sc3
05-13 07:33 PM
Please check with both Immigration attorney (for 485 withdrawal), and a divorce lawyer in India.
I believe that if the marriage was conducted in India, but US court issues the divorce decree, such decree is not automatically recognized in India. You might have to file for such a decree in India too.
Personally, withdrawing now, and reapplying is a better option. You will be playing Russian roulette if you decide to wait for some time to "withdraw" -- as USCIS could suddenly make dates current (remember last year), and approve a bunch of application. Of course, consult an Immigration lawyer to see if you can withdraw and re-use the same application (140) later. If not, withdraw and start a new GC (using current 140 as basis for priority date) -- you could even get a EB2 classification.
I believe that if the marriage was conducted in India, but US court issues the divorce decree, such decree is not automatically recognized in India. You might have to file for such a decree in India too.
Personally, withdrawing now, and reapplying is a better option. You will be playing Russian roulette if you decide to wait for some time to "withdraw" -- as USCIS could suddenly make dates current (remember last year), and approve a bunch of application. Of course, consult an Immigration lawyer to see if you can withdraw and re-use the same application (140) later. If not, withdraw and start a new GC (using current 140 as basis for priority date) -- you could even get a EB2 classification.
wallpaper Awesome 18th Birthday cake. Just what one needs to transition into adulthood
Kitiara
02-07 09:50 AM
Either the beautiful princess or the wicked witch. Jury is still out on that one. :P
jgh_res
08-11 09:14 AM
U have such a big signature but nothing abt contribution to IV. Have u contributed anything to IV? If not, how do u thinkIV can fight for whatever it is fighting?
I had a friend who came here after me, say I think in 2001, he got laid off and had gaps in his employment, he married this girl who joined a company head quartered in IOWA, the payroll stubs used to be in excel sheets. He was probably in the point where if we went to India, they would not have let him come back on H1. They paid 10K to get LS (adjusted through employment for 1 year) and when I-140 and 485 were being allowed for consecutive filing I believe Dec2004, filed it. He called me a month back saying they got their physical card. His PD date somewhere 2004 EB3. My PD March 21 2003, am I frustrated of course, but I am frustrated with the system that has loop holes, as pointed out there are hundred of people who have legitimately used LS.. there is no point losing sleep over it.
The need of the hour is this, to be together and fight together, not among each other. IV does not differentiate between LS and non LS, or degrees or anyone's individual cases or scenarios. IV's goal is very simple, GC process should not take more that 2 years and anything that reduces the total time frame, that is what IV stands for. Time is key, lost time cannot be regained, what is in for is now and the future, lets stick together and think about how we can help IV meet this goal, that none of us should be waiting many many more years to come. Can we all agree on this and go forward please?
Thanks and appreciate everyone's understanding.
I had a friend who came here after me, say I think in 2001, he got laid off and had gaps in his employment, he married this girl who joined a company head quartered in IOWA, the payroll stubs used to be in excel sheets. He was probably in the point where if we went to India, they would not have let him come back on H1. They paid 10K to get LS (adjusted through employment for 1 year) and when I-140 and 485 were being allowed for consecutive filing I believe Dec2004, filed it. He called me a month back saying they got their physical card. His PD date somewhere 2004 EB3. My PD March 21 2003, am I frustrated of course, but I am frustrated with the system that has loop holes, as pointed out there are hundred of people who have legitimately used LS.. there is no point losing sleep over it.
The need of the hour is this, to be together and fight together, not among each other. IV does not differentiate between LS and non LS, or degrees or anyone's individual cases or scenarios. IV's goal is very simple, GC process should not take more that 2 years and anything that reduces the total time frame, that is what IV stands for. Time is key, lost time cannot be regained, what is in for is now and the future, lets stick together and think about how we can help IV meet this goal, that none of us should be waiting many many more years to come. Can we all agree on this and go forward please?
Thanks and appreciate everyone's understanding.
2011 unique as Sasha#39;s irthday cake. A dessert that echoed the architecture
dpp
08-10 03:26 PM
LS is not illegal until the employers sell the labor. LS is legal channel where in employer fill the position with somebody else, if primary applicant it not available for some reason.
But some employers are exploiting the law and selling it. This is ILLEGAL. I agree with that LS is LEGAL until it goes in a legal way. But selling or getting other benefits/gifts from the employee is completely ILLEGAL.
