justAnotherFile
07-24 01:28 PM
no offense meant..
.. but if "the law is the law" and there is no room for "interpretation" then lawyers will be out of business :)
I guess that is why congress also publishes the "intent of congress" with every legislative bill to guide interpretations, because there will be situations and cases which test the limits of law and they cannot visualize that while writing a law.
.. but if "the law is the law" and there is no room for "interpretation" then lawyers will be out of business :)
I guess that is why congress also publishes the "intent of congress" with every legislative bill to guide interpretations, because there will be situations and cases which test the limits of law and they cannot visualize that while writing a law.
wallpaper Felix the Cat and Chilly Willy
yabadaba
09-26 10:53 AM
my email:
Sir/ Ma'am,
Is this article a systematic effort on the part of CNN to propagandize the Dobbs doctrine of immigrant bashing?
We rallied and marched for relief from the permanent residency process (green cards as you call them) and not for an increase in H1B.
Shame on you for these blatant lies and misinformation campaign that seems to be part of your agenda.
Thanks
Sir/ Ma'am,
Is this article a systematic effort on the part of CNN to propagandize the Dobbs doctrine of immigrant bashing?
We rallied and marched for relief from the permanent residency process (green cards as you call them) and not for an increase in H1B.
Shame on you for these blatant lies and misinformation campaign that seems to be part of your agenda.
Thanks
neelu
12-11 05:09 PM
USCIS cannot do anything on the matter. INA is clear on the AOS conditions, one of which is "An immigrant visa is IMMEDIATELY available at time of filing for adjustment of status" (INA 245, 8 USC 1225)
INA should be changed which should be done through a legislative process, not through any rule making.
As I understand the above, the law only says when you can file for AOS (to change which a legislative process is required).
The above still does not throw any more light on the technicality which disallows concurrent filing. Does it?
Was concurrent processing facility removed through a congressional action (legislation)? If not, why is it required to reinstate it?
Is this a valid argument? If it is, then this particular request should be directed towards a body such as USCIS, etc and not the congress.
Any comments?
INA should be changed which should be done through a legislative process, not through any rule making.
As I understand the above, the law only says when you can file for AOS (to change which a legislative process is required).
The above still does not throw any more light on the technicality which disallows concurrent filing. Does it?
Was concurrent processing facility removed through a congressional action (legislation)? If not, why is it required to reinstate it?
Is this a valid argument? If it is, then this particular request should be directed towards a body such as USCIS, etc and not the congress.
Any comments?
2011 Chilly Willy Gasser
alisa
01-27 09:25 AM
I am glad you posted this.
I will put the numbers in the excel spreadsheet and see what comes out.
But these might give more sensible results than the preposterous wait times that we were getting.
If the average depletion rate for India is 34K per annum, then the wait times would look a lot better I think.
I am assuming that these numbers include the dependents. So, if 34K adjustment of status were awareded, then, roughly speaking, there were 17K primary applicants, and 17K dependents? Am I correct?
Also, for the accumulation rate, when we say that 65K H-1 visas are given out annually, I am assuming that does not include the dependents. Am I right??
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
I will put the numbers in the excel spreadsheet and see what comes out.
But these might give more sensible results than the preposterous wait times that we were getting.
If the average depletion rate for India is 34K per annum, then the wait times would look a lot better I think.
I am assuming that these numbers include the dependents. So, if 34K adjustment of status were awareded, then, roughly speaking, there were 17K primary applicants, and 17K dependents? Am I correct?
Also, for the accumulation rate, when we say that 65K H-1 visas are given out annually, I am assuming that does not include the dependents. Am I right??
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
more...
uma001
07-29 05:11 AM
A sure invitation for defamation suit. Good luck.
There is nothing wrong in what I have posted to invite defamation suit.We should be filing defamation suit against them for not filing green cards as promised.Whatever my friend said I posted here.
There is nothing wrong in what I have posted to invite defamation suit.We should be filing defamation suit against them for not filing green cards as promised.Whatever my friend said I posted here.
BharatPremi
07-10 12:28 AM
Whether they are smart people or not, a future department of justice investigation will find out.
http://s202395528.onlinehome.us/category/general/
However I see a way out for DOS/USCIS. They can avoid class action by claiming that they had warned the public in advance via the July 2 update to the July visa bulletin, and had modified the July visa bulletin only on July 6, after warning the public in advance. This way they can accept all applications received till July 5, and will be covered against any class action law suits.
No, it will be very difficult for them to follow this as non filers or filers after 5th would come with the arguments like we were still respecting USCIS's published notice and so we did not file (non filers) and others would come up with the argument that we decided to file with having clear understanding of its rejection as filers on 5th or before did so you (USCIS) cannot discriminate merely based upon filing date.
http://s202395528.onlinehome.us/category/general/
However I see a way out for DOS/USCIS. They can avoid class action by claiming that they had warned the public in advance via the July 2 update to the July visa bulletin, and had modified the July visa bulletin only on July 6, after warning the public in advance. This way they can accept all applications received till July 5, and will be covered against any class action law suits.
No, it will be very difficult for them to follow this as non filers or filers after 5th would come with the arguments like we were still respecting USCIS's published notice and so we did not file (non filers) and others would come up with the argument that we decided to file with having clear understanding of its rejection as filers on 5th or before did so you (USCIS) cannot discriminate merely based upon filing date.
more...
gopinathan
09-10 11:43 AM
girijas, your comment is both funny and sad... we are behind horses.. :(
They have gone to recess and will be back at 1pm. I guess they will start with the horses again and then the next two bills concerning humans and we are next - the aliens :)
They have gone to recess and will be back at 1pm. I guess they will start with the horses again and then the next two bills concerning humans and we are next - the aliens :)
2010 Old Chilly Willy Cartoon
newbee7
07-09 04:23 PM
Whenever i say this "Such policies, unless backed by legal basis, are not enforceable" Everybody starts bashing me up...
So you be ready toooo.
I would be very happy , if all the H1B guys get EAD , but i cant just give a statement against DOS/USCIS till i am 100% sure.
Are we 100% SURE that this happened???
Is there any clause in the law, which lets them do this ,If FBI doesnt give any information for 6 months/1 Year... I dont know , so i will let the court decide.
In some cases, security clearances required by the F.B.I. were not entirely completed, immigration officials said. The agency approved some applications “when we were certain the process will be completed very shortly,” Mr. Aytes said.
"not entirely completed" = INCOMPLETE
I think this should count for 100%.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/us/06visa.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
So you be ready toooo.
I would be very happy , if all the H1B guys get EAD , but i cant just give a statement against DOS/USCIS till i am 100% sure.
Are we 100% SURE that this happened???
Is there any clause in the law, which lets them do this ,If FBI doesnt give any information for 6 months/1 Year... I dont know , so i will let the court decide.
In some cases, security clearances required by the F.B.I. were not entirely completed, immigration officials said. The agency approved some applications “when we were certain the process will be completed very shortly,” Mr. Aytes said.
"not entirely completed" = INCOMPLETE
I think this should count for 100%.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/us/06visa.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
more...
browncow
05-26 11:26 PM
I carry my GC, passport etc even if i get out of my house to my lawn.
I also stick them to my body in a water resistant package when i dive into a swimming pool, in case a immigration nut lay waiting there. Law is law. Why can't they collect my finger print/iris scan and determine status ?
Cos, if you are not a US citizen, the burden lies on you to prove your legal status.
This is the reason why US is losing out on tourism in a huge way.
I also stick them to my body in a water resistant package when i dive into a swimming pool, in case a immigration nut lay waiting there. Law is law. Why can't they collect my finger print/iris scan and determine status ?
Cos, if you are not a US citizen, the burden lies on you to prove your legal status.
This is the reason why US is losing out on tourism in a huge way.
hair Chilly willy printable
bheemi123
10-03 01:29 PM
I am on L1A visa with Company A & the I-94 was valid till September 10, 2007.
Company B has filed my H1B on April 20, 2007 & I received I797 notice dated May 17, 2007 with change of status from Oct 1, 2007.
In the meantime, Company A has filed an extention of status of L1A from September 10, 2007 on June 8, 2007. For which I received the I797 notice dated June 28, 2007.
I have few question
1. What is my status from Oct 1, 2007, as I did not joined the company B. I am not in a position to leave Company A till Nov 15, 2007. As the I797 for L1 extention was of the latter date, whether the law of last action will be applicable here & I can work for Company A on L1 till Nov 15, 2007
2. If I can work on L1, whether my H1B approval get cancelled automatically. Whether the company B have to file I129 & I539 for me.
3. If I am out of status what should I do. Do i have go back to my native country immediately & leave to idea to work in USA for ever or there is any other way.
i did exactly like you..
Only thing need you to do is u can be with l1 with current company until nov 15th after that..u can work for h1b company..but remember if u want to continue to work for company A forever means not going to use h1b ..then u have to leave the country and then enter the country on l1 visa....if u want to use h1b in nov then it is fine to work with l1...i did that ..and had visa stamps 2 times afterwards...there were no problems...
Company B has filed my H1B on April 20, 2007 & I received I797 notice dated May 17, 2007 with change of status from Oct 1, 2007.
In the meantime, Company A has filed an extention of status of L1A from September 10, 2007 on June 8, 2007. For which I received the I797 notice dated June 28, 2007.
I have few question
1. What is my status from Oct 1, 2007, as I did not joined the company B. I am not in a position to leave Company A till Nov 15, 2007. As the I797 for L1 extention was of the latter date, whether the law of last action will be applicable here & I can work for Company A on L1 till Nov 15, 2007
2. If I can work on L1, whether my H1B approval get cancelled automatically. Whether the company B have to file I129 & I539 for me.
3. If I am out of status what should I do. Do i have go back to my native country immediately & leave to idea to work in USA for ever or there is any other way.
i did exactly like you..
Only thing need you to do is u can be with l1 with current company until nov 15th after that..u can work for h1b company..but remember if u want to continue to work for company A forever means not going to use h1b ..then u have to leave the country and then enter the country on l1 visa....if u want to use h1b in nov then it is fine to work with l1...i did that ..and had visa stamps 2 times afterwards...there were no problems...
more...
bheemi
07-02 09:35 AM
YOU PEOPLE understand first what i kept in the reply. I did not blame IV for doing other efforts..I am talking about facts about USCIS..So dont make fool us or yourself as IV or any other organization will not be able to attack USCIS..Bcoz USCIS is monarch..
hot Chilly Willy
dhesha
03-16 03:06 PM
The biggest problem is interfiling from EB3 to EB2. USCIS must not allow anyone to change categories and retain old priority dates. This is nothing short of cheating ! What about the people who have been standing in line. You can't just change the rules when they suit you and get into the middle of the line. Pathetic !
Similarly - LC SUB guys are getting into the middle of the line even though they came to US years after many of us who are already in pipe-line. This is even more pathetic.
Similarly - LC SUB guys are getting into the middle of the line even though they came to US years after many of us who are already in pipe-line. This is even more pathetic.
more...
house Chilly Willy (Walter Lantz)
imh1b
11-12 04:03 PM
Did you see that whoever is crying for spillover is EB2 India. or EB3 ROW. He has his priority date pretty close to cutoff dates in bulletin. So they think by doing spillover their greencard will come few months earlier. This is a selfish thinking. IV should not help such people. They do not care about us. They only care about getting their own greencard. I will oppose this campaign and send letters against this campiagn to whoever you are sending. This campiagn does no help to EB3 India. I am sure many EB2 ROW will oppose you and send letters against your letters. You are trying to delay EB2 ROW greencards by taking from their quota. Even Chinese will oppose you because there are too many Indians blocking the system for everyone.
IV should spend money for EB3 India rather then EB2 India who are already in advantage.
IV should spend money for EB3 India rather then EB2 India who are already in advantage.
tattoo Chilly Willy 27 Half Baked
reddymjm
12-08 12:02 AM
Nrc2008069509.
more...
pictures be thyroid - chilly willy
gcdreamer
03-02 12:01 AM
To solve the FBI name check problem, the following suggestions should be communicated to lawmaker if possible:
1. Increase the fundings for FBI name check. The major reason of name check delay is due to lack of resources for manual name check.
2. Introduce a conditional Green Card. Conditional green card is equivalent to green card, except with condition that it could be taken back IF AND ONLY IF the name check eventually fails to pass. Person with conditional green card enjoy all the benefits with normal green card, including transfering job freely, re-enter US freely, count years to citizenship, etc.
3. People wants to file 485 can ask FBI do name check before they actaully file 485 with a certain amount of filing fee. So that the delay for FBI name check will not impact 485 processing too much.
1. Increase the fundings for FBI name check. The major reason of name check delay is due to lack of resources for manual name check.
2. Introduce a conditional Green Card. Conditional green card is equivalent to green card, except with condition that it could be taken back IF AND ONLY IF the name check eventually fails to pass. Person with conditional green card enjoy all the benefits with normal green card, including transfering job freely, re-enter US freely, count years to citizenship, etc.
3. People wants to file 485 can ask FBI do name check before they actaully file 485 with a certain amount of filing fee. So that the delay for FBI name check will not impact 485 processing too much.
dresses Chilly Willy Coloring Page
ndbhatt
02-15 01:26 PM
now what the hell is ROW and ICMP ?
ROW = Rest Of World
ICMP = India, China, Mexico and Phillipines
ROW = Rest Of World
ICMP = India, China, Mexico and Phillipines
more...
makeup CHILLY WILLY CHILLIN CARTOON T
hiralal
09-10 04:42 AM
for eb3 - I think things will be better than what most are expecting. I know that is not enough but atleast it is not hopeless. I guess what most can do is hope for best and be ready for worst. this is why I feel it will be better
-------------
my feeling is this - dates will move faster than what most are predicting - the reason is simple --more and more spillover. the fee increases has been a blessing in disguise and that coupled with recession, means that less visas are being used in family section.
simple math is this - earlier lot of gujrati's would get their dates current when they were in their 50's / 60's though family. earlier it would cost them around 4-5 lakhs for a family of four to immigrate. now their cost would be around 10 - 12 lakhs ..on top of it, if they come here, the jobs are scarce. hence many are staying back (which makes sense). similar thing is happening for other countries ..and hence there will be more and more spillovers from family which means dates will move faster.
-------------
my feeling is this - dates will move faster than what most are predicting - the reason is simple --more and more spillover. the fee increases has been a blessing in disguise and that coupled with recession, means that less visas are being used in family section.
simple math is this - earlier lot of gujrati's would get their dates current when they were in their 50's / 60's though family. earlier it would cost them around 4-5 lakhs for a family of four to immigrate. now their cost would be around 10 - 12 lakhs ..on top of it, if they come here, the jobs are scarce. hence many are staying back (which makes sense). similar thing is happening for other countries ..and hence there will be more and more spillovers from family which means dates will move faster.
girlfriend video chilly prohibido 2008
rockstart
07-13 05:02 AM
I am current as well.
hairstyles a stencil of Chilly Willy.
ItIsNotFunny
10-15 04:42 PM
People who want a copy of their LCA/I-140, please send that in before this. This will create a real large queue and you won't ever get your copy.
Do we all need to do this ?
-M
What are you suggesting? Please speak in lay man's terms.
Do we all need to do this ?
-M
What are you suggesting? Please speak in lay man's terms.
bskrishna
07-02 01:30 AM
i support
cal_dood
07-05 01:43 PM
I'll just go back to forums of the leading lady immigration lawyer....
No comments:
Post a Comment