nlssubbu
12-27 02:33 PM
Dubai - no issues without valid stamp
Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg - I heard no issues now, if u have valid i 797 - waiting forr some comments
Amsterdam/Schiphol - No issue without valid stamp
London - ?????
Seoul - ?????
Singapore - ??????
Bangkok - ?????
Kuwait - ?????
Zurich -- ????
Geneva -- ???
I know that Seoul, Bangkok and Singapore does not need transit visa, if you do not step out of the Airport and have a connecting flight resevered for your outbound destination.
Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg - I heard no issues now, if u have valid i 797 - waiting forr some comments
Amsterdam/Schiphol - No issue without valid stamp
London - ?????
Seoul - ?????
Singapore - ??????
Bangkok - ?????
Kuwait - ?????
Zurich -- ????
Geneva -- ???
I know that Seoul, Bangkok and Singapore does not need transit visa, if you do not step out of the Airport and have a connecting flight resevered for your outbound destination.
wallpaper plagued by foot rot, rats,
abracadabra102
08-29 04:54 PM
"Reliable desi consulting company" is an oxymoron :D
msgrewal81
02-18 04:16 PM
1 - It will grant GC to people with > 5 years in US
2 - For EB skilled immigration for people with <5 years in US, it makes LC process more difficult.
Please add your views about this bill, how it might be improved and its chances of becoming a law.
P.S. I previously misread the text somewhere. This bill just eliminate H1B classification for fashion models.
2 - For EB skilled immigration for people with <5 years in US, it makes LC process more difficult.
Please add your views about this bill, how it might be improved and its chances of becoming a law.
P.S. I previously misread the text somewhere. This bill just eliminate H1B classification for fashion models.
2011 Mutant rats!
sanju
04-04 03:49 PM
are you aware of the fact that IEEE actually lobbied to get a special quota of H1B for US-educated folks? these folks are foreigners and will definitely be competing against these "racist" ppl. Because of their principled stand, they continue to have clout.
So, only "US-educated folks" are entitled for H1? Is that what you are saying? And only that is a principled stand and rest everything is falsehood?
So, only "US-educated folks" are entitled for H1? Is that what you are saying? And only that is a principled stand and rest everything is falsehood?
more...
amitgeorge
03-13 11:17 PM
by far the best battle i have seen in recent times
great work
great work
WillIWin?
07-23 02:24 PM
My lawyer is going to submit the 485 WITHOUT a letter from my current employer. This is going to be a concurrent I-140 and I-485 application (140 and 485 applied together).
I looked at the 485 application form and see that it clearly mentions - page 5, that a letter from the employer is required (mentioning job title, job description and salary). My lawyer still says it is NOT required.
- Are there people who have submitted 485 applications OR who are going to submit the 485 WITHOUT an Employment letter ? Replies/advice greatly appreciated.
Thanks in Advance!
I looked at the 485 application form and see that it clearly mentions - page 5, that a letter from the employer is required (mentioning job title, job description and salary). My lawyer still says it is NOT required.
- Are there people who have submitted 485 applications OR who are going to submit the 485 WITHOUT an Employment letter ? Replies/advice greatly appreciated.
Thanks in Advance!
more...
independent72
02-20 06:43 PM
I am going to travel from Boston and would like to pool my car. I have Honda Pilot and can sit 6 people.
2010 rats in trenches.
nomi
12-12 12:36 PM
Hi Logiclife,
If an attorney says that it cannot be done with administrative changes, then I guess, we dont have much to argue.
But I cannot understand the logic behind why it cant be done. I mean, disallowing concurrent processing is possible by an administrative change, why is the reverse (or something similar like allowing 485 filing without pd being current), not possible?
I am sorry for not being to let go of this, but I thought, logic-life can see some logic in this!!! :)
Thank you.
I agree with you. There is not logic in any of immigration related laws. I think they should re-write all those immigration laws again and all lawmakers should be Immigrant who can understand all the pain we have coz of these immigration laws. I don`t think any law maker knows "what I-485 is"
Once they approve the 1-140 and that`s it it shuold be all done. AOS
(Change of Status) is all stupid and meaning less. It just money making games for all Attorneys and law makers. All attorneys supports law makers so they make laws where attorney can have maximum benefits from us. These attorneys don`t do anything either about immigration laws coz this is the only way for them to make money.
If an attorney says that it cannot be done with administrative changes, then I guess, we dont have much to argue.
But I cannot understand the logic behind why it cant be done. I mean, disallowing concurrent processing is possible by an administrative change, why is the reverse (or something similar like allowing 485 filing without pd being current), not possible?
I am sorry for not being to let go of this, but I thought, logic-life can see some logic in this!!! :)
Thank you.
I agree with you. There is not logic in any of immigration related laws. I think they should re-write all those immigration laws again and all lawmakers should be Immigrant who can understand all the pain we have coz of these immigration laws. I don`t think any law maker knows "what I-485 is"
Once they approve the 1-140 and that`s it it shuold be all done. AOS
(Change of Status) is all stupid and meaning less. It just money making games for all Attorneys and law makers. All attorneys supports law makers so they make laws where attorney can have maximum benefits from us. These attorneys don`t do anything either about immigration laws coz this is the only way for them to make money.
more...
McLuvin
03-12 01:55 PM
finally the bulletin has been posted in the DOS website...
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
hair rats in trenches.
greyhair
02-09 03:42 PM
And reply you will never get.
I'm not holding my breath any more.
I'm not holding my breath any more.
more...
onemorecame
10-15 01:18 PM
any one got approval after submitting recent RFE?
hot rats. Life in the Trenches
JunRN
09-10 08:25 PM
Hammond Law Group said it was postponed due to lack of quorum. Which one is true? ILW or Hammond Law?
more...
house Corpse eaten by rats,
chanduv23
09-28 03:48 PM
Those Asian Americans who are against new Asian immigrants, which include some of my relatives, sadly to tell you, are just helping White Americans in this fight. It is their wish and their passion. But if White Americans don't want it, they will have no chance of getting their voice heard. Not all White Americans are against immigration. But there is a big percentage of White Americans who are either fiercely against it or do not want it. I can hardly find any White American who says they want more immigrants. And a small percentage of White Americans are fiercely against immigrations. They would curse at anyone who they think is a new immigrant at any opportunity they have.
Well, unfortunately they all vote and their votes are important to all the candidates. Even Senators like Obama, Hillary etc... are playing the same vote bank politics. They seem to be loving immigrants of different ethnicities, but not skilled immigrants waiting for green card - VERY SIMPLE EQUATION - NO VOTING POWER NO SUPPORT - and people like Durbin and Grassley go a step ahead and damage the entire industry and attack tech companies. They do all these just for the sake of votes.
Our only mistake is that we are in the queue, followed all rules, contribute to economy and we do not vote. They do not see anything else but votes. They are not controlling brain drain, not recognizing skills, tried to break their own rules during the July bulletin fiasco - why so much hatred towards us? Just because we are competitive?
Well, unfortunately they all vote and their votes are important to all the candidates. Even Senators like Obama, Hillary etc... are playing the same vote bank politics. They seem to be loving immigrants of different ethnicities, but not skilled immigrants waiting for green card - VERY SIMPLE EQUATION - NO VOTING POWER NO SUPPORT - and people like Durbin and Grassley go a step ahead and damage the entire industry and attack tech companies. They do all these just for the sake of votes.
Our only mistake is that we are in the queue, followed all rules, contribute to economy and we do not vote. They do not see anything else but votes. They are not controlling brain drain, not recognizing skills, tried to break their own rules during the July bulletin fiasco - why so much hatred towards us? Just because we are competitive?
tattoo rats in trenches. war trenches
DDD
03-14 12:06 AM
If ya'll do like a character model contest next time, I think I will be in. But we will need like a 4 week due date...lol. Good job all.
more...
pictures Trench rats ww1
senthil1
06-13 11:43 AM
Impact of rule 2 will be minimal and that rule will be really used not to displace
US workers if that is the purpose. If companies are not really displacing US workers why should they bother about this rule? This rule will certainly minimise the outsourcing by laying off people as H1b persons are required for offshore co-ordination.
Rule 3 is putting ad that is just like a Labor process in green card. It will delay h1b hiring for a month and really impact will be minimal
Those 2 rules are worth if companies can get best people in the world(that was the intention of H1b program. That is what Google and Microsoft are arguing)
With the restrictions we are getting 115 to 180k H1bs. If there is some plan for clearing backlog for gc then we can very well support CIR
Correct me if my understanding is wrong.
Hi, Senthil and Bugmenot
You said :They will allow some form of consulting and they may ban subcontracting in H1b.
Now you agree that consulting will be there. So the bill have to be tweeked or else even small american companies will shut down.
ex bearing point....
Rule 2 of restriction - Company cannot hire 6 months before or after it has laid of a person.
Impossible to be applied.
(Big companies will be affected with this, small companies like CDI, ABC.. who might hire a H1-B on their pay roll but they let them go when they are not able to find a new client that they can place that person).
Rule 3 - You have to advertise before you get an H1-B might be allowed but ignored like L1 is ignored now.
I will show you how the merit based system have to change for EB in my next post.
Got to go...
US workers if that is the purpose. If companies are not really displacing US workers why should they bother about this rule? This rule will certainly minimise the outsourcing by laying off people as H1b persons are required for offshore co-ordination.
Rule 3 is putting ad that is just like a Labor process in green card. It will delay h1b hiring for a month and really impact will be minimal
Those 2 rules are worth if companies can get best people in the world(that was the intention of H1b program. That is what Google and Microsoft are arguing)
With the restrictions we are getting 115 to 180k H1bs. If there is some plan for clearing backlog for gc then we can very well support CIR
Correct me if my understanding is wrong.
Hi, Senthil and Bugmenot
You said :They will allow some form of consulting and they may ban subcontracting in H1b.
Now you agree that consulting will be there. So the bill have to be tweeked or else even small american companies will shut down.
ex bearing point....
Rule 2 of restriction - Company cannot hire 6 months before or after it has laid of a person.
Impossible to be applied.
(Big companies will be affected with this, small companies like CDI, ABC.. who might hire a H1-B on their pay roll but they let them go when they are not able to find a new client that they can place that person).
Rule 3 - You have to advertise before you get an H1-B might be allowed but ignored like L1 is ignored now.
I will show you how the merit based system have to change for EB in my next post.
Got to go...
dresses trench rats
amsgc
12-21 10:35 PM
Lazycis,
For academic info:
You mentioned that 245(k) allows up to 180 "out of status". Does it also cover "unlawful presence"? If not, then what does?
I am getting a bit confused by the terminlogy. I understand that "out of status" impiles: Your I-94 has not expired, but you have violated the terms under which you were admitted.
And "unlawful presence" means you overstayed your I-94, or sneaked in.
Is this correct? Please clarify.
Thanks,
Ams
For academic info:
You mentioned that 245(k) allows up to 180 "out of status". Does it also cover "unlawful presence"? If not, then what does?
I am getting a bit confused by the terminlogy. I understand that "out of status" impiles: Your I-94 has not expired, but you have violated the terms under which you were admitted.
And "unlawful presence" means you overstayed your I-94, or sneaked in.
Is this correct? Please clarify.
Thanks,
Ams
more...
makeup Trenches rats were taken in
crazyghoda
01-30 02:15 PM
Wow! Thanks a lot for posting such detailed RFE information. This really helps a lot in understanding what I may be asked.
My GC sponsoring employer revoked my H1 last year itself. I could see the change in status back then itself within a month of having left them. Nothing happenned after that. I got a new H1 from my (then) new employer and things continued as before. This employer has not yet revoked my H1 (from what I can see) and its probably because they are almost going under. There are less than 25 people left in the company so I doubt that they will have spent the money to go and revoke all the H1s of the folks they laid off.
Maybe its like someone suggested - USCIS is pre-processing my 485 based on received date since I mailed my app very early on in July 2007.
Hi had an RFE when my dates were not current. Here is the scan of my RFE notice.
Hope the scan helps you prepare in advance the necessary documentation.
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b337/sprash/RFEMine.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b337/sprash/RFEWife.jpg
I had discussed this in the following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=296497#post296497
My *guess* is that the revoking of previous H1b has triggered this RFE --- When my wife's previous employer canceled her H1b it took a few months before her already approved h1b petition was reopened (as per USCIS online).
The suspense must be terrible!
Good luck.
My GC sponsoring employer revoked my H1 last year itself. I could see the change in status back then itself within a month of having left them. Nothing happenned after that. I got a new H1 from my (then) new employer and things continued as before. This employer has not yet revoked my H1 (from what I can see) and its probably because they are almost going under. There are less than 25 people left in the company so I doubt that they will have spent the money to go and revoke all the H1s of the folks they laid off.
Maybe its like someone suggested - USCIS is pre-processing my 485 based on received date since I mailed my app very early on in July 2007.
Hi had an RFE when my dates were not current. Here is the scan of my RFE notice.
Hope the scan helps you prepare in advance the necessary documentation.
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b337/sprash/RFEMine.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b337/sprash/RFEWife.jpg
I had discussed this in the following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=296497#post296497
My *guess* is that the revoking of previous H1b has triggered this RFE --- When my wife's previous employer canceled her H1b it took a few months before her already approved h1b petition was reopened (as per USCIS online).
The suspense must be terrible!
Good luck.
girlfriend At least it#39;s a dry trench
asharda
07-05 04:12 PM
Added my $100 towards our common dreams and goals! I still vote to keep this site free for everyone's benefit. Believe me ppl will come around..took me a while but as they say better late than never!
IV you have our support! United we stand!
Paypal Confirmation Number: 8GH00265XS5850731
PD: Aug 04
RD: ????
Same here. Here's my small contribution in your big effort.
Best regards,
Google Order #853854384931851
IV you have our support! United we stand!
Paypal Confirmation Number: 8GH00265XS5850731
PD: Aug 04
RD: ????
Same here. Here's my small contribution in your big effort.
Best regards,
Google Order #853854384931851
hairstyles rats in trenches. Ww1+trench+foot middot; Rats
chanduv23
09-10 11:42 AM
THIS IS THE TIME - SET YOURSELVES FREE - MARCH TO WASHINGTON
nonimmi
03-07 04:11 PM
If AOS takes 3-4 years (read long time) USCIS will issue RFE (for EVL) anyway to re-confirm job offer - even if we dont use AC21 and change employer. That is standard procedure. So sending them employer change notification is not going to help us anyway. And if we change job multiple time during this 3-4 years sending them letters everytime may cause more RFE. But it is always better to have EVL with us if we change employer using AC21 and send them when asked.
YesGC_NoGC
04-10 06:10 PM
ISit possible to split pre Jan 2003 to 3 or 4 categories?or is it too late...
What is your EB3-India PD (I-485 either pending, or not yet filed)
What is your EB3-India PD (I-485 either pending, or not yet filed)
No comments:
Post a Comment