nogreen4decade
09-01 06:27 PM
Pooja, Kyon re? Are you feeling lonely or what? He doesn't want to talk to you... leave him alone ;-)
I thought you were going to contact me in order to sue me ... As usual - another coward South Indian .....
I thought you were going to contact me in order to sue me ... As usual - another coward South Indian .....
wallpaper Emo Hairstyles for Girls
kss
07-20 09:08 AM
I pledge $200 for this noble cause.
seshuvaidehi
09-20 11:01 AM
Labor Certified in June 2006-India
I-140 approved Dec 2006
I-485 filed on July 23rd 2007 > Checks got cashed > Got Recipt:WAC ###
EAD filed on July 23rd 2007 > Checks got cashed > Got Recipt:WAC ###
AP filed on July 23rd 2007 > Checks got cashed > Got Recipt : WAC ###
How do I check if EAD card has been ordered and/or AP approved?
Your all are awesome and Thanks to Immigration Voice.
I-140 approved Dec 2006
I-485 filed on July 23rd 2007 > Checks got cashed > Got Recipt:WAC ###
EAD filed on July 23rd 2007 > Checks got cashed > Got Recipt:WAC ###
AP filed on July 23rd 2007 > Checks got cashed > Got Recipt : WAC ###
How do I check if EAD card has been ordered and/or AP approved?
Your all are awesome and Thanks to Immigration Voice.
2011 30+ Trendy Stylish Hairstyles
mirage
03-08 05:09 PM
I don't find anything wrong with that, there are more important social issues than spending time on greencard seeker forums......Atleast 1 attorney who explained it elaborately was Ron Gotcher, you can check on his website for that info...
That is many peoples problems isn't it? They are active on forums, care about greencards, keep abreast on legislative stuff and then once they get greencard they disappear.
If someone is from USA and they go to your country and live there for five years; they do not have historical context of why things are done the way they are done; no matter how long they research it.
We'll see when statistics come out. Which lawyers by the way say their interpretation is 180 degrees different?
How much visas did India get for the period October 1, 2004 to September 2005 (off the top of my head it was 50,000)
From October 2005 to September 2006 (it was around 10,500)
For the period October 2006 to September 2007 (someone want tofind it; it was more then 7%)
October 2007 to September 2008 (to be determined)
Department of State has been all over the place by changing their interpretation? btw; I doubt with visa movements the way they are that they are establishing country quota of 7%. If they were then that would mean there is only 2,800 people including dependents waiting for greencard in eb2 prior to April 2004.
That is many peoples problems isn't it? They are active on forums, care about greencards, keep abreast on legislative stuff and then once they get greencard they disappear.
If someone is from USA and they go to your country and live there for five years; they do not have historical context of why things are done the way they are done; no matter how long they research it.
We'll see when statistics come out. Which lawyers by the way say their interpretation is 180 degrees different?
How much visas did India get for the period October 1, 2004 to September 2005 (off the top of my head it was 50,000)
From October 2005 to September 2006 (it was around 10,500)
For the period October 2006 to September 2007 (someone want tofind it; it was more then 7%)
October 2007 to September 2008 (to be determined)
Department of State has been all over the place by changing their interpretation? btw; I doubt with visa movements the way they are that they are establishing country quota of 7%. If they were then that would mean there is only 2,800 people including dependents waiting for greencard in eb2 prior to April 2004.
more...
h1techSlave
03-08 08:10 PM
If many EB3-I folks are getting GCs then why is EB3-I PD stuck in 2001? Shouldn't it move?
I feel where you are coming from; I am also from the waited four years to get approved from filing 485 club.
btw; every person I know of from India who has gotten green from October 2008 were those eb3 guys who converted to eb2 through perm labor. I have a feeling that this is going to cause a lot of stress to eb2 as many people have been able to obtain old priority dates through eb3. Maybe not much solace but with perm labors taking 9 months to get approved now (most recent approvals were filed in July 2008) it does help India a bit. It is taking longer for eb2 ROW to get into 140/485 que and would cause more visas to be spilled over. If labors were getting approved fast then there would be less spillover in this fiscal year.
Department of State is really playing with people with their continuing change of how they are interpreting the law with regards to visa spillover. In Mid 90's I left USA (one of the reasons; not main reason was because I was told it would take about three years to get greencard; looks like a small wait compared to now).
