mallikonnet
06-10 09:26 PM
done
wallpaper Women Krystal Forscutt
like_watching_paint_dry
11-18 11:38 AM
How long can we keep our career on hold..
I have decided to switch with a better job and restart with PERM. Anyway, EB3/2003 PD is no GOLD.
Even if some law gets passed in 2007. With new EB2, I will get GC may be max 1/2 years later.
What do you think?
You guys won't believe how glad I am to read a few posts here where some people are standing up for themselves and refusing to take bullshit from certain lousy employers. This will send a message to those kinds of employers that they can't use the immigration system and treat employees like shit while continuing to profit from these hard-working people.
abc, just one suggestion for you. If you can, hold off until your I-140 gets approved. Once that happens, your 2003 priority date will stick and you can take it with you ( USCIS internal I-140 adjudication manual for your reference ... http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrel...h22_091206R.pdf )
I wish you all the best with your life.
lwpd
I have decided to switch with a better job and restart with PERM. Anyway, EB3/2003 PD is no GOLD.
Even if some law gets passed in 2007. With new EB2, I will get GC may be max 1/2 years later.
What do you think?
You guys won't believe how glad I am to read a few posts here where some people are standing up for themselves and refusing to take bullshit from certain lousy employers. This will send a message to those kinds of employers that they can't use the immigration system and treat employees like shit while continuing to profit from these hard-working people.
abc, just one suggestion for you. If you can, hold off until your I-140 gets approved. Once that happens, your 2003 priority date will stick and you can take it with you ( USCIS internal I-140 adjudication manual for your reference ... http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrel...h22_091206R.pdf )
I wish you all the best with your life.
lwpd
lc1978
02-16 03:41 PM
You just made a payment of $ 100.00
Your receipt number for this payment is: 4704-4941-3704-4919.
All the best
Your receipt number for this payment is: 4704-4941-3704-4919.
All the best
2011 Krystal Forscutt 005 1920x1200
spicy_guy
08-11 11:46 AM
Are we concluding that we will not have any support from IV for EB3?
Can we draft a letter to USCIS and push it through the founding fathers of IV?
I have an idea, can we connect to a lobbyist who can push the legal immigration. Immigration lawyers, construction companies, banks etc will be the ones benefiting in resolving EB issues. Can they sponsor. Please consider this as me just sharing my thoughts.
Everyone wants to do that. But the question is how?
Can we draft a letter to USCIS and push it through the founding fathers of IV?
I have an idea, can we connect to a lobbyist who can push the legal immigration. Immigration lawyers, construction companies, banks etc will be the ones benefiting in resolving EB issues. Can they sponsor. Please consider this as me just sharing my thoughts.
Everyone wants to do that. But the question is how?
more...
voldemar
06-22 03:11 PM
Can you please provide the link ?
I refered to USCIS website but did not find a mention of copies of DL.
There is no link - it's people experience. There are a lot of guys who got RFE for color copy. Search forums if you want proof.
I refered to USCIS website but did not find a mention of copies of DL.
There is no link - it's people experience. There are a lot of guys who got RFE for color copy. Search forums if you want proof.
pappu
12-25 06:50 PM
If you create groups on yahoo or google make sure you do not miss out on members that come to this thread for updates on state chapter and wish to join.
more...
coolmanasip
03-07 09:45 AM
you are lucky man.....what you say makes sense.......but here is the reality.......
GC process is 3 step process and the lawyer is representing you (485 stage) as well as the employer (labor and 140 stage)........So, if you leave the employer, most lawyers will refuse to continue to represent you unless they authorized in written by the employer....it is a conflict of interest for them.......hence, I think I will go to some other lawyer for AC 21......and thats why the money.....
It is bit shocking to know that one will have to pay for just AC21 notification. I mean, if you already have lawyer associated with your GC file, which I believe, most of us should have either appointed by our employer OR hired by ourselves (Many companies give a choice to hire "your own" lawyer). I understand that since one change the employment, the general criteria is to assume that the lawyer (If paticularly appointed by past employer) is now no more attached to the case. But in truth it is not. Fulfilling AC21 notification is part of the whole end to end package since case remains same unless you notify USCIS to change your attorney. In my case I was given a choice to hire "My Own lawyer" and once I started to work on EAD, virtually now he is my lawyer not "my employer's lawyer" and hence he will be sending AC21 related paperwork to USCIS though he told me that he would not do it right now as he is busy with H1 filing load. And yes no extra cost involved..
GC process is 3 step process and the lawyer is representing you (485 stage) as well as the employer (labor and 140 stage)........So, if you leave the employer, most lawyers will refuse to continue to represent you unless they authorized in written by the employer....it is a conflict of interest for them.......hence, I think I will go to some other lawyer for AC 21......and thats why the money.....
It is bit shocking to know that one will have to pay for just AC21 notification. I mean, if you already have lawyer associated with your GC file, which I believe, most of us should have either appointed by our employer OR hired by ourselves (Many companies give a choice to hire "your own" lawyer). I understand that since one change the employment, the general criteria is to assume that the lawyer (If paticularly appointed by past employer) is now no more attached to the case. But in truth it is not. Fulfilling AC21 notification is part of the whole end to end package since case remains same unless you notify USCIS to change your attorney. In my case I was given a choice to hire "My Own lawyer" and once I started to work on EAD, virtually now he is my lawyer not "my employer's lawyer" and hence he will be sending AC21 related paperwork to USCIS though he told me that he would not do it right now as he is busy with H1 filing load. And yes no extra cost involved..
2010 Krystal Forscutt
njboy
09-26 11:49 AM
here we are busy trashing each other, while in the cnn artile, everyone has joined together and is bashing us...
http://fsbfeatures.blogs.fsb.com/2007/09/25/should-the-us-grant-more-h-1b-visas/#comments
I have not seen a single person say positive things about the h1-b program. Instead of infighting here, can we all go there and try to justify the need for skilled labor? Everyone seems to say..they should hire from US...but they forget that there is noone in US to hire. This one sided bashing by anti-immigrants/ racists will only damage our position.
http://fsbfeatures.blogs.fsb.com/2007/09/25/should-the-us-grant-more-h-1b-visas/#comments
I have not seen a single person say positive things about the h1-b program. Instead of infighting here, can we all go there and try to justify the need for skilled labor? Everyone seems to say..they should hire from US...but they forget that there is noone in US to hire. This one sided bashing by anti-immigrants/ racists will only damage our position.
more...
pappu
02-03 10:01 AM
Guys,
I know ROW country may not like this thread, but look at EB-3 India or China, put yourself in our shoes and than you may realize how unfair this country is. In this unprecedented financial turmoil, I feel there are very remote chances for CIR or any package which increase immigration etc would pass, I am taking this initiative to gather as many people I can and go to washington. Again this is not an IV effort. If you are with me , you can spare some time or few days in Washington, please PM me. our sole agenda is bring a 2 line bill to remove country quota...
Hello Mirage,
could you please update your profile dates so that it can help everyone in IV tracker. Thanks.
While your concern is genuine, our experience says it is not that easy to remove country quota with a 2 line bill. IV will advocate for it, but understand that it will not happen in isolation and it is not feasible in an isolated bill. Lot of ROW have this misconception that IV just wants to remove country caps and help people of particular countries. That is not true. Our aim is to end retrogression for 'everyone'. Country caps is one of the ways by which we aim to do that. But understand an immigration bill will not have just country cap removal. That is not practical. There will be recapture and other possible measures like raising limit or backlog elimination specific measures with time limit.
So do not fan emotions through the post because people start getting agitated without fully understanding the reality and what and how IV aims to approach this problem.
We prefer that we help clear misunderstandings with other fellow members whenever they argue on this topic.
I know ROW country may not like this thread, but look at EB-3 India or China, put yourself in our shoes and than you may realize how unfair this country is. In this unprecedented financial turmoil, I feel there are very remote chances for CIR or any package which increase immigration etc would pass, I am taking this initiative to gather as many people I can and go to washington. Again this is not an IV effort. If you are with me , you can spare some time or few days in Washington, please PM me. our sole agenda is bring a 2 line bill to remove country quota...
Hello Mirage,
could you please update your profile dates so that it can help everyone in IV tracker. Thanks.
While your concern is genuine, our experience says it is not that easy to remove country quota with a 2 line bill. IV will advocate for it, but understand that it will not happen in isolation and it is not feasible in an isolated bill. Lot of ROW have this misconception that IV just wants to remove country caps and help people of particular countries. That is not true. Our aim is to end retrogression for 'everyone'. Country caps is one of the ways by which we aim to do that. But understand an immigration bill will not have just country cap removal. That is not practical. There will be recapture and other possible measures like raising limit or backlog elimination specific measures with time limit.
So do not fan emotions through the post because people start getting agitated without fully understanding the reality and what and how IV aims to approach this problem.
We prefer that we help clear misunderstandings with other fellow members whenever they argue on this topic.
hair Krystal Forscutt IX
needGCcool
03-12 09:42 AM
Priyah Dosto,
Visa Bulletin Gaand Mein Ley Lao Ab..... Kuch nahi hone waala.
Look in the mirror and repeat what you wrote DICK HEAD!
Visa Bulletin Gaand Mein Ley Lao Ab..... Kuch nahi hone waala.
Look in the mirror and repeat what you wrote DICK HEAD!
more...
TeddyKoochu
03-12 08:34 AM
OP thanks for posting the link. I believe for EB2-I in reality we have to wait for the last quarter for anything at all to happen. The next 2 bulletins will also in all probability have no movement. Congrats to all those who became current this month, best wishes and good luck.
hot Krystal Forscutt Bikni
vandanaverdia
09-12 06:58 PM
"If you would create something,
you must be something."
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Be a part of creating history... Come to DC...
Help IV help you...
you must be something."
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Be a part of creating history... Come to DC...
Help IV help you...
more...
house Krystal Forscutt Hot Picture
slowwin
06-16 01:06 PM
what happened with this amdt. Did it fail or pass ?:confused:
tattoo krystal forscutt news
sri1309
10-15 07:31 PM
I wrote this once before and I will say it one last time. Pulling stunts such as the flower campaign is XYZ. May be not to the extent we feel it should, but USCIS does realize that there are issues with how it is handling cases. It is doing the best it can with the limited resources it is being provided. Please dont embarrass USCIS anymore. Would you keep calling a blind person, blind? Please stop this childish behavior. If anything lets start thinking about CIR and how we can influence changes to favor legal immigrants. We have the time now so start lobbying for changes.
Kindly note that you are dealing with a established government entity. Stop adopting hindi movie ideas when interacting with USCIS. If it were so easy why not arrange "naach-gana" for USCIS everyday. We can invite Malaika Sherawat for half the price we are paying to lobby. Skimpy clothes, raunchy songs, and alcohol may mesmerize the visa officer into stamping 100 K greencards everyday.
I bet there were a good number of closed door meetings, lobbying, and lets throw a bone to keep them quiet for sometime- discussions that translated into the July fiasco.
I believe we are educated and sane people, so lets start doing the right thing.
Enough said.
" USCIS does realize that there are issues with how it is handling cases.".
All our efforts are to tell USCIS that we also realize it and we are waiting it to act. You shouldnt say "Hindi movie...". We thought it will work as it was a peaceful way and it did work. And I am very sure it will work again and again. USCIS and others will realize that this is the way legal applicants behave, which is very good. Nothing wrong.. Looks like you had a bad day..
Kindly note that you are dealing with a established government entity. Stop adopting hindi movie ideas when interacting with USCIS. If it were so easy why not arrange "naach-gana" for USCIS everyday. We can invite Malaika Sherawat for half the price we are paying to lobby. Skimpy clothes, raunchy songs, and alcohol may mesmerize the visa officer into stamping 100 K greencards everyday.
I bet there were a good number of closed door meetings, lobbying, and lets throw a bone to keep them quiet for sometime- discussions that translated into the July fiasco.
I believe we are educated and sane people, so lets start doing the right thing.
Enough said.
" USCIS does realize that there are issues with how it is handling cases.".
All our efforts are to tell USCIS that we also realize it and we are waiting it to act. You shouldnt say "Hindi movie...". We thought it will work as it was a peaceful way and it did work. And I am very sure it will work again and again. USCIS and others will realize that this is the way legal applicants behave, which is very good. Nothing wrong.. Looks like you had a bad day..
more...
pictures Krystal forscutt in the bath
Jaime
09-10 11:54 AM
Are you guys in jail or something?And unless you already have your green card, you are too
dresses Krystal Forscutt
sdrblr
08-21 11:32 AM
I just want to add that "Ignorance of a law is not an excuse" and no court or USCIS will buy that argument.
more...
makeup Krystal Forscutt 004 1920x1200
ak27
01-22 06:10 PM
I do not believe anyone has called yet... Please go ahead make calls to sentators. Core memebers were also suggesting that we get in touch with Congressmen/Congresswomen.
girlfriend Krystal Forscutt
tinamatthew
07-24 01:52 PM
should such people just wait hoping they will receive an RFE (I don't like this one at all) whenever the case is opened? TINA WROTE: For initial evidence items I believed that it would be automatically rejected if not included, HOWEVER, with the new press release from USCIS on July 23, if i-485s WITHOUT medical reports will be accepted, then what is an employment letter? abhijitp WROTE: I hope that is true. AILA seems to be working on this. I am happy to believe it if USCIS issues a press release to that effect... high hopes:-)
pls find above the answers.
USCIS has released a press release July 23, 2007. Check QUESTION 13
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf
pls find above the answers.
USCIS has released a press release July 23, 2007. Check QUESTION 13
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf
hairstyles Krystal Forscutt
GreeNever
06-13 11:22 AM
Folks! MSNBC is organizing a gut check on the immigration issue (though this appears to be on issues related to illegal immigration). It's a message board inviting opinions on immigration with an expert panel set to reply to the meesages posted. Eventually, messages will be short-listed for publishing. We may be able to make an opportunity out of this.
Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18826755/
Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18826755/
snathan
02-24 12:17 PM
i'm on L1B visa.I came to US on L1B in 2005 with one year petition and got extension
for 3 years. meanwhile i left to India in June 2007. And then i came back with new L1B petiotion in Oct 2007 which is valid till Sep-2010.Now my question is
1) Is my L1B stay reached to maximum or do i still have 2 years left with my new L1B.
2) If i apply for H1 this year how many years of stay i'll get with H1B.
Please help me with this madam as soon as possible.
Thanks in Advance.
If you apply for H1B, you will only whatever left in L1B and not six years.
for 3 years. meanwhile i left to India in June 2007. And then i came back with new L1B petiotion in Oct 2007 which is valid till Sep-2010.Now my question is
1) Is my L1B stay reached to maximum or do i still have 2 years left with my new L1B.
2) If i apply for H1 this year how many years of stay i'll get with H1B.
Please help me with this madam as soon as possible.
Thanks in Advance.
If you apply for H1B, you will only whatever left in L1B and not six years.
Ramba
07-09 07:44 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar