akred
01-21 02:26 AM
Assuming everyone stays the course, under these timelines
1. At least 5% of applicants will be sponsored by their American children.
2. Another 5% will have their first million and move to the investor's category.
The timelines would be a maximum of 20 years or so, at which point people would be sponsored by their children.
1. At least 5% of applicants will be sponsored by their American children.
2. Another 5% will have their first million and move to the investor's category.
The timelines would be a maximum of 20 years or so, at which point people would be sponsored by their children.
wallpaper We adore Taylor Swift#39;s
am100
07-06 01:23 AM
Did u Used AC21 or changes job after applying I-485 Or is it a stright forward case.
Thanks in advance for the reply.
Sorry for the late response. I was actually out of country when my GC got approved. Just got back today.
I did not use AC 21. I have been with the same employer throughout the process. However, I changed job location after 140 approval. Hence, I had to refile labor (PERM) from new location but ported the older PD. Since, my PD was not current, I did not loose any time even with refiling labor. Hope this helps. Please let me know if if you have any more questions.
Thanks in advance for the reply.
Sorry for the late response. I was actually out of country when my GC got approved. Just got back today.
I did not use AC 21. I have been with the same employer throughout the process. However, I changed job location after 140 approval. Hence, I had to refile labor (PERM) from new location but ported the older PD. Since, my PD was not current, I did not loose any time even with refiling labor. Hope this helps. Please let me know if if you have any more questions.
f_b_2007
07-18 08:32 AM
Mine reached on July 2nd 9:01 AM. I don't think they must have rejected any application. I think, if someone is saying "rejected" means USCIS refused to accept the fedex, in which case package should be returned back to lawyers in 3/4 days.
If your package was accepeted by USCIS then it would be on hold and based on yesterday's news, now it should be ready for processing. I am checking this with couple of lawyers and I will update this thread with anything I find out.
Mine reached USCIS Jul 2, 2007 10:25 AM.. no check cashed, no RD..
I will call USCIS next monday if I dont hear anything before then..
If your package was accepeted by USCIS then it would be on hold and based on yesterday's news, now it should be ready for processing. I am checking this with couple of lawyers and I will update this thread with anything I find out.
Mine reached USCIS Jul 2, 2007 10:25 AM.. no check cashed, no RD..
I will call USCIS next monday if I dont hear anything before then..
2011 TAYLOR SWIFT RED DRESS
ashkam
07-28 12:14 PM
What's with all the fundies crawling out of the woodwork?
By the way, dear fundies, if you are so against the First Amendment (freedom of speech), why are you in this country applying for a green card anyways? Because, you know, the First Amendment is kind of a big deal here.
By the way, dear fundies, if you are so against the First Amendment (freedom of speech), why are you in this country applying for a green card anyways? Because, you know, the First Amendment is kind of a big deal here.
more...
go_gc_way
12-28 11:13 AM
Thanks Boreal,Subba.
I looked at the following sites
1) www.aapkamanoranjan.com
2) www.lokvani.com (This is a paper magazine as well).
Wrote to the editors of lokvani, if they can post a classified , they do not have free classifieds. aapkamanoranjan, wont let me send them feedback or contact them.
This is a good beginning. We have posted in several sites, having completed this we all will have completed a good effort for IV (INFACT FOR YOU)
Can other members please come forward and list the sites that are regional in their cities and post in them .... 15 minutes and you will have contributed to this thread :-).
What do you folks suggest, shall I change the thread name to something more attractive ...to get evrey one's one's attention on the Forum first. :-)
I looked at the following sites
1) www.aapkamanoranjan.com
2) www.lokvani.com (This is a paper magazine as well).
Wrote to the editors of lokvani, if they can post a classified , they do not have free classifieds. aapkamanoranjan, wont let me send them feedback or contact them.
This is a good beginning. We have posted in several sites, having completed this we all will have completed a good effort for IV (INFACT FOR YOU)
Can other members please come forward and list the sites that are regional in their cities and post in them .... 15 minutes and you will have contributed to this thread :-).
What do you folks suggest, shall I change the thread name to something more attractive ...to get evrey one's one's attention on the Forum first. :-)
abhijitp
03-23 07:34 PM
I am from bay area, CA and would like to travel to DC to participate in the advocacy effort! If there is a group traveling from here, I want to get in touch with you. Please let me know. Thanks!
We can help you! Please check your PM
We can help you! Please check your PM
more...
mdubbaka
03-17 02:37 PM
MY PD is Sep 2002. Filed in July 2007.
2010 Taylor Swift Red Dress Blonde
diptam
06-30 10:48 PM
Yes - USPS express mail is next day. But you may not find a open Post office to post the Mail on SUNDAY.
I'm not sure if you drop it in a Express Mail drop box tomorrow if they will pro-actively pick up and deliver by Monday - Probably No.
USPS express mail is a 365 day service so far as "Delivery" is concerned but not from a "Pick up" standpoint probably
If FedEx doen't help try USPS, they also have overnight delivery.
If you handover the document on Sunday evening before 5.00 PM, by Monday noon it will be delivered.
I'm not sure if you drop it in a Express Mail drop box tomorrow if they will pro-actively pick up and deliver by Monday - Probably No.
USPS express mail is a 365 day service so far as "Delivery" is concerned but not from a "Pick up" standpoint probably
If FedEx doen't help try USPS, they also have overnight delivery.
If you handover the document on Sunday evening before 5.00 PM, by Monday noon it will be delivered.
more...
imv116
04-04 11:05 AM
Well, if we start to talk what is ethical and unethical. The entire immigration system and IT consulting is unethical.
That�s the down side from the client side on going for consulting and contracting. Every wise manager knows that! If every one were to hire full time, no matter H1B, EAD or PR, we wouldn�t be in the situation looking for a new assignment.
I agree that it is unethical on there part, but there is a much bigger unethical part on the part of the client companies for not hiring new grads and willing to train them in the areas of there business. New grad hiring doesn�t happen here as it happens in India.
Simply putting it, they don�t have a choice.
House wives with EAD�s and PR cards have started to get into contract jobs with 5-6 years of experience. Most of them are probably not even academically CS educated. Forget about the huge career gap they have.
No one, be it experienced or new grad likes to be code striped at client place, but for some one who is willing to take that risk of humiliation, I see nothing wrong in taking such a step to advance there career.
But there should be an optimal level that one should project them selves too in order to be accepted, can manage to get a decent time to learn things etc.
Also, client companies if they are serious should be more careful by calling for an on-site interview and testing them on the basics with a written test.
That�s the down side from the client side on going for consulting and contracting. Every wise manager knows that! If every one were to hire full time, no matter H1B, EAD or PR, we wouldn�t be in the situation looking for a new assignment.
I agree that it is unethical on there part, but there is a much bigger unethical part on the part of the client companies for not hiring new grads and willing to train them in the areas of there business. New grad hiring doesn�t happen here as it happens in India.
Simply putting it, they don�t have a choice.
House wives with EAD�s and PR cards have started to get into contract jobs with 5-6 years of experience. Most of them are probably not even academically CS educated. Forget about the huge career gap they have.
No one, be it experienced or new grad likes to be code striped at client place, but for some one who is willing to take that risk of humiliation, I see nothing wrong in taking such a step to advance there career.
But there should be an optimal level that one should project them selves too in order to be accepted, can manage to get a decent time to learn things etc.
Also, client companies if they are serious should be more careful by calling for an on-site interview and testing them on the basics with a written test.
hair Jessica Biel, Taylor Swift
ashishgour
09-10 02:03 PM
Guess they had an extended lunch session...!!! Finally back..but no discussion yet...
more...
wait4ever
09-26 10:16 AM
Enough Said - correction required.
hot Taylor Swift Red Dress
another one
07-09 02:26 PM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Azulay Horn & Seiden, LLC Files Class Action Law Suit against the US Government for Refusing to Accept Green Card Applications
Chicago (July 9, 2007) � In the shadow of the debate about comprehensive immigration reform tens of thousands of skilled employment based immigrants awaiting their opportunity to legally apply for green cards have been unfairly denied the opportunity due to potential deliberate miscommunication � and an attempt to collect higher filing fees � from the U.S. Department of State and the and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency that processes visa and citizenship requests.
On June 12, the State Department announced in its monthly Visa Bulletin that beginning July 2 and for at least the entire month of July, all skilled workers seeking employer-sponsored green cards would be eligible to apply. However, on July 2, the State Department announced that they were breaking with 30 years of tradition and issued an update claiming that no more green cards were available because �the sudden backlog reduction efforts by Citizenship and Immigration Services offices during the past month.� USCIS followed and said that as a result they were going to reject the green card applications of anyone who applied relying on the July Bulletin. This meant that the thousands of immigrants who followed the government�s instructions and obtained the correct paperwork actually had no chance to receive a green card.
In response, Azulay Horn & Seiden, LLC, the largest immigration law firm based in Chicago and fourth largest in the United States, on Friday July 6, filed a class-action law suit on behalf of its clients and all those like them, against Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the Department of State, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, the Department of Homeland Security, and USCIS, and Emilio Gonzalez, and F. Gerard Heinauer of USCIS for announcing that they would refuse to accept the green card applications on behalf of the skilled workers. The suit seeks a ruling that would keep applications filed in accordance with the original July Visa Bulletin from being rejected.
Azulay Horn & Seiden is the first firm to act proactively and file a complaint. �These are legal immigrants who have followed all the rules,� explained Ira Azulay, CEO of the firm. �They are productive members of our society and deserve to be treated fairly by our federal government. The State Department and USCIS acted against their own rules and 30 years of historical practice when they updated the Visa Bulletin and reneged on their historical obligations. They need to be held accountable for their actions and do right by these people. Acting any other way sends the horrible message that following the rules is worthless.�
The representative plaintiff in the case is Chicagoan Gabriela Ptasinska, a native of Poland who is lawfully present in the United States on a non-immigrant visa, working as a land planner with Manhard Consulting, Ltd. Given the Bulletin, Ptasinska and thousands of legal immigrants across the country worked to obtain the necessary documentation for their chance to receive a green card only to have it snatched away on July.
�I am a law-abiding, hardworking member of American society and have worked relentlessly to lawfully become a permanent resident of America,� said Ptasinska. �Now I feel like the rug has been pulled out from under me. I held-up my end of the bargain by doing everything the government told me to do, but USCIS did not keep their word.�
Mr. Azulay is available to discuss with the media the class-action suit and the impact of the government�s recent actions. A copy of the complaint in the matter of Gabriela Ptasinska, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. U.S. Dept. of State, Condoleeza Rice, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Emilio Gonzalez, and F. Gerard Heinauer, Case No. 07 C 3795, can be downloaded from Azulay, Horn & Seiden�s website at www.ahslaw.com. People interested in joining the class can also visit the website to provide their information.
Azulay, Horn & Seiden, LLC (www.ahslaw.com) is Chicago�s largest immigration law firm and the fourth largest immigration firm in the country. AHS provides comprehensive US immigration legal services for businesses and individuals (including visa petitions, green card services, consular assistance, naturalization proceedings, immigration representation in all U.S. Courts, and appellate work), immigration consulting to businesses, as well as immigration related legal services (e.g. family law, criminal law). Its main office is located at 205 N. Michigan Ave., 40th Floor, Chicago, IL 60601, with other offices in Florida, Wisconsin, and Manila, Philippines. For more information contact them at 312.832.9200 or by email at info@ahslaw.com.
Azulay Horn & Seiden, LLC Files Class Action Law Suit against the US Government for Refusing to Accept Green Card Applications
Chicago (July 9, 2007) � In the shadow of the debate about comprehensive immigration reform tens of thousands of skilled employment based immigrants awaiting their opportunity to legally apply for green cards have been unfairly denied the opportunity due to potential deliberate miscommunication � and an attempt to collect higher filing fees � from the U.S. Department of State and the and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency that processes visa and citizenship requests.
On June 12, the State Department announced in its monthly Visa Bulletin that beginning July 2 and for at least the entire month of July, all skilled workers seeking employer-sponsored green cards would be eligible to apply. However, on July 2, the State Department announced that they were breaking with 30 years of tradition and issued an update claiming that no more green cards were available because �the sudden backlog reduction efforts by Citizenship and Immigration Services offices during the past month.� USCIS followed and said that as a result they were going to reject the green card applications of anyone who applied relying on the July Bulletin. This meant that the thousands of immigrants who followed the government�s instructions and obtained the correct paperwork actually had no chance to receive a green card.
In response, Azulay Horn & Seiden, LLC, the largest immigration law firm based in Chicago and fourth largest in the United States, on Friday July 6, filed a class-action law suit on behalf of its clients and all those like them, against Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the Department of State, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, the Department of Homeland Security, and USCIS, and Emilio Gonzalez, and F. Gerard Heinauer of USCIS for announcing that they would refuse to accept the green card applications on behalf of the skilled workers. The suit seeks a ruling that would keep applications filed in accordance with the original July Visa Bulletin from being rejected.
Azulay Horn & Seiden is the first firm to act proactively and file a complaint. �These are legal immigrants who have followed all the rules,� explained Ira Azulay, CEO of the firm. �They are productive members of our society and deserve to be treated fairly by our federal government. The State Department and USCIS acted against their own rules and 30 years of historical practice when they updated the Visa Bulletin and reneged on their historical obligations. They need to be held accountable for their actions and do right by these people. Acting any other way sends the horrible message that following the rules is worthless.�
The representative plaintiff in the case is Chicagoan Gabriela Ptasinska, a native of Poland who is lawfully present in the United States on a non-immigrant visa, working as a land planner with Manhard Consulting, Ltd. Given the Bulletin, Ptasinska and thousands of legal immigrants across the country worked to obtain the necessary documentation for their chance to receive a green card only to have it snatched away on July.
�I am a law-abiding, hardworking member of American society and have worked relentlessly to lawfully become a permanent resident of America,� said Ptasinska. �Now I feel like the rug has been pulled out from under me. I held-up my end of the bargain by doing everything the government told me to do, but USCIS did not keep their word.�
Mr. Azulay is available to discuss with the media the class-action suit and the impact of the government�s recent actions. A copy of the complaint in the matter of Gabriela Ptasinska, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. U.S. Dept. of State, Condoleeza Rice, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Emilio Gonzalez, and F. Gerard Heinauer, Case No. 07 C 3795, can be downloaded from Azulay, Horn & Seiden�s website at www.ahslaw.com. People interested in joining the class can also visit the website to provide their information.
Azulay, Horn & Seiden, LLC (www.ahslaw.com) is Chicago�s largest immigration law firm and the fourth largest immigration firm in the country. AHS provides comprehensive US immigration legal services for businesses and individuals (including visa petitions, green card services, consular assistance, naturalization proceedings, immigration representation in all U.S. Courts, and appellate work), immigration consulting to businesses, as well as immigration related legal services (e.g. family law, criminal law). Its main office is located at 205 N. Michigan Ave., 40th Floor, Chicago, IL 60601, with other offices in Florida, Wisconsin, and Manila, Philippines. For more information contact them at 312.832.9200 or by email at info@ahslaw.com.
more...
house Taylor Swift was looking like
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,
tattoo Taylor-- Red Prom Dresses
optimist578
03-02 04:58 PM
NJ Fellows,
Has anybody contacted Congressman Albio Sires? Is anybody interested to join me? I am trying to schedule a meeting with him next week.
Thanks.
kamla345@yahoo.com
Has anybody contacted Congressman Albio Sires? Is anybody interested to join me? I am trying to schedule a meeting with him next week.
Thanks.
kamla345@yahoo.com
more...
pictures Taylor Swift is a true Glamour
chanduv23
11-22 01:33 PM
I dont think that is correct - as per my lawyer this is what she says -
In order to move to a new employer and still continue with the same gc applications, you must meet all of the following conditions under AC21:
1. Your I-140 must be approved
2. Your I-485 must be filed and pending for at least 180 days
3. Your new job classification must be the same as in the old job
If you are missing any of the 3 conditions at the time you move to an employer, you will lose your gc application and you will need to start a new one.
So guys please make sure you give correct information. Also, I would suggest people who are asking various questions over here in IV should also talk to their own lawyers and take a decision. Please do not take decision based on comments given over here. So "LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP".
Please note that most people here give suggestions and advices based on their knowledge, experience etc... and may not be taken as legal advice. One must definitely consult an attorney before taking any career move. But also note that, Lawyers may not also be 100% aware or correct, as such no lawyer is perfect and most lawyers are commercial and you may * not really get the true picture* , exceptions and provisions are done on case to case basis and experienced and good lawyers can definitely help answer your questions.
Changing employer after 140 abd keeping PD is something new and I guess lawyers may not suggest taking that route, but in realty if u r in troubled waters, definitely u must see if u can work that option out.
In order to move to a new employer and still continue with the same gc applications, you must meet all of the following conditions under AC21:
1. Your I-140 must be approved
2. Your I-485 must be filed and pending for at least 180 days
3. Your new job classification must be the same as in the old job
If you are missing any of the 3 conditions at the time you move to an employer, you will lose your gc application and you will need to start a new one.
So guys please make sure you give correct information. Also, I would suggest people who are asking various questions over here in IV should also talk to their own lawyers and take a decision. Please do not take decision based on comments given over here. So "LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP".
Please note that most people here give suggestions and advices based on their knowledge, experience etc... and may not be taken as legal advice. One must definitely consult an attorney before taking any career move. But also note that, Lawyers may not also be 100% aware or correct, as such no lawyer is perfect and most lawyers are commercial and you may * not really get the true picture* , exceptions and provisions are done on case to case basis and experienced and good lawyers can definitely help answer your questions.
Changing employer after 140 abd keeping PD is something new and I guess lawyers may not suggest taking that route, but in realty if u r in troubled waters, definitely u must see if u can work that option out.
dresses Which LWD (little white dress)
PD_Dec2002
07-05 12:22 PM
Just my $0.02:
I understand the frustration for IV to gather funds when it has so many members. But it's possible that IV has that many members because it is a free site.
If this becomes a paid site, you might see the number of members dwindle, and that's not a good idea because even if members don't financially contribute to IV, they do offer their perspectives/opinions/feedback/critique and help others. Those who want to financially contribute to IV will do so whether IV is a free or a paid site.
IMHO, it would be a mistake to make IV a paid site thinking that this will force members to financially contribute. Sure IV forums helped a lot with finding information about I-485 applications, but people have been filing I-485s on their own even before IV was in existence. Which is not to say, IV has no value, but I hope you see where I am going with this....if members don't want to contribute, then they won't. They will go to other forums like they used to before IV was in existence...which will be a step down, but at least they are holding on to their $20 or howmuchever.
Before replying to this, please read my disclaimer below. I have to add it given the fact how hot-headed/short-tempered members have been in the last few days where they will flame someone just because their opinions differ.
Thanks,
Jayant
Disclaimer: These are my opinions. You don't have to agree with them. If you disagree, just ignore them. I am not interested in justifying myself about anything that you might have to say. I would, however, welcome a civil and a healthy discussion.
I understand the frustration for IV to gather funds when it has so many members. But it's possible that IV has that many members because it is a free site.
If this becomes a paid site, you might see the number of members dwindle, and that's not a good idea because even if members don't financially contribute to IV, they do offer their perspectives/opinions/feedback/critique and help others. Those who want to financially contribute to IV will do so whether IV is a free or a paid site.
IMHO, it would be a mistake to make IV a paid site thinking that this will force members to financially contribute. Sure IV forums helped a lot with finding information about I-485 applications, but people have been filing I-485s on their own even before IV was in existence. Which is not to say, IV has no value, but I hope you see where I am going with this....if members don't want to contribute, then they won't. They will go to other forums like they used to before IV was in existence...which will be a step down, but at least they are holding on to their $20 or howmuchever.
Before replying to this, please read my disclaimer below. I have to add it given the fact how hot-headed/short-tempered members have been in the last few days where they will flame someone just because their opinions differ.
Thanks,
Jayant
Disclaimer: These are my opinions. You don't have to agree with them. If you disagree, just ignore them. I am not interested in justifying myself about anything that you might have to say. I would, however, welcome a civil and a healthy discussion.
more...
makeup Taylor Swift wearing a
pappu
11-30 01:16 AM
thanks for the responses on this thread. Can one of you take the responsibility of contacting everyone and organizing the conference call? In the confrence call everyone can introduce themselves, discuss ideas and action items to work on.
girlfriend Taylor Swift Hot Red Carpet
nat23
06-12 03:01 PM
I think the whole discussion can be summed up in the following manner: The CIR in its present form does more harm to us than good. If we can manage to get a favourable amendment attached then we are in good shape else we are in trouble.
People might approach the issue in different ways:some might want to take a chance and work on it to get an admendment and some might not want to support it fearing an amendment wont be possible.
People might approach the issue in different ways:some might want to take a chance and work on it to get an admendment and some might not want to support it fearing an amendment wont be possible.
hairstyles Taylor Swift almost always
amitjoey
01-18 11:51 AM
Need 898 members with minimum of $20 monthly recurring.
If you set yourself up for monthly contribution please deduct a number from 898
If you set yourself up for monthly contribution please deduct a number from 898
LegalIndianInUSA
07-29 02:37 AM
Yea sure, be scared of corporatiions and defamation suits and let them enslave you. Sheeple mentality.
Add, the "now dead" Sun Microsystems to the list.
They even give you an offer letter/appointment letter which says "We will file for your greencard", and then dilly-dally about it for 4 years.
fuck em.
Take control of your own destiny.
Add, the "now dead" Sun Microsystems to the list.
They even give you an offer letter/appointment letter which says "We will file for your greencard", and then dilly-dally about it for 4 years.
fuck em.
Take control of your own destiny.
grinch
03-19 02:58 PM
Move this to Completed Battles?
No comments:
Post a Comment