I feel where you are coming from; I am also from the waited four years to get approved from filing 485 club.
btw; every person I know of from India who has gotten green from October 2008 were those eb3 guys who converted to eb2 through perm labor. I have a feeling that this is going to cause a lot of stress to eb2 as many people have been able to obtain old priority dates through eb3. Maybe not much solace but with perm labors taking 9 months to get approved now (most recent approvals were filed in July 2008) it does help India a bit. It is taking longer for eb2 ROW to get into 140/485 que and would cause more visas to be spilled over. If labors were getting approved fast then there would be less spillover in this fiscal year.
Department of State is really playing with people with their continuing change of how they are interpreting the law with regards to visa spillover. In Mid 90's I left USA (one of the reasons; not main reason was because I was told it would take about three years to get greencard; looks like a small wait compared to now).
GCStatus
09-15 12:21 PM
I appreciate your spirit, although I don't agree with your belief that you own the thread or the messageboards by the virtue of your creating a thread.
What I posted was a plea to introspect (more so as the first anniversary of the D.C. rally approaches) - it was in no way dismissive of your efforts, or an effort to ridicule or demean your thread or its spirit.
Not sure why you felt the need to be rude - being firm and clear about your goals is a sign of leadership, and being blunt may get you some more brownie points. However, brash/rude behavior is not a substitute for that clarity and firmness, imho - particularly with those who may be working towards the same goals as you are (albeit coming at it from a different angle).
All the best in your endeavors, my friend.
jazz
I dont own anything - Its all WE. Its WE
Apologizes if it hurt your feelings - Goal is NO negative energy here. Period.
Please join us in this effort
What I posted was a plea to introspect (more so as the first anniversary of the D.C. rally approaches) - it was in no way dismissive of your efforts, or an effort to ridicule or demean your thread or its spirit.
Not sure why you felt the need to be rude - being firm and clear about your goals is a sign of leadership, and being blunt may get you some more brownie points. However, brash/rude behavior is not a substitute for that clarity and firmness, imho - particularly with those who may be working towards the same goals as you are (albeit coming at it from a different angle).
All the best in your endeavors, my friend.
jazz
I dont own anything - Its all WE. Its WE
Apologizes if it hurt your feelings - Goal is NO negative energy here. Period.
Please join us in this effort
more...
Administrator2
09-23 02:42 PM
the problem is that some of us are likely to eat his lunch
It is not his lunch. We should not see all this as a zero sum game. We all ought to learn not to get dragged into meaningless Eb2 v/s Eb3 fight. It doesn't help anyone. Some of us in IV core had the opportunity to see this situation very closely and witness how it plays out in Washington. No matter who says/starts Eb2 v/s Eb3 fight, you will not get any different response from IV.
Our position and work on this situation is very clear. We are all in this together and we should all help each other out instead of pulling each other down. This is the only way to fix the problem.
It is not his lunch. We should not see all this as a zero sum game. We all ought to learn not to get dragged into meaningless Eb2 v/s Eb3 fight. It doesn't help anyone. Some of us in IV core had the opportunity to see this situation very closely and witness how it plays out in Washington. No matter who says/starts Eb2 v/s Eb3 fight, you will not get any different response from IV.
Our position and work on this situation is very clear. We are all in this together and we should all help each other out instead of pulling each other down. This is the only way to fix the problem.
2010 2011 easy hairstyles for girls
diptam
08-21 11:36 PM
I'm going to call Texas Tomorrow ! If i call USCIS they never transfers to TSC or NSC easily.
Why do you have this hunch?
It seems like all the LUDs on approved I140 from Texas for July filers is pointing towards their I485 being sent to Texas too. Hence, this unimaginable prolonged delay. Can we do anything about it except sulk?
Let it run its course.
Why do you have this hunch?
It seems like all the LUDs on approved I140 from Texas for July filers is pointing towards their I485 being sent to Texas too. Hence, this unimaginable prolonged delay. Can we do anything about it except sulk?
Let it run its course.
more...
maverick_joe
05-02 10:49 AM
:D shhhhhhhh, ppl who got into IV after Apr 2007..please dont express your views...
Who did not even know about IV till Apr 2007 are talking here.
Who did not even know about IV till Apr 2007 are talking here.
hair Very Short Hairstyles 2011
lost_in_migration
05-01 04:36 PM
INA: ACT 203 - ALLOCATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVA...16a4cb816838a4
PART 2 [CONTD.]
(II) No permanent resident visa may be issued to an alien physician described in subclause (I) by the Secretary of State under section 204(b) , and the Attorney General may not adjust the status of such an alien physician from that of a nonimmigrant alien to that of a permanent resident alien under section 245 , until such time as the alien has worked full time as a physician for an aggregate of 5 years (not including the time served in the status of an alien described in section 101(a)(15)(J) ), in an area or areas designated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as having a shortage of health care professionals or at a health care facility under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
(III) Nothing in this subparagraph may be construed to prevent the filing of a petition with the Attorney General for classification under section 204(a) , or the filing of an application for adjustment of status under section 245 , by an alien physician described in subclause (I) prior to the date by which such alien physician has completed the service described in subclause (II).
(IV) The requirements of this subsection do not affect waivers on behalf of alien physicians approved under section 203(b)(2)(B) before the enactment date of this subsection. In the case of a physician for whom an application for a waiver was filed under section 203(b)(2)(B) prior to November 1, 1998, the Attorney General shall grant a national interest waiver pursuant to section 203(b)(2)(B) except that the alien is required to have worked full time as a physician for an aggregate of 3 years (not including time served in the status of an alien described in section 101(a)(15)(J) ) before a visa can be issued to the alien under section 204(b) or the status of the alien is adjusted to permanent resident under section 245 .
(C) Determination of exceptional ability. - In determining under subparagraph (A) whether an immigrant has exceptional ability, the possession of a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning or a license to practice or certification for a particular profession or occupation shall not by itself be considered sufficient evidence of such exceptional ability.
(3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers.-
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), to the following classes of aliens who are not described in paragraph (2):
(i) Skilled workers. - Qualified immigrants who are capable, at the time of petitioning for classification under this paragraph, of performing skilled labor (requiring at least 2 years training or experience), not of a temporary or seasonal nature, for which qualified workers are not available in the United States.
(ii) Professionals. - Qualified immigrants who hold baccalaureate degrees and who are members of the professions.
(iii) Other workers. - Other qualified immigrants who are capable, at the time of petitioning for classification under this paragraph, of performing unskilled labor, not of a temporary or seasonal nature, for which qualified workers are not available in the United States.
(B) Limitation on other workers. - Not more than 10,000 of the visas made available under this paragraph in any fiscal year may be available for qualified immigrants described in subparagraph (A)(iii).
(C) Labor certification required.- An immigrant visa may not be issued to an immigrant under subparagraph (A) until the consular officer is in receipt of a determination made by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the provisions of section 212(a)(5)(A) .
(4) Certain special immigrants. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified special immigrants described in section 101(a)(27) (other than those described in subparagraph (A) or (B) thereof), of which not more than 5,000 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants described in subclause (II) or (III) of section 101(a)(27)(C)(ii) , 2/ and not more than 100 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants, excluding spouses and children, who are described in section 101(a)(27)(M) .
(5) Employment creation. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial 4/ enterprise (including a limited partnership)--
(i) 4/ in which such alien has invested (after the date of the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1990) or, is actively in the process of investing, capital in an amount not less than the amount specified in subparagraph (C), and
(ii) 4/ which will benefit the United States economy and create full-time employment for not fewer than 10 United States citizens or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence or other immigrants lawfully authorized to be employed in the United States (other than the immigrant and the immigrant's spouse, sons, or daughters).
(B) Set-aside for targeted employment areas.-
(i) In general. - Not less than 3,000 of the visas made available under this paragraph in each fiscal year shall be reserved for qualified immigrants who 4/ invest in a new commercial enterprise described in subparagraph (A) which will create employment in a targeted employment area.
(ii) Targeted employment area defined. - In this paragraph, the term ``targeted employment area'' means, at the time of the investment, a rural area or an area which has experienced high unemployment (of at least 150 percent of the national average rate).
(iii) Rural area defined. - In this paragraph, the term ``rural area'' means any area other than an area within a metropolitan statistical area or within the outer boundary of any city or town having a population of 20,000 or more (based on the most recent decennial census of the United States).
(C) Amount of capital required. -
(i) In general. - Except as otherwise provided in this subparagraph, the amount of capital required under subparagraph (A) shall be $1,000,000. The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of State, may from time to time prescribe regulations increasing the dollar amount specified under the previous sentence.
