gcisadawg
12-16 05:50 PM
Can you imagine, Microsoft getting a RFE from USCIS to show "ability to pay"! We have so many people yelling on these forums because companies do not have the ability to pay to these "highly skilled workers".
Kumar1,
You never know. GE was considered the bluest of the blue chips! Look at what is happening! Within no time, it fell off the cliff! How many storied wall st. investment banks are left standing? If open source takes off with real wings and an efficient replacement for MS-office ( already started to come) arrives, MSFT itself may not be there to answer 'RFE' issues...
Btw, I believe we are here because we are needed. High skilled or not is a different issue. For some, nothing is Rocket science except Rocket science itself! Why would anyone give us a H1B visa, renew it year after year and allow us to apply for Green card? They can easily pull the plug by
1> Stopping all future H1Bs first...No more H1s from Fiscal 2010 onwards.
2> Existing H1Bs who havent applied for a GC will not be allowed and have to go after the term ends. ( you might see H1B substitution where a guy with 5 years left on his H1B can trade for the highest bidder)
3> Existing H1B who have applied for GC and in various stages of processing....would either be rejceted OR asked to re-start the process under stringent guidelines.
US should be doing all or some of the above if they think H1Bs are NOT needed.
Peace,
GCisaDawg
Kumar1,
You never know. GE was considered the bluest of the blue chips! Look at what is happening! Within no time, it fell off the cliff! How many storied wall st. investment banks are left standing? If open source takes off with real wings and an efficient replacement for MS-office ( already started to come) arrives, MSFT itself may not be there to answer 'RFE' issues...
Btw, I believe we are here because we are needed. High skilled or not is a different issue. For some, nothing is Rocket science except Rocket science itself! Why would anyone give us a H1B visa, renew it year after year and allow us to apply for Green card? They can easily pull the plug by
1> Stopping all future H1Bs first...No more H1s from Fiscal 2010 onwards.
2> Existing H1Bs who havent applied for a GC will not be allowed and have to go after the term ends. ( you might see H1B substitution where a guy with 5 years left on his H1B can trade for the highest bidder)
3> Existing H1B who have applied for GC and in various stages of processing....would either be rejceted OR asked to re-start the process under stringent guidelines.
US should be doing all or some of the above if they think H1Bs are NOT needed.
Peace,
GCisaDawg
wallpaper 25 year old Crystal Harris
h1techSlave
04-04 10:41 AM
I agree with the suggestion. As Murthy has written, the maximum effect is when individuals directly contact the senators and explain to them about the hard comings that we face. We could write to individual senators (e-mail would suffice) explaining about our predicament and the benefit to the American economy and people, if EB numbers are increased.
H1techSlave
H1techSlave
wizard20740
07-09 07:25 PM
A FBI name check does not seem to be a mandatory requirement for a GC. I think it maybe part of a "National Security Background Check" but does not seem to be a mandatory one.
Also Please see link below, which seems to indicate that precedents exist for issuing Citizenship to people without completion of background checks. These checks have to be completed within 120 days of citizenship interview, and it seems that in nearly 20% cases, people have been granted citizenship without completion of background checks because the 120 day timeline expired.
http://immigration.about.com/b/a/256020.htm
Would you mind quoting the actual law then?
Does every I-485 need FBI approval or just background check? How do you know that it needs FBI Name Check for all cases. Quote the law please.
Also Please see link below, which seems to indicate that precedents exist for issuing Citizenship to people without completion of background checks. These checks have to be completed within 120 days of citizenship interview, and it seems that in nearly 20% cases, people have been granted citizenship without completion of background checks because the 120 day timeline expired.
http://immigration.about.com/b/a/256020.htm
Would you mind quoting the actual law then?
Does every I-485 need FBI approval or just background check? How do you know that it needs FBI Name Check for all cases. Quote the law please.
2011 Playmate Crystal Harris
sri1309
02-18 05:48 PM
The only thing I liked is at the end that says
"Makes permanent an INA provision allowing adjustment of status of certain aliens for whom family-sponsored or employment-based applications or petitions were filed by a specified date".
But that doesnt mean we start dreaming again.. Lets put our efforts. I got an email from Obama today (and I am sure may have also go who have previously posted their stories on his site) that he wants to hear from us what we think about the currrent issues.
Did you post your story and the problems we are facing?.
Lets keep writing non-stop. We just need an admin fix, not the whole CIR.
"Makes permanent an INA provision allowing adjustment of status of certain aliens for whom family-sponsored or employment-based applications or petitions were filed by a specified date".
But that doesnt mean we start dreaming again.. Lets put our efforts. I got an email from Obama today (and I am sure may have also go who have previously posted their stories on his site) that he wants to hear from us what we think about the currrent issues.
Did you post your story and the problems we are facing?.
Lets keep writing non-stop. We just need an admin fix, not the whole CIR.
more...
Jaime
09-11 04:45 PM
Email us! We will help you so you can attend the rally! NO TIME TO LOSE!!!!
GCOP
07-11 01:07 PM
Thanks for your post. Is there any chance for any or Significant movement like this in EB-3. Now it's about time for EB-3 to move ahead. We have been trying for Bills every year, without any luck. Why is it so difficult for any movement in EB-3, which is stuck in 2001 and not moving ahead. It is really frustrating. EB-3 I is really suffering the most. Is there any solution for that ?
____________________
Phone calls to CHC Members
Written Letters to President & IV
Attended DC Rally
Contributed to IV
PD: October 2003, EB-3
source: www.immigration-law.com
07/11/2008: Indian EB-2 Visa Number in Visa Bulletin August 2008 and Anticipated Expedited Adjudication of Their I-485 Applications to Prevent EB 2008 Visa Number Waste
The movement of the EB-2 visa numbers for Indians is indeed a very good news in that it sounds that the USCIS intends to take out the visa numbers for them before the end of September 2008 as best as they can and attempt to adjudicate the applications before the new fiscal year starts on October 1, 2008. Obviously, there must be a large number of EB-2 cases which were filed during the July 2007 Visa Bulletin fiasco whose priority date is June 1, 2006 or earlier date. It appears that the USCIS has been working hard to get these cases ready for adjudication while their visa numbers are availalbe so that the agency prevents the visa number for FY 2008 from being wasted. Please stay tuned to this web site for this remarkable turn of the events.
____________________
Phone calls to CHC Members
Written Letters to President & IV
Attended DC Rally
Contributed to IV
PD: October 2003, EB-3
source: www.immigration-law.com
07/11/2008: Indian EB-2 Visa Number in Visa Bulletin August 2008 and Anticipated Expedited Adjudication of Their I-485 Applications to Prevent EB 2008 Visa Number Waste
The movement of the EB-2 visa numbers for Indians is indeed a very good news in that it sounds that the USCIS intends to take out the visa numbers for them before the end of September 2008 as best as they can and attempt to adjudicate the applications before the new fiscal year starts on October 1, 2008. Obviously, there must be a large number of EB-2 cases which were filed during the July 2007 Visa Bulletin fiasco whose priority date is June 1, 2006 or earlier date. It appears that the USCIS has been working hard to get these cases ready for adjudication while their visa numbers are availalbe so that the agency prevents the visa number for FY 2008 from being wasted. Please stay tuned to this web site for this remarkable turn of the events.
more...
satyasrd
09-09 12:48 PM
Thanks for this post. I was about to post something similar myself.
Seriously what is EB3 I thinking ?!? Pretty soon it will only be them stuck in this mess.
I know several who have literally substituted their EAD for their GC and settled down comfortably. Absolutely ridiculous !
EB3 seriously needs to wake up.
Seriously what is EB3 I thinking ?!? Pretty soon it will only be them stuck in this mess.
I know several who have literally substituted their EAD for their GC and settled down comfortably. Absolutely ridiculous !
EB3 seriously needs to wake up.
2010 Crystal Harris and Hugh Hefner
alisa
01-27 09:25 AM
I am glad you posted this.
I will put the numbers in the excel spreadsheet and see what comes out.
But these might give more sensible results than the preposterous wait times that we were getting.
If the average depletion rate for India is 34K per annum, then the wait times would look a lot better I think.
I am assuming that these numbers include the dependents. So, if 34K adjustment of status were awareded, then, roughly speaking, there were 17K primary applicants, and 17K dependents? Am I correct?
Also, for the accumulation rate, when we say that 65K H-1 visas are given out annually, I am assuming that does not include the dependents. Am I right??
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
I will put the numbers in the excel spreadsheet and see what comes out.
But these might give more sensible results than the preposterous wait times that we were getting.
If the average depletion rate for India is 34K per annum, then the wait times would look a lot better I think.
I am assuming that these numbers include the dependents. So, if 34K adjustment of status were awareded, then, roughly speaking, there were 17K primary applicants, and 17K dependents? Am I correct?
Also, for the accumulation rate, when we say that 65K H-1 visas are given out annually, I am assuming that does not include the dependents. Am I right??
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
more...
perm2gc
01-18 06:20 PM
http://www.immigrationforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1990
hair and Crystal Harris party
bestia
01-19 03:54 PM
Its a matter of interpretation. Cops are not lawyers and neither am I. Arguing simply makes matters worse. None the less, you can argue as much as you want but if the cop has one on his mind and you have another, it certainly doesn't help your situation.
Of course. Judges are the ones who interpret the laws. Officers just do what they are instructed to do. My point was just out of curiosity, how I think this law is being interpreted.
But of course. My opinion is not only not to argue with officers, but don't even talk to them. When I feel that officer wants some "conversation" with me, my favorite response is "sorry officer, me no understand, no speak english". period. Smile to his face, keep saying "sorry". Don't show any extra document - just only what is required, nothing extra. Officer can be asking any questions, just hand him business card of your lawyer, say "my lawyer, talk him". as worse English you will use, as better it will be for you. My experience.
When I first entered United States I was kept at secondary check for 4 hours (1999, IAD, Virginia). They kept asking me all kinda questions, it was no end. Finally I got pissed, I said "Sorry, I don't speak English good" and started playing with them. I took my dictionary and starting looking up every word. My next answer took 5 minutes. In next 5 minutes a woman walked to me, handed my documents and said "Welcome to America".
Of course. Judges are the ones who interpret the laws. Officers just do what they are instructed to do. My point was just out of curiosity, how I think this law is being interpreted.
But of course. My opinion is not only not to argue with officers, but don't even talk to them. When I feel that officer wants some "conversation" with me, my favorite response is "sorry officer, me no understand, no speak english". period. Smile to his face, keep saying "sorry". Don't show any extra document - just only what is required, nothing extra. Officer can be asking any questions, just hand him business card of your lawyer, say "my lawyer, talk him". as worse English you will use, as better it will be for you. My experience.
When I first entered United States I was kept at secondary check for 4 hours (1999, IAD, Virginia). They kept asking me all kinda questions, it was no end. Finally I got pissed, I said "Sorry, I don't speak English good" and started playing with them. I took my dictionary and starting looking up every word. My next answer took 5 minutes. In next 5 minutes a woman walked to me, handed my documents and said "Welcome to America".
more...
hsm2007
09-23 10:03 AM
Hi All,
Employer A - original sponsoring employer. Got laidoff and joined B (large corporate). Before dates got current got offer from C and C applied for H1 transfer. Now received RFE on I-485 to provide EVL from current employer along with paystubs and W2.
My problem here is that I consulted Murthy and they are saying that I need to make a choice between my current employer B and my potential new employer C whom I have not started working yet but they have filed for H-1 transfer. If I respond to the RFE using my current employer information then it is more straightforward but then I will need to stay with them if I get my GC right away after responding to the RFE. But if I use my new employer's letter then I don't have paystubs to show until I join them which won't be until the H-1 transfer goes through and I go through one payroll cycle. But that will be too late to respond to the RFE.
If I don't join C then I need to pay for the H1 transfer that they filed and attorneys fees. At the same time I am also not happy with my current employers HR and attorney.
Employer A - original sponsoring employer. Got laidoff and joined B (large corporate). Before dates got current got offer from C and C applied for H1 transfer. Now received RFE on I-485 to provide EVL from current employer along with paystubs and W2.
My problem here is that I consulted Murthy and they are saying that I need to make a choice between my current employer B and my potential new employer C whom I have not started working yet but they have filed for H-1 transfer. If I respond to the RFE using my current employer information then it is more straightforward but then I will need to stay with them if I get my GC right away after responding to the RFE. But if I use my new employer's letter then I don't have paystubs to show until I join them which won't be until the H-1 transfer goes through and I go through one payroll cycle. But that will be too late to respond to the RFE.
If I don't join C then I need to pay for the H1 transfer that they filed and attorneys fees. At the same time I am also not happy with my current employers HR and attorney.
hot Crystal Harris denied on
srkamath
07-13 12:27 PM
But where are we getting these numbers like say 20k visas are available for EB2..
DOS / USCIS in their congressional testimony in May, stated that they have used up ~ 65% of the 140k EB numbers by April - that left us with ~ 49 k unused then.
Shortly thereafter, the VB said all the allotable numbers for EB3 had been used up and that all EB1 spillover and EB2 ROW leftovers will go to EB2 retrogressed countries.
DOS / USCIS in their congressional testimony in May, stated that they have used up ~ 65% of the 140k EB numbers by April - that left us with ~ 49 k unused then.
Shortly thereafter, the VB said all the allotable numbers for EB3 had been used up and that all EB1 spillover and EB2 ROW leftovers will go to EB2 retrogressed countries.
more...
house Crystal Harris won#39;t be…
chintu25
07-09 03:11 PM
Way to Go Azulay Horn & Seiden, LLC
Rock On We are with u :) :cool:
Rock On We are with u :) :cool:
tattoo hugh hefner crystal harris
Karthikthiru
09-11 11:03 AM
It is already approved by Immigration Sub-committe about 3-4 weeks back. It has to pass through judicial sub-committe
http://www.asianjournal.com/?c=201&a=29863
"In a move to fix America�s broken immigration system, the House Subcommittee on Immigration approved H.R. 5882, a bipartisan legislation introduced by Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and James Sensenbrenner (R-WI)."
http://www.asianjournal.com/?c=201&a=29863
"In a move to fix America�s broken immigration system, the House Subcommittee on Immigration approved H.R. 5882, a bipartisan legislation introduced by Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and James Sensenbrenner (R-WI)."
more...
pictures girlfriend Crystal Harris
actaccord
02-17 10:06 AM
for the update, StarRun.
We should have done it early (by 2 weeks before and continue the same for every 2weeks) so that people who need to get air ticket & Accommodation can get it @ better pricing. Also we will start getting contribution from silent member which can help to understand the level of participation bit early so that we plan for the event perfectly (or close to perfection).
IV sent newsletters last year on advocacy efforts to its members. We are doing it this year as well. We are trying to reach out to our members to attend the event.
We should have done it early (by 2 weeks before and continue the same for every 2weeks) so that people who need to get air ticket & Accommodation can get it @ better pricing. Also we will start getting contribution from silent member which can help to understand the level of participation bit early so that we plan for the event perfectly (or close to perfection).
IV sent newsletters last year on advocacy efforts to its members. We are doing it this year as well. We are trying to reach out to our members to attend the event.
dresses Crystal Harris and Hugh Hefner
BharatPremi
03-12 04:38 PM
a. Background check: They are currently doing my background check. How long does it take to complete this process? Even though I do not have any bad history still a little nervous. Is there anything I need to know about this?
Sathyaraj
I am assuming here that you referred Background Check done by future employer as a part of employment offer before granting you the final offer. In that case mostly your employer might have contracted that to third party. And if that would have been the case then it solely depends upon where you resides now and how many states you have moved so far from the date of first entry in uSA and what kind of new implementation all those states may have. Some states even gives "Red Flag" for traffic violation such as speeding. What happens is that, that third party would see only "red flag" and would not come to know about underlying cause of the "red flag". So as a process that third party first come to your future employer notifying about this " red flag". Then your employer decides to query that further having signature from you and would notify third party to dig further and then third party will go to state police to know the underlying cause and state police will work on that by taking fee and and some point of time it will say " hey he had traffic violation". So it may eat up 3 to 4 months to finish the whole cycle and ball is in your employer's court whether to hire you or wait to hire till then. Most companies hire without wasting time and afterwards if something really serious feedback comes in will boot you otherwise you will be fine.
Sathyaraj
I am assuming here that you referred Background Check done by future employer as a part of employment offer before granting you the final offer. In that case mostly your employer might have contracted that to third party. And if that would have been the case then it solely depends upon where you resides now and how many states you have moved so far from the date of first entry in uSA and what kind of new implementation all those states may have. Some states even gives "Red Flag" for traffic violation such as speeding. What happens is that, that third party would see only "red flag" and would not come to know about underlying cause of the "red flag". So as a process that third party first come to your future employer notifying about this " red flag". Then your employer decides to query that further having signature from you and would notify third party to dig further and then third party will go to state police to know the underlying cause and state police will work on that by taking fee and and some point of time it will say " hey he had traffic violation". So it may eat up 3 to 4 months to finish the whole cycle and ball is in your employer's court whether to hire you or wait to hire till then. Most companies hire without wasting time and afterwards if something really serious feedback comes in will boot you otherwise you will be fine.
more...
makeup tattoo Twitter Crystal Harris
gc_on_demand
09-11 09:41 AM
Any one has idea ?
girlfriend Crystal Harris (pic: Getty
desigun
07-12 05:09 PM
My PD is Oct. 07 (EB 2)
Gurus.. pls advise.
Could i expect my dates to be current by mid of 2011?
Thanks,
Gurus.. pls advise.
Could i expect my dates to be current by mid of 2011?
Thanks,
hairstyles Crystal Harris - Sabah - Galeri - Dünya
feedfront
09-17 09:58 AM
Anyone received RFE letter? I've not received it yet.
nervous-wreck
03-15 05:08 PM
C'mon guys, what the hell have you been doing for so long?
I mean look at the archived Visa Bulletins, you observe the following:
1. EB2 was current for India ALL THROUGH 2003
2. EB2 was current for India ALL THROUGH 2004
3. EB2 was current for India till August 2005
4. After the retrogression in 2005, EB2 India moved up quickly through 2003-2004 to April 2004 by the beginning of 2007
5. Even after the summer 2007 fiasco (EB2 Current fro July, August 2007), the priority date for EB2 India moved to April 2004 and stayed there for 3 months
What more do you wish for?
I don't understand how there any can be anyone from 2004-2005 India still left in the EB2 category.
This is pathetic. What the hell have you been waiting for?
I mean look at the archived Visa Bulletins, you observe the following:
1. EB2 was current for India ALL THROUGH 2003
2. EB2 was current for India ALL THROUGH 2004
3. EB2 was current for India till August 2005
4. After the retrogression in 2005, EB2 India moved up quickly through 2003-2004 to April 2004 by the beginning of 2007
5. Even after the summer 2007 fiasco (EB2 Current fro July, August 2007), the priority date for EB2 India moved to April 2004 and stayed there for 3 months
What more do you wish for?
I don't understand how there any can be anyone from 2004-2005 India still left in the EB2 category.
This is pathetic. What the hell have you been waiting for?
Macaca
07-17 09:42 AM
Immigration bill ignites grass-roots fire (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=89612&postcount=461) The conservative group NumbersUSA has seen its numbers skyrocket. Activists pressure wavering senators. By Nicole Gaouette (nicole.gaouette@latimes.com), Times Staff Writer, June 24, 2007
Grass Roots Roared and Immigration Plan Collapsed By JULIA PRESTON New York Times, June 10, 2007: part 1 (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=80626&postcount=203), part 2 (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=80627&postcount=204)
Grass Roots Roared and Immigration Plan Collapsed By JULIA PRESTON New York Times, June 10, 2007: part 1 (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=80626&postcount=203), part 2 (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=80627&postcount=204)
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar