kumarc123
03-12 02:11 PM
You are accusing IV for cheating before saying IV is a great platform. Can't you make up your mind. You sound more like that Congressman Massa from NY. I am no Glenn beck so now don't start to tickle me.
No one is accusing IV
All we are looking for is some questions, and asking IV to hold something more tangible which attract more members for a cause. A lot of people are loosing faith, to be honest, I lost mine in IV, as I did my contributions pertaining to letters, faxes and other stuff.
However I have not don't any monetary contribution, and the reason is, I want to see some more transparency. I was not a July filer and I have urged IV and Pappu several times to hold something, a rally or some time type of event that attracts attention. But somehow IV does not initiate any attempts.
I want to ask you this, taking the current situations in to consideration, new rules against H1b, more rigidness towards immigrants, why has this organization not initiated something after summer of 2007.
I am sorry, I am not going to buy the notion, we met USCIS and informed them Jack & Jill, in that case where are the results, efficiency is measured by results and not by attempts.
Come back to IV in 2 weeks, and see it for yourself, if this organization attempts to do something or just ignore the posts.
Being a non profit organization, as IV, it runs on people and their involvement. How can organization sustain growth or even stability at this point in time, when no attempts are made to attract new members.
There will be some who will disagree with me, critique me and call me names. But I believe I expressed myself clearly and have not questioned any one's integrity, however I have questioned the efficiency of applied attempts in the past by IV. There are a lot like me, who wants to do something for the cause, bu we need the organization to act like one, and bring in more more transparency to its attempts.
Just in the beginning of the day, I had 5 greens and now reds, I assure you colors don't make a difference, however if their is any sanity to what I said, please think and act rationally.
Thank you
No one is accusing IV
All we are looking for is some questions, and asking IV to hold something more tangible which attract more members for a cause. A lot of people are loosing faith, to be honest, I lost mine in IV, as I did my contributions pertaining to letters, faxes and other stuff.
However I have not don't any monetary contribution, and the reason is, I want to see some more transparency. I was not a July filer and I have urged IV and Pappu several times to hold something, a rally or some time type of event that attracts attention. But somehow IV does not initiate any attempts.
I want to ask you this, taking the current situations in to consideration, new rules against H1b, more rigidness towards immigrants, why has this organization not initiated something after summer of 2007.
I am sorry, I am not going to buy the notion, we met USCIS and informed them Jack & Jill, in that case where are the results, efficiency is measured by results and not by attempts.
Come back to IV in 2 weeks, and see it for yourself, if this organization attempts to do something or just ignore the posts.
Being a non profit organization, as IV, it runs on people and their involvement. How can organization sustain growth or even stability at this point in time, when no attempts are made to attract new members.
There will be some who will disagree with me, critique me and call me names. But I believe I expressed myself clearly and have not questioned any one's integrity, however I have questioned the efficiency of applied attempts in the past by IV. There are a lot like me, who wants to do something for the cause, bu we need the organization to act like one, and bring in more more transparency to its attempts.
Just in the beginning of the day, I had 5 greens and now reds, I assure you colors don't make a difference, however if their is any sanity to what I said, please think and act rationally.
Thank you
wallpaper Hindu Goddess Saraswati
spicy_guy
07-27 05:45 PM
Everest Consulting Group Inc is really good. I know them personally for more than 10 years now & they do what they say and do NOT torture their employees like many other consulting firms. I just got my GC thru them :)
I hope this helps somebody & please let me know if I can be any further help!
Thanks.
Ramesh.
I just remember. It sounds like an radio ad by a talk radio host, Sean Hennity, Rush limbaugh, etc :D
"Axis Bank is great. They are the bay are experts. I know them personally. I worked with them for years, etc. etc..." :D :D
Just kidding...
I hope this helps somebody & please let me know if I can be any further help!
Thanks.
Ramesh.
I just remember. It sounds like an radio ad by a talk radio host, Sean Hennity, Rush limbaugh, etc :D
"Axis Bank is great. They are the bay are experts. I know them personally. I worked with them for years, etc. etc..." :D :D
Just kidding...
vicsthedude
09-17 03:14 PM
I changed employer and location. So I was asked to clarify the location change if I am still with the sponsoring employer or submit a letter from a current employer stating duties salary etc. Replied to them and they are evaluating the response.
2011 Goddess Saraswati
newbee7
07-09 03:54 PM
I dont think legally you can sue someone, because they have worked harder.
I posted this link , so that everybody may know the legal reasons, which we can be presented in a court of law.
If this lawsuit is accepted by the court , then the USCIS lawyers would tell what exactly happened.
I till now personally believe , that the USCIS/DOS hasnt broken any law.
They may have however changed a pettern,process , but no law has been broken.
Delhiguy,
YES! They did broke law by provisioning visa numbers for applications that had not cleared FBI check. Their book clearly says the visa number needs to be alloted only after the application is 100% ready for adjudication.
I posted this link , so that everybody may know the legal reasons, which we can be presented in a court of law.
If this lawsuit is accepted by the court , then the USCIS lawyers would tell what exactly happened.
I till now personally believe , that the USCIS/DOS hasnt broken any law.
They may have however changed a pettern,process , but no law has been broken.
Delhiguy,
YES! They did broke law by provisioning visa numbers for applications that had not cleared FBI check. Their book clearly says the visa number needs to be alloted only after the application is 100% ready for adjudication.
more...
mbawa2574
02-17 08:51 AM
don't worry my friend.. it's not u.. that dummy has been using this fascist style of discussion on all threads
just ignore him.. it infuriates him like hell.. u'll be amused with his later responses :)
Supporting racism and calling me dummy. you planted b* Go and take a$$ out of here , you don't belong here. You have come out of a gutter to this country and gutter is the only place you deserve.
just ignore him.. it infuriates him like hell.. u'll be amused with his later responses :)
Supporting racism and calling me dummy. you planted b* Go and take a$$ out of here , you don't belong here. You have come out of a gutter to this country and gutter is the only place you deserve.
StarSun
09-10 11:01 AM
One of the main things that could help us to make a correct guess is number of approved and pending I-140s per country per year of priority.
USCIs shouldn't say they don't have this data and we shouldn't say we never requested this
While there is nothing wrong in knowing the correct pending numbers, there is nothing to gain actually from it. If the goal is to guess correctly when you will be current, then this is worthwhile!!
USCIs shouldn't say they don't have this data and we shouldn't say we never requested this
While there is nothing wrong in knowing the correct pending numbers, there is nothing to gain actually from it. If the goal is to guess correctly when you will be current, then this is worthwhile!!
more...
xyzgc
12-10 08:22 PM
even if we could do population control, another thing we would need is a time machine to go back and implement the control with retroactive effect. is there anyone who has been working on a time machine? How is it coming? :D:D:D:D
I've a time machine. you want it?:D Its gonna cost you man:p
I've a time machine. you want it?:D Its gonna cost you man:p
2010 Goddess Saraswati
gapala
05-28 07:20 PM
Look how irresponsible the officers have become now a days.. they lie.. intemidate and harass the people... feels like 3rd world country... unbelievable!
Here's the story.. http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=10440200
PADEN, Oklahoma -- An Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper and a paramedic were caught on tape scuffling Sunday while a patient was being taken to the hospital.
The fight happened on Highway 62, near Paden, after a OHP and first responders argued over a close call on the road.
OHP alleges that one of the paramedics on the video assaulted the trooper, but the assault was not caught on tape.
"We're like trying to tell the guy, 'Dude, my mom is in the back,' and my stepdad was like, 'My wife is in the back. Can we do this at the hospital?'" said Kenyada Davis.
Kenyada Davis' mother was the woman in the back of the ambulance being treated for heat exhaustion.
He was able to shoot the altercation with his cell phone's camera.
Davis said it all started because the ambulance failed to yield to OHP troopers, who were en route to a call along highway 62 in Paden.
Davis said the driver of the ambulance was trying to avoid hitting a car that slowed down and wasn't aware of troopers nearby until it was too late.
"He slowed down, and as the car was getting over, that's when he passed us," Davis said. "I didn't hear him."
But after OHP troopers finished their official business, they pulled the Creek Nation ambulance over. One of the troopers chided Paul for failing to yield.
Once the ambulance was pulled over, Davis pulled out his phone and shot video of the scene.
Video is here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KluItc365hU
Here's the story.. http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=10440200
PADEN, Oklahoma -- An Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper and a paramedic were caught on tape scuffling Sunday while a patient was being taken to the hospital.
The fight happened on Highway 62, near Paden, after a OHP and first responders argued over a close call on the road.
OHP alleges that one of the paramedics on the video assaulted the trooper, but the assault was not caught on tape.
"We're like trying to tell the guy, 'Dude, my mom is in the back,' and my stepdad was like, 'My wife is in the back. Can we do this at the hospital?'" said Kenyada Davis.
Kenyada Davis' mother was the woman in the back of the ambulance being treated for heat exhaustion.
He was able to shoot the altercation with his cell phone's camera.
Davis said it all started because the ambulance failed to yield to OHP troopers, who were en route to a call along highway 62 in Paden.
Davis said the driver of the ambulance was trying to avoid hitting a car that slowed down and wasn't aware of troopers nearby until it was too late.
"He slowed down, and as the car was getting over, that's when he passed us," Davis said. "I didn't hear him."
But after OHP troopers finished their official business, they pulled the Creek Nation ambulance over. One of the troopers chided Paul for failing to yield.
Once the ambulance was pulled over, Davis pulled out his phone and shot video of the scene.
Video is here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KluItc365hU
more...
jsb
08-17 11:25 AM
hi everyone,
I want to get feedback about the possibility of pursuing PERM for EB2 and still capture my PD for EB3. Here is my situation.
I am a South Korean with PD in Dec. 04 on EB3. I filed I-485 along with EAD & AP on 7/25/07.
I recently got a master's degree in another field, and my current job can hire me in a different position.
Q1. If I ask my employer to file PERM on EB2 for the new position requiring the master's degree, I should be able to capture the PD (12/04) for my EB3, right?
Q2. Based on the september visa bulletin, should I wait on the EB-3 AOD application to be processed or would it be faster to switch to EB-2 and refile I-485? Please explain why.
Thanks.
If your employer files PERM now for the new position under EB2, LC is needed before your employer can file new I-140. I don't know if this will impact your original PD
I want to get feedback about the possibility of pursuing PERM for EB2 and still capture my PD for EB3. Here is my situation.
I am a South Korean with PD in Dec. 04 on EB3. I filed I-485 along with EAD & AP on 7/25/07.
I recently got a master's degree in another field, and my current job can hire me in a different position.
Q1. If I ask my employer to file PERM on EB2 for the new position requiring the master's degree, I should be able to capture the PD (12/04) for my EB3, right?
Q2. Based on the september visa bulletin, should I wait on the EB-3 AOD application to be processed or would it be faster to switch to EB-2 and refile I-485? Please explain why.
Thanks.
If your employer files PERM now for the new position under EB2, LC is needed before your employer can file new I-140. I don't know if this will impact your original PD
hair Hindu goddess quot;Saraswatiquot;
lahiribaba
03-10 11:44 AM
You are partly right, but the problem does not end there. Lot of it has to do with the disorderly way the applications were/are being picked up. All the old applications were pushed to BECs and newer perm applications were picked up for processing. The dates were abruptly moved forward which allowed USCIS to approve newer 485 applications before the dates were pushed back. I am a victim of both these cases� Also, there has been a lot of wastage of visa numbers. If none of these happened I am sure the EB3 dates would have move forward without getting stagnated in 2001.
well you got to re plumb once in a while dont you?
the water and drainage system that worked 100 years ago does not work now ... or does it?
well you got to re plumb once in a while dont you?
the water and drainage system that worked 100 years ago does not work now ... or does it?
more...
sam_hoosier
12-13 04:05 PM
You can get a colleague who has worked with you in the old company to give you an experience letter on his letterhead, and that will work for GC purposes.
hot Hindu Goddess Saraswati the
transpass
04-10 12:07 PM
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
more...
house Craft Goddess Saraswati
mbartosik
09-19 03:52 AM
first - glad you liked my little skit / comedy show, Arman asked me to write a speech, I don't think that was quite what he had in mind when he asked me to speak :D
That was actually a toned down version of my skit :D I took out many of gags and would have loved to put more in.
I hope that a video will be posted, the crowd reaction was fantastic, at least that's what it sounded like from the stage. I had so many people coming up to me after. I've still not quite come down from it. It was fun to deliver too.
------
I like to idea of legalimmigrationvoice.org
legalimmigrationvoice.com points here, but I see that
legalimmigrationvoice.org has this
"If you are interested to have this website please contact us at registerflyaccount@yahoo.com"
I hope that was one of us that registered it (not a camper).
On the rally I saw lots of positive reactions, and just one negative reaction, and I think that he could not read or just assumed illegal, he called out "it will never happen". Even if we had signs that said "We are legal" some would still assume that we were undocumented because they would think that we were only claiming not to be criminals since crossing the boarder without presenting oneself for inspection is technically a civil offense I think. If we all wore suits the mistake would have been made less. The undocumented issue is so embedded in the public's minds.
Signs do need to be more brief.
The anonymity of a forum alias is not a good thing I think. Although the aliases are often cute. Some people called and asked if they had to give their names at registration. The boggy man will not get us! Big brother is not watching, remember he can only afford $2 for name check, so he cannot afford prospection glasses. Also it is handy to know people's names.
Yes we are mostly Indian and mostly Indian and Chinese have really bad delays. But it is unhelpful refer to Indians and Chinese joining forces, or this being an Indian org. etc. I put a lot of effort into trying to show my face in places to make the point that we are not just Indians and Chinese.
(Being a minority Anglo Saxon here I also put a lot of effort into emphasizing dropping country quotas.)
I wore a suit, 3 piece, yes my shirt was sweaty, but that was not caused by the rally it is was my crazy schedule of back to back meetings, and running around logistics organizing. Ironically I rarely wear a suit at work.
Maybe holding a few signs with our job titles would make the point. I think that would have helped reporters pick people out for interviews.
I think that Aman learnt that he needed at least 2 personal assistants on the day.
That was actually a toned down version of my skit :D I took out many of gags and would have loved to put more in.
I hope that a video will be posted, the crowd reaction was fantastic, at least that's what it sounded like from the stage. I had so many people coming up to me after. I've still not quite come down from it. It was fun to deliver too.
------
I like to idea of legalimmigrationvoice.org
legalimmigrationvoice.com points here, but I see that
legalimmigrationvoice.org has this
"If you are interested to have this website please contact us at registerflyaccount@yahoo.com"
I hope that was one of us that registered it (not a camper).
On the rally I saw lots of positive reactions, and just one negative reaction, and I think that he could not read or just assumed illegal, he called out "it will never happen". Even if we had signs that said "We are legal" some would still assume that we were undocumented because they would think that we were only claiming not to be criminals since crossing the boarder without presenting oneself for inspection is technically a civil offense I think. If we all wore suits the mistake would have been made less. The undocumented issue is so embedded in the public's minds.
Signs do need to be more brief.
The anonymity of a forum alias is not a good thing I think. Although the aliases are often cute. Some people called and asked if they had to give their names at registration. The boggy man will not get us! Big brother is not watching, remember he can only afford $2 for name check, so he cannot afford prospection glasses. Also it is handy to know people's names.
Yes we are mostly Indian and mostly Indian and Chinese have really bad delays. But it is unhelpful refer to Indians and Chinese joining forces, or this being an Indian org. etc. I put a lot of effort into trying to show my face in places to make the point that we are not just Indians and Chinese.
(Being a minority Anglo Saxon here I also put a lot of effort into emphasizing dropping country quotas.)
I wore a suit, 3 piece, yes my shirt was sweaty, but that was not caused by the rally it is was my crazy schedule of back to back meetings, and running around logistics organizing. Ironically I rarely wear a suit at work.
Maybe holding a few signs with our job titles would make the point. I think that would have helped reporters pick people out for interviews.
I think that Aman learnt that he needed at least 2 personal assistants on the day.
tattoo images of goddess saraswati.
dummgelauft
08-21 12:51 PM
I did not marry the man I was engaged to. I came here initially for ONE month and was approved at the airport customs terminal to stay that long. When I got here, it was for a visit with my fiance only. Unfortunately, things did not work out and we broke it off. Thank God! However, I was staying with his uncle and aunt, and they had a disabled man in the house. HE turned out to be my sponsor when they asked me to care for him while they were doing long haul trucking. I agreed to do this and we immediately contacted USCIS to get instructions on what needed to be filed first. With that information in hand, we filed everything they requested. All the stuff on the RFE I received has never been mentioned before now and if it had, it would have been filed along with the rest. There are tons of applications, how is one supposed to know what to file and when if there are no specific instructions? I have gone through all the copies we have of all the required applications and I still do not see anything where all these other forms were to be filed along with the I-485.
Nothing was done illegally. He filed the application on my behalf, signed, sealed and delivered it himself. I did not do this on my own, I just signed whatever I was required to sign, he did the rest.
If all of this was illegal, then why was I not informed of this nearly 6 years ago when we filed the first application? Seems a bit odd that if I was illegal and they know where I am and who I live with that they wouldn't be quick to throw me out, but they have not done so.
My former fiance has nothing to do with this, I never intended to stay here when I first came, it was merely a visit but circumstances were such that I was needed at a moment's notice so we filed the necessary paperwork as quickly as possible and thought we were doing the right thing. No one has ever said otherwise until now and I think that is rather unfair to spring it all on me at this point and expect me to get it all done within 30 days. I know I am not the only applicant out there and I realize there is a huge backlog of other applications, I'm not that stupid to think that they will make me a priority, but one measly letter informing me that I was here illegally sometime over a 6 year period is not asking to much is it? Why would they send me all the other Notices of Action if I was here illegally and they knew it?
Something is terribly screwed up and I guess I have no choice but to find an attorney who can deal with this mess.
Okay, It is still a bit fuzzy, but lot clearer than your initial post. Almost all of us here on this forum are professionally qualified Employment Based applicants, with fairly straightforward, albeit extremently slow moving cases. Nearly all of us have been sponsored by our employers and we make sure that we are legal, in this country, every day of the year.
Now, coming to your case.
I am certain this "disabled man" you are caring for, had all good intentions, but he screwed up royally. You can not just "apply for a I-485". There has to be a basis from one of the following
(1) Family based
(2) Employment based
(3) Humanitarian / Refugee
(4) Diversity Based
It is still not clear, what CATEGORY he applied for you under.
(a) Can not be family based (you are not his spouse, child, sibling etc)
(b) You CERTAINLY DO NOT qualify under Employment based application.
(c) You absolutey CAN NOT apply under Refugee or Diversity (Canadians are shut out of diversity visa quota)
So, it is now time to stop pretending that you "were needed here". Nobody is indispensible.
Get your self back in to Cananda and work towards building your life back up.
Bon fin semaine!!
Nothing was done illegally. He filed the application on my behalf, signed, sealed and delivered it himself. I did not do this on my own, I just signed whatever I was required to sign, he did the rest.
If all of this was illegal, then why was I not informed of this nearly 6 years ago when we filed the first application? Seems a bit odd that if I was illegal and they know where I am and who I live with that they wouldn't be quick to throw me out, but they have not done so.
My former fiance has nothing to do with this, I never intended to stay here when I first came, it was merely a visit but circumstances were such that I was needed at a moment's notice so we filed the necessary paperwork as quickly as possible and thought we were doing the right thing. No one has ever said otherwise until now and I think that is rather unfair to spring it all on me at this point and expect me to get it all done within 30 days. I know I am not the only applicant out there and I realize there is a huge backlog of other applications, I'm not that stupid to think that they will make me a priority, but one measly letter informing me that I was here illegally sometime over a 6 year period is not asking to much is it? Why would they send me all the other Notices of Action if I was here illegally and they knew it?
Something is terribly screwed up and I guess I have no choice but to find an attorney who can deal with this mess.
Okay, It is still a bit fuzzy, but lot clearer than your initial post. Almost all of us here on this forum are professionally qualified Employment Based applicants, with fairly straightforward, albeit extremently slow moving cases. Nearly all of us have been sponsored by our employers and we make sure that we are legal, in this country, every day of the year.
Now, coming to your case.
I am certain this "disabled man" you are caring for, had all good intentions, but he screwed up royally. You can not just "apply for a I-485". There has to be a basis from one of the following
(1) Family based
(2) Employment based
(3) Humanitarian / Refugee
(4) Diversity Based
It is still not clear, what CATEGORY he applied for you under.
(a) Can not be family based (you are not his spouse, child, sibling etc)
(b) You CERTAINLY DO NOT qualify under Employment based application.
(c) You absolutey CAN NOT apply under Refugee or Diversity (Canadians are shut out of diversity visa quota)
So, it is now time to stop pretending that you "were needed here". Nobody is indispensible.
Get your self back in to Cananda and work towards building your life back up.
Bon fin semaine!!
more...
pictures Devi (goddess) Saraswati
dpp
03-18 03:38 PM
it will not move past March 2004....that is when PERM was started, and everyone with pending EB3's doubled-downed with a second EB2 application. Its time to feel the pain of that now!!!
PERM started on March 2005, not 2004.
PERM started on March 2005, not 2004.
dresses Hindu Goddess Lakshmi, is the
hpandey
06-10 12:46 PM
I think we should also work on making sure that Mr Grassley et al don't get elected to the Senate the next time so that they are not able to bring these useless racist amendments. They will only realize it when it will hurt them politically. All the H1b's and AOS people have relatives or friends who are well qualified to vote . They should encourage everyone to vote against these bigoted people .:mad:
more...
makeup Goddess Saraswati Who is the
senthil1
10-15 03:01 PM
It is not good to use Gandhi name in this. He fought for poor and downtrodden people. He fought against discrimination. And also he lead freedom fight. Because of his simplicity and leadership so many people sacrifice the life for the success.This case is not even close to that. Most immigrants and potential immigrants are within Top 20% of US population. Also there is no viloation of law or human rights. Immigration is controversial issue and there is a feeling that other people are impacted by immigration(It may not be true).
Real protest is leaving country but that will not have any impact as there are many people waiting in India and China to fill the position if anyone leave. Best method is lobbying and waiting for ecomomy to improve. There is bright chance for CIR in 2009 and lobbying that time may bring good results.
If Gandhi would have thought the same way!
We must protest and it has to be a unified process. Last time we were really successful. It was one of the factors why they allowed everyone to file EAD - partial independence. Take it positive.
Real protest is leaving country but that will not have any impact as there are many people waiting in India and China to fill the position if anyone leave. Best method is lobbying and waiting for ecomomy to improve. There is bright chance for CIR in 2009 and lobbying that time may bring good results.
If Gandhi would have thought the same way!
We must protest and it has to be a unified process. Last time we were really successful. It was one of the factors why they allowed everyone to file EAD - partial independence. Take it positive.
girlfriend Goddess Saraswati Marble
gc28262
06-11 01:28 PM
If you really believe that this bogus bill will become a Law, then also see the real picture, that is why I posted the other Ifs.
This Bill is titled as "Employ America Act". By having the GC, you are not an American. If you do not know the rule here it is, GC is a "Privilege", and it is not a "Right". So if this Bill passes all these people with alerady having GC will also need to pack their Bags and Go. That is the reality, dude.
So again and again do not fall over it. If you respond to this Bill, and Vote "No" against it, you are trying to send wrong messages to the originators of the bill, that we are scared. Why you guys are making everyone scared, when there is nothing to be scared about.
Please fill in your profile !
This Bill is titled as "Employ America Act". By having the GC, you are not an American. If you do not know the rule here it is, GC is a "Privilege", and it is not a "Right". So if this Bill passes all these people with alerady having GC will also need to pack their Bags and Go. That is the reality, dude.
So again and again do not fall over it. If you respond to this Bill, and Vote "No" against it, you are trying to send wrong messages to the originators of the bill, that we are scared. Why you guys are making everyone scared, when there is nothing to be scared about.
Please fill in your profile !
hairstyles Saraswati, goddess of
.soulty
02-16 07:23 PM
thanks grinch and thirdworldman(shheshh do you have a shorter username? lol)
nice render eilsoe :thumb:
nice render eilsoe :thumb:
singhsa3
03-03 01:48 PM
Consider this:
Even though IV has 25000 "registered" members. There are only 400-500 visitors. The same people visit the site often. The number of visitors dramatically increase, if there are newsworthy events that affects most of the people.
So the sample size is NOT 25K but around 500, based on the daily visits.
This of course is not a whole lot but Idea is not to be statistically correct but to feed newsworthy information to the Media, and here are the facts.
a) 1 MM people in the line for EB green card
b) All of them highly skilled with at least bachelors
c) Average income 75K +
d) Average family size: Slightly more than 2 .
e) Life Dream : The American Dream
f) Bottleneck to the life dream : The long ,excruciating backlogs.
whats the point? 33 out of 23000 members have voted. Any result here is well beyond all statistical margins of error. Unless atleast 5000 people vote, this poll has no point. The mathematicians among us can derive the exact number, but participation has to be much greater than 33 if this has to be representative of the IV membership.
Even though IV has 25000 "registered" members. There are only 400-500 visitors. The same people visit the site often. The number of visitors dramatically increase, if there are newsworthy events that affects most of the people.
So the sample size is NOT 25K but around 500, based on the daily visits.
This of course is not a whole lot but Idea is not to be statistically correct but to feed newsworthy information to the Media, and here are the facts.
a) 1 MM people in the line for EB green card
b) All of them highly skilled with at least bachelors
c) Average income 75K +
d) Average family size: Slightly more than 2 .
e) Life Dream : The American Dream
f) Bottleneck to the life dream : The long ,excruciating backlogs.
whats the point? 33 out of 23000 members have voted. Any result here is well beyond all statistical margins of error. Unless atleast 5000 people vote, this poll has no point. The mathematicians among us can derive the exact number, but participation has to be much greater than 33 if this has to be representative of the IV membership.
.soulty
03-09 08:00 PM
just enter whatever you have on the date and then fix it up after.. no drama, you can always use this piece for a portfolio or something and you can showcase it later.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar