nk2006
09-16 09:22 AM
House Judiciary Committee Schedules Continued Mark-Up of H.R. 5882 and Others
Its good that its rescheduled. We again have a chance.
I called everyone in the list once - will do it again with my wife today/tomorrow. Please everyone do it and encourage others (your family members / friends/ etc) to call - it wont take much of our time can impact our future in a big way.
Its good that its rescheduled. We again have a chance.
I called everyone in the list once - will do it again with my wife today/tomorrow. Please everyone do it and encourage others (your family members / friends/ etc) to call - it wont take much of our time can impact our future in a big way.
wallpaper girlfriend Julie Benz (Darla
visves
06-21 09:09 AM
This is the reply from Attorney Murthy on a question asked on Murthy chat about filing two employment based I-485's for the same beneficiary (not the husband/wife situation).
"Generally it is safer not to file 2 separate 485s since it can confuse USCIS since they may assign two separate Alien or A numbers to the same person. This could end up delaying the person's I-485 approval down the road or create a security delay in many cases with multiple I-485s generally we recommend one case to be filed as an AOS and the other for CP if possible."
If you have other answers from lawyers, you can post them. Make sure to post the lawyer's name. Do not post your opinion. Post legal advice given to you by your lawyer, with the lawyer's name. This will help members get accurate advice and not opinions.
"Generally it is safer not to file 2 separate 485s since it can confuse USCIS since they may assign two separate Alien or A numbers to the same person. This could end up delaying the person's I-485 approval down the road or create a security delay in many cases with multiple I-485s generally we recommend one case to be filed as an AOS and the other for CP if possible."
If you have other answers from lawyers, you can post them. Make sure to post the lawyer's name. Do not post your opinion. Post legal advice given to you by your lawyer, with the lawyer's name. This will help members get accurate advice and not opinions.
dipmay2002
10-31 11:49 AM
Just posted letters
2011 Darla (Julie Benz),Angel
485Mbe4001
10-18 01:50 PM
They look for criminal hits, why do they care about foreclosure or credit history. The scope is to look for undesirable elements who are a National Security risk. It has nothing to do with credit history.
The sad part is that we have no criminal history and we still get stuck because of a problem with their process, there is no recourse, you can write to any one you want. WOM can work but thats about it...if people continue filing WOM they might come up with something else to block WOMs too. The term 'national security' is pretty powerful, credit history would mean that half of this country would not be eligible to stay here
Would appreciate if anyone can reply to my question....
The sad part is that we have no criminal history and we still get stuck because of a problem with their process, there is no recourse, you can write to any one you want. WOM can work but thats about it...if people continue filing WOM they might come up with something else to block WOMs too. The term 'national security' is pretty powerful, credit history would mean that half of this country would not be eligible to stay here
Would appreciate if anyone can reply to my question....
more...
eb_retrogession
01-04 09:43 AM
Long but must read ...............
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0104-endelman.shtm
Good catch irshad,
I've contacted Gary via email and asked for his advise/suggestions for a strategy.
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0104-endelman.shtm
Good catch irshad,
I've contacted Gary via email and asked for his advise/suggestions for a strategy.
BMS1
10-17 12:02 PM
I never watch Lou Dobbs since I am never home in that time slot. But had a chance to switch to his program last week. Actually I did not want to see him but wanted to see which companies are sponsoring his show and would like to lose me as a customer.
Travelocity lost a customer in me. (I had a mixed feeling on this. When I used Travelocity the last time and I needed some customer support, the Travelocity person who tried to help me was an outsourcing company person in India).
Travelocity lost a customer in me. (I had a mixed feeling on this. When I used Travelocity the last time and I needed some customer support, the Travelocity person who tried to help me was an outsourcing company person in India).
more...
Lisap
10-03 04:11 PM
i dont think the country makes a big difference, i have two friends stuck in name check (one was born in canada with an english first and last name). i think its the combination of the name, DOB and a crappy system
Thank you for your response. I filed on July 2nd. Spoke to uscis imm officer this week and they said my criminal check cleared but my name check was still pending.... Just a waiting game I guess
Thank you for your response. I filed on July 2nd. Spoke to uscis imm officer this week and they said my criminal check cleared but my name check was still pending.... Just a waiting game I guess
2010 julie benz darla buffy.
mihird
06-29 04:28 PM
Damn this green card-If its true-What are they thinking screwing our lives-torture-saddistic I hate this man-thats the limit-all these years we wait-they have no word of honour-selfish cruel people.
I always thought, the system was fair, it was only the overwhelming numbers of immigrants from certain countries that made it look unfair....but the closer I get to the stage where DOS decisions start impacting me, the more I realize that the system is not fair at all. The game of visa numbers and allocations is driven by white house politics alone...DOS being the spokesperson for the politics. Essentially the white house is directly throttling immigration through the DOS...on its own whims and fancy.
I wouldn't say they are cruel, but they are certainly selfish..and are bent on sucking the blood of would be immigrants/working non-immigrants...the best way to prevent this from happening is to not come here....let the Indians/Chinese completely stop coming here on H1s/L1s and then we'll see how far can America fly...
Back home we spend so much for our govt for our own education -here no respect for us-I feel really hurted this time-Staying at home in H4 is a torture-
So, what made you import yourself here? You could have stayed back in your own country..by the way, coming on a H4 was a choice..it wasn't forced upon you...didn't you know before coming here that you would have to stay home on a H4? H4->F1, H4->H1...all these options are always open to you..
I always thought, the system was fair, it was only the overwhelming numbers of immigrants from certain countries that made it look unfair....but the closer I get to the stage where DOS decisions start impacting me, the more I realize that the system is not fair at all. The game of visa numbers and allocations is driven by white house politics alone...DOS being the spokesperson for the politics. Essentially the white house is directly throttling immigration through the DOS...on its own whims and fancy.
I wouldn't say they are cruel, but they are certainly selfish..and are bent on sucking the blood of would be immigrants/working non-immigrants...the best way to prevent this from happening is to not come here....let the Indians/Chinese completely stop coming here on H1s/L1s and then we'll see how far can America fly...
Back home we spend so much for our govt for our own education -here no respect for us-I feel really hurted this time-Staying at home in H4 is a torture-
So, what made you import yourself here? You could have stayed back in your own country..by the way, coming on a H4 was a choice..it wasn't forced upon you...didn't you know before coming here that you would have to stay home on a H4? H4->F1, H4->H1...all these options are always open to you..
more...
GCSOON-Ihope
04-20 12:26 PM
A friend of mine forgot (!!) :confused: to renew his EAD when it expired last September. He then applied for renewal 60 days after the expiration date and got his new EAD without any problem, no questions asked!
I filed for my own renewal about 90 days before the expiration date and when about 85 days had passed and I was getting worried, I called USCIS and was told: " Do you need the card to show your employer that you are legal? No? Then, don't worry about it. As long as you applied on-time, you are fine." I actually received the EAD five days after the expiration date...
These two experiences are from California Center.
I filed for my own renewal about 90 days before the expiration date and when about 85 days had passed and I was getting worried, I called USCIS and was told: " Do you need the card to show your employer that you are legal? No? Then, don't worry about it. As long as you applied on-time, you are fine." I actually received the EAD five days after the expiration date...
These two experiences are from California Center.
hair julie benz buffy darla.
anotherone
01-29 06:28 PM
Is there some master list of companies that have been filed against ? Do you know of anyone on this list that have done so and won ?
What will that accomplish really ? I dont know if working for this place will be a good idea anyway after filing a suit against them... but OTOH if it helps other people or at least if its out there on the net, so other companies wont get his brilliant idea....
just musing, thankyou for replying to my posts so quickly.
What will that accomplish really ? I dont know if working for this place will be a good idea anyway after filing a suit against them... but OTOH if it helps other people or at least if its out there on the net, so other companies wont get his brilliant idea....
just musing, thankyou for replying to my posts so quickly.
more...
Macaca
07-22 08:27 AM
Lou Dobbs Tonight 03/28/2007 (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0703/28/ldt.01.html): "It's pretty remarkable. Four hundred thousand H1 visas each year."
Temporary Admissions of Nonimmigrants to the United States: 2005 (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/2005_NI_rpt.pdf) By ELIZABETH M. GRIECO | DHS, Jul 2006
Nonimmigrant visas allow foreign nationals to travel to a U.S. port of entry, such as an international airport, a seaport, or a land border crossing. However, they do not guarantee entry. At the port of entry, an immigration officer of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authorizes a traveler’s admission into the United States and the period of stay (i.e., the length of time the bearer of a nonimmigrant visa is allowed to remain in the United States) for that visit. The initial authorized stay is noted in the DHS Form I-94 Form issued to the nonimmigrant by CBP.
Many visas are valid for several years, allowing those visa holders to enter the United States multiple times. Nonimmigrants on long-term visas, however, are still issued an authorized period of stay by CBP each time they are admitted.
TECS is the primary source for data collected from the Arrival-Departure Record, also known as DHS Form
I-942. Nonimmigrants arriving by air, land, or sea are required to complete Form I-94, with two important exceptions. Canadians who travel to the United States as tourists or on business generally do not need the I-94 Form. Also, certain Mexicans who have a nonresident alien Border Crossing Card, commonly known as a laser visa or a multiple-entry nonimmigrant visa, may not be required to complete the I-94 Form for entry. These exceptions are significant because Canadian and Mexican citizens make up the vast majority of all nonimmigrant admissions.
This Office of Immigration Statistics Annual Flow Report examines the number and characteristics of nonimmigrant admissions in 20051 recorded by the Treasury Enforcement Communications Systems (TECS) of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
The data presented in this report are derived from the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS) of the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection. TECS compiles and maintains information collected from nonimmigrants by DHS Form I-94, which asks for dates of arrival and departure as well as limited demographic information, such as name, sex, nationality, and date of birth.
I-94 Forms issued at air and sea ports of entry, in most cases, can be used for a single entry only. Each time a nonimmigrant enters the United States via air or sea, the arrival portion of the I-94 Form is collected and the information is entered into the data system. Conversely, each time a nonimmigrant leaves the United States via air or sea, the
departure portion is collected and the additional data is recorded into TECS.
By comparison, I-94 Forms issued at land border ports of entry, in most cases, can be used for multiple entries during an authorized period of admission. The arrival portion of the I-94 Form is collected and entered into the data system only at the time of initial form issuance and admission. Thus, while a nonimmigrant may enter the United States at a land border port of entry numerous times using the same I-94 Form, the arrival information recorded in TECS refers to the initial entry only. Also, a nonimmigrant who has been issued a multiple-entry I-94 and who leaves the United States via the land border is not required to surrender the departure portion of the form if the authorized period of admission is still valid and the nonimmigrant intends to return before the I-94 Form has expired.
The information from the departure portion of the form is recorded into TECS after the nonimmigrant surrenders the form. Although TECS records both arrival and departure data, the information presented in this report is based on arrival data only.
Many nonimmigrants, such as students, diplomats, and temporary workers, enter and leave the United States more than once each year, and the TECS system separately records each new issuance of an I-94 Form at arrival and each I-94 Form collected at departure. Since the arrival data are collected each time a new I-94 Form is issued, and an individual might enter more than once in a fiscal year, the count of admissions exceeds the number of individuals arriving.
In 2005, for example, there were 32 million I-94 admissions recorded by TECS, but only 26.9 million individuals entered the United States (see Table 2). Of those 26.9 million, 88 percent arrived once while 12 percent arrived two or more times during the year. This report uses TECS data to describe the number and characteristics of the 32 million I-94 admissions and not the 26.9 million individual nonimmigrants.
There is no limit on the total number of nonimmigrants admitted each year.
There are also limits on the number of petitions approved for initial employment for certain categories of temporary workers. For example, in 2005, high-skilled H-1B visas for certain first-time applicants were limited to 65,000. In general, there are few limitations on the number of immediate family members who can enter the country with nonimmigrant visa holders.
From How many H-1B visa workers? Counts vary (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=114543&postcount=737) VALLEY EMPLOYERS AMONG TOP USERS By Chris O'Brien (cobrien@mercurynews.com or (415) 298-0207) | Mercury News, 07/15/2007
A company that wants H-1B visas files an application with the U.S. Department of Labor. The Labor Department screens the applications, then passes them to the Department of Homeland Security, which includes the office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Applications approved by the immigration service are then forwarded to the U.S. Department of State, which actually issues the visas.
There's a startling lack of publicly available data about the program, which makes it almost impossible to know which companies are getting the controversial visas and why. And much of the data that does exist is disputed by one side or another.
Oracle was issued 1,022 H-1B visas in calendar year 2006, a figure that includes renewals of previously issued visas. But Robert Hoffman, an Oracle spokesman, said his company could only confirm that it made 170 new H-1B hires in the federal government's fiscal year 2007, which runs from October to September.
The list is dominated by India-based outsourcing companies, such as Wipro and Infosys, which at No. 1 and No. 2 respectively received 3,143 and 3,125 new visas. The only Silicon Valley company on the list was Intel, ranked No. 13 with 613. Microsoft was fifth with 1,297.
But another list circulating on Capitol Hill told a somewhat different story. That list was also from the Homeland Security Department and included the number of new visas as well as the number of renewal visas.
According to that list, Oracle outranked Intel, receiving 1,022 visas in 2006. Intel received 828, as did Cisco; Yahoo received 347; and Hewlett-Packard received 333.
But Shotwell, the tech-industry lobbyist, said such tallies are misleading because companies often file multiple applications for a single person or large blanket applications for a number of positions they might not ultimately need because they want as many as possible before the cap is reached.
The federal government awarded 124,096 H-1B visas in the fiscal year ending October 2005, the most recent annual totals available. That includes renewed visas, which don't count against the annual cap.
From Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2005 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/H1B_FY05_Characteristics.pdf) November 2006
Number of H1B petitions approved for initial employment is 116,927. (page 5)
The number of approved petitions exceeds the number of individual H-1B workers because more than one U.S. employer may file a petition on behalf of an individual H-1B worker. (page 5)
Blogged at All Reader Comments (http://app.businessweek.com/UserComments/combo_review?action=all&style=wide&productId=20045&pageIndex=5) for A Green Light on the Road to Green Cards (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jul2007/db20070717_923080.htm?chan=search)
Temporary Admissions of Nonimmigrants to the United States: 2005 (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/2005_NI_rpt.pdf) By ELIZABETH M. GRIECO | DHS, Jul 2006
Nonimmigrant visas allow foreign nationals to travel to a U.S. port of entry, such as an international airport, a seaport, or a land border crossing. However, they do not guarantee entry. At the port of entry, an immigration officer of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authorizes a traveler’s admission into the United States and the period of stay (i.e., the length of time the bearer of a nonimmigrant visa is allowed to remain in the United States) for that visit. The initial authorized stay is noted in the DHS Form I-94 Form issued to the nonimmigrant by CBP.
Many visas are valid for several years, allowing those visa holders to enter the United States multiple times. Nonimmigrants on long-term visas, however, are still issued an authorized period of stay by CBP each time they are admitted.
TECS is the primary source for data collected from the Arrival-Departure Record, also known as DHS Form
I-942. Nonimmigrants arriving by air, land, or sea are required to complete Form I-94, with two important exceptions. Canadians who travel to the United States as tourists or on business generally do not need the I-94 Form. Also, certain Mexicans who have a nonresident alien Border Crossing Card, commonly known as a laser visa or a multiple-entry nonimmigrant visa, may not be required to complete the I-94 Form for entry. These exceptions are significant because Canadian and Mexican citizens make up the vast majority of all nonimmigrant admissions.
This Office of Immigration Statistics Annual Flow Report examines the number and characteristics of nonimmigrant admissions in 20051 recorded by the Treasury Enforcement Communications Systems (TECS) of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
The data presented in this report are derived from the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS) of the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection. TECS compiles and maintains information collected from nonimmigrants by DHS Form I-94, which asks for dates of arrival and departure as well as limited demographic information, such as name, sex, nationality, and date of birth.
I-94 Forms issued at air and sea ports of entry, in most cases, can be used for a single entry only. Each time a nonimmigrant enters the United States via air or sea, the arrival portion of the I-94 Form is collected and the information is entered into the data system. Conversely, each time a nonimmigrant leaves the United States via air or sea, the
departure portion is collected and the additional data is recorded into TECS.
By comparison, I-94 Forms issued at land border ports of entry, in most cases, can be used for multiple entries during an authorized period of admission. The arrival portion of the I-94 Form is collected and entered into the data system only at the time of initial form issuance and admission. Thus, while a nonimmigrant may enter the United States at a land border port of entry numerous times using the same I-94 Form, the arrival information recorded in TECS refers to the initial entry only. Also, a nonimmigrant who has been issued a multiple-entry I-94 and who leaves the United States via the land border is not required to surrender the departure portion of the form if the authorized period of admission is still valid and the nonimmigrant intends to return before the I-94 Form has expired.
The information from the departure portion of the form is recorded into TECS after the nonimmigrant surrenders the form. Although TECS records both arrival and departure data, the information presented in this report is based on arrival data only.
Many nonimmigrants, such as students, diplomats, and temporary workers, enter and leave the United States more than once each year, and the TECS system separately records each new issuance of an I-94 Form at arrival and each I-94 Form collected at departure. Since the arrival data are collected each time a new I-94 Form is issued, and an individual might enter more than once in a fiscal year, the count of admissions exceeds the number of individuals arriving.
In 2005, for example, there were 32 million I-94 admissions recorded by TECS, but only 26.9 million individuals entered the United States (see Table 2). Of those 26.9 million, 88 percent arrived once while 12 percent arrived two or more times during the year. This report uses TECS data to describe the number and characteristics of the 32 million I-94 admissions and not the 26.9 million individual nonimmigrants.
There is no limit on the total number of nonimmigrants admitted each year.
There are also limits on the number of petitions approved for initial employment for certain categories of temporary workers. For example, in 2005, high-skilled H-1B visas for certain first-time applicants were limited to 65,000. In general, there are few limitations on the number of immediate family members who can enter the country with nonimmigrant visa holders.
From How many H-1B visa workers? Counts vary (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=114543&postcount=737) VALLEY EMPLOYERS AMONG TOP USERS By Chris O'Brien (cobrien@mercurynews.com or (415) 298-0207) | Mercury News, 07/15/2007
A company that wants H-1B visas files an application with the U.S. Department of Labor. The Labor Department screens the applications, then passes them to the Department of Homeland Security, which includes the office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Applications approved by the immigration service are then forwarded to the U.S. Department of State, which actually issues the visas.
There's a startling lack of publicly available data about the program, which makes it almost impossible to know which companies are getting the controversial visas and why. And much of the data that does exist is disputed by one side or another.
Oracle was issued 1,022 H-1B visas in calendar year 2006, a figure that includes renewals of previously issued visas. But Robert Hoffman, an Oracle spokesman, said his company could only confirm that it made 170 new H-1B hires in the federal government's fiscal year 2007, which runs from October to September.
The list is dominated by India-based outsourcing companies, such as Wipro and Infosys, which at No. 1 and No. 2 respectively received 3,143 and 3,125 new visas. The only Silicon Valley company on the list was Intel, ranked No. 13 with 613. Microsoft was fifth with 1,297.
But another list circulating on Capitol Hill told a somewhat different story. That list was also from the Homeland Security Department and included the number of new visas as well as the number of renewal visas.
According to that list, Oracle outranked Intel, receiving 1,022 visas in 2006. Intel received 828, as did Cisco; Yahoo received 347; and Hewlett-Packard received 333.
But Shotwell, the tech-industry lobbyist, said such tallies are misleading because companies often file multiple applications for a single person or large blanket applications for a number of positions they might not ultimately need because they want as many as possible before the cap is reached.
The federal government awarded 124,096 H-1B visas in the fiscal year ending October 2005, the most recent annual totals available. That includes renewed visas, which don't count against the annual cap.
From Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2005 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/H1B_FY05_Characteristics.pdf) November 2006
Number of H1B petitions approved for initial employment is 116,927. (page 5)
The number of approved petitions exceeds the number of individual H-1B workers because more than one U.S. employer may file a petition on behalf of an individual H-1B worker. (page 5)
Blogged at All Reader Comments (http://app.businessweek.com/UserComments/combo_review?action=all&style=wide&productId=20045&pageIndex=5) for A Green Light on the Road to Green Cards (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jul2007/db20070717_923080.htm?chan=search)
hot girlfriend Julie Benz as Darla
eb_retrogession
02-09 02:47 PM
Ease in immigration standards called for
The United Press International, February 8, 2006
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060208-105741-3392r
Washington (UPI) -- A leader of a semiconductor company wants the United States to ease immigrations standards to make it easier to hire and retain foreign nationals.
Intel Chairman Craig Barrett, appearing on a question-and-answer forum on FT.com, said a market-based approach to granting work visas should replace the current system, which sets numerical limits on such documents.
Several leaders of technology companies have made similar requests of U.S. officials, the Financial Times said Wednesday. The visa classification that allows foreign engineers and scientists to temporarily relocate to the United States has a limit of 65,000. Some 140,000 green cards, allowing permanent stays, are granted each year.
Barrett said the figures are too low, pointing out the work visa total has already been reached this fiscal year.
'These arbitrary caps undercut business' ability to hire and retain the number of highly educated people in the field where we need to maintain our leading position,' Barrett said on FT.com.
Barrett suggested, 'We should just staple a green card to every advanced degree granted to a foreign national from a U.S. university in science and engineering.'
The United Press International, February 8, 2006
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060208-105741-3392r
Washington (UPI) -- A leader of a semiconductor company wants the United States to ease immigrations standards to make it easier to hire and retain foreign nationals.
Intel Chairman Craig Barrett, appearing on a question-and-answer forum on FT.com, said a market-based approach to granting work visas should replace the current system, which sets numerical limits on such documents.
Several leaders of technology companies have made similar requests of U.S. officials, the Financial Times said Wednesday. The visa classification that allows foreign engineers and scientists to temporarily relocate to the United States has a limit of 65,000. Some 140,000 green cards, allowing permanent stays, are granted each year.
Barrett said the figures are too low, pointing out the work visa total has already been reached this fiscal year.
'These arbitrary caps undercut business' ability to hire and retain the number of highly educated people in the field where we need to maintain our leading position,' Barrett said on FT.com.
Barrett suggested, 'We should just staple a green card to every advanced degree granted to a foreign national from a U.S. university in science and engineering.'
more...
house Julie Benz Dexter No Ordinary
shsharma_2000
02-06 11:40 AM
I went for H1B extn (approved Nov 2007) stamping on 15th Jan at New Delhi consulate. The person checking the papers at the outside window wrote - PIMS found on my appl form.
I checked with the VO after the interview if I will experience any PIMS delay. He replied he would not have been able to process my application without PIMS entry being found and everything is good.
Got the passport back on 18th.
I checked with the VO after the interview if I will experience any PIMS delay. He replied he would not have been able to process my application without PIMS entry being found and everything is good.
Got the passport back on 18th.
tattoo Next we have Julie Benz as
Nil
03-10 09:05 PM
Thanks,
This is funny - one red and one green, so it turned blue now.
Anyway - can we quickly compile a list of to-dos to take this idea fwd?
This is funny - one red and one green, so it turned blue now.
Anyway - can we quickly compile a list of to-dos to take this idea fwd?
more...
pictures Darla played by Julie Benz
puddonhead
06-18 12:58 PM
>> I disagree. By not reporting the fraud at workplace, it puts rest of workforce not at level playing field.
Hmmm.. Level playing field. You mean the field where you set the rules? UAW did that in GM - you know?
If there is someone who can do my job cheaper or better or more efficiently - by all means it should go to him. I need to then find something where I am good at. Thats what competition is! Of course - this "efficiency" can not come by illegal behavior. Illegal behavior (like the L1 fraud) has other hidden problems.
So on your question about "l1 fraud": by all means I am for reporting it. However, there is another overriding concern for ALL OF US - how will the economy behave? I dont want to worsen things by "reporting fraud" at a mass scale right now and create trouble for companies that are already suffering. I will do that when that will be beneficial for the US Economy (translation - "all of us - even citizens").
I am not for tolerating or condoning illegal behavior - however, I am all for moderating my responses and prioritizing the fights. I am also for not behaving like the UAW members.
>> You are right. If you are not impacted by fraud, one will be least interested in reporting the fraud. Only when you get impacted, the fraud appears real and serious.
You are reading between the lines too literally - so much so that you misinterpret everything like the bible-thumpers. Impact "me" = Impact "us" = Impact "everybody in the US - including the US Citizens".
>> Taking your example further, due to budget constraints, the manager will be more inclined to replace workers to L1 workers to save cost. Do you want this? This will impact people in short term.
Same answer as the first question.
It's a pretty nuanced position. I hope I have been able to explain it properly.
Hmmm.. Level playing field. You mean the field where you set the rules? UAW did that in GM - you know?
If there is someone who can do my job cheaper or better or more efficiently - by all means it should go to him. I need to then find something where I am good at. Thats what competition is! Of course - this "efficiency" can not come by illegal behavior. Illegal behavior (like the L1 fraud) has other hidden problems.
So on your question about "l1 fraud": by all means I am for reporting it. However, there is another overriding concern for ALL OF US - how will the economy behave? I dont want to worsen things by "reporting fraud" at a mass scale right now and create trouble for companies that are already suffering. I will do that when that will be beneficial for the US Economy (translation - "all of us - even citizens").
I am not for tolerating or condoning illegal behavior - however, I am all for moderating my responses and prioritizing the fights. I am also for not behaving like the UAW members.
>> You are right. If you are not impacted by fraud, one will be least interested in reporting the fraud. Only when you get impacted, the fraud appears real and serious.
You are reading between the lines too literally - so much so that you misinterpret everything like the bible-thumpers. Impact "me" = Impact "us" = Impact "everybody in the US - including the US Citizens".
>> Taking your example further, due to budget constraints, the manager will be more inclined to replace workers to L1 workers to save cost. Do you want this? This will impact people in short term.
Same answer as the first question.
It's a pretty nuanced position. I hope I have been able to explain it properly.
dresses wallpaper Julie benz buffy the
shahzaib616
05-17 06:33 PM
Before I begin with my question, allow me to give you a brief overview of my case:
In the year 2000, I initially filed for Labor Certification.
In 2004, I received approval of my application for Employment Authorization (I-765).
In 2005, I was sent a letter from the USCIS indicating that my application was rejected because I failed to file my case prior to a certain date issued by the USCIS.
Pretty straight-forward, right? Wrong. You see, in the last letter I was sent by the USCIS it states that I failed to file my case promptly enough; I filed my case nearly a year before the deadline was set!
My lawyers and I have attempted to appeal the decision, however our attempt has been futile: our request for appeal has been denied.
I am unsure of what to do now... It is apparent that the USCIS messed up, but I cannot think of any way to reopen my case and prove it. My attorney has presented me with two options - in mid-June he will engage in a conference call with a senior individual at the Immigration Office, at which time he will present cases (including mine) which have been wrongfully denied; my second option is to sue the United States.
I am very unsure of what course of action to pursue now! My lawyer has kept my waiting all this time with stalls and meetings which he has stated will help my case, however with each passing meeting, it simply seems like he is giving me false hope... I really do not want to have to wait until mid-June, only to find out that I must wait even longer before my case is reopened.
Additionally, I am highly reluctant to sue the United States of America for messing up in the processing of my case. The judge presiding over my case will be a United States citizen - it would be like telling a child to kill his/her parent... it simply cannot happen! If I were to sue the United States of America, I would be fighting an uphill battle and risk deportation if I were to lose.
Please! Has anyone on here been rendered an unfavorable decision by the USCIS based on a mistake made by the Immigration office? What have you done to fix your case?
Attorneys: have any of your clients been put into this situation? What have you done to resolve the issue?
Everyone: I understand that a very small percentage of people are likely to be in the same boat that I am in, however regardless of whether or not you are in this situation, what would you do if you were in my shoes???
Would you sue the government and risk deportation? Would you wait endlessly, hoping that things become better, eventually? Or would you do something else? (If so, what?)
Thank you for taking the time to read this! For those of you who take even more time to respond to this post, thank you even more! I am truly grateful!!!
Sincerely,
Shahzaib
In the year 2000, I initially filed for Labor Certification.
In 2004, I received approval of my application for Employment Authorization (I-765).
In 2005, I was sent a letter from the USCIS indicating that my application was rejected because I failed to file my case prior to a certain date issued by the USCIS.
Pretty straight-forward, right? Wrong. You see, in the last letter I was sent by the USCIS it states that I failed to file my case promptly enough; I filed my case nearly a year before the deadline was set!
My lawyers and I have attempted to appeal the decision, however our attempt has been futile: our request for appeal has been denied.
I am unsure of what to do now... It is apparent that the USCIS messed up, but I cannot think of any way to reopen my case and prove it. My attorney has presented me with two options - in mid-June he will engage in a conference call with a senior individual at the Immigration Office, at which time he will present cases (including mine) which have been wrongfully denied; my second option is to sue the United States.
I am very unsure of what course of action to pursue now! My lawyer has kept my waiting all this time with stalls and meetings which he has stated will help my case, however with each passing meeting, it simply seems like he is giving me false hope... I really do not want to have to wait until mid-June, only to find out that I must wait even longer before my case is reopened.
Additionally, I am highly reluctant to sue the United States of America for messing up in the processing of my case. The judge presiding over my case will be a United States citizen - it would be like telling a child to kill his/her parent... it simply cannot happen! If I were to sue the United States of America, I would be fighting an uphill battle and risk deportation if I were to lose.
Please! Has anyone on here been rendered an unfavorable decision by the USCIS based on a mistake made by the Immigration office? What have you done to fix your case?
Attorneys: have any of your clients been put into this situation? What have you done to resolve the issue?
Everyone: I understand that a very small percentage of people are likely to be in the same boat that I am in, however regardless of whether or not you are in this situation, what would you do if you were in my shoes???
Would you sue the government and risk deportation? Would you wait endlessly, hoping that things become better, eventually? Or would you do something else? (If so, what?)
Thank you for taking the time to read this! For those of you who take even more time to respond to this post, thank you even more! I am truly grateful!!!
Sincerely,
Shahzaib
more...
makeup Julie Benz Buffy, Angel
singhsa3
08-22 06:27 PM
It is unfortunate that people don't even try to understand the issue and just go about complaining it.
Most people can't even differentiate between what is law and what is not. What are difficult things to accomplish and what are not.
It is absolutely imperative that 5882 pass otherwise the situation will continue to exist.
Here are the my estimated waits for EB3-I
PD(end of the calendar year) and its corresponding wait in years
2001 1 year
2002 3 years
2003 4 years (Bad economy in 2002 and early 2003)
2004 7 years (Case surge in 2003 and 2004 due to booming economy)
2005 8 years (fewer cases in 2005 due to PERM)
2006 10 years
2007 12 years
2008 .....
I think we are fighting the wrong fight. I do recognize the whole EB system is unfair and in particular to I/C/M/P.
The letter campaign is a great initiative, but I am not sure if we are focusing on the right problem. By saying that the new "interpretation of the spillover" is cruel to EB3 I/C/M/P is plain wrong. Both old and new interpretations were unfair to EB3 I/C/M/P.
Old interpretation resulted in good forward movement to EB3 ROW while EB2 crawls.
New interpretation results in good forward movement to EB2 while EB3 crawls.
How does EB3 ICMP benefit from both the interpretations?
EB3 is clogged because of the 245i cases. Unless we focus on the exact problem no amount of letters to lawmakers will not yield any result.
Writing letters to lawmakers is not going to provide any impact for this year Here is my reason it takes 3-5 weeks for the lawmakers to get the letters in DC because of special security screening requirements. By the time they receive the letters the Congress would pretty much be done with their term. The best option would be to meet with the lawmakers in their local office or in DC and appraise them of the long wait.
Please do understand that one of the reason USCIS changed their interpretation is because many folks with Ph D's and MS from ICMP where waiting for years to get GC"s and USCIS/DOS looked stupid in explaining the reason for the long wait for such folks. Even in the "visa wastage" hearing in the House immigration committee (on Apr 30) the DOS/USCIS was having trouble explaining the long wait times. One of the witness in the hearing was a PhD from China and had been waiting for years for his GC.
Come on folks. EB2 forward movement is good for EB3's, because EB2 will soon become current and the spillovers will be soon coming to EB3 after EB3 ROW is current. I am anticipating DOS will turn EB2 current in the second half of the year and this will ensure all the spillovers will flow into EB3's because EB2's with PD mid-2007 to now will not be able to clear the NC 180 day barrier. Cheer up folks and let us focus on the real problem getting more number of visa's through recapture.
If you feel strongly about the cause you should meet with your lawmakers office and address the issue. Letter campaign in not going to yield any short term impact. Please take the time to meet with your lawmakers
why are we giving so much importance to Ron. If he is so concerned about this issue why can't he take up this issue with AILA? He is a member of AILA.
Most people can't even differentiate between what is law and what is not. What are difficult things to accomplish and what are not.
It is absolutely imperative that 5882 pass otherwise the situation will continue to exist.
Here are the my estimated waits for EB3-I
PD(end of the calendar year) and its corresponding wait in years
2001 1 year
2002 3 years
2003 4 years (Bad economy in 2002 and early 2003)
2004 7 years (Case surge in 2003 and 2004 due to booming economy)
2005 8 years (fewer cases in 2005 due to PERM)
2006 10 years
2007 12 years
2008 .....
I think we are fighting the wrong fight. I do recognize the whole EB system is unfair and in particular to I/C/M/P.
The letter campaign is a great initiative, but I am not sure if we are focusing on the right problem. By saying that the new "interpretation of the spillover" is cruel to EB3 I/C/M/P is plain wrong. Both old and new interpretations were unfair to EB3 I/C/M/P.
Old interpretation resulted in good forward movement to EB3 ROW while EB2 crawls.
New interpretation results in good forward movement to EB2 while EB3 crawls.
How does EB3 ICMP benefit from both the interpretations?
EB3 is clogged because of the 245i cases. Unless we focus on the exact problem no amount of letters to lawmakers will not yield any result.
Writing letters to lawmakers is not going to provide any impact for this year Here is my reason it takes 3-5 weeks for the lawmakers to get the letters in DC because of special security screening requirements. By the time they receive the letters the Congress would pretty much be done with their term. The best option would be to meet with the lawmakers in their local office or in DC and appraise them of the long wait.
Please do understand that one of the reason USCIS changed their interpretation is because many folks with Ph D's and MS from ICMP where waiting for years to get GC"s and USCIS/DOS looked stupid in explaining the reason for the long wait for such folks. Even in the "visa wastage" hearing in the House immigration committee (on Apr 30) the DOS/USCIS was having trouble explaining the long wait times. One of the witness in the hearing was a PhD from China and had been waiting for years for his GC.
Come on folks. EB2 forward movement is good for EB3's, because EB2 will soon become current and the spillovers will be soon coming to EB3 after EB3 ROW is current. I am anticipating DOS will turn EB2 current in the second half of the year and this will ensure all the spillovers will flow into EB3's because EB2's with PD mid-2007 to now will not be able to clear the NC 180 day barrier. Cheer up folks and let us focus on the real problem getting more number of visa's through recapture.
If you feel strongly about the cause you should meet with your lawmakers office and address the issue. Letter campaign in not going to yield any short term impact. Please take the time to meet with your lawmakers
why are we giving so much importance to Ron. If he is so concerned about this issue why can't he take up this issue with AILA? He is a member of AILA.
girlfriend Darla Angel Julie Benz
desi3933
08-07 12:54 PM
Point noted thank you!
I appreciate that.
May I ask to share your legal defense for this point, when you have one?
Thanks!
I appreciate that.
May I ask to share your legal defense for this point, when you have one?
Thanks!
hairstyles makeup Buffy - Julie Benz as
aquarianf
05-25 04:15 PM
My priority date is current now. I read somewhere that I have to file I-485 between June 1st and June 30th. is this correct?? what if my medical exam results are not ready and I am not able to file before June 30th?? can I still file during following month, July?? Please help. Thanks
if you don't have any medical problem then medical test can be completed in 1 week then why wait till July.
if you don't have any medical problem then medical test can be completed in 1 week then why wait till July.
gc_on_demand
09-16 10:15 AM
Single Person's Effort Makes Difference
Everyone should try.
Please call committee memebers and local congressmen/women
Everyone should try.
Please call committee memebers and local congressmen/women
GC2002-2008
01-30 10:13 AM
This is my case:
I am not working with my GC (I140) sponsoring company. I applied 485 based on that 140 from my previous company.
Got 3yr H1extn (from Vermont, EAC, in Dec 2007)for current company based on that approved 140.
Got EAD , AP approved.
My previous H1 visa expired in 2004. ( 4yrs gap)
Is it better to go to consulate (Chennai) for stamping ? or use AP?
If I use AP, at POE ( Newark EWR)if I were asked why I am not with GC sponsoring employer what should I say ?
Is there any issue for going stmaping after a long gap ?
Please adivse.
I am not working with my GC (I140) sponsoring company. I applied 485 based on that 140 from my previous company.
Got 3yr H1extn (from Vermont, EAC, in Dec 2007)for current company based on that approved 140.
Got EAD , AP approved.
My previous H1 visa expired in 2004. ( 4yrs gap)
Is it better to go to consulate (Chennai) for stamping ? or use AP?
If I use AP, at POE ( Newark EWR)if I were asked why I am not with GC sponsoring employer what should I say ?
Is there any issue for going stmaping after a long gap ?
Please adivse.
No comments:
Post a Comment