Robert Kumar
12-02 07:38 AM
Thanks a lot for your reply 9 years...
How much time does one really need to prepare to file for labor these days ,please let me know. The time before filing the labor, if everything goes very fast.
How much time does one really need to prepare to file for labor these days ,please let me know. The time before filing the labor, if everything goes very fast.
knnmbd
04-25 12:59 PM
Guys what about the type of visa? I mean shud the start date be ur H1B start date or ur F1 entry date? Coz if some people start on an H1 a lot of us also started on an F1. In that case doesnt it make more sense to root for the clause that says the immigrant can apply for his own GC that is employer independant? If i am not mistaken, is that not already a part of the PACE act?
Besides a lot of people are not sure for a while, if they even want to apply for their GCs or not initially. I personally know of atleast 3 such people. By putting the responsibility of application of the GC into the immigrant's hands, and empowering the applicant to apply for himself/herself, the process becomes a lot more transparent and fair. That way the day the immigrant decides to apply and applies is their PD. That way if someone does not start it as soon as he/she can, it is now up to them. Since the applicant Can apply for himself instead of being sponsored for a GC by an employer, it is no longer employer based, so no one can fault the employer saying that, "They didnt file for me for a year".
In my opinion, just pushing ur PD to the date u entered will not really help a lot. Coz say ur current PD is Feb 2002 EB3 but u had entered in 1998. DOL/UCSIS will say, ok lets do that, and the next day they will say, Now the Retrogression goes back to the year 1996. Is that not possible? Currently what we need is the immigrant to be in total control of his/her GC process. That way the GC can take even 10 years, so long as the applicant and dependants can avail of EADs and Travel permits which are longer than just 1 year increments. If we are thinking long term, then shudnt we be looking at this aspect? The GC itself represents nothing more than total freedom in ur career and it's choices. If we can achieve the same thing without the actual GC, isint that our goal?
I agree. Also, since F1 is not a dual intent visa this will not hold water. Anyways this is a ridiculous demand. We are not the law makers and we should consider ourselves lucky that couple of IV's amendments are in a few of the senator’s bills, though there are no guarantees if they will be included in the final text or let alone be passed. We should only push for what is already include in the 2 bills and not confuse everyone every time one of us comes up with this "brilliant" idea of using H1B entry date as priority date. So what's the next amendment we want " include the day I first envisioned that I will come to America as the priority date". WE NEED ONE VOICE and we have already been heard so let’s stick to what is practical and push those amendments through.
Besides a lot of people are not sure for a while, if they even want to apply for their GCs or not initially. I personally know of atleast 3 such people. By putting the responsibility of application of the GC into the immigrant's hands, and empowering the applicant to apply for himself/herself, the process becomes a lot more transparent and fair. That way the day the immigrant decides to apply and applies is their PD. That way if someone does not start it as soon as he/she can, it is now up to them. Since the applicant Can apply for himself instead of being sponsored for a GC by an employer, it is no longer employer based, so no one can fault the employer saying that, "They didnt file for me for a year".
In my opinion, just pushing ur PD to the date u entered will not really help a lot. Coz say ur current PD is Feb 2002 EB3 but u had entered in 1998. DOL/UCSIS will say, ok lets do that, and the next day they will say, Now the Retrogression goes back to the year 1996. Is that not possible? Currently what we need is the immigrant to be in total control of his/her GC process. That way the GC can take even 10 years, so long as the applicant and dependants can avail of EADs and Travel permits which are longer than just 1 year increments. If we are thinking long term, then shudnt we be looking at this aspect? The GC itself represents nothing more than total freedom in ur career and it's choices. If we can achieve the same thing without the actual GC, isint that our goal?
I agree. Also, since F1 is not a dual intent visa this will not hold water. Anyways this is a ridiculous demand. We are not the law makers and we should consider ourselves lucky that couple of IV's amendments are in a few of the senator’s bills, though there are no guarantees if they will be included in the final text or let alone be passed. We should only push for what is already include in the 2 bills and not confuse everyone every time one of us comes up with this "brilliant" idea of using H1B entry date as priority date. So what's the next amendment we want " include the day I first envisioned that I will come to America as the priority date". WE NEED ONE VOICE and we have already been heard so let’s stick to what is practical and push those amendments through.
arc
09-09 02:36 PM
And Help!
gc_on_demand
04-30 03:34 PM
If this is the case right now.. Think about House and Senate.. Will they pass it easily ? Eventually they will say next year we dont have time for immi stuff this year..
more...
vandanaverdia
09-13 07:16 PM
milind123...
U r doing a great job... I am sure we will have many first time contributors get inspired by your fabulous initiative!
GO IV!!!
U r doing a great job... I am sure we will have many first time contributors get inspired by your fabulous initiative!
GO IV!!!
rahul98
07-20 04:35 PM
Maybe some has asked this question before...why was this not posted on IV ? It would have helped to have everyone's focus on this rather than the youtube and thank you cards campaign.
Rahul
Rahul
more...
vayumahesh
11-09 08:50 AM
I need info from the experts here. I am thinking of going with interfiling process rather than wait for the USCIS system to identify the case as current. One issue with my case is I-140 attorney (company lawyer) is different from I-485 attorney (outside company). My company attorney has forwarded the copy of I-140 to my I-485 attorney. Is I-140 copy enough or must submit original with the interfiling process ?
The following thread in Immigrationvoice says, lawyer needs to send original I-140 with interfiling process.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum2-retrogression-priority-dates-and-visa-bulletins/17441-interfiling.html (response by sanbaj - The lawyer has to write a letter to USCIS along with the original approval notice of the newly approved but older PD I140. )
The following thread in Immigrationvoice says, lawyer needs to send original I-140 with interfiling process.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum2-retrogression-priority-dates-and-visa-bulletins/17441-interfiling.html (response by sanbaj - The lawyer has to write a letter to USCIS along with the original approval notice of the newly approved but older PD I140. )
diptam
07-06 12:40 PM
I dont want another flurry of emails by explaining no-nonsense "conspiracy theory" behind all this (Hint - The day CIR failed , AILF came up with this 95%-98% truth in their websites and the day 2nd CIR resurrection attempt was being discussed is June 13th which is the July Bulletin release Date)
Our only option is to expose USCIS wrongdoings ( I mean all Kind of Wrongdoings ) via Media and at the end of the day show your GUTS to support AILA lawsuit by providing our real names etc... ( incase they need)
Nothing else is going to help.
We didn't do anything wrong , so lets fight for Justice.
They are not coming clean on this...first they said they used up 60K visas, now they are saying they worked over wkend to use 25K VISAS... Its a big scandal....Just to prevent us from filing...
Our only option is to expose USCIS wrongdoings ( I mean all Kind of Wrongdoings ) via Media and at the end of the day show your GUTS to support AILA lawsuit by providing our real names etc... ( incase they need)
Nothing else is going to help.
We didn't do anything wrong , so lets fight for Justice.
They are not coming clean on this...first they said they used up 60K visas, now they are saying they worked over wkend to use 25K VISAS... Its a big scandal....Just to prevent us from filing...
more...
gc_chahiye
12-26 06:10 PM
Filed AP on Aug 13th, havent got it yet.
filed on 13th AUg. Receipt has notice-date of sept-end. Online status says 'pending'...
filed on 13th AUg. Receipt has notice-date of sept-end. Online status says 'pending'...
yabadaba
11-15 02:30 PM
^^^^
more...
JunRN
09-13 10:44 AM
I believe that for Schedule A Professionals like nurses and PTs, the only solution is the bridge amendment to make it faster. They are now using EB3, which means competing against hundreds of thousands of Engineers. With the latest bulletin, it seems the wait is five to six years...wow! that was long! But I think that is not the true picture. By mid of the 2008 fiscal year, we will see the real picture so hang on. The wait could be in reality 3 years.
indio0617
03-09 12:28 PM
Guys a little confused.
How does removing the cap from Schedule A, benefit the rest of us?
Nurses from India, Phi also eat up EB3 numbers beyond their alloted .... My understanding is that they will not compete for any eB3 numbers after this...
How does removing the cap from Schedule A, benefit the rest of us?
Nurses from India, Phi also eat up EB3 numbers beyond their alloted .... My understanding is that they will not compete for any eB3 numbers after this...
more...
nk2006
10-21 05:24 PM
Some people are abusing (by misguidence of few lawyers, as they claim GC is for future job) AC21, without even working for single day with sponser, trying to get GC. USCIS may be controlling that kind of abuse.
Now, if the visa numbers are continously available (for example EB1, EB2-ROW) USCIS is approving 485 within 6 months, except july 07 fiasco surge. So now AC21 users are only those who suffers in retrogression, not by USCIS administartive delay. That may be the another reason why USCIS becoming hard on AC21.
Thanks Ramba for your insights.
Whatever the reasons - its apparent USCIS is not following the AC21 regulations and it is not fair. I believe, AC21 regulations are made with an objective of improving immigration rules for 21st century (and thus the name American Competetiveness for 21st century) and provide some mobility for the applicants while their GC applications are pending. The delay in application processing is still relevant (actually its more severe) - irrespective of whether its caused by processing or because of lack of visa numbers. AC21 regulations never mentioned about the origin of delay or the longivity of applicant with original company. Changing interpretation of a rule they made, that too without notice is unfair and maybe even unlawful.
So far I was thinking that its a case of misinformed IO rejecting I485 once they see a I140 revocation. But rejecting MTR on the grounds that employee has left the company on his/her own and so does not have intent of continuing in the job is just plain twisting of their own rules. And we need a much bigger effort - if its a case of a few misinformed USCIS employees incorrectly rejecting I485 - then it could have been fixed with a low key effort that we are doing. We are seeing more rejections based on unknown "interpretations" - and even MTR getting rejected - it kind of gives a feeling that they have a bigger agenda here and we need to fight on a bigger scale.
Now, if the visa numbers are continously available (for example EB1, EB2-ROW) USCIS is approving 485 within 6 months, except july 07 fiasco surge. So now AC21 users are only those who suffers in retrogression, not by USCIS administartive delay. That may be the another reason why USCIS becoming hard on AC21.
Thanks Ramba for your insights.
Whatever the reasons - its apparent USCIS is not following the AC21 regulations and it is not fair. I believe, AC21 regulations are made with an objective of improving immigration rules for 21st century (and thus the name American Competetiveness for 21st century) and provide some mobility for the applicants while their GC applications are pending. The delay in application processing is still relevant (actually its more severe) - irrespective of whether its caused by processing or because of lack of visa numbers. AC21 regulations never mentioned about the origin of delay or the longivity of applicant with original company. Changing interpretation of a rule they made, that too without notice is unfair and maybe even unlawful.
So far I was thinking that its a case of misinformed IO rejecting I485 once they see a I140 revocation. But rejecting MTR on the grounds that employee has left the company on his/her own and so does not have intent of continuing in the job is just plain twisting of their own rules. And we need a much bigger effort - if its a case of a few misinformed USCIS employees incorrectly rejecting I485 - then it could have been fixed with a low key effort that we are doing. We are seeing more rejections based on unknown "interpretations" - and even MTR getting rejected - it kind of gives a feeling that they have a bigger agenda here and we need to fight on a bigger scale.
IN2US
07-06 03:26 PM
you mean 60k
I meant janitors approving 485 applications
I meant janitors approving 485 applications
more...
vallabhu
01-05 07:17 PM
EB3 RIR
PD 2004 July 27 Atlanta DOL
45 Day letter March 18 2006
replied on same day March 20 2006
Certified date Dec 19 2006
PD 2004 July 27 Atlanta DOL
45 Day letter March 18 2006
replied on same day March 20 2006
Certified date Dec 19 2006
krupa
12-12 08:57 PM
Everywhere they mention spillover...they say quarterly. But they don't really enforce it. :mad:
At least , they improved the bulletin by adding more detailed information as well as an explanation about how it works.
USCIS issue GC not more than 9% of quota for eligible quota by each country during each first three quarters. Spill over happens only in last quarter of a fiscal year.
At least , they improved the bulletin by adding more detailed information as well as an explanation about how it works.
USCIS issue GC not more than 9% of quota for eligible quota by each country during each first three quarters. Spill over happens only in last quarter of a fiscal year.
more...
santb1975
06-02 09:35 PM
This is Great
Contributed $100 for June
Receipt ID: 47W850****
Contributed $100 for June
Receipt ID: 47W850****
radhay
04-17 01:59 PM
I have closed on two mortgage loans recently and found that Loan Underwriters don't understand EAD/ AOS applications. For my original loan with Pulte Mortgage I explained them that AOS is a period authroized stay by Attorney General until Green card is approved. When they still didn't understand I had to bump my down payment to 20% which apparently puts less resrtictions (By Fannie Mae guidelines).
When I refinanced this week with PFCU (pentagan federal CU) I sent them EAD copies and they were OK with it.
When I refinanced this week with PFCU (pentagan federal CU) I sent them EAD copies and they were OK with it.
vareddy
07-18 10:00 PM
Joined in July and did one time contribution of $100 today with google checkout :) Google Order #975779329660977
ita
08-26 01:11 PM
Is it true that when we apply for NRI home loan we should repay the loan back in foreign currency.
If that is the case what will a person do if he applies for the NRI loan( long term) and moves back to India for good after few years .Will he have to pay back the loan in foreign currency before making the move?
Thank you.
If that is the case what will a person do if he applies for the NRI loan( long term) and moves back to India for good after few years .Will he have to pay back the loan in foreign currency before making the move?
Thank you.
vxg
09-10 11:55 AM
One thing for sure USCIS do likes April fools day a lot as this the date they usually pick when the retrogress. This proves that a fool named DOS in love with April fools day.:)
I don't know if anybody has noticed it but the dates for EB-2 for VB October 2007 was April 1, 2004 and for VB October 2008 is April 1, 2003. That is a retrogression of 1 year - not good. :mad:
I don't know if anybody has noticed it but the dates for EB-2 for VB October 2007 was April 1, 2004 and for VB October 2008 is April 1, 2003. That is a retrogression of 1 year - not good. :mad:
No comments:
Post a Comment