Progressive
07-13 04:27 PM
count me in. I am from LA county live in Torrance
wallpaper for glass painting.
AllVNeedGcPc
01-30 10:01 AM
Hello VayuMahesh: Congratulations on getting greened.
My EB2 140 got approved more than 10 days ago, with old EB3 priority date on the approval letter (and my old A number), but still no LUD on my existing 485s.
Do I need to do anything to get it moving? How do I put a Service Request on 485? The online system to put an eRequest only lets you do it for N400 or I90.
Thanks in advance.
Lot of weird things. Still waiting for 485 approval even after sending interfiling request in mid-November. My attorney has sent an email reminder again 2 weeks back. Even for the I-140 which was approved in November 1st week, online status still says "Initial Review".
Opened a Service Request early this week and received a reply with the status as follows.
Thank you for contacting us about this case. According to our systems this petition was approved and it has been sent to production. Your case will be processed in order based on the approval date. If you do not receive the document within 30 days feel free to contact us again.
Online/Phone status is still processing .... I have to just wait and see I guess.
My EB2 140 got approved more than 10 days ago, with old EB3 priority date on the approval letter (and my old A number), but still no LUD on my existing 485s.
Do I need to do anything to get it moving? How do I put a Service Request on 485? The online system to put an eRequest only lets you do it for N400 or I90.
Thanks in advance.
Lot of weird things. Still waiting for 485 approval even after sending interfiling request in mid-November. My attorney has sent an email reminder again 2 weeks back. Even for the I-140 which was approved in November 1st week, online status still says "Initial Review".
Opened a Service Request early this week and received a reply with the status as follows.
Thank you for contacting us about this case. According to our systems this petition was approved and it has been sent to production. Your case will be processed in order based on the approval date. If you do not receive the document within 30 days feel free to contact us again.
Online/Phone status is still processing .... I have to just wait and see I guess.
Harivinder
09-10 02:07 PM
$100 Google Order #565447969371741
I will not be able to make it for the rally, my one-cent contribution, also trying to convience some friends to make some contributions. Also I want to make a suggestion, Please urge Congress via banners or what so ever means to take Legal Immigration and Illegal Immigration separately. We are so badly being hit by congress combining these issues.We are legal taxpaying immigrants and should be treated the same way. Not equivalent to illegal immigrants.
I will not be able to make it for the rally, my one-cent contribution, also trying to convience some friends to make some contributions. Also I want to make a suggestion, Please urge Congress via banners or what so ever means to take Legal Immigration and Illegal Immigration separately. We are so badly being hit by congress combining these issues.We are legal taxpaying immigrants and should be treated the same way. Not equivalent to illegal immigrants.
2011 Peacock Stained Glass Window
Green.Tech
06-10 08:39 PM
..on top!
more...
pappu
09-14 06:37 PM
DO NOT POST MEDIA LEADS ON THE FORUM PLEASE.
This is a request to every member working very hard in the media campaign and state chapters. If you get a response from any reporter for a media interview, DO NOT post the details on the forum. Please be alert if you find someone posting such message and immediately have that deleted.
If you get a media lead immediately send an email with information about the media lead to --- media at immigrationvoice.org
By sharing sensitive information on the open forum please understand that you maybe destroying the hard work of everyone in the media effort. It takes lot of effort to get media stories. Each of our member is a PR agent for us and we have a well planned strategy to help this entire community and get the immigration issues solved.
Thanks
This is a request to every member working very hard in the media campaign and state chapters. If you get a response from any reporter for a media interview, DO NOT post the details on the forum. Please be alert if you find someone posting such message and immediately have that deleted.
If you get a media lead immediately send an email with information about the media lead to --- media at immigrationvoice.org
By sharing sensitive information on the open forum please understand that you maybe destroying the hard work of everyone in the media effort. It takes lot of effort to get media stories. Each of our member is a PR agent for us and we have a well planned strategy to help this entire community and get the immigration issues solved.
Thanks
vparam
09-17 08:59 PM
we are planning to start an LLC as a group of three here......one of them being in india.i was wondering about the tax issues for a member of an LLC if he is based in India.Can he get an tax identification number.thank you.
Yes you can have international partners in LLC but they also need to pay tax, Unless it is a single member LLC , when you get taxed as individual otherwise you get taxed as a corporations. I think it is better to ask an accountant on how to include the international partner
Yes you can have international partners in LLC but they also need to pay tax, Unless it is a single member LLC , when you get taxed as individual otherwise you get taxed as a corporations. I think it is better to ask an accountant on how to include the international partner
more...
Milind123
09-13 05:27 PM
Yesterday I contributed $300 and I hope I do better than that today, but I need help from all those people who have never contributed. So please pull the trigger. I am only one contribution (of $100) away from a first time contributor. As soon as I get that I will post my contribution. As soon as I do that sam2006 is going to make his contribution of $100.
Today I was hoping to exceed my contribution of $300 from yesterday. Looks like it is not goint to happen today. But it will be a bummer if I can't match yesterday's contribution.
We (GCNaseeb, sunty, bala our special guest and I) need just two more shooter to make a contribution of $100 who have never contributed before.
Today I was hoping to exceed my contribution of $300 from yesterday. Looks like it is not goint to happen today. But it will be a bummer if I can't match yesterday's contribution.
We (GCNaseeb, sunty, bala our special guest and I) need just two more shooter to make a contribution of $100 who have never contributed before.
2010 house Beautiful Glass Painting
ThinkTwice
07-20 10:07 AM
Did you know that Aman Kapoor the founder of IV has contributed $64000 of his personal money towards the efforts of IV? Yes that is correct Sixty Four Thousand USD. http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...eek+exclusives
I was dumbfounded when I first found this out. The man must have real conviction, courage and belief in himself and this effort to do such a selfless act and I am not even talking about the hours and hours of time, mental energy, physical stress and emotional capital he must have invested into OUR effort and I am not talking about all that because that is immeasurable and there is not much we can do to repay all that back but apart from being for ever indebted there is something we can do.
We can reach for our wallets and repay IV core members who have contributed selflessly to OUR cause.
Every one of us has benefited in some way or the other because of our association to IV and who do we have to thank but the core team who have put so much on the line for OUR cause.
Please join in this effort to reimburse the expenses incurred by IV core to fight for OUR cause. Join http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10708
I was dumbfounded when I first found this out. The man must have real conviction, courage and belief in himself and this effort to do such a selfless act and I am not even talking about the hours and hours of time, mental energy, physical stress and emotional capital he must have invested into OUR effort and I am not talking about all that because that is immeasurable and there is not much we can do to repay all that back but apart from being for ever indebted there is something we can do.
We can reach for our wallets and repay IV core members who have contributed selflessly to OUR cause.
Every one of us has benefited in some way or the other because of our association to IV and who do we have to thank but the core team who have put so much on the line for OUR cause.
Please join in this effort to reimburse the expenses incurred by IV core to fight for OUR cause. Join http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10708
more...
h1xfer485
08-13 05:08 PM
The Mexico F2A and Employment Third preference cut-off dates" are �unavailable� for both August and September..blah blah..
MAY BE it talks specifically about "Mexico EB3". otherwise it would have been: "Mexico F2A and all EB3"...
MAY BE it talks specifically about "Mexico EB3". otherwise it would have been: "Mexico F2A and all EB3"...
hair out of glass seed beads
Caliber
07-15 08:11 AM
Posted $50.00 Check. With this my total contribution till now is $1200.00.
more...
eb3_nepa
03-08 02:25 PM
Sorry,
any mention to any guest working program? I think that if they agree in this point we can see any improuvement on the backlog and "never ending story" in the Green Card process.
beppenyc, any particular reason that ur interested in the guest worker program?
any mention to any guest working program? I think that if they agree in this point we can see any improuvement on the backlog and "never ending story" in the Green Card process.
beppenyc, any particular reason that ur interested in the guest worker program?
hot Peacock Pictures For Glass
lazycis
11-20 01:11 PM
Some benefits can be revoked automatically (I-140, I-485), some can be revoked only after determination is made by USCIS and a beneficiary is notified and has an opportunity to respond. EAD is one of the latter.
See e.g., 8 CFR Part 205 titled "Revocation of approval of petitions". It has two sections: 205.1 Automatic revocation and 205.2 Revocation on notice.
http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=203798478322+8+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve
EAD is not listed in Sec. 205.1. Moreover, 8 CFR �274a.12(c) specifically lists reasons for automatic revocation. I-485 denial is not listed as such a reason. Therefore, EAD remains valid even after I-485 denial untill it expires or until USCIS director revokes it. I do not see any basis for a different legal interpretation.
See also this court of appeals (8th Cir.) decision where the court says that automatic revocation occurs only if a specific condition specified in the laws and regs is met:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/399/399.F3d.891.04-1132.html
"The district court thought that her adoptive father's petition for immediate relative status was automatically revoked when Taylor reached age 21, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 205.1(a)(3)(i)(F), but the record does not appear to support that conclusion. The automatic revocation occurs only if the alien reaches age 21 before commencing her journey to the United States (which Taylor did not) or if the alien reaches age 21 before a decision on a pending application for adjustment of status becomes final (and there is no evidence in the record that Taylor ever applied for adjustment of status). See 8 C.F.R. � 205.1(a)(3). Thus, it is possible that the petition for immediate relative status was not revoked when Taylor reached age 21, but rather — if the 1984 visa petition was "currently valid" as of her 21st birthday — automatically converted to an approved petition for classification as an unmarried daughter of a citizen of the United States, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 204.2(i)(2). See 8 U.S.C. � 1153(a)(1). In that case, Taylor may have been legally present throughout her time in the United States."
See e.g., 8 CFR Part 205 titled "Revocation of approval of petitions". It has two sections: 205.1 Automatic revocation and 205.2 Revocation on notice.
http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=203798478322+8+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve
EAD is not listed in Sec. 205.1. Moreover, 8 CFR �274a.12(c) specifically lists reasons for automatic revocation. I-485 denial is not listed as such a reason. Therefore, EAD remains valid even after I-485 denial untill it expires or until USCIS director revokes it. I do not see any basis for a different legal interpretation.
See also this court of appeals (8th Cir.) decision where the court says that automatic revocation occurs only if a specific condition specified in the laws and regs is met:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/399/399.F3d.891.04-1132.html
"The district court thought that her adoptive father's petition for immediate relative status was automatically revoked when Taylor reached age 21, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 205.1(a)(3)(i)(F), but the record does not appear to support that conclusion. The automatic revocation occurs only if the alien reaches age 21 before commencing her journey to the United States (which Taylor did not) or if the alien reaches age 21 before a decision on a pending application for adjustment of status becomes final (and there is no evidence in the record that Taylor ever applied for adjustment of status). See 8 C.F.R. � 205.1(a)(3). Thus, it is possible that the petition for immediate relative status was not revoked when Taylor reached age 21, but rather — if the 1984 visa petition was "currently valid" as of her 21st birthday — automatically converted to an approved petition for classification as an unmarried daughter of a citizen of the United States, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 204.2(i)(2). See 8 U.S.C. � 1153(a)(1). In that case, Taylor may have been legally present throughout her time in the United States."
more...
house skills of glass painting.
desi485
11-14 06:09 PM
One of IV members 'lazycis' (he is a knowledgable & senior member) also mentioned this, which exactly matches with what RG said:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=301999&postcount=16
so I am sure there are some provisionsI hope 'lazycis' will provide some more info if he sees this post.
Edit: Chandu - please click this link to read on RG's forums. (http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6461)
Chandu, also see this link about cancellation of employment authorisation.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=a3791be48df2a5191102c84123773141&rgn=div8&view=text&node=8:1.0.1.2.54.2.1.3&idno=8
� 274a.14 Termination of employment authorization.
(a) Automatic termination of employment authorization. (1) Employment authorization granted under �274a.12(c) of this chapter shall automatically terminate upon the occurrence of one of the following events:
(i) The expiration date specified by the Service on the employment authorization document is reached;
(ii) Exclusion or deportation proceedings are instituted (however, this shall not preclude the authorization of employment pursuant to �274a.12(c) of this part where appropriate); or
(iii) The alien is granted voluntary departure.
(2) Termination of employment authorization pursuant to this paragraph does not require the service of a notice of intent to revoke; employment authorization terminates upon the occurrence of any event enumerated in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
However, automatic revocation under this section does not preclude reapplication for employment authorization under �274.12(c) of this part.
(b) Revocation of employment authorization —(1) Basis for revocation of employment authorization. Employment authorization granted under �274a.12(c) of this chapter may be revoked by the district director:
(i) Prior to the expiration date, when it appears that any condition upon which it was granted has not been met or no longer exists, or for good cause shown; or
(ii) Upon a showing that the information contained in the application is not true and correct.
(2) Notice of intent to revoke employment authorization. When a district director determines that employment authorization should be revoked prior to the expiration date specified by the Service, he or she shall serve written notice of intent to revoke the employment authorization. The notice will cite the reasons indicating that revocation is warranted. The alien will be granted a period of fifteen days from the date of service of the notice within which to submit countervailing evidence. The decision by the district director shall be final and no appeal shall lie from the decision to revoke the authorization.
(c) Automatic termination of temporary employment authorization granted prior to June 1, 1987. (1) Temporary employment authorization granted prior to June 1, 1987, pursuant to 8 CFR 274a.12(c) (�109.1(b) contained in the 8 CFR edition revised as of January 1, 1987), shall automatically terminate on the date specified by the Service on the document issued to the alien, or on December 31, 1996, whichever is earlier. Automatic termination of temporary employment authorization does not preclude a subsequent application for temporary employment authorization.
(2) A document issued by the Service prior to June 1, 1987, that authorized temporary employment authorization for any period beyond December 31, 1996, is null and void pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of this section. The alien shall be issued a new employment authorization document upon application to the Service if the alien is eligible for temporary employment authorization pursuant to 274A.12(c).
(3) No notice of intent to revoke is necessary for the automatic termination of temporary employment authorization pursuant to this part.
[52 FR 16221, May 1, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 8614, Mar. 16, 1988; 53 FR 20087, June 1, 1988; 61 FR 46537, Sept. 4, 1996]
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=301999&postcount=16
so I am sure there are some provisionsI hope 'lazycis' will provide some more info if he sees this post.
Edit: Chandu - please click this link to read on RG's forums. (http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6461)
Chandu, also see this link about cancellation of employment authorisation.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=a3791be48df2a5191102c84123773141&rgn=div8&view=text&node=8:1.0.1.2.54.2.1.3&idno=8
� 274a.14 Termination of employment authorization.
(a) Automatic termination of employment authorization. (1) Employment authorization granted under �274a.12(c) of this chapter shall automatically terminate upon the occurrence of one of the following events:
(i) The expiration date specified by the Service on the employment authorization document is reached;
(ii) Exclusion or deportation proceedings are instituted (however, this shall not preclude the authorization of employment pursuant to �274a.12(c) of this part where appropriate); or
(iii) The alien is granted voluntary departure.
(2) Termination of employment authorization pursuant to this paragraph does not require the service of a notice of intent to revoke; employment authorization terminates upon the occurrence of any event enumerated in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
However, automatic revocation under this section does not preclude reapplication for employment authorization under �274.12(c) of this part.
(b) Revocation of employment authorization —(1) Basis for revocation of employment authorization. Employment authorization granted under �274a.12(c) of this chapter may be revoked by the district director:
(i) Prior to the expiration date, when it appears that any condition upon which it was granted has not been met or no longer exists, or for good cause shown; or
(ii) Upon a showing that the information contained in the application is not true and correct.
(2) Notice of intent to revoke employment authorization. When a district director determines that employment authorization should be revoked prior to the expiration date specified by the Service, he or she shall serve written notice of intent to revoke the employment authorization. The notice will cite the reasons indicating that revocation is warranted. The alien will be granted a period of fifteen days from the date of service of the notice within which to submit countervailing evidence. The decision by the district director shall be final and no appeal shall lie from the decision to revoke the authorization.
(c) Automatic termination of temporary employment authorization granted prior to June 1, 1987. (1) Temporary employment authorization granted prior to June 1, 1987, pursuant to 8 CFR 274a.12(c) (�109.1(b) contained in the 8 CFR edition revised as of January 1, 1987), shall automatically terminate on the date specified by the Service on the document issued to the alien, or on December 31, 1996, whichever is earlier. Automatic termination of temporary employment authorization does not preclude a subsequent application for temporary employment authorization.
(2) A document issued by the Service prior to June 1, 1987, that authorized temporary employment authorization for any period beyond December 31, 1996, is null and void pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of this section. The alien shall be issued a new employment authorization document upon application to the Service if the alien is eligible for temporary employment authorization pursuant to 274A.12(c).
(3) No notice of intent to revoke is necessary for the automatic termination of temporary employment authorization pursuant to this part.
[52 FR 16221, May 1, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 8614, Mar. 16, 1988; 53 FR 20087, June 1, 1988; 61 FR 46537, Sept. 4, 1996]
tattoo Design, Glass Painting and
optimystic
09-10 09:36 PM
HR 5882 has the answer for the FIFO problem.
USCIS is pretty good with approving cased based on PD for 3/4th of the year and in the last quarter they for the "Hail mary" play and DOS gives a wide PD range during the last quarter for USCIS to play. Apart from recapturing wasted visa's HR 5882 also has an automatic recapture provision to avoid any future visa wastage. If this provision is in place then UCSIS/DOS will not be in a position to playing the "some how use up visa by sep 31" card to approve random cases.
Rather than focusing on HR 5882 many are still pondering about LUD's and sill day dreaming. The demand for visa's is much higher than the supply of visa's, it doesn't matter what new spillover policy USCIS adopts, it can only provide incremental improvements. For a quantum improvment in the situation we need a legislation and HR 5882 is the best option we have now.
Good points.
However ...
How many visa numbers will get recaptured if 5882 gets approval and how soon (within this FY09 ? )
How many pending applications are there?
How many new ones accumulating every year?
Are there enough recaptured visas to cover all?
Agreed that with more visa numbers, and no potential threat to wastage of visa numbers, USCIS has no incentive nor tricky cards to play to justify their random approval bursts.....but will that be enough to prevent them from doing so, just because they can? I mean this is USCIS we are talking about.....Even with laws/memos/rules already in place, they are violating them left and right....
Whats to say that they won't try to reassure people that they don't have to worry about out of order processing because
- there are enough visa numbers for all.
- Though people may see delays, they will eventually all get their GCs
- Its faster and easier if they just grab the first box that is on the top of the pile, and approve cases from there rather than spending very limited resources they have to try to dig thru the boxes to find the cases with oldest PD.
- It will just be a minor inconveneince to the applicants...Their waiting times would drastically reduce from several years to only couple of years.
Would that be acceptable to us then?
If they say every body will be current, with free job movement due to EADs, and every body will get GC within 2-3 years absolutely. PERIOD. Just no gaurantees of FIFO processing. --- Would that be acceptable to us then?
USCIS is pretty good with approving cased based on PD for 3/4th of the year and in the last quarter they for the "Hail mary" play and DOS gives a wide PD range during the last quarter for USCIS to play. Apart from recapturing wasted visa's HR 5882 also has an automatic recapture provision to avoid any future visa wastage. If this provision is in place then UCSIS/DOS will not be in a position to playing the "some how use up visa by sep 31" card to approve random cases.
Rather than focusing on HR 5882 many are still pondering about LUD's and sill day dreaming. The demand for visa's is much higher than the supply of visa's, it doesn't matter what new spillover policy USCIS adopts, it can only provide incremental improvements. For a quantum improvment in the situation we need a legislation and HR 5882 is the best option we have now.
Good points.
However ...
How many visa numbers will get recaptured if 5882 gets approval and how soon (within this FY09 ? )
How many pending applications are there?
How many new ones accumulating every year?
Are there enough recaptured visas to cover all?
Agreed that with more visa numbers, and no potential threat to wastage of visa numbers, USCIS has no incentive nor tricky cards to play to justify their random approval bursts.....but will that be enough to prevent them from doing so, just because they can? I mean this is USCIS we are talking about.....Even with laws/memos/rules already in place, they are violating them left and right....
Whats to say that they won't try to reassure people that they don't have to worry about out of order processing because
- there are enough visa numbers for all.
- Though people may see delays, they will eventually all get their GCs
- Its faster and easier if they just grab the first box that is on the top of the pile, and approve cases from there rather than spending very limited resources they have to try to dig thru the boxes to find the cases with oldest PD.
- It will just be a minor inconveneince to the applicants...Their waiting times would drastically reduce from several years to only couple of years.
Would that be acceptable to us then?
If they say every body will be current, with free job movement due to EADs, and every body will get GC within 2-3 years absolutely. PERIOD. Just no gaurantees of FIFO processing. --- Would that be acceptable to us then?
more...
pictures http://www.dollsofindia.com/
gjoe
01-06 08:16 AM
Folks,
..
Indian culture, heritage 5000 years old. Indian education is gift of britishers, hence needs some adjustments to suit the current global competition.
A small but important correction in the above quote. Indian education is not a gift of the Brits. As a matter of fact history of eduction in India dates back to its cultural heritage. Nalanda university is considered to be the worlds first university. Correct me if I am wrong.
..
Indian culture, heritage 5000 years old. Indian education is gift of britishers, hence needs some adjustments to suit the current global competition.
A small but important correction in the above quote. Indian education is not a gift of the Brits. As a matter of fact history of eduction in India dates back to its cultural heritage. Nalanda university is considered to be the worlds first university. Correct me if I am wrong.
dresses Warli Painting - Peacock
nlssubbu
07-24 07:41 PM
I keep reading people getting emails from USCIS. I don't remember providing my lawyer with my email address? When/where do you provide the email address? Tx
Please create an user id for you and add all the case numbers associated with you here:
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/index.jsp
Whenever there is an update regarding the cases related to you, USCIS will send you an automatic mail.
Thanks
Please create an user id for you and add all the case numbers associated with you here:
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/index.jsp
Whenever there is an update regarding the cases related to you, USCIS will send you an automatic mail.
Thanks
more...
makeup Stained Glass: The Peacock
bijualex29
07-05 12:11 PM
I called the congresswomen and senator from our constituencies. They do not have any idea what I am talking about. I think I made them more confused than ever.
We need to come up with a letter format, which can be printed and send it to them by mail as well as we need to have web fax with a clear message.
We need to come up with a letter format, which can be printed and send it to them by mail as well as we need to have web fax with a clear message.
girlfriend glass chandelier painting
gctest
09-15 04:19 PM
That memo/document you pointed out is an interpretation. We have already said that USCIS's interpretation is incorrect. We intend to correct this interpretation with this lawsuit.
Infact, it would be wrong to call this a lawsuit.
We are aiming for an injunction (or a stay order) in step 1 of the lawsuit that would prevent USCIS from working on any interfiling/PD porting requests.
If the injunction is with retroactive effect, all the EBs (not just EB3) who have ported their PDs will have their cases frozen. USCIS would not be able to work on them.
The remainder of the lawsuit can take its sweet time... the injunction should serve the primary cause.
Incorrect.
Please read this pdf document
AFM Update: Chapter 22: Employment-based Petitions (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/afm_ch22_091206R.pdf)
Please pay attention to section (3) Priority Date Based on Earlier Petition on page 28 -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If an alien is the beneficiary of two (or more) approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions, the priority of the earlier petition may be applied to all subsequently-filed employment-based petitions.
For example:
Company A files a labor certification request on behalf of an alien ("Joe") as a janitor on January 10, 2003. The DOL issues the certification on March 20, 2003. Company A later files, and USCIS approves, a relating I-140 visa petition under the EB-3 category. On July 15, 2003, Joe files a second I-140 visa petition in his own behalf as a rocket scientist under the EB-1 category, which USCIS approves. Joe is entitled to use the January 10, 2003, priority date to apply for adjustment under either the EB-1 or the EB-3 classification.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest, you talk to an attorney before using words like illegal. It may be unfair, but still be legal.
_____________________________________
Proud Indian-American and Legal Immigrant
Infact, it would be wrong to call this a lawsuit.
We are aiming for an injunction (or a stay order) in step 1 of the lawsuit that would prevent USCIS from working on any interfiling/PD porting requests.
If the injunction is with retroactive effect, all the EBs (not just EB3) who have ported their PDs will have their cases frozen. USCIS would not be able to work on them.
The remainder of the lawsuit can take its sweet time... the injunction should serve the primary cause.
Incorrect.
Please read this pdf document
AFM Update: Chapter 22: Employment-based Petitions (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/afm_ch22_091206R.pdf)
Please pay attention to section (3) Priority Date Based on Earlier Petition on page 28 -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If an alien is the beneficiary of two (or more) approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions, the priority of the earlier petition may be applied to all subsequently-filed employment-based petitions.
For example:
Company A files a labor certification request on behalf of an alien ("Joe") as a janitor on January 10, 2003. The DOL issues the certification on March 20, 2003. Company A later files, and USCIS approves, a relating I-140 visa petition under the EB-3 category. On July 15, 2003, Joe files a second I-140 visa petition in his own behalf as a rocket scientist under the EB-1 category, which USCIS approves. Joe is entitled to use the January 10, 2003, priority date to apply for adjustment under either the EB-1 or the EB-3 classification.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest, you talk to an attorney before using words like illegal. It may be unfair, but still be legal.
_____________________________________
Proud Indian-American and Legal Immigrant
hairstyles Peacocks in Magnolia Tree
Macaca
09-12 04:11 PM
Greg Aamot
JIM ABRAMS
JOSE MARIA ALVAREZ
CHARLES BABINGTON: cbabington@ap.org *
WOODY BAIRD
MATTHEW BARAKAT
JULIANA BARBASSA
DEVLIN BARRETT
JACQUES BILLEAUD
REBECCA BOONE
LYNN BREZOSKY
Garance Burke
DESMOND BUTLER
ALICIA A. CALDWELL
TRACI CARL
JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN
DAVID CRARY
MARYCLAIRE DALE
JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS: jdavis@ap.org *
JIM DAVENPORT
Giovanna Dell'Orto
ALEX DOMINGUEZ
Kirstin Downey
ELIZABETH DWOSKIN
BEN EVANS
BRENDAN FARRINGTON
BEN FELLER
RON FOURNIER rfournier@ap.org
Alan Fram afram@ap.org
Anabelle Garay
OSKAR GARCIA
SUZANNE GAMBOA: sgamboa@ap.org *
JON GAMBRELL
ANDREW GLAZER
ANABELLE GARAY
DEEPTI HAJELA
ROXANA HEGEMAN
JOHN HEILPRIN
TOM HESTER Jr.
ROBERT JABLON
Henry C. Jackson
GENE JOHNSON
MARCUS KABEL
SARAH KARUSH
RACHEL KONRAD rkonrad@ap.org *
Lisa Leff
STEVE LeBLANC
SCOTT LINDLAW
TRAVIS LOLLER
AMY LORENTZEN
JANET FRANKSTON LORIN
NORMA LOVEA
JENNIFER LOVEN jloven@ap.org
JOANN LOVIGLIO
Jeremiah Marquez
BARRY MASSEY
KAREN MATTHEWS
William McCall
HOLBROOK MOHR
GABRIELA MOLINA
Amanda Lee Myers
LARRY NEUMEISTER
DAISY NGUYEN
STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
ISTRA PACHECO
JOHN PORRETTO
PETER PRENGAMAN pprengaman@ap.org
LIBBY QUAID
TRAVIS REED
DEB RIECHMANN
MICHELLE ROBERTS
JORDAN ROBERTSON
OLGA R. RODRIGUEZ
ARTHUR H. ROTSTEIN
Michael Rubinkam
ANGELA DELLI SANTI
SUSANNE M. SCHAFER
MARK SCOLFORO
MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN
ELLIOT SPAGAT
MITCH STACY
TIM SULLIVAN
Nafeesa Syeed
CHRIS TALBOTT
JENNIFER TALHELM
TIM TALLEY
Sophia Tareen
MICHAEL TARM
ANDREW TAYLOR
CHRISTOPHER TOOTHAKER
JULIE WATSON
CHRISTOPHER WEBER: cweber@ap.org
WILL WEISSERT
Laura Wides-Munoz
Matt Yancey: 202/776.9403 or myancey@ap.org *
Email pattern: firstNameInitiallastName@ap.org
JIM ABRAMS
JOSE MARIA ALVAREZ
CHARLES BABINGTON: cbabington@ap.org *
WOODY BAIRD
MATTHEW BARAKAT
JULIANA BARBASSA
DEVLIN BARRETT
JACQUES BILLEAUD
REBECCA BOONE
LYNN BREZOSKY
Garance Burke
DESMOND BUTLER
ALICIA A. CALDWELL
TRACI CARL
JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN
DAVID CRARY
MARYCLAIRE DALE
JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS: jdavis@ap.org *
JIM DAVENPORT
Giovanna Dell'Orto
ALEX DOMINGUEZ
Kirstin Downey
ELIZABETH DWOSKIN
BEN EVANS
BRENDAN FARRINGTON
BEN FELLER
RON FOURNIER rfournier@ap.org
Alan Fram afram@ap.org
Anabelle Garay
OSKAR GARCIA
SUZANNE GAMBOA: sgamboa@ap.org *
JON GAMBRELL
ANDREW GLAZER
ANABELLE GARAY
DEEPTI HAJELA
ROXANA HEGEMAN
JOHN HEILPRIN
TOM HESTER Jr.
ROBERT JABLON
Henry C. Jackson
GENE JOHNSON
MARCUS KABEL
SARAH KARUSH
RACHEL KONRAD rkonrad@ap.org *
Lisa Leff
STEVE LeBLANC
SCOTT LINDLAW
TRAVIS LOLLER
AMY LORENTZEN
JANET FRANKSTON LORIN
NORMA LOVEA
JENNIFER LOVEN jloven@ap.org
JOANN LOVIGLIO
Jeremiah Marquez
BARRY MASSEY
KAREN MATTHEWS
William McCall
HOLBROOK MOHR
GABRIELA MOLINA
Amanda Lee Myers
LARRY NEUMEISTER
DAISY NGUYEN
STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
ISTRA PACHECO
JOHN PORRETTO
PETER PRENGAMAN pprengaman@ap.org
LIBBY QUAID
TRAVIS REED
DEB RIECHMANN
MICHELLE ROBERTS
JORDAN ROBERTSON
OLGA R. RODRIGUEZ
ARTHUR H. ROTSTEIN
Michael Rubinkam
ANGELA DELLI SANTI
SUSANNE M. SCHAFER
MARK SCOLFORO
MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN
ELLIOT SPAGAT
MITCH STACY
TIM SULLIVAN
Nafeesa Syeed
CHRIS TALBOTT
JENNIFER TALHELM
TIM TALLEY
Sophia Tareen
MICHAEL TARM
ANDREW TAYLOR
CHRISTOPHER TOOTHAKER
JULIE WATSON
CHRISTOPHER WEBER: cweber@ap.org
WILL WEISSERT
Laura Wides-Munoz
Matt Yancey: 202/776.9403 or myancey@ap.org *
Email pattern: firstNameInitiallastName@ap.org
belmontboy
02-08 08:27 PM
Read his case fully. Her two sisters and brother are also in the US...She is not the sole bread winner.
I have read. Have you read??:)
Just in case if you still don't get. My response is to the original post by "Sufferer".
You seem to have mixed "Orangutan"'s post with the original.
I have read. Have you read??:)
Just in case if you still don't get. My response is to the original post by "Sufferer".
You seem to have mixed "Orangutan"'s post with the original.
alterego
10-01 09:51 PM
I think there will not much visa numbers unused. If at all, it may be in few hundreds. We are thinking our point of view, even wasting one visa number is ridiculus based on number peoples are waiting. However, the INA states that every year "not more than 140,000 EB visas should be issued".It sets only upper limit not the lower limit. Therefore DOS has be more vigilant in not exceding 140K. By doing so, there may be a few wastage of numbers. If they issue 120K instead of 140K, it is not the violation of law. Insted if they issue 141K it is vialotion of law.
However, if the wastage is more than few hundreds it is definitly not acceptable.
Last year they "wasted" about 10K visa numbers. It is absolutely up to them. However congress has authorized 140k a year and there are huge backlogs for AOS and CP. So when you put that together, leaving about 10K unapproved is clearly not enforcing congressional mandates. The ombudsman blasted them for this in his report, then we had the VB fiasco. None of this sounds like great management of the benefits. There clearly is room for improvement.
We (us and our employers) as the recipients of the benefits are complaining about this, and it is perfectly legitimate.
If any visa numbers are left unused, I definitely think we ought to take up this issue with congressional leaders like Zoe Lofgren. Even just a visa recapture legislation alone would help us tremendously until 2009(about the earliest they might get back to this issue more fully).
However, if the wastage is more than few hundreds it is definitly not acceptable.
Last year they "wasted" about 10K visa numbers. It is absolutely up to them. However congress has authorized 140k a year and there are huge backlogs for AOS and CP. So when you put that together, leaving about 10K unapproved is clearly not enforcing congressional mandates. The ombudsman blasted them for this in his report, then we had the VB fiasco. None of this sounds like great management of the benefits. There clearly is room for improvement.
We (us and our employers) as the recipients of the benefits are complaining about this, and it is perfectly legitimate.
If any visa numbers are left unused, I definitely think we ought to take up this issue with congressional leaders like Zoe Lofgren. Even just a visa recapture legislation alone would help us tremendously until 2009(about the earliest they might get back to this issue more fully).
No comments:
Post a Comment