Since USCIS cannot find who is selling and who is not selling, they banned it. It is a good move from USCIS, but it is too late. Too many got like this and enjoying the benefits leaving other poor souls who are waiting in line from years.
But some employers are exploiting the law and selling it. This is ILLEGAL. I agree with that LS is LEGAL until it goes in a legal way. But selling or getting other benefits/gifts from the employee is completely ILLEGAL.
Since USCIS cannot find who is selling and who is not selling, they banned it. It is a good move from USCIS, but it is too late. Too many got like this and enjoying the benefits leaving other poor souls who are waiting in line from years.
more...
unseenguy
06-16 11:30 PM
I support this campaign and will act upon any action item.One quick question, is the visa revalidation only for people who already hold H1 visa stamp on passport or COS from F1-H1 also falls in the same category?
It does not fall in that category
It does not fall in that category
swissgear
10-29 01:36 PM
I think it all started in 2007. As you guys know there were mass applications filed in 2007 from everyone who were current including EB2/ROW/I/C and EB3 /ROW/I/C.
AFAIK, close to 1 million applications were filed during this period if you include 485s , EADs and APs and all by all the folks.
All was fine until this time and then came 2008 where some people who were still on H1 applied for EADs and APs as USCIS started to give EADs for 2 years.
Then in 2008 there was a new rule put in place stating that there need to be an Employer-Employee relationship for the people working on H1, this has created some kind of panic among employees and employers and people started to invoke EADs left and right thinking it was not safe to continue to be on H1.
And since then as the economy started to take toll, people were laid off and employers were not willing to transfer H1s as they were too many queries on H1 extensions and transfers. Everyone thought that it was never to be safe to be on H1 and started to invoke EADs either to change for better jobs and people looking for jobs also invoked EADs as it was easier to move..
Then came Oct 2009 and we saw that not many Labors are getting filed by EB2 ROW applicants and very few employers were filing Labors as the Unemployment was in 2 digits % wise and were not able to convince DOS on non availability of citizen/PRs workers to do same or similar jobs.
Also most of the Labors were audited and it took close to a year to clear all that backlog before people were eventually approved in EB2-ROW applicants, until we saw July visa bulletin which raised our hopes.Based on the spill over they were supposed to approve close more than 40k EB2 I/C applications in the last 3 months of the year.
But there was a twist in their understanding. As most of the people who got EADs in 2008 were ripe for renewals(this includes EB-2 ROW/I/C, EB-3 ROW/I/C).And hence applied in mass for their renewals. This caused a huge delay in approving the EAD renewals and you have already heard sad stories about it..
Out of all this, All I can say is that USCIS was working harder than ever during the past 3-4 months to approve so many cases and hence I assume there is a genuine workload to clear all those cases.
Based on the approval trends, I think they have already allocated visas to the applicants who were current and started to approve as soon as the case has been looked into unlike what they used to follow of requesting visas after final verification.
Remember USCIS cannot give an excuse of not utilizing all the visas for the current year and blame on FBI name checks and all , as they had 3 sweet years to adjudicate the applications. And I guess they were under tremendous pressure to approve the cases by Sept 2010 month end.
Just my Honest Opinion.
AFAIK, close to 1 million applications were filed during this period if you include 485s , EADs and APs and all by all the folks.
All was fine until this time and then came 2008 where some people who were still on H1 applied for EADs and APs as USCIS started to give EADs for 2 years.
Then in 2008 there was a new rule put in place stating that there need to be an Employer-Employee relationship for the people working on H1, this has created some kind of panic among employees and employers and people started to invoke EADs left and right thinking it was not safe to continue to be on H1.
And since then as the economy started to take toll, people were laid off and employers were not willing to transfer H1s as they were too many queries on H1 extensions and transfers. Everyone thought that it was never to be safe to be on H1 and started to invoke EADs either to change for better jobs and people looking for jobs also invoked EADs as it was easier to move..
Then came Oct 2009 and we saw that not many Labors are getting filed by EB2 ROW applicants and very few employers were filing Labors as the Unemployment was in 2 digits % wise and were not able to convince DOS on non availability of citizen/PRs workers to do same or similar jobs.
Also most of the Labors were audited and it took close to a year to clear all that backlog before people were eventually approved in EB2-ROW applicants, until we saw July visa bulletin which raised our hopes.Based on the spill over they were supposed to approve close more than 40k EB2 I/C applications in the last 3 months of the year.
But there was a twist in their understanding. As most of the people who got EADs in 2008 were ripe for renewals(this includes EB-2 ROW/I/C, EB-3 ROW/I/C).And hence applied in mass for their renewals. This caused a huge delay in approving the EAD renewals and you have already heard sad stories about it..
Out of all this, All I can say is that USCIS was working harder than ever during the past 3-4 months to approve so many cases and hence I assume there is a genuine workload to clear all those cases.
Based on the approval trends, I think they have already allocated visas to the applicants who were current and started to approve as soon as the case has been looked into unlike what they used to follow of requesting visas after final verification.
Remember USCIS cannot give an excuse of not utilizing all the visas for the current year and blame on FBI name checks and all , as they had 3 sweet years to adjudicate the applications. And I guess they were under tremendous pressure to approve the cases by Sept 2010 month end.
Just my Honest Opinion.
more...
gemini23
08-29 10:35 AM
Mr. Plassey,
What gives you the right to talk in such a nasty way to a guy who is already in distress. Please maintain minimum decency when you talk to others. If you dont have anything to offer, you dont have to post. But dont be rude to people.
I can guarantee that u r screwed for next 3+ years if it was EB2 and next 6+ years if it was EB3.
Well, go ahead and cry in the bathroom now instead of actively supporting IV.
What gives you the right to talk in such a nasty way to a guy who is already in distress. Please maintain minimum decency when you talk to others. If you dont have anything to offer, you dont have to post. But dont be rude to people.
I can guarantee that u r screwed for next 3+ years if it was EB2 and next 6+ years if it was EB3.
Well, go ahead and cry in the bathroom now instead of actively supporting IV.
2010 novelty irthday cakes
Bpositive
08-06 04:58 PM
I-485 applied aug 2007
I-140 approved dec 2007
I-140 approved dec 2007
more...
Lisap
08-22 12:33 PM
I am in the exact same situation as you are. I realized on Friday the 10th (by reading threads on here) that my attorney filed before I was current. My attorney said (although I dont know if this is true) that he was willing to argue that they should accept the application. I didn't take my chances and refiled my application. I hope that your attorney does everything that he can for you to get your application back in. If nothing else you should atleast try getting your money back and hiring a new attorney.
hair All rihgts reserved. The Sweet Life,The One Portfolio. 100%. Birthday Cakes
titu1972
07-25 10:55 AM
NSC: E-Filed June 02
Document Send: June 02
FP Done: June 26
PD Will be current in Aug. Namecheck cleared since Nov 2007.
Mine got approved on July 23. Didn't receive physical card.
Document Send: June 02
FP Done: June 26
PD Will be current in Aug. Namecheck cleared since Nov 2007.
Mine got approved on July 23. Didn't receive physical card.
more...
gclabor07
02-07 01:20 PM
Just wanted to let you know I posted my letter to WH and IV.
hot For the base of the cakes, I used this recipe for chocolate truffles.
eilsoe
02-03 06:37 PM
So did I!! =)
~nar nar! :P
~nar nar! :P
more...
house colorful 1st irthday cake for an Elmo themed celebration
longq
12-20 03:41 PM
Hello IV and its core members,
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (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.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (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.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
tattoo Castle Birthday Cakes
rajeshalex
08-17 11:01 AM
Where is it mentioned that LC sub has been rejected ? I looked at the link and
I couldnt find any thing.
Rajesh
I couldnt find any thing.
Rajesh
more...
pictures We also created a seperate smash cake for the irthday girl.
sai66
01-25 08:43 PM
Hi All,
I got my I-140 Approved in 2007 and I-485 applied in July Fiasco.(summary : 7 Hears H1 Completed, Substitution Labor, I-140 Approved and I-485 Applied > 180 Days).
Now I am getting a Full Time position in my client company. My Employer is saying I should not go otherwise he will revoke my I-140 and I don't know really what else can he do with my I-485 application. I really want to take that Full Time offer and apply for AC-21. But can anyone tell me that If after applying AC-21 and joining as full time in my client company(American Company) if my employer revokes I-140 or cancels I-485 what will be the effects on my GC application(I will be on EAD while joining this company).
