthil1
07-09 11:22 PM
There is nothing wrong in fighting. At least it will be used to prevent the same mistake in future. But it is not a bad idea to analyse the outcome so that everyone can prepare for that. My view is this campaign will be used for preventing future mistakes. I will be pleasantly surprised if we get more benefit than that. Even lawsuit also will serve the purpose and will give strong warning to USCIS.
I can tell many examples. Due to one persons misjudgment so many American and Iraq people were killed. Do you think they can get relief? Whatever relief people got it cannot bring back peoples lives. But still lot of people are thinking that Iraq could have been handled differently and many people are fighting against War. Most people realize mistakes after someone is impacted.
In the name of thinking differently we have smitha, senthil1 , asdqwe..and these guys confusing this struggle / fight for us trying to get ahead of the line or as senthil1 keeps saying uscis/dos made an honest mistake and asdqwe..keeps saying we need to fight for legislation rather than wasting time with these efforts. What all these guys and their ilk fail to understand is most of us are pissed off about the way it was implemented and handled rather than the ability to file AOS itself. If we sit and do nothing is like asking uscis / dos to walk all over us again and again. Besides in US law whenever there is a gray area, the decisions are based on precedents. This means if they have done this now means they can do this in any bulletin hence issued. They can issue a bulletin in Oct 2007 and on Nov 2 say "oops sorry my bad wrong bulletin" . Please come out of the basement and face the sun.
I can tell many examples. Due to one persons misjudgment so many American and Iraq people were killed. Do you think they can get relief? Whatever relief people got it cannot bring back peoples lives. But still lot of people are thinking that Iraq could have been handled differently and many people are fighting against War. Most people realize mistakes after someone is impacted.
In the name of thinking differently we have smitha, senthil1 , asdqwe..and these guys confusing this struggle / fight for us trying to get ahead of the line or as senthil1 keeps saying uscis/dos made an honest mistake and asdqwe..keeps saying we need to fight for legislation rather than wasting time with these efforts. What all these guys and their ilk fail to understand is most of us are pissed off about the way it was implemented and handled rather than the ability to file AOS itself. If we sit and do nothing is like asking uscis / dos to walk all over us again and again. Besides in US law whenever there is a gray area, the decisions are based on precedents. This means if they have done this now means they can do this in any bulletin hence issued. They can issue a bulletin in Oct 2007 and on Nov 2 say "oops sorry my bad wrong bulletin" . Please come out of the basement and face the sun.
more...
akela_topchi
08-07 11:54 AM
I thought you already left for the law firm...
I am impressed by your qualifications, what is your PD?
I am impressed by your qualifications, what is your PD?
kumar1
11-22 02:35 PM
sledge_hammer - You call me fool, I think you are a #1 "you know what"! And, I am not even going to reply...so write whatever you want to write.
When you buy a home you sign a contract saying you will pay the loan amount at the end of the loan term with interest. There was a commitment made. And you are saying people who walk away without fulfilling their obligation are smart? Fool!
And who do you think is footing the bill for bailing out those banks? its you and me! You are not only dishonest and unethical, you must be really dumb if you think you are not going to be paying for the mistakes of people like punjabi when they "walk away" from their homes. Idiot!
When you buy a home you sign a contract saying you will pay the loan amount at the end of the loan term with interest. There was a commitment made. And you are saying people who walk away without fulfilling their obligation are smart? Fool!
And who do you think is footing the bill for bailing out those banks? its you and me! You are not only dishonest and unethical, you must be really dumb if you think you are not going to be paying for the mistakes of people like punjabi when they "walk away" from their homes. Idiot!
more...
CADude
11-06 03:40 PM
Wow.. Applicants are waiting since 2002 and Govt Agency know it but don't do anything. Shame on you FBI NNCP :mad:
Check this:
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
Check this:
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
2010 Julia Roberts is 43,
gccube
09-12 10:12 AM
but it is pending with FBI since Aug 1st. Looks like they also check for fragmented names.
This is my opinion, not an advise. Use it at your own risk.
This is my opinion, not an advise. Use it at your own risk.
more...
wc_user
01-03 01:49 AM
I have decided to use AP and have cancelled my appt in Chennai.
I have an appointment at Kolkata on the 11th. Scheduled to fly back to US on the 26th. Considering Martin Luther king Jr day it will be 9 working days. After seeing the PIMS delays, I am seriously considering return back on AP. Cannot take the risk of delaying the flight as I dont have vacations to hang around and wait for PP.
I have an appointment at Kolkata on the 11th. Scheduled to fly back to US on the 26th. Considering Martin Luther king Jr day it will be 9 working days. After seeing the PIMS delays, I am seriously considering return back on AP. Cannot take the risk of delaying the flight as I dont have vacations to hang around and wait for PP.
hair Does this woman scrub up well.
buehler
09-13 01:22 PM
Finally got greened. Got the CPO email for myself and my wife today. It has been more than 9.5 frustrating years since I came to this country. But I am finally happy that it came through.
I am even more happy that I did not just leave it to time. I have been heavily involved with IV from the beginning. I have spent plenty of time and money on IV and happy to see that it has benefited myself and others.
Don't loose heart. Keep fighting for what you think is fair.
I am even more happy that I did not just leave it to time. I have been heavily involved with IV from the beginning. I have spent plenty of time and money on IV and happy to see that it has benefited myself and others.
Don't loose heart. Keep fighting for what you think is fair.
more...
gc_buddy
11-18 02:36 PM
I did it on behalf of GC4Me.
Hi gc4me, Can you please open a new thread that you have got a phone call from Ombudsman. People will see the thread and will get more motivated. If you think, it will not help, please ignore.
Hi gc4me, Can you please open a new thread that you have got a phone call from Ombudsman. People will see the thread and will get more motivated. If you think, it will not help, please ignore.
hot Nourishing creams and make up,
ksvreg
09-23 11:32 PM
Just curious, how come there are some pending aplications in the year 2008 and 2009 where there were no VISA BULLETIN with those years. How they filed without Bulleting entries? Got point? or Am I missing some thing?
more...
house Ombré hair colour, your 15
aadimanav
01-03 12:56 AM
Part 2 continued....
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
tattoo julia roberts hair colors
gcphul
01-27 10:51 AM
I Do
more...
pictures Drew Barrymore and Julia
nk2006
11-18 12:43 PM
But my concern is that if we don't give them concrete examples of cases where this has occured, then they will just brush us off as "all talk but no meat".
-va_dude
va_dude, your concerns are understandable. This issue is real and some IV members got affected by this and came forward to provide some more info. pd_recapturing collected that info. A bunch of volunteers are working in the background to move this forward with concrete proof. In the meantime its important to keep sending letters so they know the concern its raising.
-va_dude
va_dude, your concerns are understandable. This issue is real and some IV members got affected by this and came forward to provide some more info. pd_recapturing collected that info. A bunch of volunteers are working in the background to move this forward with concrete proof. In the meantime its important to keep sending letters so they know the concern its raising.
dresses Globes hair and make up,
surabhi
10-11 02:44 PM
I called up to find that my application is still not in the system. Surprisingly, the IO would not put the phone down and keeps on chatting to enlighten me. Seem to have lot of time on hand.
1. My application is most likely transfered to texas since my I-140 was approved there
2. FIFO is valid only if the application is not transfered. Once it is transfered, the receiving center will take the date 'they' received to put in queue for data entry. If your application took continental US tour, more delay.
3. He is asnwering 5-6 calls every day from July 2 filers. There are several of them. So plenty of July 2 apps still waiting to be entered.
4. The application is not rejected for sure, since even a rejection would be entered into the system.
5. he cannot raise a service request without receipt number.
I sent mail to USCIS withe fedex scanned signature, wrote to Senator. Its frustrating.
The bottom line is there is no bottomline, except to wait.
1. My application is most likely transfered to texas since my I-140 was approved there
2. FIFO is valid only if the application is not transfered. Once it is transfered, the receiving center will take the date 'they' received to put in queue for data entry. If your application took continental US tour, more delay.
3. He is asnwering 5-6 calls every day from July 2 filers. There are several of them. So plenty of July 2 apps still waiting to be entered.
4. The application is not rejected for sure, since even a rejection would be entered into the system.
5. he cannot raise a service request without receipt number.
I sent mail to USCIS withe fedex scanned signature, wrote to Senator. Its frustrating.
The bottom line is there is no bottomline, except to wait.
more...
makeup julia roberts hair color.
imv116
06-12 11:14 AM
U.S. Department of Labor can be a good place to start with the first complaint.
Link: http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/america2.htm
Link: http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/america2.htm
girlfriend Julia Roberts on what not to
sai
12-31 07:57 AM
What are the bills that are comming up in FEB 2006 ?
Can any one post the details please...
Can any one post the details please...
hairstyles julia roberts
guyfromsg
07-01 12:45 PM
If they decide to cut-off some day next week can't believe how a day or two would make a huge difference in someone's lives. This is very cruel. We have to react based on the infomration we have and it keeps changing every day. So every time I have to run to my manager/director ask them to escalate to HR and they talk to Lawyer. I look like a guy pushing panic button all the time but in reality if we don't act quickly will regret for next few years. Never had a such a bad July4th holiday :(
snathan
03-29 12:33 PM
ImmInfo Newsletter: India EB2 cutoff dates to advance in May (http://www.imminfo.com/News/Newsletter/2011-3-31/India-eb2-to-advance-in-may.html)
Based on just released information, it appears that India EB2 cutoff dates will advance, perhaps substantially, in May. China EB2 cutoff dates will also advance. The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) reports that they were told the following by Charlie Oppenheim, Chief, Immigrant Visa Control and Reporting Division, U.S. Department of State:
“[US]CIS says they have seen a decline in filings, and does not expect a change in the number use pattern. Therefore, this decline in EB-1 number use will allow me to begin having those ‘otherwise unused’ numbers drop down and be available for use in the EB-2 category. Based on current indications, that would mean that at least 12,000 additional numbers will be available to the EB-2 category. This situation will allow me to advance the India EB-2 cut-off date for May. The reason being that all ‘otherwise unused’ numbers are provided strictly in priority date order, and the India demand has the largest concentration of early dates.”
There have been two reasons for China and India EB2 cutoff dates not moving forward as rapidly as had been the case in the past. The first is the unusually high demand for EB1 numbers and the second has been the increased demand for EB2 numbers represented by EB3 to EB2 upgrades.
The significance of this announcement is that it appears that the recent surge in demand for EB1 visa numbers has abated. The CIS reports that this demand slowed down in October, 2010 and has not resumed. Presumably, this means that substantially most the EB2 applicants who felt that they could upgrade to EB1 have now filed the petitions and had them adjudicated. If this is the case, then the number of unused EB1 numbers will increase back to previous levels and become available for use by EB2 applicants.
================================================== ==================
P.S : the EB1 filing reduced may be because the Indian IT companies stopped filing EB1C ? Its just my thought
Based on just released information, it appears that India EB2 cutoff dates will advance, perhaps substantially, in May. China EB2 cutoff dates will also advance. The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) reports that they were told the following by Charlie Oppenheim, Chief, Immigrant Visa Control and Reporting Division, U.S. Department of State:
“[US]CIS says they have seen a decline in filings, and does not expect a change in the number use pattern. Therefore, this decline in EB-1 number use will allow me to begin having those ‘otherwise unused’ numbers drop down and be available for use in the EB-2 category. Based on current indications, that would mean that at least 12,000 additional numbers will be available to the EB-2 category. This situation will allow me to advance the India EB-2 cut-off date for May. The reason being that all ‘otherwise unused’ numbers are provided strictly in priority date order, and the India demand has the largest concentration of early dates.”
There have been two reasons for China and India EB2 cutoff dates not moving forward as rapidly as had been the case in the past. The first is the unusually high demand for EB1 numbers and the second has been the increased demand for EB2 numbers represented by EB3 to EB2 upgrades.
The significance of this announcement is that it appears that the recent surge in demand for EB1 visa numbers has abated. The CIS reports that this demand slowed down in October, 2010 and has not resumed. Presumably, this means that substantially most the EB2 applicants who felt that they could upgrade to EB1 have now filed the petitions and had them adjudicated. If this is the case, then the number of unused EB1 numbers will increase back to previous levels and become available for use by EB2 applicants.
================================================== ==================
P.S : the EB1 filing reduced may be because the Indian IT companies stopped filing EB1C ? Its just my thought
like_watching_paint_dry
06-18 09:46 AM
bloody cognizant. I was winking at their L1A EB1 misuse for sometime but now they denied me the job (I have ead) ;) god knows why. Since then I am against that company. lets screw them :p
Maybe you did not get a reference.
Maybe you did not get a reference.