pcs
06-18 07:11 PM
Can we have a letter / online fax campaign atleast...
May be a letter from Rep Longfren etc.
May be a letter from Rep Longfren etc.
wallpaper education quotes
SkilledWorker4GC
07-26 12:53 PM
According to the pattern the next one is due tomorrow,
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ReceiptingTimes06Jul07.pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ReceiptingTimes13Jul07.pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ReceiptingTimes20Jul07.pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ReceiptingTimes27Jul07.pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ReceiptingTimes06Jul07.pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ReceiptingTimes13Jul07.pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ReceiptingTimes20Jul07.pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ReceiptingTimes27Jul07.pdf
kishdam
02-16 09:14 AM
Hi,
I am talking to different lawyers for using AC21 - new position title and functions are almost similar with similar salaries in the same region, old employer might revoke the approved I140 but 180 days are over and I140 is approved - couple lawyers mentioned that the case is straight forward but still mentioned that they are not going to take the case because they decided not to do AC21 in many cases. Reason they mentioned is that underlying I485 is not filed by them and if its rejected for any reason there is a chance of mal-practise suit against them. The fact that they didnt do anything after taking the case might work against them. Their current insurance against mal-practise is not enough to cover these types of instances. I found the argument a bit weird but wondering if anyone else heard same - I heard this from 2 of the 3 lawyers I called locally.
- kishdam
I am talking to different lawyers for using AC21 - new position title and functions are almost similar with similar salaries in the same region, old employer might revoke the approved I140 but 180 days are over and I140 is approved - couple lawyers mentioned that the case is straight forward but still mentioned that they are not going to take the case because they decided not to do AC21 in many cases. Reason they mentioned is that underlying I485 is not filed by them and if its rejected for any reason there is a chance of mal-practise suit against them. The fact that they didnt do anything after taking the case might work against them. Their current insurance against mal-practise is not enough to cover these types of instances. I found the argument a bit weird but wondering if anyone else heard same - I heard this from 2 of the 3 lawyers I called locally.
- kishdam
2011 education quotes inspirational
eilsoe
02-02 06:38 PM
well, if it hasn't been a rule in the other battles, then by all means VOTE AWAY :P
:phil:
:phil:
more...
mirage
03-11 06:26 PM
You made an extremely important and valid point here...
Such an escalated tone has been established due to various reasons, based on the fact that there is documented evidence of some abuse. It is not to scare every h1b visa holder.
See - people are writing so many posts their their friend is having trouble in h1b , friends friend is having trouble in POE etc... but none of them are original posts. Just look around yourself and your friends - check to see if anyone really got screwed (genuine folks) - there may be some people who got additional grilling and that's it.
People are still traveling everyday and getting stamping and no issues at POE.
Like I said earlier "unless you set the ass on fire those who abuse will not straighten themselves" - greed overtakes any good forward thought.
Senators are not your own country senators and we cannot influence their thoughts or feel bad about what they think about h1b visa. All we do is make a case for ourselves that we are genuine and really interested in following the system.
AFAIK every h1b and GC case has been dealt with on a case to case basis and people who have really followed rules did not have much issues - we continue to follow the system because we believe in it.
Such an escalated tone has been established due to various reasons, based on the fact that there is documented evidence of some abuse. It is not to scare every h1b visa holder.
See - people are writing so many posts their their friend is having trouble in h1b , friends friend is having trouble in POE etc... but none of them are original posts. Just look around yourself and your friends - check to see if anyone really got screwed (genuine folks) - there may be some people who got additional grilling and that's it.
People are still traveling everyday and getting stamping and no issues at POE.
Like I said earlier "unless you set the ass on fire those who abuse will not straighten themselves" - greed overtakes any good forward thought.
Senators are not your own country senators and we cannot influence their thoughts or feel bad about what they think about h1b visa. All we do is make a case for ourselves that we are genuine and really interested in following the system.
AFAIK every h1b and GC case has been dealt with on a case to case basis and people who have really followed rules did not have much issues - we continue to follow the system because we believe in it.
Libra
01-11 12:42 PM
please cast your vote
I sent the letter to the President and copy to IV on 01/08/2007.
I sent the letter to the President and copy to IV on 01/08/2007.
more...
milestogo
07-22 04:53 PM
any inputs....?
2010 Inspirational Quotes-Famous
yabayaba
08-21 12:20 PM
I am already started the process. Is it worth waiting for something would happen on visa recapture front in Lameduck session after mid term election?.Your thoughts on this?
more...
tdasara
01-31 01:25 PM
Very helpful if we get to file I485 without PD being current...
REDUCTION IN WEIGHTED AVERAGE
The increase in actual costs to applicants and petitioners will be only 66 percent, however, because applicants for adjustment of status will no longer be required to pay a fee to apply for interim benefits.
Currently, the I-485 fee is $325. The I-485 customer will also file an average of two Applications for Employment Authorization (I-765) and nearly half will file at least one Application for Travel Document (I-131), while an additional 20 percent of applicants will file a second. These additional ‘interim benefits’ applications allow applicants to work or travel while their status application is pending. The combined fee that applicants currently pay is approximately $800. The proposed fee structure will eliminate the need for applicants to have to pay these subsequent fees that result from processing delays. USCIS is proposing a $905 fee for the I-485 form. When considering the interim benefit fees paid by applicants, the increase for the I-485 is $105 instead of $580; therefore, the overall weighted average is reduced to 66 percent because adjustment of status applicants will pay approximately the same fee that is currently assessed when taking into account those associated ‘interim benefits’ that are paid over a multi-year time perio
REDUCTION IN WEIGHTED AVERAGE
The increase in actual costs to applicants and petitioners will be only 66 percent, however, because applicants for adjustment of status will no longer be required to pay a fee to apply for interim benefits.
Currently, the I-485 fee is $325. The I-485 customer will also file an average of two Applications for Employment Authorization (I-765) and nearly half will file at least one Application for Travel Document (I-131), while an additional 20 percent of applicants will file a second. These additional ‘interim benefits’ applications allow applicants to work or travel while their status application is pending. The combined fee that applicants currently pay is approximately $800. The proposed fee structure will eliminate the need for applicants to have to pay these subsequent fees that result from processing delays. USCIS is proposing a $905 fee for the I-485 form. When considering the interim benefit fees paid by applicants, the increase for the I-485 is $105 instead of $580; therefore, the overall weighted average is reduced to 66 percent because adjustment of status applicants will pay approximately the same fee that is currently assessed when taking into account those associated ‘interim benefits’ that are paid over a multi-year time perio
hair inspirational education quotes
bujjigadu123
02-21 01:29 AM
Thanks for the reply...
Initially I too got the same doubt that it could be a prank from my friend. But the name of the person who called me matches with the name of the person who visited my employer's office around 2 months back. After I got a call from ICE officer, I notified the same to my employer and explained about the call.
Really donno what to do.... Even though the ICE officer took prior appointment for visiting me, should I still contact attorney?
Initially I too got the same doubt that it could be a prank from my friend. But the name of the person who called me matches with the name of the person who visited my employer's office around 2 months back. After I got a call from ICE officer, I notified the same to my employer and explained about the call.
Really donno what to do.... Even though the ICE officer took prior appointment for visiting me, should I still contact attorney?
more...
wahwah
06-05 11:33 AM
since the new supplemental memo has been issued, the rule making agenda may be pushed off. but i think the new memo will be effective immediately.
See this..from immigration-law.com
However, the release of this new supplemental AC-21 probably implies that the rule-making agenda may be pushed off and may not be enacted this year. Please stay tuned.
See this..from immigration-law.com
However, the release of this new supplemental AC-21 probably implies that the rule-making agenda may be pushed off and may not be enacted this year. Please stay tuned.
hot education quotes inspirational
thomachan72
08-30 09:54 AM
Most of the state colleges, (In my case, none of the state colleges), including under-grad and medical schools, will accept application, if you do not have GC/ US citizenship. I tried, wrote letters, but of no use.
You can apply and get admission in private college, which of course cost much more.
Also, we were not able to take any federal loans.
Hi Dinesh, in your quote above were you intending to say that most state colleges WILL NOT accept applications if you do not have GC/citizenship? So to attend a state college you NEED TO BE a GC holder/citizen? If that is the case how come lot of international students come here and attend state colleges for MS/Phds and get assistanships/fee waivers?
You can apply and get admission in private college, which of course cost much more.
Also, we were not able to take any federal loans.
Hi Dinesh, in your quote above were you intending to say that most state colleges WILL NOT accept applications if you do not have GC/citizenship? So to attend a state college you NEED TO BE a GC holder/citizen? If that is the case how come lot of international students come here and attend state colleges for MS/Phds and get assistanships/fee waivers?
more...
house education quotes inspirational
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 education quotes inspirational
senthil1
03-11 04:23 PM
I think they might have thought that Grassley is like our Indian MPs and why should reply to him. They should have answered responsibly and tried to do some good faith efforts. Now it is paying time for their arrogance. Still Indian companies and Bodyshoppers are having time to change themselves. We need to wait and see whether they will change and forced to change.
"non answer" meant they didn't answer his questions but rather gave some vague reply of how h-1 was good for usa.
If I was on the receivng end of that response; I would have thought that these guys are playing with me and by not answering the quesitons; then they are obviously trying to hide something. Therefore, I will attack them in another way to make them conform to the behaviour I want.
"non answer" meant they didn't answer his questions but rather gave some vague reply of how h-1 was good for usa.
If I was on the receivng end of that response; I would have thought that these guys are playing with me and by not answering the quesitons; then they are obviously trying to hide something. Therefore, I will attack them in another way to make them conform to the behaviour I want.
more...
pictures education quotes
Sakthisagar
10-26 04:04 PM
Another news making. Advice to all of Youngster Indians and Indians here by the India's outsourcing chop shop IT messihah Infosys Chief.
Don't look at IT industry as means to settle abroad: Narayana Murthy - The Economic Times (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/ites/Dont-look-at-IT-industry-as-means-to-settle-abroad-Murthy/articleshow/6815589.cms)
Don't look at IT industry as means to settle abroad: Narayana Murthy - The Economic Times (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/ites/Dont-look-at-IT-industry-as-means-to-settle-abroad-Murthy/articleshow/6815589.cms)
dresses education quotes. education
India_USA
07-13 09:40 AM
Guys, there is real substance to what oscarzumaran says as well......
It is not fair to shout at him unless u understand the issue bereft of any emotions.
I think the AZ is the right thing to force illegal immigrants out of AZ since its bringing the economy down to its knees.
Moreover the AZ law is excatly the same as the current Federal law, its just that AZ is implementing it thru a state law, so why shd the feds object to it.
If you folks think that AZ law is wrong then why should other sanctuary states who prevent illegals from been sent back be allowed to pre-empt the fed law , even these states should be challenged.
We legal citizens are required by fed law to carry legal docs at any time(even though u may not like it), AZ is just enforcing the law
IV is all about legal immigration and does not support illegal immigration as I know it, Its a folly to think that if we support the feds they will support legal immigration and give GC's faster......Can anyone be 100% sure that the politicians will not drop the legal provisions from CIR just to get some votes to get the illegal immigrations laws in CIR thru......havent u seen how the healthcare bill was passed
How could you all support illegals when u are here legally? would you let pakistanis enter India without Visas or let palestines into Isreal just like that?, would Mexico allow Asians into their country just like that, heck NO.
Stop criticizing folks for stating their point of view, each one has a right to his opinion, so does oscarzumaran.
I dont care if you give some reds, hope oscarzumaran will compensate with some greens :)
I think you are missing the point cbpds.........Oscarzumaran is entitled to his opinion and so are others. What many of us are trying to say is that don't express them here. IV team has repeatedly said that antagonizing any other immigration based group (illegal, family based, asylum, even anti immigrants!!) does not help us in our march to get what we want. By talking ill of the other group, we are actually hurting ourselves. Time and time again, it has been proved that being united works better compared to being divided. Why do we want to gain the wrath of any group unnecessarily? Its not like IV is working on undocumented issues........
Anybody can have any opinion he/she chooses to have. But don't share the opinion in a forum where the leaders are requesting/asking not to do so for the good of our advocacy.
And also, IV is for legal immigrants. Period. I don't believe it has a stand on illegal immigration. Period. There is a huge difference between the two.
It is not fair to shout at him unless u understand the issue bereft of any emotions.
I think the AZ is the right thing to force illegal immigrants out of AZ since its bringing the economy down to its knees.
Moreover the AZ law is excatly the same as the current Federal law, its just that AZ is implementing it thru a state law, so why shd the feds object to it.
If you folks think that AZ law is wrong then why should other sanctuary states who prevent illegals from been sent back be allowed to pre-empt the fed law , even these states should be challenged.
We legal citizens are required by fed law to carry legal docs at any time(even though u may not like it), AZ is just enforcing the law
IV is all about legal immigration and does not support illegal immigration as I know it, Its a folly to think that if we support the feds they will support legal immigration and give GC's faster......Can anyone be 100% sure that the politicians will not drop the legal provisions from CIR just to get some votes to get the illegal immigrations laws in CIR thru......havent u seen how the healthcare bill was passed
How could you all support illegals when u are here legally? would you let pakistanis enter India without Visas or let palestines into Isreal just like that?, would Mexico allow Asians into their country just like that, heck NO.
Stop criticizing folks for stating their point of view, each one has a right to his opinion, so does oscarzumaran.
I dont care if you give some reds, hope oscarzumaran will compensate with some greens :)
I think you are missing the point cbpds.........Oscarzumaran is entitled to his opinion and so are others. What many of us are trying to say is that don't express them here. IV team has repeatedly said that antagonizing any other immigration based group (illegal, family based, asylum, even anti immigrants!!) does not help us in our march to get what we want. By talking ill of the other group, we are actually hurting ourselves. Time and time again, it has been proved that being united works better compared to being divided. Why do we want to gain the wrath of any group unnecessarily? Its not like IV is working on undocumented issues........
Anybody can have any opinion he/she chooses to have. But don't share the opinion in a forum where the leaders are requesting/asking not to do so for the good of our advocacy.
And also, IV is for legal immigrants. Period. I don't believe it has a stand on illegal immigration. Period. There is a huge difference between the two.
more...
makeup images About: Education quotes
gapala
02-21 09:18 AM
Sheela,
when did this happen to you? Is it in the recent past or way back, looking at your post, it seems it was way back. Please confirm as lot of us think this is a recent development as we haven't heard anything about this until this thread.
when did this happen to you? Is it in the recent past or way back, looking at your post, it seems it was way back. Please confirm as lot of us think this is a recent development as we haven't heard anything about this until this thread.
girlfriend Famous inspirational Quotes by
skakodker
07-17 08:36 AM
Exactly. God foribid we lose our jobs. Before and after this announcement we are one bad earnings quarter away from being shipped back home. Its hard to enjoy life with stress like this.
jasquil
We recently experienced a miracle of unity through the hugely successful flower campaign. What a shot in the arm that was!
My suggestion to you is to keep an open mind, accepting that your circumstances aren't presently of your choosing. Once you acknowledge your stress and accept it, you will be in a better position to focus on other aspects of your life that you might be neglecting as a result of your stress - for instance, having fun.
Life is short. Choose to live.
jasquil
We recently experienced a miracle of unity through the hugely successful flower campaign. What a shot in the arm that was!
My suggestion to you is to keep an open mind, accepting that your circumstances aren't presently of your choosing. Once you acknowledge your stress and accept it, you will be in a better position to focus on other aspects of your life that you might be neglecting as a result of your stress - for instance, having fun.
Life is short. Choose to live.
hairstyles Education Quotes Inspirational
meg_z
04-03 08:04 AM
At least I think I did.
krishnam70
04-14 11:59 AM
So after more than a month of sleepless nights, thanks to Immigration Voice looks like my I 485 application is back on track.
A recap of my situation:
Last month I got an email from USCIS-CRIS stating that my I 485 was withdrawn. After being in this country for close to 10 years and in the immigration queue for more than 7 years why would I withdraw the application ??? I did not withdraw my application !!!
It took me more than a month to find out the reason behind the withdrawal..trust me it was not easy..and guess what ....It was my Attorney who had withdrawn the application in Error. Now what ... I call USCIS multiple times.. talk to many different IO's .. some of them patient and try to help.. some extremely rude.. but all of them had only one thing to say... they cannot help!!..... I get an Info Pass... no help there either.. I set up an emergency meeting with my attorney (one of the large Immigration Law Firms) .. nothing...they accept their mistake tell me that they will do all they can .. but no assurance that they will reinstate the case .. limited forward movement.... things look gloomy and bleak..no one can help me.
Then I called Immigration Voice on the number that is listed on the site and left a voice mail. Promptly got a call back I spoke to a Core member who understood the gravity and urgency of the situation and swiflty moved forward and got in touch with their contacts in the government. The Core member also put me in a conference call with the person who was going to look into my case, I was so relieved that I could explain the situation first hand.
I got a call today and I was told that after evaluating my case my file has been reopened and they have mailed an offical notice regarding the same and I should get it in a few days. *Fingers crossed until I get this notice in hand ;)*
The IV core was extremely sensitive to my situation and were very responsive and extremly helpful. I cant thank Immigration Voice enough for helping me resolve this issue in a quick manner.
I have registered to be a recurring contributing member and I intend to be an active member of this group.
My lessons from this crazy experience are:
- Never trust your attorney, always ask for a copy of any letter/document they send to USCIS on your behalf
- There is no organization besides IV out there that is looking out for the interests of the Immigrant Community.
- We need to strengthen IV in all ways we can, we need to be active.
- And as so many members have already said "We are IV." If we want things to be better "WE" need to do something about it.
I urge members who are still contemplating becoming active members to evaluate their options and to become active and contributing members of IV.
- Peace
ps:
Another point I would like to add is that no other organization has the kind of reach and the credibility with USCIS as IV has as far as representing the true interests of the Immigrant Community goes. IV is a huge asset we have and we should work towards strenthening it.
I am glad your file is back on track and kudos to IV for helping out in this dire situation. I think this needs to be a revelation to people who have been questioning IV's commitment to our cause. This case should not be construed as a template for individual calls to help for everybody. Your problem is unique and IV has been able to help. I only hope people dont start flooding the IV helpline with calls to pursue their individual cases based on delays in processing etc and then blame IV for not being able to help in their case.
This shows collective action and an honest organizational effort will go a long way in helping out the community and we should all share our responsibility in helping each other through IV.
- cheers
kris
A recap of my situation:
Last month I got an email from USCIS-CRIS stating that my I 485 was withdrawn. After being in this country for close to 10 years and in the immigration queue for more than 7 years why would I withdraw the application ??? I did not withdraw my application !!!
It took me more than a month to find out the reason behind the withdrawal..trust me it was not easy..and guess what ....It was my Attorney who had withdrawn the application in Error. Now what ... I call USCIS multiple times.. talk to many different IO's .. some of them patient and try to help.. some extremely rude.. but all of them had only one thing to say... they cannot help!!..... I get an Info Pass... no help there either.. I set up an emergency meeting with my attorney (one of the large Immigration Law Firms) .. nothing...they accept their mistake tell me that they will do all they can .. but no assurance that they will reinstate the case .. limited forward movement.... things look gloomy and bleak..no one can help me.
Then I called Immigration Voice on the number that is listed on the site and left a voice mail. Promptly got a call back I spoke to a Core member who understood the gravity and urgency of the situation and swiflty moved forward and got in touch with their contacts in the government. The Core member also put me in a conference call with the person who was going to look into my case, I was so relieved that I could explain the situation first hand.
I got a call today and I was told that after evaluating my case my file has been reopened and they have mailed an offical notice regarding the same and I should get it in a few days. *Fingers crossed until I get this notice in hand ;)*
The IV core was extremely sensitive to my situation and were very responsive and extremly helpful. I cant thank Immigration Voice enough for helping me resolve this issue in a quick manner.
I have registered to be a recurring contributing member and I intend to be an active member of this group.
My lessons from this crazy experience are:
- Never trust your attorney, always ask for a copy of any letter/document they send to USCIS on your behalf
- There is no organization besides IV out there that is looking out for the interests of the Immigrant Community.
- We need to strengthen IV in all ways we can, we need to be active.
- And as so many members have already said "We are IV." If we want things to be better "WE" need to do something about it.
I urge members who are still contemplating becoming active members to evaluate their options and to become active and contributing members of IV.
- Peace
ps:
Another point I would like to add is that no other organization has the kind of reach and the credibility with USCIS as IV has as far as representing the true interests of the Immigrant Community goes. IV is a huge asset we have and we should work towards strenthening it.
I am glad your file is back on track and kudos to IV for helping out in this dire situation. I think this needs to be a revelation to people who have been questioning IV's commitment to our cause. This case should not be construed as a template for individual calls to help for everybody. Your problem is unique and IV has been able to help. I only hope people dont start flooding the IV helpline with calls to pursue their individual cases based on delays in processing etc and then blame IV for not being able to help in their case.
This shows collective action and an honest organizational effort will go a long way in helping out the community and we should all share our responsibility in helping each other through IV.
- cheers
kris
qplearn
12-20 11:59 AM
If true this would REALLY benefit a lot of spouses especially someone like our core member Shilpa.
I am just surprised that none of the Big law firms have reported it. I guess now the h4's will have to wait till Oct 2007 to get their H1Bs
Is this a new "law"? I thought USCIS cannot pass "laws" on its own. Or this simply an intepretation of an existing legal procedure ---- which I understand USCIS is allowed to do on its own?
I am just surprised that none of the Big law firms have reported it. I guess now the h4's will have to wait till Oct 2007 to get their H1Bs
Is this a new "law"? I thought USCIS cannot pass "laws" on its own. Or this simply an intepretation of an existing legal procedure ---- which I understand USCIS is allowed to do on its own?
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar