GoneSouth
06-01 06:35 PM
Hmm so I was quite worried about good old Section 502(d)(2) at first, but after re reading carefully, this may not be terrible. I (and others?) might have pressed the panic button a little too quickly.
As I read it now (and I am NOT a lawyer), any I-140 petition adjudicated after the effective date of this legislation (Oct 2008 seems to be the popular opinion) will be rejected if the I-140 petition has a filing date after May 15th 2007. If this *only* applies to adjudication of I-140s and NOT to I-485s, this means that you would have to have filed your I-140 after May 15th and have it still pending by Oct 2008 .... 14 months for folks filing in the near future. This is quite unlikely, as it takes only a month or so for premium processing, and around 6 months for non-premium.
Folks might get into trouble if they have a labor certification stuck in the BEC and it doesn't get approved for another 12 months or so...
Comments ?
- GS
(of course, this is all speculation, I realize there's a long way to go before this becomes law).
As I read it now (and I am NOT a lawyer), any I-140 petition adjudicated after the effective date of this legislation (Oct 2008 seems to be the popular opinion) will be rejected if the I-140 petition has a filing date after May 15th 2007. If this *only* applies to adjudication of I-140s and NOT to I-485s, this means that you would have to have filed your I-140 after May 15th and have it still pending by Oct 2008 .... 14 months for folks filing in the near future. This is quite unlikely, as it takes only a month or so for premium processing, and around 6 months for non-premium.
Folks might get into trouble if they have a labor certification stuck in the BEC and it doesn't get approved for another 12 months or so...
Comments ?
- GS
(of course, this is all speculation, I realize there's a long way to go before this becomes law).
wallpaper hd iphone 4 backgrounds. hair
amitjoey
06-25 12:38 PM
IV members have saved you a lot of money on attorney phone calls, getting answers to medical test questions and other general questions. Please contribute to IV so that we can keep this effort going. While everybody is busy collecting documents and paperwork for 485, core IV again is doing there personal paperwork and + lobbying.
Please contribute, especially if you are new and never contributed. Please do not be a freeloader and get your questions answered and run away.
Please contribute, especially if you are new and never contributed. Please do not be a freeloader and get your questions answered and run away.
learning01
04-25 06:53 PM
We stood in the backlog queue. 3 years. 4 years. Now, we are standing in the I-485 adjustment of status (to apply) queue.
Neither the USCIS nor anyone else have real hard numbers of how many are in each in queue. So, what makes you think that you will NOT be stranded again, like us, in the latter queue. Let me tell you; things are not pretty. PERM has eased or will ease LCs and backlogs. The attempt at IV will help folks affected by retrogression take less years to apply for I-485.
Easing retrogression helps some, but not may of us who are stuck at back log centeres
Neither the USCIS nor anyone else have real hard numbers of how many are in each in queue. So, what makes you think that you will NOT be stranded again, like us, in the latter queue. Let me tell you; things are not pretty. PERM has eased or will ease LCs and backlogs. The attempt at IV will help folks affected by retrogression take less years to apply for I-485.
Easing retrogression helps some, but not may of us who are stuck at back log centeres
2011 wallpaper hd iphone. iphone 4
Sachin_Stock
08-23 01:02 PM
I don't find anything in this memo that contradicts or radically changes the way EB-2 category has been affected. Correct me if I am wrong.
more...
Kodi
06-05 08:56 AM
If this bill pass without our provisions in it lot of us will be doomed!!
svm
07-18 03:19 PM
Sorry it is not really related to the thread !.
Ths USCIS site says the following ....
"....The current fee schedule will apply to all applications filed under Visa Bulletin No. 107 through August 17, 2007. (The new fee schedule that becomes effective on July 30, 2007, will apply to all other applications filed on or after July 30, 2007)."
Does that mean if I file 485 on Aug1st I have to pay new fees?
Thanks any one for a reply.
Ths USCIS site says the following ....
"....The current fee schedule will apply to all applications filed under Visa Bulletin No. 107 through August 17, 2007. (The new fee schedule that becomes effective on July 30, 2007, will apply to all other applications filed on or after July 30, 2007)."
Does that mean if I file 485 on Aug1st I have to pay new fees?
Thanks any one for a reply.
more...
.jpg "hd iphone 4 backgrounds.")
kevinkris
07-14 08:16 PM
Donno how to do this. Admins?
2010 Lee IPhone 4 HD Wallpaper
gccovet
03-05 03:06 PM
If I remember right, around July 2008, several people got soft LUD on their cases, there were 3-4 threads on these topic. All appeared to pre-adjudication process.
GCCovet.
GCCovet.
more...
eb3_nepa
07-05 01:00 PM
3 Threads on the same issue
hair hd iphone 4 backgrounds.
bluekayal
08-23 04:54 PM
Rest easy folks:
Mayorkas said he was determined to “get it right and get it fast.” “The community deserves consistency,” he said. “These are our customers, and we are committed to improving customer service.”
The latest example of the changes wrought by Director Mayorkas is an opportunity to allow the public to comment on interim guidance memorandums before they becomes effective in final form. This type of pre-effective-date chance to comment never happened before with the old INS or the pre-Mayorkas USCIS. The early-peek opportunity for comment allows the agency to withdraw with dignity intact from a position that stakeholders may show is contrary to law or legitimate business practices. For example, USCIS is now accepting comments on a guidance memo with a dry title but a topic of great significance to many prospective green-card applicants with high levels of accomplishment: “Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions.”
This particular guidance memo arises from a debunking the agency received from the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, C.A.9 (Cal.), March 04, 2010 (NO. 07-56774). The Court in Kazarian held that USCIS (in this case the Administrative Appeals Office) may not “unilaterally impose novel substantive or evidentiary requirements” without support in the Immigration and Nationality Act or agency regulations.
While Kazarian dealt with EB-1 (extraordinary ability or achievement) green-card eligibility criteria, the interim agency guidance cited extends this also to the EB-2 immigrant visa category for exceptional ability aliens. In my view, USCIS should have issued a guidance memorandum more broadly. Stakeholder feedback should have been issued on a guidance memorandum (which I’d be happy to craft upon request) entitled “Illegality of Unilaterally Imposing Novel Substantive or Evidentiary Requirements.”
Nation of immigrators - A public policy blog on our dysfunctional immigration system � The Dark Sides of Immigration Fame and Anonymity (http://www.nationofimmigrators.com/?p=349)
Mayorkas said he was determined to “get it right and get it fast.” “The community deserves consistency,” he said. “These are our customers, and we are committed to improving customer service.”
The latest example of the changes wrought by Director Mayorkas is an opportunity to allow the public to comment on interim guidance memorandums before they becomes effective in final form. This type of pre-effective-date chance to comment never happened before with the old INS or the pre-Mayorkas USCIS. The early-peek opportunity for comment allows the agency to withdraw with dignity intact from a position that stakeholders may show is contrary to law or legitimate business practices. For example, USCIS is now accepting comments on a guidance memo with a dry title but a topic of great significance to many prospective green-card applicants with high levels of accomplishment: “Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions.”
This particular guidance memo arises from a debunking the agency received from the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, C.A.9 (Cal.), March 04, 2010 (NO. 07-56774). The Court in Kazarian held that USCIS (in this case the Administrative Appeals Office) may not “unilaterally impose novel substantive or evidentiary requirements” without support in the Immigration and Nationality Act or agency regulations.
While Kazarian dealt with EB-1 (extraordinary ability or achievement) green-card eligibility criteria, the interim agency guidance cited extends this also to the EB-2 immigrant visa category for exceptional ability aliens. In my view, USCIS should have issued a guidance memorandum more broadly. Stakeholder feedback should have been issued on a guidance memorandum (which I’d be happy to craft upon request) entitled “Illegality of Unilaterally Imposing Novel Substantive or Evidentiary Requirements.”
Nation of immigrators - A public policy blog on our dysfunctional immigration system � The Dark Sides of Immigration Fame and Anonymity (http://www.nationofimmigrators.com/?p=349)
more...
GC-Italy
03-20 10:09 AM
On page 10 of this thread you can see my other entry.
I got my receipt numbers on March 14th.
I immediately called customer service to figure out what my options are.
They inoltrated a request to expedite and gave me a WTCxxxxxxxxx confirmation number (similar to what happened to watertown).
I read the various forums and I cannot find any other example of this WTC confirmation numbers.
Are there other people that requested to expedite AP through the phone and got a WTCxxx number?
What is your experience with this method?
Thank you in advance.
I got my receipt numbers on March 14th.
I immediately called customer service to figure out what my options are.
They inoltrated a request to expedite and gave me a WTCxxxxxxxxx confirmation number (similar to what happened to watertown).
I read the various forums and I cannot find any other example of this WTC confirmation numbers.
Are there other people that requested to expedite AP through the phone and got a WTCxxx number?
What is your experience with this method?
Thank you in advance.
hot Share this Wallpaper to your
santb1975
06-11 09:08 PM
That is better than yesterday. We can do better.
Thanks to contributors today
Thanks to contributors today
more...
house The iPhone 4 wallpapers are
ramus
06-02 09:09 PM
please contribute to IV with whatever you can.. If you haven't please send web-fax now..
Thanks.
Can any you help in answering my question?
I am trying to change my job and have an approved I-140 with a priority date of August 2006. The question is if I am successful in porting my old August PD for my new I-140 applied after May 2007, would I come under this new merit system? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
Can any you help in answering my question?
I am trying to change my job and have an approved I-140 with a priority date of August 2006. The question is if I am successful in porting my old August PD for my new I-140 applied after May 2007, would I come under this new merit system? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
tattoo iphone 4 backgrounds hd.
gc28262
03-12 12:30 PM
Pappu,
I have a suggestion! I don't think forcing monthly $25 contribution to keep donor status alive is a very good idea, especially in current economy. Take an example of myself. It is decided that I am going to loose job on 17th March, may not be able to contribute every month.
Rethink!
I think IV core can give lifetime exception to active members like 'ItIsNotFunny' for their efforts. For others, let monthly contribution stay.
I have a suggestion! I don't think forcing monthly $25 contribution to keep donor status alive is a very good idea, especially in current economy. Take an example of myself. It is decided that I am going to loose job on 17th March, may not be able to contribute every month.
Rethink!
I think IV core can give lifetime exception to active members like 'ItIsNotFunny' for their efforts. For others, let monthly contribution stay.
more...
pictures hd iphone 4 backgrounds.
indio0617
03-09 11:07 AM
Sen : says he has several amendments (title 2) still to discuss
6181, 6238, 6239, 6182 (mandatory federal response) , information sharing, deportability for criminal offenses
Sen Specter: Says they will have another session next Wednesday, thursday for further amendments, markups. Title 2 will close. onto title 3 now..
6181, 6238, 6239, 6182 (mandatory federal response) , information sharing, deportability for criminal offenses
Sen Specter: Says they will have another session next Wednesday, thursday for further amendments, markups. Title 2 will close. onto title 3 now..
dresses HD Wallpaper iPhone 4
jonty_11
07-06 05:37 PM
look closely..I think this fiasco is affecting the basic senses also.
more...
makeup iphone 4 wallpapers hd. iphone
ind_game
05-13 11:37 PM
Did you ever apply for EAD / AP?
I have EAD which expires on 07/30/2010. I have AP which expires on 10/29/2009
I have EAD which expires on 07/30/2010. I have AP which expires on 10/29/2009
girlfriend The iPhone 4 wallpapers are
maddipati1
11-21 04:00 PM
But.. when AOS(485) is denied, won't the underlying 140 and for that matter labor is also denied?
I think you are wrong ( I just think)
H1b and AOS are two differnt things and are not coupled. A yearly h1b extension beyond 6 years is given if you have a Labor pending for more than an year or pending 140 more than one year and a 3 year h1b extension is granted if you have an approved 140.
So the basis of getting a h1b extension or transfer is 140 and not AOS. One may not have even applied for AOS but can get h1 extensions as long as the above conditions are satisfied.
This is based on what I know. Thats why Attorneys prefer h1b compared to EAd because h1b essentially gives time for you to change jobs/apply for new GC petition in case existing petition has tons of issues etc...
I think you are wrong ( I just think)
H1b and AOS are two differnt things and are not coupled. A yearly h1b extension beyond 6 years is given if you have a Labor pending for more than an year or pending 140 more than one year and a 3 year h1b extension is granted if you have an approved 140.
So the basis of getting a h1b extension or transfer is 140 and not AOS. One may not have even applied for AOS but can get h1 extensions as long as the above conditions are satisfied.
This is based on what I know. Thats why Attorneys prefer h1b compared to EAd because h1b essentially gives time for you to change jobs/apply for new GC petition in case existing petition has tons of issues etc...
hairstyles HD Wallpaper for iPhone 4
missourian
09-09 11:33 PM
I feeling really bad because I couldn't participate in rally, I just made a modest contribution of $100 through paypal
Web Accept Payment Sent (ID # 0830757928815571G)
Web Accept Payment Sent (ID # 0830757928815571G)
swo
07-06 11:06 AM
I agree with you 100%.
The material damages to would-be July filers are a travesty. That is undeniable and deserves, at the minimum, material compensation.
But making the bulletins current in the first place, instead of a making a measured movement in the priority dates was like trying to fill a glass of water with a firehose. Broken glass and severe water damage were sure to follow.
Man, in frustration people do not even know what to say and what not! Be very careful of what you spin and what you say. From the looks of it, this stuff has every chance of spinning out of control and it may have already started the ball rolling.Think about it for a second!. Once it goes that way, trust me, we will all live to regret that.
Yes, DHS approved upwards of 25000 GCs over the weekend, leading up to July 2nd. And some people are pissed off at that, err..why?
Remember, those 25000 are one of us. Once,they too were in line for Labor certifications, I-140s, medical exams and all that crap. And some of them were in the so called "FBI Name check" black-hole for an extended period of time. We should be rejoicing in the fact that most of those backlogs got cleaned up. Instead we have people questioning the validity of those newly approved GCs.My dear friends, god willing, we will all have GCs one day and tell me, how would you feel if someone else comes screaming at you just because he did not get one too.
Putting a "security lapse" spin on this could be very dangerous and should be avoided at any cost. I hope one of those anti-immigrant lobbies do not pick it up and start running with that. I prey that they do not revoke those already approved GCs, because if they do, then those poor 25000 souls will go through much more agony than what we are going through now.
It's very tough to get the genie back in the bottle once it is out, so think before you start popping that cork.
~AMK
The material damages to would-be July filers are a travesty. That is undeniable and deserves, at the minimum, material compensation.
But making the bulletins current in the first place, instead of a making a measured movement in the priority dates was like trying to fill a glass of water with a firehose. Broken glass and severe water damage were sure to follow.
Man, in frustration people do not even know what to say and what not! Be very careful of what you spin and what you say. From the looks of it, this stuff has every chance of spinning out of control and it may have already started the ball rolling.Think about it for a second!. Once it goes that way, trust me, we will all live to regret that.
Yes, DHS approved upwards of 25000 GCs over the weekend, leading up to July 2nd. And some people are pissed off at that, err..why?
Remember, those 25000 are one of us. Once,they too were in line for Labor certifications, I-140s, medical exams and all that crap. And some of them were in the so called "FBI Name check" black-hole for an extended period of time. We should be rejoicing in the fact that most of those backlogs got cleaned up. Instead we have people questioning the validity of those newly approved GCs.My dear friends, god willing, we will all have GCs one day and tell me, how would you feel if someone else comes screaming at you just because he did not get one too.
Putting a "security lapse" spin on this could be very dangerous and should be avoided at any cost. I hope one of those anti-immigrant lobbies do not pick it up and start running with that. I prey that they do not revoke those already approved GCs, because if they do, then those poor 25000 souls will go through much more agony than what we are going through now.
It's very tough to get the genie back in the bottle once it is out, so think before you start popping that cork.
~AMK
desi485
11-20 06:01 PM
Hmmmm - but all these top Attorneys are professional - I mean - why would they tell you just the opposite for getting money through h1b transfers - I don't believe it.
I did seek paid professional councel from Attorneys and thats how I was convinced that h1b is safer.
Like say - of a h1b extension/transfer is successful - then the h1b is typically delinked from what is happening to 485 or 140. As per my understanding a pending 140 or a pending labor is the basis for h1b extensions and they are not coupled whereas an EAD is coupled with 485 and the denial hits the EAD straight because of its direct association.
Folks correct me if I am wrong
Don't get me wrong. There are so many good lawyers. I have talked to few of them who are reputed and didn't even charge me for my first call. However what I said above is based on this (http://immigration-information.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18642&postcount=9). If you read entire thread, you would know what I meant.
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5293
"As those of you who have read this forum for many years know, I believe that it is a waste of time and money for someone to try to maintain H status while waiting for AOS approval. I know that the conventional Internet wisdom is that this is the thing to do. The problem is, proponents of that position cannot offer any legal or rational authority for their position.
There are a number of law firms that represent employers only. They do work on behalf of their clients' employees, but they don't directly represent those employees. The employees are third party beneficiaries of their work.
While it costs an employer more to keep an employee in H status, many companies undertake this cost because they know that if an employee wishes to move elsewhere, it is more difficult to do so if the new employer has to file an H transfer petition, rather than simply recording the new employee's EAD number.
If an attorney represents the company, and not the employee, then the attorney has no duty to the employee and does not have to advise the employee as to what is best for him or her. Also, attorney's make far more money filing H petitions as opposed to filing EAD/AP applications."
I did seek paid professional councel from Attorneys and thats how I was convinced that h1b is safer.
Like say - of a h1b extension/transfer is successful - then the h1b is typically delinked from what is happening to 485 or 140. As per my understanding a pending 140 or a pending labor is the basis for h1b extensions and they are not coupled whereas an EAD is coupled with 485 and the denial hits the EAD straight because of its direct association.
Folks correct me if I am wrong
Don't get me wrong. There are so many good lawyers. I have talked to few of them who are reputed and didn't even charge me for my first call. However what I said above is based on this (http://immigration-information.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18642&postcount=9). If you read entire thread, you would know what I meant.
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5293
"As those of you who have read this forum for many years know, I believe that it is a waste of time and money for someone to try to maintain H status while waiting for AOS approval. I know that the conventional Internet wisdom is that this is the thing to do. The problem is, proponents of that position cannot offer any legal or rational authority for their position.
There are a number of law firms that represent employers only. They do work on behalf of their clients' employees, but they don't directly represent those employees. The employees are third party beneficiaries of their work.
While it costs an employer more to keep an employee in H status, many companies undertake this cost because they know that if an employee wishes to move elsewhere, it is more difficult to do so if the new employer has to file an H transfer petition, rather than simply recording the new employee's EAD number.
If an attorney represents the company, and not the employee, then the attorney has no duty to the employee and does not have to advise the employee as to what is best for him or her. Also, attorney's make far more money filing H petitions as opposed to filing EAD/AP applications."
No comments:
Post a Comment