rkat
12-13 03:46 PM
Swamy - (with due respect to IV who i totally support in every which way!) but what have u done other than joining a state chapter, contributing $$ to IV and holding signs at the DC rally.?? Is this what ur life has come to now..?? Only to motivate people to join IV..?? How long do u plan on conitnuing to do this.?? Wake up buddy..!! Yes we are stuck in this mess now having filed for AOS and the indefinite future wait for cases to be approved..!! There is no doubt about that.
But somebody like dyekek12 who seems to be new to the immigration world - whats the harm in sharing with him options that maybe more practical for him 3-5 years from now.! If somebody would have adviced me back in the hay days - i would have surely listened.! There are 3 SENIOR members who seem to agree to what i have said.! All of us cannot be socially challenged.! Sorry swamy - i disagree.! How would a college professor or a dept. head answer his Q....Myfriend - ..." there is the real world and then there is the immigration world........!!!! "
The immigration system here in the US is like fire - and if u try playing with fire there is no doubt in my mind that you will only get burnt.!! (again - i'm not a village bellie neither am i socially challeged - i am only being realistic.! thats all.! and i know it hurts!)
But somebody like dyekek12 who seems to be new to the immigration world - whats the harm in sharing with him options that maybe more practical for him 3-5 years from now.! If somebody would have adviced me back in the hay days - i would have surely listened.! There are 3 SENIOR members who seem to agree to what i have said.! All of us cannot be socially challenged.! Sorry swamy - i disagree.! How would a college professor or a dept. head answer his Q....Myfriend - ..." there is the real world and then there is the immigration world........!!!! "
The immigration system here in the US is like fire - and if u try playing with fire there is no doubt in my mind that you will only get burnt.!! (again - i'm not a village bellie neither am i socially challeged - i am only being realistic.! thats all.! and i know it hurts!)
wallpaper Digital Nature Wallpapers
poorslumdog
08-25 03:18 PM
Greencardfever5, first of all I don't think you needed to apologize. Everyone has their own schedules and priorities, and just because you did not spend enough time on IV, does not mean you are not welcome here.
.
Do you mean to say other people who spend time, energy and money do not have any other priority or work and sitting idle. Everyone has priority other than spending time in IV. By the way what happened to the Op's priority now. There is no priority now and wants to spend in IV. Do you think its fair...?
.
Do you mean to say other people who spend time, energy and money do not have any other priority or work and sitting idle. Everyone has priority other than spending time in IV. By the way what happened to the Op's priority now. There is no priority now and wants to spend in IV. Do you think its fair...?
Alabaman
05-21 08:11 AM
they did all these on the road? Laptop? Phones? Throw more light
2011 HDTV Widescreen Wallpapers of
purgan
03-05 11:01 AM
Oppose the Fee Increase!!
The proposed fee increases by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) are beyond excessive-they're exorbitant. For example, the current fee to apply for permanent residency is $325; USCIS proposes to raise this fee to $905 (a 178 percent increase). The fee for naturalization ("citizenship") applications would increase from $330 to $595 (an 80 percent increase).
Please take action today by contacting USCIS and letting them know that the proposed increases are exorbitant and unfair. Encourage USCIS to work with Congressional leaders to identify an alternative and permanent funding stream that supports USCIS operations.
View the AFSC website for more information; http://www.afsc.org/immigrants-rights/news/fee-increase2007.htm
The proposed fee increases by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) are beyond excessive-they're exorbitant. For example, the current fee to apply for permanent residency is $325; USCIS proposes to raise this fee to $905 (a 178 percent increase). The fee for naturalization ("citizenship") applications would increase from $330 to $595 (an 80 percent increase).
Please take action today by contacting USCIS and letting them know that the proposed increases are exorbitant and unfair. Encourage USCIS to work with Congressional leaders to identify an alternative and permanent funding stream that supports USCIS operations.
View the AFSC website for more information; http://www.afsc.org/immigrants-rights/news/fee-increase2007.htm
more...
sansas
01-21 04:19 AM
rumour say retrogression may lift on march 2009, is it true????
Refugee_New
07-25 12:05 PM
Gurus, tell me one thing.
After invoking AC21, what will happen if one is out of job at the time of RFE or NOID request from USCIS?
After invoking AC21, what will happen if one is out of job at the time of RFE or NOID request from USCIS?
more...
kriskris
08-19 11:10 AM
I posted the following at another forum on this topic:
It is from this link:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=c9aecd408423b3f800b01aa0c83db a52
Further research showed that the BSS (Biometrics Storage System) actually went into effect on May 7, 2007.
This is from FR 17172 which you can find at:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_register&position=all&page=17172
Thanks for the info. Good to know abt this.
It is from this link:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=c9aecd408423b3f800b01aa0c83db a52
Further research showed that the BSS (Biometrics Storage System) actually went into effect on May 7, 2007.
This is from FR 17172 which you can find at:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_register&position=all&page=17172
Thanks for the info. Good to know abt this.
2010 nature-wallpaper-wallpaper
bskrishna
04-21 12:01 AM
I had applied for AP at NSC got it in a months time. I had applied for EAD on Oct 26th of last year. Got it approved by December 14th. Are majority of the people experiencing EAD delays of late?
more...
dingudi
10-25 09:33 PM
But has this happened to anyone where first online status says card ordered and then it reverts back to previous status of received and pending application. And this is only for my spouse.
hair refreshing-nature-wallpapers
Libra
08-15 12:12 PM
Congrats and welcome to IV, hope you become an active member and contribute your efforts to IV.
I thought this will give some hope to you.
Mine reached USCIS on July-3rd around 6:00am. All 6 (2x485, 2xAP, 2xEAD) checks were cached today.
Hope yours on the way too...
I thought this will give some hope to you.
Mine reached USCIS on July-3rd around 6:00am. All 6 (2x485, 2xAP, 2xEAD) checks were cached today.
Hope yours on the way too...
more...
gc_kaavaali
12-24 10:17 PM
Okay...i will try my best to keep this thread on top...
This thread has to stay on top
This thread has to stay on top
hot Amazing Nature Wallpapers #28
GCwaitforever
09-12 08:15 PM
Unpaid vacation is acceptable. Consultants working on hourly basis do not get paid when they do not work. As long as you come on top of prevailing wage rate and the annual salary quoted on the LCA at the end of the year, it does not matter. USCIS understands that you need a vacation too and can not work like a machine throughout the year.
more...
house Fresh Nature Wallpapers
GoneSouth
03-15 05:25 PM
If the first labor is done through PERM, can the 2nd labor be filed? I had heard that there is a policy of one PERM per company per employee. Does that not apply if the new job with the same company is substantially different. That's right. Second PERM can be filed for same employee at same company if first PERM is already approved (not pending) and second PERM is for a "substantially different" position.
Would you please elaborate on "substantially different". If the job title is different and job duties are very different, would that qualify as "substantially different". I have been thinking about doing the same. This is not well defined. In my case, the second PERM was for a position in a different O*NET category and a different job zone, and this was considered "substantially different" by DoL. My guess would be that if the two positions are different O*net codes, you should probably be fine (this is a guess only - please consult your attorney).
Is there any issue when 1st labor was not a PERM labor and 2nd labor is going to be PERM labor and both from same employer ?Sorry, I don't have any experience in that area, so I can't comment.
Would you please elaborate on "substantially different". If the job title is different and job duties are very different, would that qualify as "substantially different". I have been thinking about doing the same. This is not well defined. In my case, the second PERM was for a position in a different O*NET category and a different job zone, and this was considered "substantially different" by DoL. My guess would be that if the two positions are different O*net codes, you should probably be fine (this is a guess only - please consult your attorney).
Is there any issue when 1st labor was not a PERM labor and 2nd labor is going to be PERM labor and both from same employer ?Sorry, I don't have any experience in that area, so I can't comment.
tattoo NATURE WALLPAPERS AND VIDEOS
Aluwal
08-20 09:44 AM
Lot of people out there without receipt notice who filed on July 2nd or before�
Regarding ReceiptingTimes081707, in other threads some of the senior members explained that it means they enter the data into the database� and will take 2 or more weeks to post them back to us/attorney..
Regarding ReceiptingTimes081707, in other threads some of the senior members explained that it means they enter the data into the database� and will take 2 or more weeks to post them back to us/attorney..
more...
pictures Desktop Wallpapers Nature
gc007
01-07 10:44 PM
I have been on H4 since 2000. I once got an H1-B in the year 01, but did not get to work. Meanwhile my H4 got extended till now.
With the recent changes of de-coupling H1 & H4.......
My question is can I use the previous H1-B issued in 01 and apply for COS without any cap restrictions ? And can this be used by a new Employer ?
Appreciate any responses on this. Thanks
With the recent changes of de-coupling H1 & H4.......
My question is can I use the previous H1-B issued in 01 and apply for COS without any cap restrictions ? And can this be used by a new Employer ?
Appreciate any responses on this. Thanks
dresses Cottage Nature wallpaper
chava_100
08-04 12:10 PM
Did you recieve old SS# on new card ? or entirely new SS# ?
more...
makeup nature wallpapers,
willigetagc
08-17 02:32 PM
just remember to carefully preserve all payslips, email communications, and all other docs from this period. If and when you file for GC, you MAY need these docs.
But, otherwise, your case is straightforward. As long as you send the H1 transfer to CIS before you are terminated/resign from B, you status will continue uninterrupted... So you are ok.
But, otherwise, your case is straightforward. As long as you send the H1 transfer to CIS before you are terminated/resign from B, you status will continue uninterrupted... So you are ok.
girlfriend HIGH RESOLUTION NATURE
knnmbd
08-29 02:25 PM
This is the loophole that needs to be plugged for the SKIL to work successfully. The one clause that need to be added is that the advance degree must have been completed before the LC was filed / approved so that acquiring education in excess of a Bachelor's does not become a ground for exploitation. Also, Online MBA's, M.S and other programs are not accredited by their respective boards anyway, meaning it’s a good 1 1/2 to 2 years of FULL TIME graduate school to get ahead of the line.
hairstyles 3d Wallpapers, 3d Nature
go_guy123
01-11 09:47 AM
The second part also sounds pretty reasonable to me:
This PAV would be issued upon successful completion of an application process that would involve the following:
1. Providing documentary evidence (school records, doctor�s records, etc.) that the applicant was in the United States before he or she reached their thirteenth birthday and be no older than twenty-five at the time they file their application;
2. Background checks for any prior convictions involving fraud, assault, reckless driving or DWI, failure to appear at any immigration hearing, or any past record of voluntary or involuntary deportation. Any such convictions would lead to a presumption of an unsuccessful application;
3. Evidence of the withholding of any relevant information, or submitting false information would result in the automatic failure of an application. Any failure of an application would result in the applicant returning to his previous immigration status;
4. Failure of an application due to withholding information or providing false information would subject the applicant to expedited removal proceedings;
5. Waivers of any requirement connected with the application process could only be made on a case by case basis by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security setting out in detail the "compelling evidence" underlying such a waiver and the evidence used to support such a determination.
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following authorizations:
1. PAV holders would be allowed to legally work and obtain a U.S. passport (on the condition of turning in any other passports) for foreign travel;
2. It would allow holders to establish residency in any state according to that state's requirements and be on equal footing with other legal immigrants with regard to state and local laws and policies;
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following prohibitions:
1. Holders of the PAV would not be able to sponsor family members and relatives for LPR status;
2. Holding an PAV would not imply any safe harbor for applicant's family members;
3. Holders of PAVs would not be eligible to receive means-tested public welfare benefits;
4. Holders of PAVs would not be able to adjust their immigration status for a period of 10 years and then only through an administrative hearing in which the holder presented compelling evidence that such an adjustment is in the public interest. Such evidence would consist of, but not be limited to, applicant's work history, community service, military service, family circumstances, and the results of policy and security checks.
A One-time Only Policy: Consistent with the knowledge that adjusting the status of illegal immigrants brings with it the expectation that adjustments of the same kind will be made in the future, the language authorizing this initiative will explicitly state that:
1. That no further adjustments to legal status will be made for children brought into the country illegally after the date on which this bill becomes law;
2. That parents who bring their young children into the country illegally after the date of enactment will be subject to expedited removal proceedings.
This is still riddled with amnesty....more punitive versions will surely come which the democratic party will oppose for sure.
This PAV would be issued upon successful completion of an application process that would involve the following:
1. Providing documentary evidence (school records, doctor�s records, etc.) that the applicant was in the United States before he or she reached their thirteenth birthday and be no older than twenty-five at the time they file their application;
2. Background checks for any prior convictions involving fraud, assault, reckless driving or DWI, failure to appear at any immigration hearing, or any past record of voluntary or involuntary deportation. Any such convictions would lead to a presumption of an unsuccessful application;
3. Evidence of the withholding of any relevant information, or submitting false information would result in the automatic failure of an application. Any failure of an application would result in the applicant returning to his previous immigration status;
4. Failure of an application due to withholding information or providing false information would subject the applicant to expedited removal proceedings;
5. Waivers of any requirement connected with the application process could only be made on a case by case basis by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security setting out in detail the "compelling evidence" underlying such a waiver and the evidence used to support such a determination.
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following authorizations:
1. PAV holders would be allowed to legally work and obtain a U.S. passport (on the condition of turning in any other passports) for foreign travel;
2. It would allow holders to establish residency in any state according to that state's requirements and be on equal footing with other legal immigrants with regard to state and local laws and policies;
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following prohibitions:
1. Holders of the PAV would not be able to sponsor family members and relatives for LPR status;
2. Holding an PAV would not imply any safe harbor for applicant's family members;
3. Holders of PAVs would not be eligible to receive means-tested public welfare benefits;
4. Holders of PAVs would not be able to adjust their immigration status for a period of 10 years and then only through an administrative hearing in which the holder presented compelling evidence that such an adjustment is in the public interest. Such evidence would consist of, but not be limited to, applicant's work history, community service, military service, family circumstances, and the results of policy and security checks.
A One-time Only Policy: Consistent with the knowledge that adjusting the status of illegal immigrants brings with it the expectation that adjustments of the same kind will be made in the future, the language authorizing this initiative will explicitly state that:
1. That no further adjustments to legal status will be made for children brought into the country illegally after the date on which this bill becomes law;
2. That parents who bring their young children into the country illegally after the date of enactment will be subject to expedited removal proceedings.
This is still riddled with amnesty....more punitive versions will surely come which the democratic party will oppose for sure.
Canuck
02-06 04:44 PM
I don't think an employer can force you to repay the green card costs if you leave them as soon as you get it. That is illegal and against the law to make a foreign national pay for the costs of green card sponsorship!
nk2006
05-11 10:13 AM
As zCool pointed out, points based system is just a delay technique. No point in discussing its pro's and con's. If they treat it as long term solution with proposal for near term; then it may be OK otherwise we are screwed.
Point based system is much much more difficult to formulate. With present pace of lawmaking and implementation capability (of congress and USCIS respectively) it will take years before anything can happen and we will be rotten by that time.
Our hope is with CIR with a few of our measures or SKILL/STRIVE/TALENT etc.
Point based system is much much more difficult to formulate. With present pace of lawmaking and implementation capability (of congress and USCIS respectively) it will take years before anything can happen and we will be rotten by that time.
Our hope is with CIR with a few of our measures or SKILL/STRIVE/TALENT etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment