burnt
03-08 10:37 PM
Same for me... I went to India...I followed the process while boarding and gave the passport to Airlines guy. But Somehow noticed after boarding the plane that he had not stamped my passport. So that I-94 came back with me when I reentered USA, But I did not say anything to the Immigration Officer at the POE, and got a new I-94. Will this effect my I-485?
wallpaper Zain Malik, left,
mattresscoil
12-21 02:47 PM
uslegals:
Please carry the July 2007 bulletins with you. I mean all 3. The one from July 1, July 2 and the other one which opened a window for all to apply. I say this because my experience in the past. Just carry all the documents and good luck!!
Please carry the July 2007 bulletins with you. I mean all 3. The one from July 1, July 2 and the other one which opened a window for all to apply. I say this because my experience in the past. Just carry all the documents and good luck!!
deardar
07-18 09:35 AM
I pray that all the folks of the CORE team would get their I-485 approved and their GC in hand before I get mine.
2011 zain malik,
vjkypally
07-18 09:59 AM
Just sent this to 10 of my friends, keep spreading the word
www.immigrationvoice.org succesfully manages to revoke decision!!! Now its your turn to help them by contributing so that they can help you in future for action items like
recapture of visas wasted last few years
remove country based quota for employment based GC
and many more. Also remember it is non-profit and run by people like us stuck in this process.
Cheers and for confirmation check the article below from business week,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnfl...eek+exclusives
www.immigrationvoice.org succesfully manages to revoke decision!!! Now its your turn to help them by contributing so that they can help you in future for action items like
recapture of visas wasted last few years
remove country based quota for employment based GC
and many more. Also remember it is non-profit and run by people like us stuck in this process.
Cheers and for confirmation check the article below from business week,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnfl...eek+exclusives
more...
ragz4u
01-25 11:53 AM
What is lobbying and is it legal?
As per the definition at Wikipedia, Lobbying is the practice of private advocacy with the goal of influencing a governing body by promoting a point of view that is conducive to an individual's or organization's goals. more information can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying
It is 100% legal and is in fact the preferred way of getting things done by most corporations. Corporations like Microsoft, Dell, Yahoo, Google etc have all used lobbying in the past and in fact I would go as far as saying that every Fortune 1000 firm has used lobbying at one point of time or another. Just search for any company name and the word lobbying on Google and you'll see what we are talking about
What has lobbying got to do with the Immigration Bill?
As we know from part III, Senator Specter will be creating a markup of the Senate Immigration Bill. This may/may not contain the provisions that the immigrant community is looking for.
The differennt bills that are being considered for the markup are McCain Kennedy bill, Cornyn Kyl bill, the Chuck Hagel Bill and a few others
This document by AILA compares the various versions of the bill in different categories http://www.shusterman.com/pdf/immreform106.pdf. This also considers a markup of Senator Specter which is unofficial at the moment. This means that until it gets officially presented to the Judiciary Committee for review, it could change anytime.
This markup already seems to contain the provisions we need, what are we still worried about?
If you have read my post on S.1932, you would know that a bill can be amended at multiple stages.
1) Senator Specter could change his markup, after all he has not come out with an official version. Do not forget that the link above refers to an unofficial version of the markup. As per unconfirmed reports, the Chairman's markup could be out anytime between now and mid-march and a lot of things could change in the mean time
2) Assuming that the markup does contain the provisions that we as immigrants are fighting for, any judiciary committee member can propose an amendment to the bill which could result in a an unwanted change. A case in point is the amendment that Senator Diane Feinstein proposed during S.1932 which reduced the increase in H1B visas from 60,000 to 30,000. Imagine if a senator brings in an amendment that strips off all the provisions for legal immigration!
3) If the bill does not have strong support within the Judiciary committee, it could be voted out and it becomes history
4) Assuming that the bill passes through the above steps, it is presented to the full Senate for a debate and vote. Here too any member of the senate can propose an amendment to the bill and the house votes on it. A case in point is the Byrd Amendment which was introduced by Senate Byrd from Virginia which sought to drop sections 8001 and 8002 from the S.1932. This was defeated by the a margin of 84-15 but remember that if it had enough support, S.1932 would have ended here
5) Once the bill passes with the immigration provisions in the Senate, it is presented to a joint conference committee where a few senators and a few congressmen deliberate on which sections to include int he conference bill from among the House bill and the Senate bill. Remember that the house bill has already been passed (HR.4437) and it does not contain any immigration provisions. The House members could again force the senate representatives to drop the immigration provisions. The S.1932 bill's pro-immigration sections got dropped precisely at this juncture
So as can be seen, there are various stumbling blocks towards achieving a favorable bill.
The only way we can ensure that the pro-immigrant provisions do not get ignored or sacrificed is by lobbying. By lobbying we can ensure that the right folks at the right places can understand our concern and empathize with us.
A lobbying firm can ensure that we send a consistent and effective message to the right people. As mentioned earlier, some of the lobbying firms have ex-Congressmen and ex-Senators on their boards. These folks have a great working relationship with the current senators and congressmen. These lobbyists can not only get our issues be heard by the powers, they can possibly influence them by using some political capital
Why can't we just contact the lawmakers directly and tell them about it? Why spend money for lobbyists?
We can definitely try doing this ourselves. This is a free country and nothing stops us from doing so. Unfortunately the effectiveness of such a method is questionable.
During S.1932 proceedings, many members of this forum contacted their local congressmen and senators and asked for appointments. Many also conveyed their views to the staff and many also faxed their views in. Unfortunately the bill passed without the pro-immigration provisions. The message was not conveyed strongly enough and it was conveyed as individuals and not a group.
It was realized that unless we present our case the way Washington, DC is used to seeing it (by hiring lobbyists), the message will not get through.
Lobbyists have direct access to the actual congressmen and senators while the most we can hope is getting a key staff member's attention.
A lobbyist can influence a house member, while we can only hope that the staff members pass our views to the house member.
We do not know which members are really the ones to target and key decision makers and we might end up concentrating on the wrong house members. A lobbyist can help us identify these key members.
All in all, a lobbyist can help us use our energy in the right way and not end up wasting it doing frivolous things and ultimately help us achieve our dreams
And do not forget that some of the anti-immigration groups like numbersusa already have full time lobbyists working for them in DC. If we are to even put up a decent fight against these very dedicated anti-immigrant forces, we need to get help from a professional lobbying firm
As per the definition at Wikipedia, Lobbying is the practice of private advocacy with the goal of influencing a governing body by promoting a point of view that is conducive to an individual's or organization's goals. more information can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying
It is 100% legal and is in fact the preferred way of getting things done by most corporations. Corporations like Microsoft, Dell, Yahoo, Google etc have all used lobbying in the past and in fact I would go as far as saying that every Fortune 1000 firm has used lobbying at one point of time or another. Just search for any company name and the word lobbying on Google and you'll see what we are talking about
What has lobbying got to do with the Immigration Bill?
As we know from part III, Senator Specter will be creating a markup of the Senate Immigration Bill. This may/may not contain the provisions that the immigrant community is looking for.
The differennt bills that are being considered for the markup are McCain Kennedy bill, Cornyn Kyl bill, the Chuck Hagel Bill and a few others
This document by AILA compares the various versions of the bill in different categories http://www.shusterman.com/pdf/immreform106.pdf. This also considers a markup of Senator Specter which is unofficial at the moment. This means that until it gets officially presented to the Judiciary Committee for review, it could change anytime.
This markup already seems to contain the provisions we need, what are we still worried about?
If you have read my post on S.1932, you would know that a bill can be amended at multiple stages.
1) Senator Specter could change his markup, after all he has not come out with an official version. Do not forget that the link above refers to an unofficial version of the markup. As per unconfirmed reports, the Chairman's markup could be out anytime between now and mid-march and a lot of things could change in the mean time
2) Assuming that the markup does contain the provisions that we as immigrants are fighting for, any judiciary committee member can propose an amendment to the bill which could result in a an unwanted change. A case in point is the amendment that Senator Diane Feinstein proposed during S.1932 which reduced the increase in H1B visas from 60,000 to 30,000. Imagine if a senator brings in an amendment that strips off all the provisions for legal immigration!
3) If the bill does not have strong support within the Judiciary committee, it could be voted out and it becomes history
4) Assuming that the bill passes through the above steps, it is presented to the full Senate for a debate and vote. Here too any member of the senate can propose an amendment to the bill and the house votes on it. A case in point is the Byrd Amendment which was introduced by Senate Byrd from Virginia which sought to drop sections 8001 and 8002 from the S.1932. This was defeated by the a margin of 84-15 but remember that if it had enough support, S.1932 would have ended here
5) Once the bill passes with the immigration provisions in the Senate, it is presented to a joint conference committee where a few senators and a few congressmen deliberate on which sections to include int he conference bill from among the House bill and the Senate bill. Remember that the house bill has already been passed (HR.4437) and it does not contain any immigration provisions. The House members could again force the senate representatives to drop the immigration provisions. The S.1932 bill's pro-immigration sections got dropped precisely at this juncture
So as can be seen, there are various stumbling blocks towards achieving a favorable bill.
The only way we can ensure that the pro-immigrant provisions do not get ignored or sacrificed is by lobbying. By lobbying we can ensure that the right folks at the right places can understand our concern and empathize with us.
A lobbying firm can ensure that we send a consistent and effective message to the right people. As mentioned earlier, some of the lobbying firms have ex-Congressmen and ex-Senators on their boards. These folks have a great working relationship with the current senators and congressmen. These lobbyists can not only get our issues be heard by the powers, they can possibly influence them by using some political capital
Why can't we just contact the lawmakers directly and tell them about it? Why spend money for lobbyists?
We can definitely try doing this ourselves. This is a free country and nothing stops us from doing so. Unfortunately the effectiveness of such a method is questionable.
During S.1932 proceedings, many members of this forum contacted their local congressmen and senators and asked for appointments. Many also conveyed their views to the staff and many also faxed their views in. Unfortunately the bill passed without the pro-immigration provisions. The message was not conveyed strongly enough and it was conveyed as individuals and not a group.
It was realized that unless we present our case the way Washington, DC is used to seeing it (by hiring lobbyists), the message will not get through.
Lobbyists have direct access to the actual congressmen and senators while the most we can hope is getting a key staff member's attention.
A lobbyist can influence a house member, while we can only hope that the staff members pass our views to the house member.
We do not know which members are really the ones to target and key decision makers and we might end up concentrating on the wrong house members. A lobbyist can help us identify these key members.
All in all, a lobbyist can help us use our energy in the right way and not end up wasting it doing frivolous things and ultimately help us achieve our dreams
And do not forget that some of the anti-immigration groups like numbersusa already have full time lobbyists working for them in DC. If we are to even put up a decent fight against these very dedicated anti-immigrant forces, we need to get help from a professional lobbying firm
navkap
09-20 04:26 PM
From Yahoo News
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Immigration
WASHINGTON - The House voted Wednesday to require Americans to show proof of citizenship in order to vote, and the Senate moved to build a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border as Republicans sharpened attacks on illegal immigration before the midterm elections.
The 228-196 House vote on a new photo ID plan and the Senate's consideration of the fence were both part of a get-tough policy on illegal immigrants that Republicans have embraced after Congress' failure to agree on broader legislation that would set a path for undocumented workers to attain citizenship.
House GOP leaders have insisted that tighter borders and tougher laws must precede more comprehensive immigration changes. The House passed the fence bill last week and plans votes Thursday on other enforcement measures: to increase penalties for people building tunnels under the border, make it easier to detain and deport immigrant gang members and criminals and clarify the ability of state and local authorities to detain illegal immigrants.
Republican sponsors of the voter identification bill said it was a commonsense way to stop fraud at the polls. People need photo IDs to board planes, buy alcohol or cash checks, said Rep. Vernon Ehlers (news, bio, voting record), R-Mich., chairman of the House Administration Committee. "This is not a new concept."
"This is what Americans want," said Rep. John Mica (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., "They want safe borders and they want safe ballots."
But Democrats assailed the legislation, saying it could hurt minorities, the poor and the elderly � groups that tend to vote Democratic � who might have trouble producing a photo identification.
"This bill is tantamount to a 21st century poll tax," said Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "It will disenfranchise large number of legal voters."
Rep. Ike Skelton (news, bio, voting record), D-Mo., said he was initially denied a voter ID required under a Missouri state law because he doesn't have a driver's license and couldn't immediately produce a passport or birth certificate. His congressional ID card was not accepted.
A Missouri court earlier this month struck down the state law, and on Tuesday a state superior court judge in Georgia ruled that that state's law requiring a photo ID was an unconstitutional condition for voting.
The bill would require everyone to present a photo ID before voting in federal elections by 2008. By 2010 voters would have to have photo IDs that certified they were citizens. In response to criticism that this would be a burden for the poor, the bill stipulates that states must provide the identification cards free of charge to those who can't afford them.
The Senate, meanwhile, voted Wednesday to take up a bill to build a 700-mile fence along one-third of the U.S.-Mexico border.
Action on the fence, which could cost billions of dollars, comes four months after the Senate approved legislation that, along with tightening border security, created a guest worker program and outlined how people in the country illegally could work toward legal status and eventual citizenship.
President Bush has supported this broader approach, but it has met strong resistance in the House, where opponents have said it was tantamount to amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Bush, in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, said he would sign a fencebuilding bill as part of efforts to strengthen the border. But he added, "I would view this as an interim step. I don't view this as the final product. And I will keep urging people to have a comprehensive reform."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said, "While I've made it clear that I prefer a comprehensive solution, I have always said we need an enforcement-first approach to immigration reform."
Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada countered, "We can build the tallest fence in the world and it won't fix our broken immigration system." To do that, he said, "we need the kind of comprehensive reform that the Senate passed earlier this year."
The current bill wouldn't provide funding to cover costs of the fencing and other barriers aimed at preventing illegal entry. About $1 billion for the fencing is likely to be included in a bill for the Department of Homeland Security that Congress is expected to approve before its scheduled adjournment next week for the elections.
Also on Wednesday, a bipartisan task force recommended that Congress provide a path to legal status for immigrants who can demonstrate steady employment, knowledge of English and payment of taxes and who pass a background security check.
The panel, chaired by Spencer Abraham, former Republican senator from Michigan and energy secretary, and Lee Hamilton, former Democratic representative from Indiana and chair of the 9/11 Commission, also urged new verification mechanisms to assist employers in hiring only authorized workers.
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Immigration
WASHINGTON - The House voted Wednesday to require Americans to show proof of citizenship in order to vote, and the Senate moved to build a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border as Republicans sharpened attacks on illegal immigration before the midterm elections.
The 228-196 House vote on a new photo ID plan and the Senate's consideration of the fence were both part of a get-tough policy on illegal immigrants that Republicans have embraced after Congress' failure to agree on broader legislation that would set a path for undocumented workers to attain citizenship.
House GOP leaders have insisted that tighter borders and tougher laws must precede more comprehensive immigration changes. The House passed the fence bill last week and plans votes Thursday on other enforcement measures: to increase penalties for people building tunnels under the border, make it easier to detain and deport immigrant gang members and criminals and clarify the ability of state and local authorities to detain illegal immigrants.
Republican sponsors of the voter identification bill said it was a commonsense way to stop fraud at the polls. People need photo IDs to board planes, buy alcohol or cash checks, said Rep. Vernon Ehlers (news, bio, voting record), R-Mich., chairman of the House Administration Committee. "This is not a new concept."
"This is what Americans want," said Rep. John Mica (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., "They want safe borders and they want safe ballots."
But Democrats assailed the legislation, saying it could hurt minorities, the poor and the elderly � groups that tend to vote Democratic � who might have trouble producing a photo identification.
"This bill is tantamount to a 21st century poll tax," said Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "It will disenfranchise large number of legal voters."
Rep. Ike Skelton (news, bio, voting record), D-Mo., said he was initially denied a voter ID required under a Missouri state law because he doesn't have a driver's license and couldn't immediately produce a passport or birth certificate. His congressional ID card was not accepted.
A Missouri court earlier this month struck down the state law, and on Tuesday a state superior court judge in Georgia ruled that that state's law requiring a photo ID was an unconstitutional condition for voting.
The bill would require everyone to present a photo ID before voting in federal elections by 2008. By 2010 voters would have to have photo IDs that certified they were citizens. In response to criticism that this would be a burden for the poor, the bill stipulates that states must provide the identification cards free of charge to those who can't afford them.
The Senate, meanwhile, voted Wednesday to take up a bill to build a 700-mile fence along one-third of the U.S.-Mexico border.
Action on the fence, which could cost billions of dollars, comes four months after the Senate approved legislation that, along with tightening border security, created a guest worker program and outlined how people in the country illegally could work toward legal status and eventual citizenship.
President Bush has supported this broader approach, but it has met strong resistance in the House, where opponents have said it was tantamount to amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Bush, in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, said he would sign a fencebuilding bill as part of efforts to strengthen the border. But he added, "I would view this as an interim step. I don't view this as the final product. And I will keep urging people to have a comprehensive reform."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said, "While I've made it clear that I prefer a comprehensive solution, I have always said we need an enforcement-first approach to immigration reform."
Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada countered, "We can build the tallest fence in the world and it won't fix our broken immigration system." To do that, he said, "we need the kind of comprehensive reform that the Senate passed earlier this year."
The current bill wouldn't provide funding to cover costs of the fencing and other barriers aimed at preventing illegal entry. About $1 billion for the fencing is likely to be included in a bill for the Department of Homeland Security that Congress is expected to approve before its scheduled adjournment next week for the elections.
Also on Wednesday, a bipartisan task force recommended that Congress provide a path to legal status for immigrants who can demonstrate steady employment, knowledge of English and payment of taxes and who pass a background security check.
The panel, chaired by Spencer Abraham, former Republican senator from Michigan and energy secretary, and Lee Hamilton, former Democratic representative from Indiana and chair of the 9/11 Commission, also urged new verification mechanisms to assist employers in hiring only authorized workers.
more...
vactorboy29
10-09 04:54 PM
BECsufferer,
Does that mean you need to have visa stamp in your passport ? otherwise they would not issue German visa.
Does that mean you need to have visa stamp in your passport ? otherwise they would not issue German visa.
2010 Look at Harrys hair…
Blog Feeds
07-13 12:48 PM
I am writing the second of a multi-part series of posts on how to bring family relatives to the United States permanently. The first post I wrote provided general information on bringing family relatives to the United States. (See my post, "Can I petition for my relative to immigrate to the United States?" (http://www.californiaimmigrationlawyerblog.com/2009/05/can_i_petition_for_my_relative.html)) This post will focus on how to petition for your brother or sister to come to the United States permanently.
In order to petition for your brother or sister you must file Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=c67c7f9ded54d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD) with United States and Citizenship Services ("USCIS") along with proof that you are a United States Citizen and that you are related to your brother or sister. I will discuss the steps you must take in more detail below.
Obtain Form I-130 (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=c67c7f9ded54d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
You may obtain Form I-130 (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=c67c7f9ded54d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD), by clicking on the link in this post. At the same time that you obtain the form, you should also print out the instructions to the form. They are more detailed than the instructions I will provide in this post and provide the mailing address to where you will need to send the form.
Proof of U.S. Citizenship
You may prove that you are a U.S. citizen by sending one of the following documents to USCIS with your petition:
A copy of your birth certificate (if you were born in the United States) issued by a civil registrar, vital statistics office, or other civil authority.
A copy of your naturalization certificate or certificate of citizenship issued by USCIS or the former INS.
A copy of your Form FS-240, Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States, issued by a U.S. embassy or consulate.
A copy of your unexpired U.S. passport. OR
An original letter from a U.S. consular officer verifying that you are a U.S. citizen with a valid passport.
More... (http://www.californiaimmigrationlawyerblog.com/2009/07/how_do_i_bring_my_brother_or_s.html)
In order to petition for your brother or sister you must file Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=c67c7f9ded54d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD) with United States and Citizenship Services ("USCIS") along with proof that you are a United States Citizen and that you are related to your brother or sister. I will discuss the steps you must take in more detail below.
Obtain Form I-130 (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=c67c7f9ded54d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
You may obtain Form I-130 (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=c67c7f9ded54d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD), by clicking on the link in this post. At the same time that you obtain the form, you should also print out the instructions to the form. They are more detailed than the instructions I will provide in this post and provide the mailing address to where you will need to send the form.
Proof of U.S. Citizenship
You may prove that you are a U.S. citizen by sending one of the following documents to USCIS with your petition:
A copy of your birth certificate (if you were born in the United States) issued by a civil registrar, vital statistics office, or other civil authority.
A copy of your naturalization certificate or certificate of citizenship issued by USCIS or the former INS.
A copy of your Form FS-240, Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States, issued by a U.S. embassy or consulate.
A copy of your unexpired U.S. passport. OR
An original letter from a U.S. consular officer verifying that you are a U.S. citizen with a valid passport.
More... (http://www.californiaimmigrationlawyerblog.com/2009/07/how_do_i_bring_my_brother_or_s.html)
more...
dingudi
03-12 07:18 PM
With retrogressio to last for years, I am also planning to pursue MBA. But again with IT experience , getting first MBA break is crucial.
Does anyone have idea, whether executive MBA or Part-Time MBA is better with following things in mind:
1) Being able to do it while working full time.
2) Career prospects after finishing
Does anyone have idea, whether executive MBA or Part-Time MBA is better with following things in mind:
1) Being able to do it while working full time.
2) Career prospects after finishing
hair years older than Zayn (who
BECsufferer
08-20 07:10 PM
Unfortunatly none so-far. The only thing I got in email is " your case is yet to be reviewed by an officer"
more...
GCWaiter03
07-27 12:51 PM
Friends,
Finally my 485 is approved,
" On July 26, 2007, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS"
Long wait is over....
I thank IV core members and all others for their efforts and information.
Case details
EB3 - India
PD - Nov2003
RD - Aug 2004
Approved - 7/26/2007
RFE - Birth Certificate and 325, Yes replied last Sept.
ajkastar, Where did you filed your i-485. Is it NSC?
Mine is also in the same range of PD and RD, But I filed in NSC.
Thanks,
GCWaiter03
Finally my 485 is approved,
" On July 26, 2007, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS"
Long wait is over....
I thank IV core members and all others for their efforts and information.
Case details
EB3 - India
PD - Nov2003
RD - Aug 2004
Approved - 7/26/2007
RFE - Birth Certificate and 325, Yes replied last Sept.
ajkastar, Where did you filed your i-485. Is it NSC?
Mine is also in the same range of PD and RD, But I filed in NSC.
Thanks,
GCWaiter03
hot click here Zain malik,
cherish37
10-24 02:16 PM
Anyone still not able to check online status for receipt number starts with SCR08007? It's been two weeks from the notice date.
more...
house http forums lof zain malik
willigetagc
08-15 08:33 AM
because many of the IOs are dumb high school grads with some additional training. They have been told that 2006 is current and so they pick all and only 2006.
is there any way we can get DOS to specifically state that 2006 and all prior years ARE CURRENT instead of just throwing out a current PD in a VB?
Thankfully, not all IOs are so dumb, hence the few pre-2006 approvals. What else could explain this anomaly..... :mad:
is there any way we can get DOS to specifically state that 2006 and all prior years ARE CURRENT instead of just throwing out a current PD in a VB?
Thankfully, not all IOs are so dumb, hence the few pre-2006 approvals. What else could explain this anomaly..... :mad:
tattoo One+direction+zayn+malik+
chintu25
12-02 11:45 AM
I am at the risk of being laid off anytime but will not stop my contributions to IV
I am convinced that this cause is far bigger that 1 job or one individual .
To live with the insecurity of loosing status doubles the anxiety of loosing a job .
I hope that this situation doesnt befall on anybody here on IV....
We deserve better ...All of us here are educated and highly skilled and we deserved to be treated right .
If you think I am right .....Contribute atleast USD 10 right NOW and post it here.
God help us and Capre Diem ( Sieze the day ) to all of us
I am convinced that this cause is far bigger that 1 job or one individual .
To live with the insecurity of loosing status doubles the anxiety of loosing a job .
I hope that this situation doesnt befall on anybody here on IV....
We deserve better ...All of us here are educated and highly skilled and we deserved to be treated right .
If you think I am right .....Contribute atleast USD 10 right NOW and post it here.
God help us and Capre Diem ( Sieze the day ) to all of us
more...
pictures zain malik,one
seetheavatar
09-22 10:22 AM
Yes we got the card after a month.
It went to a place where we never lived not sure how it went there.
Anyway we didnt get the notices yet.
Just the card.
I'm in a similar situation and I opened an SR today. Did you see any movement?
Thanks,
It went to a place where we never lived not sure how it went there.
Anyway we didnt get the notices yet.
Just the card.
I'm in a similar situation and I opened an SR today. Did you see any movement?
Thanks,
dresses dw and zayn malik shopping
knnmbd
04-28 02:45 PM
DOL Proposed Legislation for Labor Certification
In an attempt to clamp down on fraud in the labor certification application process, the Department of Labor (�DOL�) has proposed regulations, which would impact both pre-PERM and PERM filings. The proposal includes requiring employers to pay for all costs and fees associated with a labor certification application. The penalties for violating this proposal include denial of the labor certification, revocation, debarment, or any combination. Debarment means an employer can not file a labor certification application for up to three years.
A labor certification application would also have a limited validity period. Currently a labor certification application is valid without limitation unless it is revoked or withdrawn. Under the proposed regulations, an employer must file an immigrant petition with the CIS within 45 days of the labor certification application approval. For applications which have already been certified, an employer must file within 45 days of the enactment of final rule implementing the regulations. If the labor certification application is not filed within this timeframe, it will expire and can not be used to support an immigrant petition.
The proposed regulations also prohibit substitution. Substitution occurs when an employer has an approved labor certification application, but the individual that was originally listed in the labor certification application is no longer being sponsored. An employer could �substitute� a new employee into the labor certification application if the new employee met the minimum requirements listed in the labor certification application at the time the application was initially filed. Concerned that substitution encouraged fraud, DOL proposes to eliminate substitution.
Finally, the proposed rule prohibits a labor certification application to be sold, bartered or purchased. If an individual or entity is found to have engaged in this kind of transaction, the labor certification application can be denied, revoked, debarment, or any combination.
I like the idea of the employer bearing ALL green card expenses and attesting to that with no impunity from prosecution if found guilty. Hey, that's the way it's supposed to be. The employer is SO INTERESTED in keeping you that they spend 15K on your paperwork, wait for 3-4 years till you get your GC. The reason we are being treated like the way we are by employers is because we are prepared to do any thing to get our GC's , even pay for it if it comes down to it and that this the case 90% of the time. Eliminating labor substitution, clamping down on fraudulent paperwork will clear the way up for everyone. I am glad that these steps are being taken; too bad it took so long.
In an attempt to clamp down on fraud in the labor certification application process, the Department of Labor (�DOL�) has proposed regulations, which would impact both pre-PERM and PERM filings. The proposal includes requiring employers to pay for all costs and fees associated with a labor certification application. The penalties for violating this proposal include denial of the labor certification, revocation, debarment, or any combination. Debarment means an employer can not file a labor certification application for up to three years.
A labor certification application would also have a limited validity period. Currently a labor certification application is valid without limitation unless it is revoked or withdrawn. Under the proposed regulations, an employer must file an immigrant petition with the CIS within 45 days of the labor certification application approval. For applications which have already been certified, an employer must file within 45 days of the enactment of final rule implementing the regulations. If the labor certification application is not filed within this timeframe, it will expire and can not be used to support an immigrant petition.
The proposed regulations also prohibit substitution. Substitution occurs when an employer has an approved labor certification application, but the individual that was originally listed in the labor certification application is no longer being sponsored. An employer could �substitute� a new employee into the labor certification application if the new employee met the minimum requirements listed in the labor certification application at the time the application was initially filed. Concerned that substitution encouraged fraud, DOL proposes to eliminate substitution.
Finally, the proposed rule prohibits a labor certification application to be sold, bartered or purchased. If an individual or entity is found to have engaged in this kind of transaction, the labor certification application can be denied, revoked, debarment, or any combination.
I like the idea of the employer bearing ALL green card expenses and attesting to that with no impunity from prosecution if found guilty. Hey, that's the way it's supposed to be. The employer is SO INTERESTED in keeping you that they spend 15K on your paperwork, wait for 3-4 years till you get your GC. The reason we are being treated like the way we are by employers is because we are prepared to do any thing to get our GC's , even pay for it if it comes down to it and that this the case 90% of the time. Eliminating labor substitution, clamping down on fraudulent paperwork will clear the way up for everyone. I am glad that these steps are being taken; too bad it took so long.
more...
makeup One Direction#39;s Zain Malik is
deafTunes123
09-04 01:28 PM
My Lawyer sent a letter explaining to port from EB3 to EB2. He attached both the copies of the approved I-140s. btw. my new approved I-140 has the priority date of EB3. Lawyer request to port the PD from EB3 to EB2 at the time of I-140 application.
He also mentioned the A# no.s in the Cover Letter.
Also my Approved I-140 has the A# printed in the beneficiary column.
Hope this helps.
I am hoping that PD is ported successfully.
Hi,
Can you tell me what your lawyer sent to the USCIS. How did he link the approved 140 to the pending 485. Did he fill any form? I am in the same boat. My both 140's are with the same company though.
Thanks
He also mentioned the A# no.s in the Cover Letter.
Also my Approved I-140 has the A# printed in the beneficiary column.
Hope this helps.
I am hoping that PD is ported successfully.
Hi,
Can you tell me what your lawyer sent to the USCIS. How did he link the approved 140 to the pending 485. Did he fill any form? I am in the same boat. My both 140's are with the same company though.
Thanks
girlfriend help oneone Zayn malik
singhsa3
08-22 06:52 PM
Msg deleted
BUMP
Anybody else knows any contact number other than 800 375 5283 to find out what document was mailed by USCIS????
BUMP
Anybody else knows any contact number other than 800 375 5283 to find out what document was mailed by USCIS????
hairstyles zain malik on may share,
Humhongekamyab
02-24 02:39 PM
For those who think that this is good and will not affect them -
What we are hearing now in the news is just the tip of the iceberg. It is just ground work to justify tougher measures against employment based immigration. If it continues, CIR will be passed giving path to citizenship to ILLEGAL immigrants without any measure for employment based immigration. Remember, the only folks who have been in influential position to support EB immigration has been big businesses (like Microsoft, Oracle) and AILA. With the rising unemployment rate, nobody will listen to these businesses. With the indictment of (even a few) cases of H-1B fraud, AILA will not be able to fight the impending tsunami against legal employment based immigrants.
If we don't do anything illegals will be citizens while people with H-1 and even EAD will be forced to go back.
Can't agree more. This is how it starts - Divide and Rule. First it was the TARP recipients only. Next will IT companies. Then it will be EAD and maybe finally the Green Cards.
What we are hearing now in the news is just the tip of the iceberg. It is just ground work to justify tougher measures against employment based immigration. If it continues, CIR will be passed giving path to citizenship to ILLEGAL immigrants without any measure for employment based immigration. Remember, the only folks who have been in influential position to support EB immigration has been big businesses (like Microsoft, Oracle) and AILA. With the rising unemployment rate, nobody will listen to these businesses. With the indictment of (even a few) cases of H-1B fraud, AILA will not be able to fight the impending tsunami against legal employment based immigrants.
If we don't do anything illegals will be citizens while people with H-1 and even EAD will be forced to go back.
Can't agree more. This is how it starts - Divide and Rule. First it was the TARP recipients only. Next will IT companies. Then it will be EAD and maybe finally the Green Cards.
vvpandya
11-06 01:55 PM
I had a LUD on 10/18 and then today the online status says Document mailed to applicant..hope that is it...my recvd date is 7/2 and recpt date is 9/11
vparam
11-01 09:34 AM
One of the requirement is if you were last submitted to the U.S. as a non-immigrant on or before Sept 30, 2002. At that point in time, i entered the U.S. in January 2003 after taking a 2 weeks Christmas break.
The document you have reffered is -->EXTENSION OF REGISTRATION PERIOD
FOR CERTAIN NONIMMIGRANTS
and this extension is valid till on or before April 25, 2003
for the following
And you were last admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant on or before
September 30, 2002; and
� If you are a male, born on or before February 24, 1987; and
� If you did not have an application for asylum pending on January 16, 2003, or if you are
not otherwise exempt as described in the attached questions and answers; and
� If you will remain in the United States at least until April 25, 2003.
So irrespective of the above regulation you should have registered if you are from the stated regions unless the original regulation also stated the above points. In that case you need not register based on the 1st point but would have to register based on the 4th point ***If you will remain in the United States at least until April 25, 2003.****. So cannot understand why you were mislead....
The document you have reffered is -->EXTENSION OF REGISTRATION PERIOD
FOR CERTAIN NONIMMIGRANTS
and this extension is valid till on or before April 25, 2003
for the following
And you were last admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant on or before
September 30, 2002; and
� If you are a male, born on or before February 24, 1987; and
� If you did not have an application for asylum pending on January 16, 2003, or if you are
not otherwise exempt as described in the attached questions and answers; and
� If you will remain in the United States at least until April 25, 2003.
So irrespective of the above regulation you should have registered if you are from the stated regions unless the original regulation also stated the above points. In that case you need not register based on the 1st point but would have to register based on the 4th point ***If you will remain in the United States at least until April 25, 2003.****. So cannot understand why you were mislead....
No comments:
Post a Comment