h1b_alex
03-29 09:52 AM
@hpandey thanks for standing by me, and more so i will not bow down even if INS were tracking me down , what have i got to lose, its the time for the consultants to lose his business and his money, and i will not stop here as i said , i will make sure google search on him always opens the blacklist page before his company website.
@fide-champ i have tried options that could be open to me till the brink and believe u me if they were there i would be the first to grab it, i have tried attorneys, i have tried references, i have tried many options , given 15 interviews of companies and sat on that interview table from 9 to 5:30 PM , but only after realizing that it wasnt going anywhere and i had blown my dough i realized , its better that i leave.
@Robert Kumar yeah ofcourse, even if they were to what could possibly go wrong more than what it is right now, not afraid buddy not at all
@fide-champ i have tried options that could be open to me till the brink and believe u me if they were there i would be the first to grab it, i have tried attorneys, i have tried references, i have tried many options , given 15 interviews of companies and sat on that interview table from 9 to 5:30 PM , but only after realizing that it wasnt going anywhere and i had blown my dough i realized , its better that i leave.
@Robert Kumar yeah ofcourse, even if they were to what could possibly go wrong more than what it is right now, not afraid buddy not at all
wallpaper Cute Funny Quotes, Quotes Cute
StuckInTheMuck
05-01 09:50 AM
I heard it is six months. But someone should clarify whether its 6 or 1 yr. And also it is really necessary to work for 6 months/1 Yr or not??
I doubt if any one can clarify this question more than what is already said so far. Neither DHS nor USCIS specified the minimum time one should stay with the (GC-sponsoring) employer after becoming PR. At the end it comes down to establishing your intention, that is, making sure your decision does not raise a red flag when USCIS pulls up your employment history later (during your citizenship interview, or if something else triggers a background check, e.g. your employer being investigated for a potential fraud). There are mitigating circumstances that should help if you leave early, such as being laid off soon after becoming PR, or as someone pointed out, if you invoked AC21 while waiting for GC etc. (These are things I admit I do not know much about, as my own GC was self-sponsored.) We are talking intangibles here, and you are unlikely to find any set-in-stone rule.
Having said that, your decision should not (read never) be dictated entirely by how USCIS may interpret your intention. There are other priorities, such as family, that should come first and foremost. After years of letting USCIS be the lord-and-master while we waited for GC, it is high time we step up and take control of our life. Besides, after looking up several threads over quite some time, I did not come across a single case of anyone being denied citizenship, or having GC revoked, on employment history alone. (The biggest deciding factor has almost always been "moral character".) Knowing the importance of this issue, if any of you have read (not heard from a friend of a friend of a friend of a...) a counter example where someone indeed faced problem because of employment, please post the link.
I doubt if any one can clarify this question more than what is already said so far. Neither DHS nor USCIS specified the minimum time one should stay with the (GC-sponsoring) employer after becoming PR. At the end it comes down to establishing your intention, that is, making sure your decision does not raise a red flag when USCIS pulls up your employment history later (during your citizenship interview, or if something else triggers a background check, e.g. your employer being investigated for a potential fraud). There are mitigating circumstances that should help if you leave early, such as being laid off soon after becoming PR, or as someone pointed out, if you invoked AC21 while waiting for GC etc. (These are things I admit I do not know much about, as my own GC was self-sponsored.) We are talking intangibles here, and you are unlikely to find any set-in-stone rule.
Having said that, your decision should not (read never) be dictated entirely by how USCIS may interpret your intention. There are other priorities, such as family, that should come first and foremost. After years of letting USCIS be the lord-and-master while we waited for GC, it is high time we step up and take control of our life. Besides, after looking up several threads over quite some time, I did not come across a single case of anyone being denied citizenship, or having GC revoked, on employment history alone. (The biggest deciding factor has almost always been "moral character".) Knowing the importance of this issue, if any of you have read (not heard from a friend of a friend of a friend of a...) a counter example where someone indeed faced problem because of employment, please post the link.
awenger
07-30 03:28 PM
Hello IVians,
As we all await our GCs, I thot we can explore some investment vehicles.
Does anyone here have experience with commodity trading?
Can we trade in commodities on H1 or L1 status?
Is it too risky like forex trading?
Who are the online brokers offer commodity trading?
Is there a minimum account balance / trade required every month or so?
Pls share your experience. Thanks!
Why / How is this relevant in an immigration forum?
As we all await our GCs, I thot we can explore some investment vehicles.
Does anyone here have experience with commodity trading?
Can we trade in commodities on H1 or L1 status?
Is it too risky like forex trading?
Who are the online brokers offer commodity trading?
Is there a minimum account balance / trade required every month or so?
Pls share your experience. Thanks!
Why / How is this relevant in an immigration forum?
2011 quotes for cute girls.
wikipedia_fan
03-30 02:56 PM
Nothing to panic, browse through chanduv23's posting(s) - you will be back in track in few weeks.
Most recent case is at http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=23800&highlight=revoked+denial
Thank you. I am trying to find out if people have got denials in spite of going through the NOID process.
Most recent case is at http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=23800&highlight=revoked+denial
Thank you. I am trying to find out if people have got denials in spite of going through the NOID process.
more...
unitednations
03-31 11:51 AM
I (and I�m sure others too) would like to know how the following works,
Employer X filed labor, 140 for their employee. Both were approved (assumption - no RFEs, etc. until now), 485 was filed for in July 2007, and remains pending.
The employee was employed with Employer X from before the labor was applied and until ~360 days after the 485 was filed, and was always paid more than the LC prevailing wage/offered salary.
In July 2008, the employee leaves employer X and joins employer Y under AC21 provisions. An AC21 letter, G-28N are submitted.
140 never gets revoked by employer X.
In Jan 2009, employer X receives an Ability to Pay RFE for another pending 140 of theirs.
At this point, employer X has 16 140s that are open (pending OR approved with 485 pending to be filed/filed and pending). Out of those 16 140s, one was for the employee that left under AC21.
When they respond to that RFE, I do understand that they could be asked to show ability to pay for all 16 140s, even for the one that doesn�t work for them anymore, because of the fact that it was never revoked.
In this case, is the employee (that left) covered or at risk? I ask this question because the employee that left submitted AC21 documentation immediately upon leaving, thus notifying the USCIS that the �ability to pay� responsibility for his case, if any at all, now lies with the new future employer. There probably isn�t any clear definition of such a situation in the law, but can such an argument ever hold up in court, and protect the employee�s AOS application from getting affected due to any ability to pay issues the old employer (X) has had AFTER the employee left them.
The only person on here that I expect to be able to give a non-speculative answer to this is UN, unless someone else has personally gone through something similar.
Long post, I know, and I hope it does get read.
Thank you.
I worked on a very big case back in 2006.
Company had 20 pending 140's which were filed in 2005
Company had 42 approved 140's
in Janaury 2006 they sent RFE on one of the cases and asked for ability to pay. Before response was sent; second rfe is received on another pending casestating ability to pay and that uscis has noted company has filed many 140's; then third rfe is received on another case asking ability to pay on all pending cases (note this was in vermont service center and at this time the whole cybersoftech issue was going on; so there was a heightened alert from vermont service center).
In preparing for the response to the 20 pending cases; we had to analyze the 42 approved cases to ensure that just in case USCIS went after those cases together with the 20 then we should be ready in this particular response to justify the 42 approved cases.
In the response we only showed the 20 pending cases and that we had ability to pay for them.
Within three weeks; USCIS sent notice of intent to revoke the approved 140's. In the notice of intent to revoke; they stated that their records showed 20 pending; 42 approved cases and 205 h-1b's filed. USCIS went through their calculations and stated that if the average salary was xxx on all these petitions then the company would have to have paid close to $15 million in salaries which was (at that time the 2004 tax returns) more then five times the revenue. USCIS also went on to state they thought the company was involved in fraudulently obtaining h-1b's and 140's.
Now; company guy talks to Shusterman and he wants $2k per case and he can only handle the immigration component and that he neeed a CPA (which was me) and the company guy should also get a criminal attorney.
Well anyways; because in the first 20 cases we thought uscis may go after the approved 140's; the financials looked the right way to support all the cases.
The response was very scientific; hire dates; priority dates; amounts people got paid before priority date; amounts paid after; dates people left the company, etc.
In the various calculations; we proved out that even with people leaving who used ac21; we still had ability to pay for them (ie., even though they were no longer there we still had the financials to pay them). Then we gave another scenario that ability to pay clock should stop once person used ac21. We then did recalculation under this scenario.
In every scenario we showed we had ability to pay. Now; we never requested USCIS to revoke the approved 140's for people who had left; in one of the scenarios we adjusted the calculation to stop showing ability to pay once a person left.
USCIS re-approved all the cases. However; they sent notice of intent to deny for pepole who left using ac21. those candidates then gave updated letters and they all eventually got the greencards approved.
Now;this particular case is a little different because even though people left; the company still had ability to pay for them. Therefore, it is difficult to draw conclusion from this for other peoples particular cases. In this case; the fair value of the work I did for them would have cost them about $100K (i actually did audited financial statements for them; they are the only company I did audited financial statements for becuase the stakes were very very high for everyone concerned).
I can tell you that when a company does get this type of RFE; it is very difficult to substantiate everyone together and the calculations and supporting documentation is very complex AND companies have very little desire to help those who have already left. In these types of queries; the company/lawyer doesn't even bother to justify those who have already left; they just ask for revoation and they prove ability to pay for those who are still left with the company. Therefore; USCIS could just make the determination that those revoked cases were approved in error.
The main law for ability to pay is that company has to prove it from priority date until person obtains lawful permanent residency; law was never changed/modified to accomodate ability to pay for a company whose candidates have left using ac21.
Note: This is all pure speculation of what is going on in these cases. I am just writing out loud of why/if there is a shift within uscis.
Employer X filed labor, 140 for their employee. Both were approved (assumption - no RFEs, etc. until now), 485 was filed for in July 2007, and remains pending.
The employee was employed with Employer X from before the labor was applied and until ~360 days after the 485 was filed, and was always paid more than the LC prevailing wage/offered salary.
In July 2008, the employee leaves employer X and joins employer Y under AC21 provisions. An AC21 letter, G-28N are submitted.
140 never gets revoked by employer X.
In Jan 2009, employer X receives an Ability to Pay RFE for another pending 140 of theirs.
At this point, employer X has 16 140s that are open (pending OR approved with 485 pending to be filed/filed and pending). Out of those 16 140s, one was for the employee that left under AC21.
When they respond to that RFE, I do understand that they could be asked to show ability to pay for all 16 140s, even for the one that doesn�t work for them anymore, because of the fact that it was never revoked.
In this case, is the employee (that left) covered or at risk? I ask this question because the employee that left submitted AC21 documentation immediately upon leaving, thus notifying the USCIS that the �ability to pay� responsibility for his case, if any at all, now lies with the new future employer. There probably isn�t any clear definition of such a situation in the law, but can such an argument ever hold up in court, and protect the employee�s AOS application from getting affected due to any ability to pay issues the old employer (X) has had AFTER the employee left them.
The only person on here that I expect to be able to give a non-speculative answer to this is UN, unless someone else has personally gone through something similar.
Long post, I know, and I hope it does get read.
Thank you.
I worked on a very big case back in 2006.
Company had 20 pending 140's which were filed in 2005
Company had 42 approved 140's
in Janaury 2006 they sent RFE on one of the cases and asked for ability to pay. Before response was sent; second rfe is received on another pending casestating ability to pay and that uscis has noted company has filed many 140's; then third rfe is received on another case asking ability to pay on all pending cases (note this was in vermont service center and at this time the whole cybersoftech issue was going on; so there was a heightened alert from vermont service center).
In preparing for the response to the 20 pending cases; we had to analyze the 42 approved cases to ensure that just in case USCIS went after those cases together with the 20 then we should be ready in this particular response to justify the 42 approved cases.
In the response we only showed the 20 pending cases and that we had ability to pay for them.
Within three weeks; USCIS sent notice of intent to revoke the approved 140's. In the notice of intent to revoke; they stated that their records showed 20 pending; 42 approved cases and 205 h-1b's filed. USCIS went through their calculations and stated that if the average salary was xxx on all these petitions then the company would have to have paid close to $15 million in salaries which was (at that time the 2004 tax returns) more then five times the revenue. USCIS also went on to state they thought the company was involved in fraudulently obtaining h-1b's and 140's.
Now; company guy talks to Shusterman and he wants $2k per case and he can only handle the immigration component and that he neeed a CPA (which was me) and the company guy should also get a criminal attorney.
Well anyways; because in the first 20 cases we thought uscis may go after the approved 140's; the financials looked the right way to support all the cases.
The response was very scientific; hire dates; priority dates; amounts people got paid before priority date; amounts paid after; dates people left the company, etc.
In the various calculations; we proved out that even with people leaving who used ac21; we still had ability to pay for them (ie., even though they were no longer there we still had the financials to pay them). Then we gave another scenario that ability to pay clock should stop once person used ac21. We then did recalculation under this scenario.
In every scenario we showed we had ability to pay. Now; we never requested USCIS to revoke the approved 140's for people who had left; in one of the scenarios we adjusted the calculation to stop showing ability to pay once a person left.
USCIS re-approved all the cases. However; they sent notice of intent to deny for pepole who left using ac21. those candidates then gave updated letters and they all eventually got the greencards approved.
Now;this particular case is a little different because even though people left; the company still had ability to pay for them. Therefore, it is difficult to draw conclusion from this for other peoples particular cases. In this case; the fair value of the work I did for them would have cost them about $100K (i actually did audited financial statements for them; they are the only company I did audited financial statements for becuase the stakes were very very high for everyone concerned).
I can tell you that when a company does get this type of RFE; it is very difficult to substantiate everyone together and the calculations and supporting documentation is very complex AND companies have very little desire to help those who have already left. In these types of queries; the company/lawyer doesn't even bother to justify those who have already left; they just ask for revoation and they prove ability to pay for those who are still left with the company. Therefore; USCIS could just make the determination that those revoked cases were approved in error.
The main law for ability to pay is that company has to prove it from priority date until person obtains lawful permanent residency; law was never changed/modified to accomodate ability to pay for a company whose candidates have left using ac21.
Note: This is all pure speculation of what is going on in these cases. I am just writing out loud of why/if there is a shift within uscis.
prashantc
01-29 10:46 AM
Was this the first time you are coming to USA?
or you went for a visit ? If yes what was ur original status in US..F1 or H1.
I am going for chennai H1B visa on Feb 6....F1 to OPT to H1B...Scared to helll...
Well no this wasnt my first visit to US. I have been on a valid H1B status for past 5 years or so.
or you went for a visit ? If yes what was ur original status in US..F1 or H1.
I am going for chennai H1B visa on Feb 6....F1 to OPT to H1B...Scared to helll...
Well no this wasnt my first visit to US. I have been on a valid H1B status for past 5 years or so.
more...
GC_1000Watt
01-09 12:18 AM
This shows that the backlog is more than the numbers on USCIS website. People need to stop wasting time on tracking and spend time in their office work. Backlog means more business money for lawyers and trackers. IV is very small. Unless IV had hundreds of thousands of members, they cannot do lobbying like AILA or Microsoft. EB3 India and now EB3ROW is in a pitiable state. All those EB3ROW who used to be happy will now see the reality. Thank god I ported to EB2 but the dates for EB2 do not move enough. I think anyone who can should port to EB2 ASAP. This is the only solution.
You're right. No offence but no authority seems to be listening to IV suggestions. I agree that people at IV are doing great job, but the problem is nobody is listening. They just don't care. And this think will go on & on. I remember s'body suggesting hunger strike and at that point of time I thought that won't work. But now it seems we have to go extreme and do hunger strike and stuff to pressurize this crappy system.
EB3 people don't think I am being selfish here. The truth is we have to work unitely and pressurize for visa recapture. That will be beneficial for e'body.
Lets target the 'Asses' asking for a kick. Let's all kick ass.
You're right. No offence but no authority seems to be listening to IV suggestions. I agree that people at IV are doing great job, but the problem is nobody is listening. They just don't care. And this think will go on & on. I remember s'body suggesting hunger strike and at that point of time I thought that won't work. But now it seems we have to go extreme and do hunger strike and stuff to pressurize this crappy system.
EB3 people don't think I am being selfish here. The truth is we have to work unitely and pressurize for visa recapture. That will be beneficial for e'body.
Lets target the 'Asses' asking for a kick. Let's all kick ass.
2010 funny quotes cute. funny
anzerraja
07-19 06:35 PM
We are not planning on asking members to pay immediately. It is a form of commitment from our members to the amount they are giong to donate.
Once we get an expert advise on how to channelize these funds to the IV core team, we will request everyone who pledged to pay out.
Please hold off. We need to figure out how this part of the drive will be structured in terms of reimbursement for the Core members.
Once we get an expert advise on how to channelize these funds to the IV core team, we will request everyone who pledged to pay out.
Please hold off. We need to figure out how this part of the drive will be structured in terms of reimbursement for the Core members.
more...
rangaswamy
07-11 02:17 AM
Im also trying to send it to google,yahoo and juniper... members please step in.
Is anyone in charge of media coverage?
Is anyone in charge of media coverage?
hair cute i love you quotes
atul555
05-01 03:19 PM
recently, but because of my AR-11.
more...
stucklabor
04-07 02:26 PM
We have just been told by reliable sources that the bill is being sent back to the Senate Judiciary committee where Frist and Specter will rework the language of the bill, starting April 24th.
All reasonable amendments will be worked into the bill text itself. Our amendments have a lot of support and the intent is to include them into the text of the bill.
So we need contributions going forward to get our requirements into the base text, and to protect them in conference with the House.
All reasonable amendments will be worked into the bill text itself. Our amendments have a lot of support and the intent is to include them into the text of the bill.
So we need contributions going forward to get our requirements into the base text, and to protect them in conference with the House.
hot cute life quotes 15
prashanthg
08-19 01:53 PM
EB3:mad::confused:
Total Pending applications :700,000 after Jul-07
EB3 : 385000 (at 55% of the total)
EB3-I: 115000 (at 30% of the 385000)
# of pending apps before Sep-2002: 11500 (at 10% of 115000)
EB3-I quota per year: 2940 (at 7% of EB-3(42000))
Years before my priority date becomes current: 3.9:mad::mad:
Total Pending applications :700,000 after Jul-07
EB3 : 385000 (at 55% of the total)
EB3-I: 115000 (at 30% of the 385000)
# of pending apps before Sep-2002: 11500 (at 10% of 115000)
EB3-I quota per year: 2940 (at 7% of EB-3(42000))
Years before my priority date becomes current: 3.9:mad::mad:
more...
house Cute Love Quotes
sxk
07-18 05:47 PM
My company got an RFE for ability to pay from USCIS. we are responding back with my companies 2006 tax returns and w-2 which shows more than proffered wage determined by Dept of Labor during PERM. I hope this should be fine and I will get a favorable response.
My concern is whether I should apply for 485 or should I wait till 140 approval to apply for 485.
please advice
My concern is whether I should apply for 485 or should I wait till 140 approval to apply for 485.
please advice
tattoo cute love quotes sayings. cute
pshaikh
12-15 08:19 PM
I am planning to get my visa stamped at the chennai consultate in January 2008. I will be visiting for 3 weeks and was wondering whether such a situation will persists during the month of January...
Thanks,
Yes - although we never know for sure, chances are high that the situation will stay this way until mid-2008 when they expect to build a central, electronic verification system.
I have created a separate thread below - where people can list the actual delays experienced (time between interview date, and passport return date) - so we can have a better idea of what's happening on the ground. If any of you have info to share, please do so below:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=16145
Thanks,
Yes - although we never know for sure, chances are high that the situation will stay this way until mid-2008 when they expect to build a central, electronic verification system.
I have created a separate thread below - where people can list the actual delays experienced (time between interview date, and passport return date) - so we can have a better idea of what's happening on the ground. If any of you have info to share, please do so below:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=16145
more...
pictures funny quotes cute. funny
pointlesswait
05-23 01:34 PM
When you call the law makers and tell them you support XYZ bill.. my question is what do you get out of it!
When the lawmaker realizes that he is getting 10000 calls from LEGAL aliens,
>who are not from his constituency,
>who can�t vote and
>who can�t contribute to his election campaign�
what is the motivation for the law maker to support the bill�
So to avoid sounding stupid and foolish and desperate when you call� a more logical approach would be to :
a) Generate a public petition form on IV website and have all the members� login and sign the forms digitally�
b) Then have IV reps.. fax them and send them to lobby groups �.
c) Lawmakers will listen to one talking head�and not worry abt 1000 calls that borders on ..�saar �support the bill saar�..
How many of you have actually talked to the lawmakers? Its always the assistant!
But instead .. someone says we have a signed petition of 25000 members effected by immigration mess �. And it�s a hi tech workers lobby group ..every lawmaker will talk to you and not the assistant!
Conclusion: calling the lawmakers haphazardly is actually hurting IV cause..to a certain extent!
:cool:
When the lawmaker realizes that he is getting 10000 calls from LEGAL aliens,
>who are not from his constituency,
>who can�t vote and
>who can�t contribute to his election campaign�
what is the motivation for the law maker to support the bill�
So to avoid sounding stupid and foolish and desperate when you call� a more logical approach would be to :
a) Generate a public petition form on IV website and have all the members� login and sign the forms digitally�
b) Then have IV reps.. fax them and send them to lobby groups �.
c) Lawmakers will listen to one talking head�and not worry abt 1000 calls that borders on ..�saar �support the bill saar�..
How many of you have actually talked to the lawmakers? Its always the assistant!
But instead .. someone says we have a signed petition of 25000 members effected by immigration mess �. And it�s a hi tech workers lobby group ..every lawmaker will talk to you and not the assistant!
Conclusion: calling the lawmakers haphazardly is actually hurting IV cause..to a certain extent!
:cool:
dresses Screenshots Cute Love Quotes:
Carlau
02-05 04:53 PM
Before this thread takes a turn where supporters and opponents of this idea start another forum war, let me say this clearly:
IV is not going to adopt this as an agenda item. The reason is quite simple: H4s not being able to work is low on priority of problems that need to be fixed in order to mitigate retrogression or other consequences of retrogression.
And frankly, we do not have extra kind of support to add new agenda items on our list.
A whopping 200 people signed up for recurring contributions of $20 per month. Out of 8000 people who registered here and got emails about it. However, almost every week, there is no shortage of new ideas and no shortage of opinions on those new ideas from people.
We get $20 deposits each month from 200 people. But as far as opinions are concerned, we get hundreds of them each week. How nice? I wish we had some machine to convert those opinions into dollars.
If you dont agree:
Now, if someone feels offended by this, and feels that H4 issues are orphan issues, or if this organization does not represent them anymore since IV does not want to adopt H4 related issues on its agenda, and if that someone wants to leave, then please leave without any threats and feel free to start your own organization.
And this thread has all the features and ingredients neccesary to become a forum war. If that happens this thread will be deleted.
I am very dissapointed but very glad you finally said it, wish you did 6 months ago.
IV is not going to adopt this as an agenda item. The reason is quite simple: H4s not being able to work is low on priority of problems that need to be fixed in order to mitigate retrogression or other consequences of retrogression.
And frankly, we do not have extra kind of support to add new agenda items on our list.
A whopping 200 people signed up for recurring contributions of $20 per month. Out of 8000 people who registered here and got emails about it. However, almost every week, there is no shortage of new ideas and no shortage of opinions on those new ideas from people.
We get $20 deposits each month from 200 people. But as far as opinions are concerned, we get hundreds of them each week. How nice? I wish we had some machine to convert those opinions into dollars.
If you dont agree:
Now, if someone feels offended by this, and feels that H4 issues are orphan issues, or if this organization does not represent them anymore since IV does not want to adopt H4 related issues on its agenda, and if that someone wants to leave, then please leave without any threats and feel free to start your own organization.
And this thread has all the features and ingredients neccesary to become a forum war. If that happens this thread will be deleted.
I am very dissapointed but very glad you finally said it, wish you did 6 months ago.
more...
makeup i love you quotes cute. cute i
alisa
02-11 03:56 PM
By doing what you are suggesting
a) you take numbers away from EB-3 ROW and hurt them
b) you don't do any benefit whatsoever to EB-3 India/China
c) you only benefit EB-2 India/China (at the expense of EB-3 ROW)
So, you make no difference whatsoever to huge number of EB-applicants (b), and you benefit (c) at the expense of (a).
I hope you see that this is not a good solution for the majority of EB-applicants. With this kind of cannibalization, the only people who have any incentive to stay with IV would be EB-2 India/China.
We have to work to increase the size of the pie here, and not engage in a zero sum game.
It says "not required by other classes". In this case it is required but could not be applied to EB2 due to per country numerical limits. Therefore it should go to unused pool of visas followed by AC21. Also why will USCIS prefer EB3 instead of EB2 people? It does not make sense.
As far as suing the govt is concerned we all know what happened to doctors in the UK.. so this is will be a futile exercise.
a) you take numbers away from EB-3 ROW and hurt them
b) you don't do any benefit whatsoever to EB-3 India/China
c) you only benefit EB-2 India/China (at the expense of EB-3 ROW)
So, you make no difference whatsoever to huge number of EB-applicants (b), and you benefit (c) at the expense of (a).
I hope you see that this is not a good solution for the majority of EB-applicants. With this kind of cannibalization, the only people who have any incentive to stay with IV would be EB-2 India/China.
We have to work to increase the size of the pie here, and not engage in a zero sum game.
It says "not required by other classes". In this case it is required but could not be applied to EB2 due to per country numerical limits. Therefore it should go to unused pool of visas followed by AC21. Also why will USCIS prefer EB3 instead of EB2 people? It does not make sense.
As far as suing the govt is concerned we all know what happened to doctors in the UK.. so this is will be a futile exercise.
girlfriend Friendship Quotes Cute
gman
06-15 09:35 PM
Has any of you guys heard of "Follow to Join". I believe that if you are "legaly married" before filing I-485 then you should be able to bring your spouse in whenever your GC is approved. If your GC is not approved by the time you get married i think she should be able to come in under H4.
I'm in a similar situation but more complex. My fiancee was in the US on J-1 visa and had to go back because of 2 year Home residency requirement. I have e-mailed my attorney but she's on vacation until next week. I have my 140 approved and am not sure what next step is as my fiancee's j1 2 year HRR is not up until Jan 2008.
I'm in a similar situation but more complex. My fiancee was in the US on J-1 visa and had to go back because of 2 year Home residency requirement. I have e-mailed my attorney but she's on vacation until next week. I have my 140 approved and am not sure what next step is as my fiancee's j1 2 year HRR is not up until Jan 2008.
hairstyles cute quotes about music. i
zCool
02-27 06:48 PM
Exactly.. You apply now.. no way it is going to get approved in time.. substitution approval takes anywhere between 4 months to 1 yr. Most common I heard is 6 months. you try to slide just under the door.. they aren't going to be happy abt it..
fasterthanlight�
06-15 03:48 PM
Actually, skinning your wheel should still be allowed, a lot of the new (real) iPod skins cover the wheel while maintaining functionality.
dreamworld
12-13 03:54 PM
Forum should be free for members. We can move into following...
First, We can keep the free membership mandatory and Do not allow any Guest users.
Second, Bring the members onto state chapters.
This will take us more onto grassroot level participation.
First, We can keep the free membership mandatory and Do not allow any Guest users.
Second, Bring the members onto state chapters.
This will take us more onto grassroot level participation.
No comments:
Post a Comment