(ii) Adjustment for targeted employment areas.- The Attorney General may, in the case of investment made in a targeted employment area, specify an amount of capital required under subparagraph (A) that is less than (but not less than 1/2 of) the amount specified in clause (i).
(iii) Adjustment for high employment areas.-In the case of an investment made in a part of a metropolitan statistical area that at the time of the investment -
(I) is not a targeted employment area, and
(II) is an area with an unemployment rate significantly below the national average unemployment rate, the Attorney General may specify an amount of capital required under subparagraph (A) that is greater than (but not greater than 3 times) the amount specified in clause (I).
(D) 4/ Full-time employment defined.--In this paragraph, the term `full-time employment' means employment in a position that requires at least 35 hours of service per week at any time, regardless of who fills the position.
(6) Special rules for "k" special immigrants. -
(A) Not counted against numerical limitation in year involved. - Subject to subparagraph (B), the number of immigrant visas made available to special immigrants under section 101(a)(27)(K) in a fiscal year shall not be subject to the numerical limitations of this subsection or of section 202(a).
(B) Counted against numerical limitations in following year.-
(i) Reduction in employment-based immigrant classifications. - The number of visas made available in any fiscal year under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) shall each be reduced by 1/3 of the number of visas made available in the previous fiscal year to special immigrants described in section 101(a)(27)(K) .
(ii) Reduction in per country level. - The number of visas made available in each fiscal year to natives of a foreign state under section 202(a) shall be reduced by the number of visas made available in the previous fiscal year to special immigrants described in section 101(a)(27)(K) who are natives of the foreign state.
(iii) Reduction in employment-based immigrant classifications within per country ceiling. - In the case of a foreign state subject to section 202(e) in a fiscal year (and in the previous fiscal year), the number of visas made available and allocated to each of paragraphs (1) through (3) of this subsection in the fiscal year shall be reduced by 1/3 of the number of visas made available in the previous fiscal year to special immigrants described in section 101(a)(27)(K) who are natives of the forei gn state.(C)[Subparagraph (C) was stricken by Sec. 212(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-416 , 108 Stat. 4314, Oct. 25, 1994)]
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVA...16a4cb816838a4
PART 2 [CONTD.]
(II) No permanent resident visa may be issued to an alien physician described in subclause (I) by the Secretary of State under section 204(b) , and the Attorney General may not adjust the status of such an alien physician from that of a nonimmigrant alien to that of a permanent resident alien under section 245 , until such time as the alien has worked full time as a physician for an aggregate of 5 years (not including the time served in the status of an alien described in section 101(a)(15)(J) ), in an area or areas designated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as having a shortage of health care professionals or at a health care facility under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
(III) Nothing in this subparagraph may be construed to prevent the filing of a petition with the Attorney General for classification under section 204(a) , or the filing of an application for adjustment of status under section 245 , by an alien physician described in subclause (I) prior to the date by which such alien physician has completed the service described in subclause (II).
(IV) The requirements of this subsection do not affect waivers on behalf of alien physicians approved under section 203(b)(2)(B) before the enactment date of this subsection. In the case of a physician for whom an application for a waiver was filed under section 203(b)(2)(B) prior to November 1, 1998, the Attorney General shall grant a national interest waiver pursuant to section 203(b)(2)(B) except that the alien is required to have worked full time as a physician for an aggregate of 3 years (not including time served in the status of an alien described in section 101(a)(15)(J) ) before a visa can be issued to the alien under section 204(b) or the status of the alien is adjusted to permanent resident under section 245 .
(C) Determination of exceptional ability. - In determining under subparagraph (A) whether an immigrant has exceptional ability, the possession of a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning or a license to practice or certification for a particular profession or occupation shall not by itself be considered sufficient evidence of such exceptional ability.
(3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers.-
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), to the following classes of aliens who are not described in paragraph (2):
(i) Skilled workers. - Qualified immigrants who are capable, at the time of petitioning for classification under this paragraph, of performing skilled labor (requiring at least 2 years training or experience), not of a temporary or seasonal nature, for which qualified workers are not available in the United States.
(ii) Professionals. - Qualified immigrants who hold baccalaureate degrees and who are members of the professions.
(iii) Other workers. - Other qualified immigrants who are capable, at the time of petitioning for classification under this paragraph, of performing unskilled labor, not of a temporary or seasonal nature, for which qualified workers are not available in the United States.
(B) Limitation on other workers. - Not more than 10,000 of the visas made available under this paragraph in any fiscal year may be available for qualified immigrants described in subparagraph (A)(iii).
(C) Labor certification required.- An immigrant visa may not be issued to an immigrant under subparagraph (A) until the consular officer is in receipt of a determination made by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the provisions of section 212(a)(5)(A) .
(4) Certain special immigrants. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified special immigrants described in section 101(a)(27) (other than those described in subparagraph (A) or (B) thereof), of which not more than 5,000 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants described in subclause (II) or (III) of section 101(a)(27)(C)(ii) , 2/ and not more than 100 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants, excluding spouses and children, who are described in section 101(a)(27)(M) .
(5) Employment creation. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial 4/ enterprise (including a limited partnership)--
(i) 4/ in which such alien has invested (after the date of the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1990) or, is actively in the process of investing, capital in an amount not less than the amount specified in subparagraph (C), and
(ii) 4/ which will benefit the United States economy and create full-time employment for not fewer than 10 United States citizens or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence or other immigrants lawfully authorized to be employed in the United States (other than the immigrant and the immigrant's spouse, sons, or daughters).
(B) Set-aside for targeted employment areas.-
(i) In general. - Not less than 3,000 of the visas made available under this paragraph in each fiscal year shall be reserved for qualified immigrants who 4/ invest in a new commercial enterprise described in subparagraph (A) which will create employment in a targeted employment area.
(ii) Targeted employment area defined. - In this paragraph, the term ``targeted employment area'' means, at the time of the investment, a rural area or an area which has experienced high unemployment (of at least 150 percent of the national average rate).
(iii) Rural area defined. - In this paragraph, the term ``rural area'' means any area other than an area within a metropolitan statistical area or within the outer boundary of any city or town having a population of 20,000 or more (based on the most recent decennial census of the United States).
(C) Amount of capital required. -
(i) In general. - Except as otherwise provided in this subparagraph, the amount of capital required under subparagraph (A) shall be $1,000,000. The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of State, may from time to time prescribe regulations increasing the dollar amount specified under the previous sentence.
(ii) Adjustment for targeted employment areas.- The Attorney General may, in the case of investment made in a targeted employment area, specify an amount of capital required under subparagraph (A) that is less than (but not less than 1/2 of) the amount specified in clause (i).
(iii) Adjustment for high employment areas.-In the case of an investment made in a part of a metropolitan statistical area that at the time of the investment -
(I) is not a targeted employment area, and
(II) is an area with an unemployment rate significantly below the national average unemployment rate, the Attorney General may specify an amount of capital required under subparagraph (A) that is greater than (but not greater than 3 times) the amount specified in clause (I).
(D) 4/ Full-time employment defined.--In this paragraph, the term `full-time employment' means employment in a position that requires at least 35 hours of service per week at any time, regardless of who fills the position.
(6) Special rules for "k" special immigrants. -
(A) Not counted against numerical limitation in year involved. - Subject to subparagraph (B), the number of immigrant visas made available to special immigrants under section 101(a)(27)(K) in a fiscal year shall not be subject to the numerical limitations of this subsection or of section 202(a).
(B) Counted against numerical limitations in following year.-
(i) Reduction in employment-based immigrant classifications. - The number of visas made available in any fiscal year under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) shall each be reduced by 1/3 of the number of visas made available in the previous fiscal year to special immigrants described in section 101(a)(27)(K) .
(ii) Reduction in per country level. - The number of visas made available in each fiscal year to natives of a foreign state under section 202(a) shall be reduced by the number of visas made available in the previous fiscal year to special immigrants described in section 101(a)(27)(K) who are natives of the foreign state.
(iii) Reduction in employment-based immigrant classifications within per country ceiling. - In the case of a foreign state subject to section 202(e) in a fiscal year (and in the previous fiscal year), the number of visas made available and allocated to each of paragraphs (1) through (3) of this subsection in the fiscal year shall be reduced by 1/3 of the number of visas made available in the previous fiscal year to special immigrants described in section 101(a)(27)(K) who are natives of the forei gn state.(C)[Subparagraph (C) was stricken by Sec. 212(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-416 , 108 Stat. 4314, Oct. 25, 1994)]
more...
arc
08-13 03:02 PM
Mine is EB2, reached July 2nd at 7.55 AM Fedex received by Robin Williams at NSC and I got the check cashed and has receipt numbers but my I140 LUD is not changed. But my I-140 was already approved and it was not concurrent filling. So if its not concurrent filing then I think I140 LUD should not change or not related to 485 receipt notice? Am I right?
Mine is 485 only my 140 was approved earlier, but mine is EB3 - PD 08/2006 what is your PD? Did you get the FP notice?
Mine is 485 only my 140 was approved earlier, but mine is EB3 - PD 08/2006 what is your PD? Did you get the FP notice?
hot Updo-Hairstyles-For-Girls-2011
nsrinivas
09-12 03:04 PM
No not sure who recieved it as my Lawyer has sent the packages on behalf of me and she has the delivery confirmation.
But I feel your's should be coming out soon too as your dates are same as mine.
Good Luck !
But I feel your's should be coming out soon too as your dates are same as mine.
Good Luck !
more...
house girls short emo hairstyles
zeta7
03-23 11:54 AM
I would advise not to go for your landing. At this point you need to make a decision whether you want to pursue canadian GC or US GC. If you have applied for 485 then it best that you not do the canadian landing. You may have issues when you come back to US. They may ask you why you went to canada and you cannot lie and have to tell them the truth. This may raise questions on your intent to pursue US GC. It all depends on your luck as to who you get the IO. I have heard of a case where a person got RFE on 485 after completing the landing.
If you still want to do the landing then you should be prepared for RFE or NOID on your 485.
Thanks dingudi. If you know of a solid case where someone was RFE'd because of landing while on 485, then it looks like I might seriously consider abandoning it as well.
One last question: Let's hypothetically say that I do decide to land and somehow manage to get back into the US without any issues using my AP. However, every subsequent time I leave the U.S. and return, I run the risk of getting "caught" at the POE with regards to the 485/Canadian residency conflict. Am I correct in this assessment?
Again, I appreciate your input immensely. Thanks!
If you still want to do the landing then you should be prepared for RFE or NOID on your 485.
Thanks dingudi. If you know of a solid case where someone was RFE'd because of landing while on 485, then it looks like I might seriously consider abandoning it as well.
One last question: Let's hypothetically say that I do decide to land and somehow manage to get back into the US without any issues using my AP. However, every subsequent time I leave the U.S. and return, I run the risk of getting "caught" at the POE with regards to the 485/Canadian residency conflict. Am I correct in this assessment?
Again, I appreciate your input immensely. Thanks!
tattoo super-emo-hairstyles-for-girls
gc28262
06-27 09:53 PM
Could you please show us, where in the link you provided, H-1B applicant needs to treated equally for job hiring as compared to GC and EAD workers.
EOE deals with equality (i.e. equal opportunities) for hiring, job promotion, and firing.
IRC Act 1985 deals with unlawful employment of aliens, unfair immigration-related employment practices, and fraud & misuse of certain immigration-related documents.
Two different things.
However, once H-1B applicant is hired, he/she is protected just like any other worker, for job promotions, training, and other work conditions. But employer is under no obligation to extend H-1B beyond any initial H-1B petition date. And, yes, H-1B can also be fired at will*, just like any other worker.
_________________________
Not a legal advice
US citizen of Indian origin
desi3933,
Here is the part of the law that says a job aspirant should not be discriminated by his/her immigration status as long as he/she has a valid work permit( H1B/GC/EAD/Citizenship).
"(1) GENERAL RULE. -- It is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to discriminate against any individual (other than an unauthorized alien) with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment --
The only individual that can be discriminated against is an unauthorized alien. H1B/GC/EAD/Citizen does not fall in this category.
Walking dude's effort will at least highlight the fact that H1Bs are not preferred over GCs/Citizens. In fact it is the other way around. One of my colleague who recently got his GC, was surprised to see so many job offers opening up for him just because he was a GC hoder.
EOE deals with equality (i.e. equal opportunities) for hiring, job promotion, and firing.
IRC Act 1985 deals with unlawful employment of aliens, unfair immigration-related employment practices, and fraud & misuse of certain immigration-related documents.
Two different things.
However, once H-1B applicant is hired, he/she is protected just like any other worker, for job promotions, training, and other work conditions. But employer is under no obligation to extend H-1B beyond any initial H-1B petition date. And, yes, H-1B can also be fired at will*, just like any other worker.
_________________________
Not a legal advice
US citizen of Indian origin
desi3933,
Here is the part of the law that says a job aspirant should not be discriminated by his/her immigration status as long as he/she has a valid work permit( H1B/GC/EAD/Citizenship).
"(1) GENERAL RULE. -- It is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to discriminate against any individual (other than an unauthorized alien) with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment --
The only individual that can be discriminated against is an unauthorized alien. H1B/GC/EAD/Citizen does not fall in this category.
Walking dude's effort will at least highlight the fact that H1Bs are not preferred over GCs/Citizens. In fact it is the other way around. One of my colleague who recently got his GC, was surprised to see so many job offers opening up for him just because he was a GC hoder.
more...
pictures new hairstyles for girls 2011.
GCwaitforever
12-12 06:17 PM
:D
Asking help from Senator Sessions for your G-card is like asking help from Bil Ladan to wipe out islamic terrorism. I w'd be extremely curious to read his reponse if you get one at all.
This guy was talking about benefits of legal immigration and introducing Canada/Australia style G-card system only a few weeks ago when law makers were discussing illegal immigration. When it came to legal immigration, then he stood against it like a wall of ice. Talk of people using divide and rule, he is the perfect example of that.
On a sad note, it seems even Dems are doing the same thing. When Cornyn wanted to put our bill in India Nuke bill, Joe Biden said dems will take that up along with CIR next jan. Same old game of promises and betrayal. Now even dems will not be taking up CIR next year as this has been turned into a very sentimental issue now by Lou dobbs and his xenophobic racist gang. Did not you see Nancy Pelosi's agenda for january? They are worried about their presidential and house races in 2008 and don't want to take any chance. Harry Reid might say this is one of the first things on his agenda next year and Tad Kennedy and McCain might keep meeting and talking over a cup of tea, but we have seen all this drama so many times that it does not thrill us any more.
Bottomline, we are not needed the way we used to be in '70s and '80's and so be contended with the current pace of g-card processing. If you have patience and luck, stay here, else leave.
Thanks for your advice. The intent of the letter is to show a different perspective to Senator Sessions. Nothing more or nothig less. He said he did not receive any feedback from legal immigrants. Fine, we say here it comes. If he continues to block legal immigration reform bills, he has to find another pretext, not "no feedback from immigrants".
There is always a rational side in every human being. Senator Sessions is smart. Let us hope Senator Sessions surprises us by bringing his own version of EB immigration reform.
Asking help from Senator Sessions for your G-card is like asking help from Bil Ladan to wipe out islamic terrorism. I w'd be extremely curious to read his reponse if you get one at all.
This guy was talking about benefits of legal immigration and introducing Canada/Australia style G-card system only a few weeks ago when law makers were discussing illegal immigration. When it came to legal immigration, then he stood against it like a wall of ice. Talk of people using divide and rule, he is the perfect example of that.
On a sad note, it seems even Dems are doing the same thing. When Cornyn wanted to put our bill in India Nuke bill, Joe Biden said dems will take that up along with CIR next jan. Same old game of promises and betrayal. Now even dems will not be taking up CIR next year as this has been turned into a very sentimental issue now by Lou dobbs and his xenophobic racist gang. Did not you see Nancy Pelosi's agenda for january? They are worried about their presidential and house races in 2008 and don't want to take any chance. Harry Reid might say this is one of the first things on his agenda next year and Tad Kennedy and McCain might keep meeting and talking over a cup of tea, but we have seen all this drama so many times that it does not thrill us any more.
Bottomline, we are not needed the way we used to be in '70s and '80's and so be contended with the current pace of g-card processing. If you have patience and luck, stay here, else leave.
Thanks for your advice. The intent of the letter is to show a different perspective to Senator Sessions. Nothing more or nothig less. He said he did not receive any feedback from legal immigrants. Fine, we say here it comes. If he continues to block legal immigration reform bills, he has to find another pretext, not "no feedback from immigrants".
There is always a rational side in every human being. Senator Sessions is smart. Let us hope Senator Sessions surprises us by bringing his own version of EB immigration reform.
dresses new hairstyles for girls 2011.
desiguy22042
09-22 10:38 PM
I am happy to announce that I have received the EAD cards today (just like rc0878 had suggested). I should not have doubted the encouragement and estimation of the experience here.
So, I received the EAD cards dated Sept 18th, expiry is one year from the issue date i.e. Sept 17th, 2008 (unlike someone else's cards which were valid for only 3 months).
Let me know if someone wants to ask any other information.
thanks again. :D
Hi,
I received my (and my family's) transfer notice (and hence the WAC### nos.) for 485 application yesterday at my residence. The cases were filed in CA by my lawyer (filing from MD). The cases have been transferred to TX.
I am yet to receive any notice/tracking no. for EAD and AP applications. The checks were made by the lawyer so that is not an option.
Questions::confused:
1) Does transfer mean delay in processing ?
2) Is EAD tracking no. different from the 485 no. ? If so, where can I get that from ?
3) Are they still issuing EADs in about a couple of months ? If so, that is great. If not, when does the 90-day clock start for INFOPASS ? (if it is an option in this incresed activity)
Any answers or discussions or links to the solutions are welcome.
Good luck to everyone for the speedy processing.:D
So, I received the EAD cards dated Sept 18th, expiry is one year from the issue date i.e. Sept 17th, 2008 (unlike someone else's cards which were valid for only 3 months).
Let me know if someone wants to ask any other information.
thanks again. :D
Hi,
I received my (and my family's) transfer notice (and hence the WAC### nos.) for 485 application yesterday at my residence. The cases were filed in CA by my lawyer (filing from MD). The cases have been transferred to TX.
I am yet to receive any notice/tracking no. for EAD and AP applications. The checks were made by the lawyer so that is not an option.
Questions::confused:
1) Does transfer mean delay in processing ?
2) Is EAD tracking no. different from the 485 no. ? If so, where can I get that from ?
3) Are they still issuing EADs in about a couple of months ? If so, that is great. If not, when does the 90-day clock start for INFOPASS ? (if it is an option in this incresed activity)
Any answers or discussions or links to the solutions are welcome.
Good luck to everyone for the speedy processing.:D
more...
makeup Emo Hairstyles For Girls 2011
bskrishna
09-15 12:08 PM
I have sent my contacts ..
girlfriend 2011 Hairstyles for girls
sam_hoosier
03-13 11:02 AM
Well, I am TOO depressed about the BEC performance. I know too many people are in same situation but I find myself "helpless" and at least i want to SCREAM......:mad:
The moment you realize that the US is not the end of the world, you will stop feeling depressed.:cool:
The moment you realize that the US is not the end of the world, you will stop feeling depressed.:cool:
hairstyles 2011 girls. cute
sri1309
03-16 10:56 AM
There is very simple reason for this, during 1999-2002 H1B cap was raised to 190,000 even if you make a guess on the lower side more than 50% of these H1Bs went to Indians, so atleast 200,000 Indians entered US between 1999 when these people filed their Green Cards most of them filed under EB-3, b'cause retrogression wasn't there and everthing was current, lot of people, who were in the states where labor took less time, kept getting their green cards, in the meantime a huge chunk of people from states like NJ, NY, TX, CA got stuck at the labor stage with PD in 2000 and up. So basically lot of 2002 & above got cleared but these people with older PDs were stuck. Now when these Labors are cleared, with just 3300 Green Card numbers every year, it'll take 20 years or more for EB-3 cut-off dates to move to 2009.
Good discussion.
But even if it was 65000, from India, I'm sure most of them took a big slice, lets say 30%= 20,000 H1 visas. And did the 7% quota formula might have existed at that time too. If so, even then there must be quite a big line. Why were things current at any point. Were they just processing very fast without any attention to quota formula and then they woke up?
Good discussion.
But even if it was 65000, from India, I'm sure most of them took a big slice, lets say 30%= 20,000 H1 visas. And did the 7% quota formula might have existed at that time too. If so, even then there must be quite a big line. Why were things current at any point. Were they just processing very fast without any attention to quota formula and then they woke up?
anilnag
05-02 03:55 PM
in contributions and in any thing else... I started contributing even before lot of people here heard about IV.
Ask a few more to give me red... I will be happy to get more for saying what I said.
Ask a few more to give me red... I will be happy to get more for saying what I said.
GCplease
07-07 12:25 PM
I live in Virginia Beach. I am willing to come to DC if a rally is being organized there. Please let me know the details.
Jag
Jag
No comments:
Post a Comment