I read somewhere that at that time I need to apply for MTR(Motion To Reopen) and I should not work until this MTR gets approved which might typically take 60 to 90 days. Is it true? Because if this is the case then I will lose my Full Time Job right because no company will not be willing to give 2-3 months off. Will my EAD and AP gets invalid at that point.
Even if my case gets denied after employer revokes I-140/I-485 then can I file for MTR and still work at the same time with out taking leave. Will the MTR be approved? I am looking at all possible solutions. If I cannot work during filing of my MTR then it doesn't make sense to take that full time offer and then my employer revokes I-140/I-485 and I will loose my status.
Since lot of folks who took Full Time offer are getting I-485 Denial notices instead of NOID so that was concerning me.
Please explain me in detail.
I got my I-140 Approved in 2007 and I-485 applied in July Fiasco.(summary : 7 Hears H1 Completed, Substitution Labor, I-140 Approved and I-485 Applied > 180 Days).
Now I am getting a Full Time position in my client company. My Employer is saying I should not go otherwise he will revoke my I-140 and I don't know really what else can he do with my I-485 application. I really want to take that Full Time offer and apply for AC-21. But can anyone tell me that If after applying AC-21 and joining as full time in my client company(American Company) if my employer revokes I-140 or cancels I-485 what will be the effects on my GC application(I will be on EAD while joining this company).
I read somewhere that at that time I need to apply for MTR(Motion To Reopen) and I should not work until this MTR gets approved which might typically take 60 to 90 days. Is it true? Because if this is the case then I will lose my Full Time Job right because no company will not be willing to give 2-3 months off. Will my EAD and AP gets invalid at that point.
Even if my case gets denied after employer revokes I-140/I-485 then can I file for MTR and still work at the same time with out taking leave. Will the MTR be approved? I am looking at all possible solutions. If I cannot work during filing of my MTR then it doesn't make sense to take that full time offer and then my employer revokes I-140/I-485 and I will loose my status.
Since lot of folks who took Full Time offer are getting I-485 Denial notices instead of NOID so that was concerning me.
Please explain me in detail.
dresses art irthday cake
bobzibub
11-22 01:18 AM
....
The question I was asked by the Congressional staff repeatedly was - 'If so many thousands are impacted, why are we seeing just 4-5 coming to DC asking for help? Why aren't we hearing about from our constituents? Why is it always 'the outsiders' approaching us? Why aren't they visiting us? Why aren't they writing letters to us?'. So many questions with no answers!
...
-Many in the immigrant community come from countries where corruption is endemic.
-USCIS controls our economic freedom, movement, where we work and reside, and if we "rock the boat" our file might be "deep-sixed" and we would have no recourse. Who knows, a petty officer could browse a news group, read this and sick Home land security goons me. I would never know why. We don't all have the resources to hire powerful lawyers and fight for a couple years. Did they take 120 days to renew my EAD because I visited my congressional representative's staff? Maybe.
-"Transparent" and "accountable" are words not often used to describe USCIS and her parent Homeland Security. But they do have complete authority over our lives. Kafka could write a book! (Oh, he did.)
-Many Americans are now afraid to join political protests for fear of being arrested and hence losing their job, etc. Why should immigrants be more politically active than Americans? They are publicly targeted by politicians as causing all the problems in the land (Tancredo for example) with out any serious rebuke. In my country Tancredo saying things he's said would have been considered a hate crime.
-There are many Americans (even level headed ones) that do not believe that immigrants have any right to push for change in US policy. Regardless of whether it is change for the better, and there is no other constituency to demand improvements. The argument goes that regardless of the request, if you don't like it you should go home. (Of course the answer is to flip it and say: should Americans be treated poorly when living in my country? Sheepish looks ensue...)
-Depending upon your level of risk aversion, it is often rational for the immigrant (who's stay is tenuous) to stay home and be "good" which means pliant.
In summary, the US scares the freak'n crap out of a lot of people. And so they "behave" as best they can. This should not be a revelation to the staffers.
I don't agree that we should be pliant. We should be in their face because they deserve it.
As for me, I've come to the point that I think being kicked out of the US would be like getting fired from a crappy job I didn't have the guts to quit. :D
The question I was asked by the Congressional staff repeatedly was - 'If so many thousands are impacted, why are we seeing just 4-5 coming to DC asking for help? Why aren't we hearing about from our constituents? Why is it always 'the outsiders' approaching us? Why aren't they visiting us? Why aren't they writing letters to us?'. So many questions with no answers!
...
-Many in the immigrant community come from countries where corruption is endemic.
-USCIS controls our economic freedom, movement, where we work and reside, and if we "rock the boat" our file might be "deep-sixed" and we would have no recourse. Who knows, a petty officer could browse a news group, read this and sick Home land security goons me. I would never know why. We don't all have the resources to hire powerful lawyers and fight for a couple years. Did they take 120 days to renew my EAD because I visited my congressional representative's staff? Maybe.
-"Transparent" and "accountable" are words not often used to describe USCIS and her parent Homeland Security. But they do have complete authority over our lives. Kafka could write a book! (Oh, he did.)
-Many Americans are now afraid to join political protests for fear of being arrested and hence losing their job, etc. Why should immigrants be more politically active than Americans? They are publicly targeted by politicians as causing all the problems in the land (Tancredo for example) with out any serious rebuke. In my country Tancredo saying things he's said would have been considered a hate crime.
-There are many Americans (even level headed ones) that do not believe that immigrants have any right to push for change in US policy. Regardless of whether it is change for the better, and there is no other constituency to demand improvements. The argument goes that regardless of the request, if you don't like it you should go home. (Of course the answer is to flip it and say: should Americans be treated poorly when living in my country? Sheepish looks ensue...)
-Depending upon your level of risk aversion, it is often rational for the immigrant (who's stay is tenuous) to stay home and be "good" which means pliant.
In summary, the US scares the freak'n crap out of a lot of people. And so they "behave" as best they can. This should not be a revelation to the staffers.
I don't agree that we should be pliant. We should be in their face because they deserve it.
As for me, I've come to the point that I think being kicked out of the US would be like getting fired from a crappy job I didn't have the guts to quit. :D
more...
makeup So here#39;s the cake I baked for myself for my irthday, back at end of May,
vkraman7
02-12 05:09 PM
First thing is that your employer most likely will not send you a legal notice, as it would cause significant time and money for his already depleted financial resources. Even if he does, if such a legal notice is in an email, just ignore it. DO NOT RESPOND.
If it is in your regular mail/UPS/FED EX/Certified mail (most likely), you should consult your new company's attorney and seek legal help. In any case, as long as you have all your eggs in order, you will be fine.
May God be with (and only with) your good intentions.
If it is in your regular mail/UPS/FED EX/Certified mail (most likely), you should consult your new company's attorney and seek legal help. In any case, as long as you have all your eggs in order, you will be fine.
May God be with (and only with) your good intentions.
girlfriend Rabbit Birthday Cakes
nrk
10-27 08:48 AM
landed in US with h1b visa, moved another job using EAD. never been out of status
Have you ever been illegal?
Have you ever been illegal?
hairstyles The irthday boy enjoyed the dessert and seemed prepared to eat most of the
sprash
07-28 07:57 PM
E-Filed EAD: 06/01/2008
FP Notice: 06/10/2008
FP Appointment: Friday, June 27, 2008
EAD Card production ordered: July 28th, 2008
------
PD: 01/27/2005
EB2 India
Hopefully this will be a 2 year EAD!
FP Notice: 06/10/2008
FP Appointment: Friday, June 27, 2008
EAD Card production ordered: July 28th, 2008
------
PD: 01/27/2005
EB2 India
Hopefully this will be a 2 year EAD!
Deepika
08-07 07:00 PM
>Suresh.mails
The best option would be (1) F-1 (2) H-1 (however both would take time).
I suggest you discuss this with your future wife as it is a decision and effort from both of you to go through the next process.
The best option would be (1) F-1 (2) H-1 (however both would take time).
I suggest you discuss this with your future wife as it is a decision and effort from both of you to go through the next process.
diptam
08-15 12:38 PM
Folks who got Rn is no more interested in Voting or talking about RN.
They are opening threads for FP Notice etc - they are not looking backwards at us - What are you planning to do ?
- My lawyer wants to refile (with no addional lawyer fees). Does it make any sense to re-file?
- Is there a vote somewhere that shows how many july 2 files received receipt notices?
They are opening threads for FP Notice etc - they are not looking backwards at us - What are you planning to do ?
- My lawyer wants to refile (with no addional lawyer fees). Does it make any sense to re-file?
- Is there a vote somewhere that shows how many july 2 files received receipt notices?
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar