sledge_hammer
02-27 05:57 PM
It is evident to anyone following this thread who hijacked it. I was only responding to the OP when you came here with your crappy comments about how people should not enforce personal morals on drug traffickers.
Why don't you explain to everyone how is telling the OP that we do not condone taking or selling drugs something of a personal opinion?
If your next post does not address the issue, then we all know who the real immature person is. Unless you have an answer, I will consider this case closed.
Again, you're the one whose hijacked the thread with your verbal mastur*tion.
LMAO@ "if you consider yourself tough" hahaha
so fighting anonymously over the internet in a forum is your test of being "tough" ?
haha.
Go back and do your IT coding or whatever you do.
I shall reiterate what i stated in my previous post and leave the childish internet bickering to you Mr internet "Sledgehammer" LOL
Why don't you explain to everyone how is telling the OP that we do not condone taking or selling drugs something of a personal opinion?
If your next post does not address the issue, then we all know who the real immature person is. Unless you have an answer, I will consider this case closed.
Again, you're the one whose hijacked the thread with your verbal mastur*tion.
LMAO@ "if you consider yourself tough" hahaha
so fighting anonymously over the internet in a forum is your test of being "tough" ?
haha.
Go back and do your IT coding or whatever you do.
I shall reiterate what i stated in my previous post and leave the childish internet bickering to you Mr internet "Sledgehammer" LOL
wallpaper falcons wallpaper.
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)
WeShallOvercome
07-27 03:09 PM
It is not late now.
You may send one to California Service center, one to Vermont Service center and the final one to National Support center.
I am sure you will get at least one Receipt number. :D :D
You are not a wellwisher, why did you forget the local service center where sometimes a case gets transferred to.. :D :D :D
You may send one to California Service center, one to Vermont Service center and the final one to National Support center.
I am sure you will get at least one Receipt number. :D :D
You are not a wellwisher, why did you forget the local service center where sometimes a case gets transferred to.. :D :D :D
2011 Falcons logo wallpaper but
qualified_trash
05-26 10:02 AM
Jaime,
It is easier for you to go to India if your company sends you there on an expat assignment. As the pool of available labor is very high, it is IMHO very difficult for you to go independently. You can also try to google for agencies that recruit people for specific skills etc that maybe in short supply in your specific industry. I am not sure what your skills are (IT, Sales, Marketing or Engineering etc). More information would let people give you better pointers.
It is easier for you to go to India if your company sends you there on an expat assignment. As the pool of available labor is very high, it is IMHO very difficult for you to go independently. You can also try to google for agencies that recruit people for specific skills etc that maybe in short supply in your specific industry. I am not sure what your skills are (IT, Sales, Marketing or Engineering etc). More information would let people give you better pointers.
more...
RajWantsGC
05-12 05:10 PM
Thanks Chandu. Did the same. Got I485 reopended as it is USCIS error (Filing Fee Not enclosed.) Got I797c for both of us saying that I485 reopened.
software7,
would you please let me know in detail how you approached congress men and senators?
How did you get their addresses and contact numbers? I am also in the similar situation.
software7,
would you please let me know in detail how you approached congress men and senators?
How did you get their addresses and contact numbers? I am also in the similar situation.
jfredr
08-22 11:14 AM
Thanks for posting
more...
Dhundhun
01-10 07:15 AM
IV friends,
Sub: Immigrant requiring info on Maternity insurance.
I need information about maternity insurance** in Texas (in particular Dallas). Your help and advice is highly appreciated.
What are your inputs on Maternity Advantage, I got this information from Pregnancy Insurance.org
Also please provide me info, if any, on hospitals which provides maternity insurance.
Any thoughs, suggestions, guidance, & information would be considered helpful is highly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Thanks,
Shamu
** for pregnant with individual health insurance which does not cover maternity.
What I know about America that if you don't have money, hospitals are supposed to take care, if you have money, hospital will squeeze every penny.
Once I spent over a month trying to find solution: Could not get: for a female it seems to be mandatory having maternity insurance otherwise, after pregnancy, no one insures.
I thinks people lack information in this context, so you are not getting responses.
Sub: Immigrant requiring info on Maternity insurance.
I need information about maternity insurance** in Texas (in particular Dallas). Your help and advice is highly appreciated.
What are your inputs on Maternity Advantage, I got this information from Pregnancy Insurance.org
Also please provide me info, if any, on hospitals which provides maternity insurance.
Any thoughs, suggestions, guidance, & information would be considered helpful is highly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Thanks,
Shamu
** for pregnant with individual health insurance which does not cover maternity.
What I know about America that if you don't have money, hospitals are supposed to take care, if you have money, hospital will squeeze every penny.
Once I spent over a month trying to find solution: Could not get: for a female it seems to be mandatory having maternity insurance otherwise, after pregnancy, no one insures.
I thinks people lack information in this context, so you are not getting responses.
2010 Atlanta Falcons 2008-2009
chanduv23
03-26 01:58 PM
What about H4 spouses or secondary GC applicants who are not working? How will they get DL if the DMV is asking for EVL or pay stubs?
Hmmm EVL could be their spouse's? EVL?
Hmmm EVL could be their spouse's? EVL?
more...
rdehar
07-17 10:33 AM
Clear IE/Firefox temp cache to view refreshed page. I had to do it (pressing F5 20 times did not make a difference). The dates are now updated to July 16, 2007.
hair Atlanta Falcons wallpaper,
gondalguru
07-19 01:10 PM
Dont ask me when you get an RFE for your skin test. I believe I read it on these forums that a couple of people were specifically asked about their skin test.
Even the doctors are supposed to give you a skin test and then the x-ray. If you have taken a skin test before, I think you can just take the x-ray now.
Check this link
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5494&highlight=skin+test
Most people from India will have PPD test positive as they have received BCG vaccine in childhood. PPD test in not mandatory. Negative chest xray is sufficient to prove that you are free from active TB (you may still have dormant infection but that doesn't matter at this point of time). Plus USCIS/CDC had published a guideline for civil surgeons instructing how to perform the Medical exam for immigration purposes and it clearly says that applicant can choose not to have PPD test and negative cxr will be sufficient.
Even the doctors are supposed to give you a skin test and then the x-ray. If you have taken a skin test before, I think you can just take the x-ray now.
Check this link
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5494&highlight=skin+test
Most people from India will have PPD test positive as they have received BCG vaccine in childhood. PPD test in not mandatory. Negative chest xray is sufficient to prove that you are free from active TB (you may still have dormant infection but that doesn't matter at this point of time). Plus USCIS/CDC had published a guideline for civil surgeons instructing how to perform the Medical exam for immigration purposes and it clearly says that applicant can choose not to have PPD test and negative cxr will be sufficient.
more...
sujan_vatrapu
11-03 08:39 AM
As was said somewhere else on this forum, "lets take care of the foreigners first and then take care of the dying!" Sounds - what's the word - logical!
lets stop this rhetoric on repubs, what about bobby jindal, marco rubio & nick haley and plz don't give explanations to distort the reality, many in the republicans sincerely support legal immigration, tell me few good things dems did to legal immigrants, aint regan the one who gave amnesty to illegals in 80s, aint bush the one who tried more than once to pass CIR, who opposed h1b fee increase recently?
lets stop this rhetoric on repubs, what about bobby jindal, marco rubio & nick haley and plz don't give explanations to distort the reality, many in the republicans sincerely support legal immigration, tell me few good things dems did to legal immigrants, aint regan the one who gave amnesty to illegals in 80s, aint bush the one who tried more than once to pass CIR, who opposed h1b fee increase recently?
hot Falcons Twitter Wallpaper
GC08
09-01 06:55 PM
I don't know why some people here are taking this work based immigration here as an all out war. As it is, working and staying in the US or any other country for that matter by foreigners is a priviledge, not a right. No one forced us to come here, we came here on our own free will.
Regarding the description of discrimination of job based on country, that's rather ridiculous. There is no discrimination when one has the right to work and live in the country, that doesn't mean that anyone from any country can just come here and work with or without authorization and say it's discrimination. How about the many Indian companies who hire only Indians? Aren't they practising discrimination and fraud? They don't even bother to try to find qualified people in the country, rather they just issue H1Bs right way to Indian nationals only by just declaring a bogus "can't find qualified people in the country"
If we want good things to happen to us, we should be fair and not misuse and violate the laws of the country. We all have a choice, we can either stay here and be honest and follow the laws and rules of the country, or if we don't like the way things are here we can just go back home.
Sorry to be so honest, but I am tired of every other person cribbing about being victims. Looks like everyone wants to be a victim of something, it's time we take personal responsibility. If we don't like it here in the US, we have the choice to go back home. No one is forcing us to stay here.
Thanks.
Seriously I agree with you 90%. We should follow the rules and there are definitely companies and persons abusing the system. And these type of persons sometimes themselves were once immigrants waiting for green cards.
The 10% that I do not agree with is associated with the reality of working in a country for so long (6 or 7 years) but still not getting the green cards.
You are right that nobody force you to come here. But you decison to come here is based on certain assumptions (such as getting a green card within a reasonable timeframe and in an orderly way). But because of the chaos of the whole green card thing right now, you may not be able to get your green cards within a reasonable timeframe that you had planned, not because you screwed up (say changing the employer or making a huge mistake in your work). Rather it was either your employer or those government agencies screwed you up. I think it is really the chaotic situation, where honest, hard-working people who patienly wait in line are not getting what they deserve, that make people mad.
Everyone probably can think of many examples of such "unfairness". Truth is that the situation has come to a boiling point that people can hardly stand any more, esp. when the July VB fiasco happened.
To go one step further on your point, the whole world should have a better understanding and expectation of employment-based immigration to America. When the fact is out, it is really up to the indivdual to make an informed decision without complainting.
Regarding the description of discrimination of job based on country, that's rather ridiculous. There is no discrimination when one has the right to work and live in the country, that doesn't mean that anyone from any country can just come here and work with or without authorization and say it's discrimination. How about the many Indian companies who hire only Indians? Aren't they practising discrimination and fraud? They don't even bother to try to find qualified people in the country, rather they just issue H1Bs right way to Indian nationals only by just declaring a bogus "can't find qualified people in the country"
If we want good things to happen to us, we should be fair and not misuse and violate the laws of the country. We all have a choice, we can either stay here and be honest and follow the laws and rules of the country, or if we don't like the way things are here we can just go back home.
Sorry to be so honest, but I am tired of every other person cribbing about being victims. Looks like everyone wants to be a victim of something, it's time we take personal responsibility. If we don't like it here in the US, we have the choice to go back home. No one is forcing us to stay here.
Thanks.
Seriously I agree with you 90%. We should follow the rules and there are definitely companies and persons abusing the system. And these type of persons sometimes themselves were once immigrants waiting for green cards.
The 10% that I do not agree with is associated with the reality of working in a country for so long (6 or 7 years) but still not getting the green cards.
You are right that nobody force you to come here. But you decison to come here is based on certain assumptions (such as getting a green card within a reasonable timeframe and in an orderly way). But because of the chaos of the whole green card thing right now, you may not be able to get your green cards within a reasonable timeframe that you had planned, not because you screwed up (say changing the employer or making a huge mistake in your work). Rather it was either your employer or those government agencies screwed you up. I think it is really the chaotic situation, where honest, hard-working people who patienly wait in line are not getting what they deserve, that make people mad.
Everyone probably can think of many examples of such "unfairness". Truth is that the situation has come to a boiling point that people can hardly stand any more, esp. when the July VB fiasco happened.
To go one step further on your point, the whole world should have a better understanding and expectation of employment-based immigration to America. When the fact is out, it is really up to the indivdual to make an informed decision without complainting.
more...
house Falcons, logo wallpaper by
sparky_jones
07-02 04:07 PM
Medicals : $450 (self + spouse)
Photographs: $25
Affidavits: $20
Printing/Copying/Faxing: $30
FedEx: $60
Lawyer's Fee: $2,700
Total: $ 3,285
Of course, plenty of time, effort and anxiety. May all the USCIS and DOS people responsible for this debacle rot in hell. Amen!
Photographs: $25
Affidavits: $20
Printing/Copying/Faxing: $30
FedEx: $60
Lawyer's Fee: $2,700
Total: $ 3,285
Of course, plenty of time, effort and anxiety. May all the USCIS and DOS people responsible for this debacle rot in hell. Amen!
tattoo Palm Pre Wallpaper Collection:
Sakthisagar
10-28 04:11 PM
The signature Quote of yours give an answer for your view point.
Read your Katha upanishad quote:
Wise take the path of joy and Fools take the path of pleasure. I leave it your discretion whom you are!!!:p
Wow what a revelation. intelligent guy intellgent guy pat123... what a genius.
Read your Katha upanishad quote:
Wise take the path of joy and Fools take the path of pleasure. I leave it your discretion whom you are!!!:p
Wow what a revelation. intelligent guy intellgent guy pat123... what a genius.
more...
pictures Atlanta Falcons Wallpaper by
jgh_res
06-27 04:47 PM
Nice take on the situation.
I am very surprised about the requests for cheap photos !!! What a pity.
We were ready to spend thousands of dollars just a month ago just to have the ability to apply for I485, but when you get a chance , try to save a few dollars and risk an RFE , delay in processing or even denial.
Walmart photos suck , so are CVS photos. I had them take my pictures in the past. Never used the walmart ones and CVS photos got rejected for visa revalidation. They used Polaroid camera at walmat and they were not good at all.
I took them at Macy's studio , costed me about $30 for 6 copies but they are great. Please choose a professional studio, $20 extra dollars are worth every penny.
Some one mentioned about saving $20 and have a dinner. I would rather have peace of mind knowing my pictures are good enough for USCIS than have a $20 dinner.
Just my 2 cents though. May be I am extra cautious because I got burned once :)
I am very surprised about the requests for cheap photos !!! What a pity.
We were ready to spend thousands of dollars just a month ago just to have the ability to apply for I485, but when you get a chance , try to save a few dollars and risk an RFE , delay in processing or even denial.
Walmart photos suck , so are CVS photos. I had them take my pictures in the past. Never used the walmart ones and CVS photos got rejected for visa revalidation. They used Polaroid camera at walmat and they were not good at all.
I took them at Macy's studio , costed me about $30 for 6 copies but they are great. Please choose a professional studio, $20 extra dollars are worth every penny.
Some one mentioned about saving $20 and have a dinner. I would rather have peace of mind knowing my pictures are good enough for USCIS than have a $20 dinner.
Just my 2 cents though. May be I am extra cautious because I got burned once :)
dresses Falcons iPhone Wallpaper
chanduv23
03-09 08:10 AM
Bump
more...
makeup Atlanta Falcons Wallpaper
tabletpc
01-06 01:24 AM
Venky08,
I was about to hit bed. Reading your translation...i lost my sleep..:):):):).!!!!! Reminds me of translations made in hindi movies which comes with funny sub titles..!!!!
reminds me of a popular hindi maxim:
"Shadi aisa laddoo hai jo khaye wo pacchataaye, jo na khaye wo bhi pacchataaye"
loosely translated in english it means
Marriage is a desert which if somebody eats it, he will repent and if somebody does not eat it, will repent too...
(thank god my 5th grade english teacher is no more in this world to see this day...he must be rolling in his grave seeing my poor english translation skills:D)
I was about to hit bed. Reading your translation...i lost my sleep..:):):):).!!!!! Reminds me of translations made in hindi movies which comes with funny sub titles..!!!!
reminds me of a popular hindi maxim:
"Shadi aisa laddoo hai jo khaye wo pacchataaye, jo na khaye wo bhi pacchataaye"
loosely translated in english it means
Marriage is a desert which if somebody eats it, he will repent and if somebody does not eat it, will repent too...
(thank god my 5th grade english teacher is no more in this world to see this day...he must be rolling in his grave seeing my poor english translation skills:D)
girlfriend Peregrine Falcon Wallpapers
Macaca
01-31 08:27 AM
Immigration Application Fees to Rise By 80 Percent (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001864.html).
The Bush administration will announce an increase today in immigration application fees of more than 80 percent, federal officials said yesterday.
The cost of applying for naturalization, for example, would rise from $330 to $595, and a required fingerprint check would go from $70 to $80.
The increases, which have been under consideration for months, would raise nearly $1 billion for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The troubled $2 billion-a-year agency has antiquated paper systems that have fed years-long delays for applicants and fears that terrorists might slip through the cracks.
Union, civil rights and immigrant advocacy groups called the changes discriminatory, warning that they will keep lower-income and less-educated people from becoming citizens.
"What they're saying is, people trying to become Americans are not a priority," said Cecilia Mu�oz, vice president of the National Council of La Raza, the Hispanic civil rights group.
Critics also said the changes would create an incentive for the agency to drag out processing, thereby extracting more fees, or to expedite cases for people who can afford premium services.
USCIS faces budget problems because of an increase in applications and because Congress funds it not with tax money but with user fees, which trail operational demands.
The money will allow USCIS to recoup its business costs, "provide future services, enhance national security and to modernize . . . a totally outdated business infrastructure," said an agency official who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to upstage the announcement.
Officials said the increases will not address costs that would result from an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, which the White House has proposed.
Fee increases will take effect no sooner than 120 days after they are published in the Federal Register tomorrow, including a 60-day public comment period.
The Bush administration will announce an increase today in immigration application fees of more than 80 percent, federal officials said yesterday.
The cost of applying for naturalization, for example, would rise from $330 to $595, and a required fingerprint check would go from $70 to $80.
The increases, which have been under consideration for months, would raise nearly $1 billion for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The troubled $2 billion-a-year agency has antiquated paper systems that have fed years-long delays for applicants and fears that terrorists might slip through the cracks.
Union, civil rights and immigrant advocacy groups called the changes discriminatory, warning that they will keep lower-income and less-educated people from becoming citizens.
"What they're saying is, people trying to become Americans are not a priority," said Cecilia Mu�oz, vice president of the National Council of La Raza, the Hispanic civil rights group.
Critics also said the changes would create an incentive for the agency to drag out processing, thereby extracting more fees, or to expedite cases for people who can afford premium services.
USCIS faces budget problems because of an increase in applications and because Congress funds it not with tax money but with user fees, which trail operational demands.
The money will allow USCIS to recoup its business costs, "provide future services, enhance national security and to modernize . . . a totally outdated business infrastructure," said an agency official who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to upstage the announcement.
Officials said the increases will not address costs that would result from an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, which the White House has proposed.
Fee increases will take effect no sooner than 120 days after they are published in the Federal Register tomorrow, including a 60-day public comment period.
hairstyles Atlanta Falcons Team Logo
jsb
01-05 12:59 PM
I think as a next step I will contact my Congressman after the Feb dates are released and we are still current. Do you know if it makes more sense to approach Congressman or Senator for this ? Also should I approach only 1 rep like 1 Congressman or approach both my district congressman and 2 state senators ?
We are even more screwed because since our dates are current we can not even get 2 Yr EAD or 3 yr H1 extension but you have to renew both annually.
Please share your experiences.
Getting help from a Congressman may or may not help. The only difference is that processing center is obligated to reply within a specified limit. Most likely, if dates are outside advertised processing dates, they will send standard reply that your case is pending, or if by that time there is a retrogression (and your PD is not current any more), they will simply say that your PD is not current (they also attach a copy of latest bulletin). Sometimes they wait until retrogression happens, so that they can provide a convenient reply. That's what happened on Ombudsman's intervention in my case.
We are even more screwed because since our dates are current we can not even get 2 Yr EAD or 3 yr H1 extension but you have to renew both annually.
Please share your experiences.
Getting help from a Congressman may or may not help. The only difference is that processing center is obligated to reply within a specified limit. Most likely, if dates are outside advertised processing dates, they will send standard reply that your case is pending, or if by that time there is a retrogression (and your PD is not current any more), they will simply say that your PD is not current (they also attach a copy of latest bulletin). Sometimes they wait until retrogression happens, so that they can provide a convenient reply. That's what happened on Ombudsman's intervention in my case.
sdrblr
08-17 10:08 PM
still waiting patiently :)....
payur
06-28 09:36 PM
rajakannan , since you started the thread and you called for this, please tell us the plan and strategy. What do you think will be the best option so we can spread the word?
come on buddy, we just have 2 more days, we should plan by then. why are you sleeping at this time. you should be working 24 x 7.
come on buddy, we just have 2 more days, we should plan by then. why are you sleeping at this time. you should be working 24 x 7.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar