roseball
02-17 06:06 PM
Really speaking I care more for the dates to get current so I can add my wife to my GC application and get her an EAD and AP. After that I won't mind if I have to wait for some more time before I get the actual GC in hand
If your employer has a EB-2 position open which you would be a fit for and if he is willing to start the EB-2 process, then I think you should go ahead with the process. The problem with pending I-485 inventory that USCIS published is that those are only the cases pending at NSC and TSC. They do not account for the cases pending at USCIS Field Offices and overseas consulates. Now coming to the main reason why EB-3 dates not moving is because of 245i (legalization of illegals) cases which were filed before Apr 30, 2001. All of them were classified as EB-3 and there were thousands of applicants. Most the applicants who filed for Adjustment within US are processed. But their dependents cases are still pending at the overseas consulates. Many of them were follow-to-join cases where the cases were filed after primary beneficiary got the greencard and they still use the 2001 PD. There are many such cases pending for consular processing. Though USCIS I-485 inventory only suggests 1100 cases before Dec 2001, there could be hundereds or even thousands pending in field offices or consular posts, hence EB-3 I dates aren't moving either.
If your employer has a EB-2 position open which you would be a fit for and if he is willing to start the EB-2 process, then I think you should go ahead with the process. The problem with pending I-485 inventory that USCIS published is that those are only the cases pending at NSC and TSC. They do not account for the cases pending at USCIS Field Offices and overseas consulates. Now coming to the main reason why EB-3 dates not moving is because of 245i (legalization of illegals) cases which were filed before Apr 30, 2001. All of them were classified as EB-3 and there were thousands of applicants. Most the applicants who filed for Adjustment within US are processed. But their dependents cases are still pending at the overseas consulates. Many of them were follow-to-join cases where the cases were filed after primary beneficiary got the greencard and they still use the 2001 PD. There are many such cases pending for consular processing. Though USCIS I-485 inventory only suggests 1100 cases before Dec 2001, there could be hundereds or even thousands pending in field offices or consular posts, hence EB-3 I dates aren't moving either.
wallpaper call of duty modern warfare 2
Nagireddi
09-02 09:37 PM
Any updates or idea on what happened on August 31st senate judiciary meeting on SKIL bill? PLease let us know IV members.
chanduv23
10-13 01:00 PM
Mark is from LI. I wonder why he does not show up any more. Has he quit IV?
He is active - he is a big guy now, sometime back, I approached him for his autograph, and he said he does not have time to sign autographs :D:D:D
Jokes apart - Mark is very much in IV. He is involved at the national level more than the State level - he does make sure he is in conference calls and if we have a meetup in his area, he will make it for sure.
He is active - he is a big guy now, sometime back, I approached him for his autograph, and he said he does not have time to sign autographs :D:D:D
Jokes apart - Mark is very much in IV. He is involved at the national level more than the State level - he does make sure he is in conference calls and if we have a meetup in his area, he will make it for sure.
2011 call of duty modern warfare 2
gc28262
07-30 07:07 AM
Success Story: Showing a Valid Employer-Employee Relationship (http://shusterman.com/newsletterusimmigrationaugust2010.html#5)
As reported in a previous newsletter, a January 8, 2010 USCIS memo entitled "Determining Employer-Employee Relationship for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions, Including Third-Party Site Placements" has made it more difficult, and sometimes impossible, for IT consulting firms who hire professionals to work at third-party worksites to obtain H-1B status on their behalf.
The stated purpose of the memo by Donald Neufeld, Associate Director of Service Center Operations, is "to provide guidance, in the context of H-1B petitions, on the requirement that the petitioner establish that an employer- employee relationship exists and will continue to exist with the beneficiary throughout the duration of the requested H-1B validity period."
The memo puts particular focus on determining if the employer has demonstrated that it has a "sufficient level of control over the employee." See our H-1B Visa Guide for additional information.
We represent many IT consulting companies, some of which place temporary H-1B workers at client-sites as is common in the industry. In March 2010, we helped one of our corporate clients prepare and file an H-1B extension on behalf of a Senior Systems Administrator who had been working for the same employer since June 2009 in H-1B status authorized by USCIS.
Approximately 3 weeks after the H-1B extension was filed, the USCIS issued a 4-page Request for Evidence (RFE) essentially asking for a laundry list of documents, including Tax Returns of both the petitioner and beneficiary, quarterly wage statements, contracts, photographs of the worksite, etc. to demonstrate that a valid employer-employee relationship existed and would continue to exist for the full duration of the requested H-1B extension of stay. The RFE actually asked for evidence that the employer-employee relationship had existed since the original H-1B approval had been issued (some 9 months before the H-1B extension).
Fortunately, we had forewarned our client of the issues raised by the January 2010 memo and the company was able to provide us with much, if not all, of the requested evidence, including copies of contracts it had in place with the company where the employee was assigned. The contract included language that we brought to the Service's attention stating:
"Contractor shall have sole responsibility to recruit, interview, test, select, hire, manage, train, counsel, discipline, review, evaluate, set pay rates(including the classification of Contractor Personnel as exempt or non-exempt), and terminate the persons who provide the Services hereunder."
and
"On-site Contractor Personnel will be required to acknowledge that they are not employees of CLIENT COMPANY to agree to dispute resolution procedures regarding any dispute they may have concerning their employment by Contractor or concerning their employment status."
We were able to further demonstrate the petitioner's supervision of the employee by showing the hierarchal structure of the organization and evidence that the company had control over the day-to-day activities of the employee through regular service and progress reports.
This case shows the importance of preparing in advance for any possible issues as most RFEs issued by USCIS only allow the petitioner 30 days in which to respond. Because we had anticipated the issues raised in the Neufeld memo, we were able to provide sufficient evidence of the employer-employee relationship to satisfy the USCIS's concerns. This resulted in an H-1B approval notice being issued for our client a short time after our response to the RFE was filed.
In this era of increased scrutiny by the USCIS of most types of petitions, we would not suggest any consulting or staffing agency even consider filing an H- 1B petition if it does not have sufficient evidence of the existence of the employer-employee relationship, including signed contracts between the petitioner and the end-client. It is important to note that in many cases similar to this, the USCIS will only approve the H-1B petition for the duration of the contract between the employer and the end-client. Read more of our Immigration Success Stories.
As reported in a previous newsletter, a January 8, 2010 USCIS memo entitled "Determining Employer-Employee Relationship for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions, Including Third-Party Site Placements" has made it more difficult, and sometimes impossible, for IT consulting firms who hire professionals to work at third-party worksites to obtain H-1B status on their behalf.
The stated purpose of the memo by Donald Neufeld, Associate Director of Service Center Operations, is "to provide guidance, in the context of H-1B petitions, on the requirement that the petitioner establish that an employer- employee relationship exists and will continue to exist with the beneficiary throughout the duration of the requested H-1B validity period."
The memo puts particular focus on determining if the employer has demonstrated that it has a "sufficient level of control over the employee." See our H-1B Visa Guide for additional information.
We represent many IT consulting companies, some of which place temporary H-1B workers at client-sites as is common in the industry. In March 2010, we helped one of our corporate clients prepare and file an H-1B extension on behalf of a Senior Systems Administrator who had been working for the same employer since June 2009 in H-1B status authorized by USCIS.
Approximately 3 weeks after the H-1B extension was filed, the USCIS issued a 4-page Request for Evidence (RFE) essentially asking for a laundry list of documents, including Tax Returns of both the petitioner and beneficiary, quarterly wage statements, contracts, photographs of the worksite, etc. to demonstrate that a valid employer-employee relationship existed and would continue to exist for the full duration of the requested H-1B extension of stay. The RFE actually asked for evidence that the employer-employee relationship had existed since the original H-1B approval had been issued (some 9 months before the H-1B extension).
Fortunately, we had forewarned our client of the issues raised by the January 2010 memo and the company was able to provide us with much, if not all, of the requested evidence, including copies of contracts it had in place with the company where the employee was assigned. The contract included language that we brought to the Service's attention stating:
"Contractor shall have sole responsibility to recruit, interview, test, select, hire, manage, train, counsel, discipline, review, evaluate, set pay rates(including the classification of Contractor Personnel as exempt or non-exempt), and terminate the persons who provide the Services hereunder."
and
"On-site Contractor Personnel will be required to acknowledge that they are not employees of CLIENT COMPANY to agree to dispute resolution procedures regarding any dispute they may have concerning their employment by Contractor or concerning their employment status."
We were able to further demonstrate the petitioner's supervision of the employee by showing the hierarchal structure of the organization and evidence that the company had control over the day-to-day activities of the employee through regular service and progress reports.
This case shows the importance of preparing in advance for any possible issues as most RFEs issued by USCIS only allow the petitioner 30 days in which to respond. Because we had anticipated the issues raised in the Neufeld memo, we were able to provide sufficient evidence of the employer-employee relationship to satisfy the USCIS's concerns. This resulted in an H-1B approval notice being issued for our client a short time after our response to the RFE was filed.
In this era of increased scrutiny by the USCIS of most types of petitions, we would not suggest any consulting or staffing agency even consider filing an H- 1B petition if it does not have sufficient evidence of the existence of the employer-employee relationship, including signed contracts between the petitioner and the end-client. It is important to note that in many cases similar to this, the USCIS will only approve the H-1B petition for the duration of the contract between the employer and the end-client. Read more of our Immigration Success Stories.
more...
chanduv23
07-31 03:52 PM
Last week, I submitted my documents to my lawyer but until now I haven't received any confirmation from my employer yet if my application has been filed already. We are not allowed to contact our lawyer directly so I'm just relying on my employer about this. I'm quite concerned coz there's no way for me to find out if they have filed it or not.
Is there a way? Please help me please. Thank you
485 is your petition and does not have anything confidential about your company, so legally your employer should not cut ur access to lawyer.
Labor and 140, it is undeerstandable for employer - lawyer protocol, but 485 that must not be the case.
Contact your lawyer, nothing wrong in asking for reciept notice. But remember, I am a third person and don't know about your employer and lawyer and how they are. So do it at your discretion
Is there a way? Please help me please. Thank you
485 is your petition and does not have anything confidential about your company, so legally your employer should not cut ur access to lawyer.
Labor and 140, it is undeerstandable for employer - lawyer protocol, but 485 that must not be the case.
Contact your lawyer, nothing wrong in asking for reciept notice. But remember, I am a third person and don't know about your employer and lawyer and how they are. So do it at your discretion
indyanguy
11-27 12:46 PM
I have read many threads that discusses the pros and cons of using EAD over H1 and the common benefit that everyone mentions is that the salary is usually better for a person on an EAD. I spoke to several people who've started using their EAD and realized that even though it opened up opportunities with companies that do not have a policy of sponsoring H1, it DID NOT give them a boost in the salary.
My question is how do people intend to leverage on having an EAD for a higher salary?
Thanks!
My question is how do people intend to leverage on having an EAD for a higher salary?
Thanks!
more...
gotgc?
08-13 10:39 AM
Hi All,
I have a very starge situation. I have an approved I-140 based on PERM LC - EB3 -India with PD of Jan 2006.
Before July 07, my company substituted me for LC Sub with PD of Jan 2003 and did the I-485 filing based on this pending LC Sub.
(Guys...please dont jump on me for using LC SUB...I work for a one of the biggest tech companies with 60000 employees for 6 years and its their policy to do LC Sub for their employees..i didn't buy the LCs through consulting or some one...). I got EAD renewals, AP etc...Since my LC Sub I-140 is beyond its processing dates, my attorney filed a AILA request and got a reponse saying
"The AILA Liaison committee member working on your case reviewed the petition with an I-140 senior officer at USCIS. It appears that the employee that had the original labor certification application adjusted his status based on the labor certification. Unfortunately, this means that the labor cert and priority date cannot be used for your green card application."
But, they also mentioned that "Your AOS that is pending will continue to be active based on your own approved I-140. This was verified by CIS in their response to our inquiry"
Question 1: My attorney said its an unofficial USCIS/AILA determination. Howmuch to rely on this AILA/USCIS unofficial determination? Because, Still, USCIS case status shows my I-140 is pending. Should i wait until the decision comes on my case?
Question 2: My understanding is that, if the LC is already used, then my LC Sub I-140 will be denied... if the I-140 is denied then the I-485 will also be denied..is it correct?
Question 3: If my above understanding is correct, then how will my AOS will continue to be active based on my original I-140 if my AOS was files uding pending LC Sub-I140? Is it true or they lawyer is giving me a fake answer? I thought you can only change underlying I-140, only if the new I-140s dates are current..in my case Jan 2006 date is not current.....
Please give me your thoughts...I would really appreciate your help...
I have a very starge situation. I have an approved I-140 based on PERM LC - EB3 -India with PD of Jan 2006.
Before July 07, my company substituted me for LC Sub with PD of Jan 2003 and did the I-485 filing based on this pending LC Sub.
(Guys...please dont jump on me for using LC SUB...I work for a one of the biggest tech companies with 60000 employees for 6 years and its their policy to do LC Sub for their employees..i didn't buy the LCs through consulting or some one...). I got EAD renewals, AP etc...Since my LC Sub I-140 is beyond its processing dates, my attorney filed a AILA request and got a reponse saying
"The AILA Liaison committee member working on your case reviewed the petition with an I-140 senior officer at USCIS. It appears that the employee that had the original labor certification application adjusted his status based on the labor certification. Unfortunately, this means that the labor cert and priority date cannot be used for your green card application."
But, they also mentioned that "Your AOS that is pending will continue to be active based on your own approved I-140. This was verified by CIS in their response to our inquiry"
Question 1: My attorney said its an unofficial USCIS/AILA determination. Howmuch to rely on this AILA/USCIS unofficial determination? Because, Still, USCIS case status shows my I-140 is pending. Should i wait until the decision comes on my case?
Question 2: My understanding is that, if the LC is already used, then my LC Sub I-140 will be denied... if the I-140 is denied then the I-485 will also be denied..is it correct?
Question 3: If my above understanding is correct, then how will my AOS will continue to be active based on my original I-140 if my AOS was files uding pending LC Sub-I140? Is it true or they lawyer is giving me a fake answer? I thought you can only change underlying I-140, only if the new I-140s dates are current..in my case Jan 2006 date is not current.....
Please give me your thoughts...I would really appreciate your help...
2010 call of duty modern warfare 2
harivenkat
05-05 12:16 PM
Immigration bill would bring Arizona-style law to Pa. - Salt Lake Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_15017379)
Rep. Scott Perry supports a proposal that would give police the power the check immigration status. An immigration lawyer said its overly simple.
By JEFF FRANTZ
Daily Record/Sunday News
Updated: 05/04/2010 10:43:28 PM MDT
A state representative proposed legislation Tuesday -- backed by several local lawmakers -- that was inspired by a controversial law passed last week in Arizona to combat illegal immigration.
If passed, the bill by Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler, would charge local law enforcement with checking immigration status, investigating businesses suspected of knowingly employing illegal immigrants and requiring businesses to verify a potential employee's legal status.
The proposal came a day after state Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, introduced a bill in direct opposition to Arizona's law.
Rep. Scott Perry, R-Carroll Township, supports Metcalfe's effort and said he will likely join as bill co-sponsor.
The federal government has failed to enforce the nation's immigration laws, Perry said, which is now forcing states to act because illegal immigration fosters crime, lowers wages and puts an added burden on taxpayers.
"What do we gain having cheaper tomatoes in the short term to sell out our security and sovereignty in the long term?" Perry said.
Both Perry and Metcalfe said the proposal doesn't target any one ethnic or immigrant group.
Jos� Colon, president of the board for the Centro Hispano Jos� Hern�ndez, said much of York's Hispanic community agrees too many illegal immigrants abuse the system. He said he supports people stopped for violating the law having to prove who they are, saying it only makes sense in an age of terror.
But Colon said the necessary immigration laws already exist, and the federal government needs to better enforce them. The federal government is more equipped to properly deal with the issue than states or municipalities, he said.
Colon was also bothered by the rhetoric Metcalfe used introducing his proposal, when he spoke of murders and rapists. The vast majority of people here illegally came to work, Colon said, and it makes it harder to have the serious, necessary discussion of the issue with such inflamed rhetoric. And, he added, such talk could create friction between the Hispanic community and others.
Craig Trebilcock, a local immigration attorney, said the federal government has failed to create a working immigration policy.
But Metcalfe's policy is "still ridiculous," Trebilcock said. "The people pressing these laws don't understand how complex it is to determine the immigration status of someone."
There are 42 types of visas, Trebilcock said, and that's before counting those granted asylum and others. Local law enforcement, no matter how well meaning, are not trained or equipped to become primary immigration enforcement officers, Trebilcock said.
"You'll end up with a bunch of lawsuits," Trebilcock said. "A bunch of municipalities getting sued because of the thousands of people getting stopped, there's going to be a couple problems."
Instead, he said, the law will discourage legal immigrants -- doctors, scientists, laborers, students -- that the country needs from every coming here.
About the bill
If passed, House Bill 2479, would:
# Require an employer to verify a prospective employee's immigration status. Lying about immigration status would be a second-degree misdemeanor.
# Require a law enforcement officer to verify a person's immigration status if the officer reasonably suspects that a person legally stopped, detained or arrested is in the country illegally. An officer could not inquire about people's immigration status if they were not first stopped for another offense.
# Require county district attorneys to investigate companies suspected of employing illegal immigrants. Companies caught knowingly doing so could lose access to state grants and their licenses to operate.
# Create a third-degree felony for intentionally smuggling illegal aliens into Pennsylvania. Police would be able to impound smugglers' vehicles.
According to the office of the bill's sponsor, Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, Ron Miller , R-Jacobus; Will Tallman, R-Reading Township, Adams County; and Seth Grove , R-Dover Township, are co-sponsors. Rep. Scott Perry has said he will likely also be a co-sponsor.
Click here to read the full proposal.
Political outlook
In 2007, state Reps. Daryl Metcalfe and Scott Perry were part of a group that introduced a series of bills that would have changed some of Pennsylvania's immigration laws. Those never made it out of committee.
Metcalfe said Tuesday his proposal has bipartisan support but is not likely to receive much support from House Democratic leadership or Gov. Ed Rendell. However, he said, with a budget fight looming and representatives up for election in November, there could be an opportunity to muster the political will necessary for passage.
But Metcalfe's bill isn't the only piece of immigration legislation now in Harrisburg.
State Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, introduced a proposal that would reinforce current laws and, in the event of future changes to federal law, stop local law enforcement to serve as immigration officers.
"It is very important that we make it clear that Pennsylvania does not support racial profiling," Leach said.
Rep. Scott Perry supports a proposal that would give police the power the check immigration status. An immigration lawyer said its overly simple.
By JEFF FRANTZ
Daily Record/Sunday News
Updated: 05/04/2010 10:43:28 PM MDT
A state representative proposed legislation Tuesday -- backed by several local lawmakers -- that was inspired by a controversial law passed last week in Arizona to combat illegal immigration.
If passed, the bill by Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler, would charge local law enforcement with checking immigration status, investigating businesses suspected of knowingly employing illegal immigrants and requiring businesses to verify a potential employee's legal status.
The proposal came a day after state Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, introduced a bill in direct opposition to Arizona's law.
Rep. Scott Perry, R-Carroll Township, supports Metcalfe's effort and said he will likely join as bill co-sponsor.
The federal government has failed to enforce the nation's immigration laws, Perry said, which is now forcing states to act because illegal immigration fosters crime, lowers wages and puts an added burden on taxpayers.
"What do we gain having cheaper tomatoes in the short term to sell out our security and sovereignty in the long term?" Perry said.
Both Perry and Metcalfe said the proposal doesn't target any one ethnic or immigrant group.
Jos� Colon, president of the board for the Centro Hispano Jos� Hern�ndez, said much of York's Hispanic community agrees too many illegal immigrants abuse the system. He said he supports people stopped for violating the law having to prove who they are, saying it only makes sense in an age of terror.
But Colon said the necessary immigration laws already exist, and the federal government needs to better enforce them. The federal government is more equipped to properly deal with the issue than states or municipalities, he said.
Colon was also bothered by the rhetoric Metcalfe used introducing his proposal, when he spoke of murders and rapists. The vast majority of people here illegally came to work, Colon said, and it makes it harder to have the serious, necessary discussion of the issue with such inflamed rhetoric. And, he added, such talk could create friction between the Hispanic community and others.
Craig Trebilcock, a local immigration attorney, said the federal government has failed to create a working immigration policy.
But Metcalfe's policy is "still ridiculous," Trebilcock said. "The people pressing these laws don't understand how complex it is to determine the immigration status of someone."
There are 42 types of visas, Trebilcock said, and that's before counting those granted asylum and others. Local law enforcement, no matter how well meaning, are not trained or equipped to become primary immigration enforcement officers, Trebilcock said.
"You'll end up with a bunch of lawsuits," Trebilcock said. "A bunch of municipalities getting sued because of the thousands of people getting stopped, there's going to be a couple problems."
Instead, he said, the law will discourage legal immigrants -- doctors, scientists, laborers, students -- that the country needs from every coming here.
About the bill
If passed, House Bill 2479, would:
# Require an employer to verify a prospective employee's immigration status. Lying about immigration status would be a second-degree misdemeanor.
# Require a law enforcement officer to verify a person's immigration status if the officer reasonably suspects that a person legally stopped, detained or arrested is in the country illegally. An officer could not inquire about people's immigration status if they were not first stopped for another offense.
# Require county district attorneys to investigate companies suspected of employing illegal immigrants. Companies caught knowingly doing so could lose access to state grants and their licenses to operate.
# Create a third-degree felony for intentionally smuggling illegal aliens into Pennsylvania. Police would be able to impound smugglers' vehicles.
According to the office of the bill's sponsor, Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, Ron Miller , R-Jacobus; Will Tallman, R-Reading Township, Adams County; and Seth Grove , R-Dover Township, are co-sponsors. Rep. Scott Perry has said he will likely also be a co-sponsor.
Click here to read the full proposal.
Political outlook
In 2007, state Reps. Daryl Metcalfe and Scott Perry were part of a group that introduced a series of bills that would have changed some of Pennsylvania's immigration laws. Those never made it out of committee.
Metcalfe said Tuesday his proposal has bipartisan support but is not likely to receive much support from House Democratic leadership or Gov. Ed Rendell. However, he said, with a budget fight looming and representatives up for election in November, there could be an opportunity to muster the political will necessary for passage.
But Metcalfe's bill isn't the only piece of immigration legislation now in Harrisburg.
State Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, introduced a proposal that would reinforce current laws and, in the event of future changes to federal law, stop local law enforcement to serve as immigration officers.
"It is very important that we make it clear that Pennsylvania does not support racial profiling," Leach said.
more...
ajm
05-25 08:16 AM
Opening a new thread to discuss the Gregg amendment which passed the Senate yesterday.
hair name for Modern Warfare 2,
nitlsu
07-18 12:59 AM
From the numbersusa site it seems that the Senate is currently debating the DoD appropriations bill and Sen. Cornyn of TX has introduced ammendment SA 2143 to enable recapture of unused EB visas from the years 1996-1997.
Does anyone have any more details on this? Do we need to have a coordinated effort in support of this?
Does anyone have any more details on this? Do we need to have a coordinated effort in support of this?
more...
mrane1
05-16 03:05 AM
I got my GC last year auguest but her gc/485 status is stil pending. Is it even possible based on her case was dependent on me? What can I do abt it. Thanks.
I got my GC in 2007... Both me and my wifes PD was aug 03... After 2 infopass appointments and a 1000 letters to president, senators and their chaprasis we gave up. She was current for most of this period. Then last month the GC was in the mail... just like that. So based on my experience, just sit back and relax... If its your wifes desitny to get it then she will.. :D
And here is a big joke... During my second infopass the officer said my wifes application had no connecting primary and a derivative cannot be approved on its own. I told him that the primary (mine) was approved over a year back. He said they must have moved your application... I immediately pictured a govt office in India with milions of files stored in the shelves... Long story short he took a copy of my GC and my 485 notice and said it was very strange and that my wife would receive her GC in the next 2 weeks... Nothing obviously happened after that!
I got my GC in 2007... Both me and my wifes PD was aug 03... After 2 infopass appointments and a 1000 letters to president, senators and their chaprasis we gave up. She was current for most of this period. Then last month the GC was in the mail... just like that. So based on my experience, just sit back and relax... If its your wifes desitny to get it then she will.. :D
And here is a big joke... During my second infopass the officer said my wifes application had no connecting primary and a derivative cannot be approved on its own. I told him that the primary (mine) was approved over a year back. He said they must have moved your application... I immediately pictured a govt office in India with milions of files stored in the shelves... Long story short he took a copy of my GC and my 485 notice and said it was very strange and that my wife would receive her GC in the next 2 weeks... Nothing obviously happened after that!
hot call of duty modern warfare 2
logiclife
07-13 11:49 AM
IMMIGRATION VOICE ACTION ALERT: 7/11/2007.
Dear Members:
Immigration Voice is organizing its first peaceful protest rally in San Jose, CA on July 14th in order to protest the broken system of legal high-skills immigration. This protest march is being organized to oppose the enormous visas backlogs in the employment based immigration system. This protest march is also intended to oppose the recent decision of USCIS to block the adjustment of status petitions in July resulting from an unprecedented out-of-order reversal on the part of DOS and USCIS.
Please join this rally in huge numbers to create more awareness in the Media, Congress and the Administration. We are already getting attention of Congress and the Administration due to recently published articles on the flower campaign in New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/us/11visa.html) and Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/10/AR2007071002055.html) on July 11th. If you cannot join but if you know someone who lives in San Jose area and who doesn’t know about this effort, please ask him or her to join this rally. More numbers will get us more media coverage and more attention to this issue.
This rally has the potential to bring our issue to the attention of everyone, including the Silicon Valley tech employers who have a stake in the morale and productivity of the hi-tech foreign employees in their companies and their backlogged immigration.
EVENT:
Peaceful protest march by Legal Immigrants in San Jose, CA.
LOCATION:
The New City Hall
200 E Santa Clara St
San Jose, CA 95113
DATE:
Saturday July 14, 2007
TIME:
11:00 am To 2:30 pm
ORIGIN, DESTINATION, ROUTE & PARKING DETAILS:
11:00 AM: Meet at San Jose City Hall at 200 E Santa Clara St.
PARKING: (Free weekend parking in the 4th St. garage on 44 South Fourth St., & San Fernando St. across from the MLK Jr library; For other free parking areas in downtown San Jose see: http://www.sjdowntownparking.com/free_parking.php (http://www.sjdowntownparking.com/free_parking.php) )
1) 11:30 AM: Go to the square in front of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library (150 E San Fernando St).
2) 12:30 PM: Walk towards 635 N 1st St through S 4th St, E San Carlos St, Market Street and N 1st Street.
3) 1:15 PM: Arrive at 635 N 1st St and stay till 2:00 PM
4) 2:30 PM: back to City Hall
IMPORTANT THINGS TO REMEMBER:
1) Abide by the laws.
2) Stay on sidewalks.
3) Follow traffic rules, show courtesy to other pedestrians.
4) Do not block building entrances.
5) Dress Professionally. No shorts or Bermudas. Wear formal dress clothes, semi-casual or business-casual.
WHAT TO BRING:
Plenty of water, snacks and sun block (if needed).
BANNERS AND SIGNS:
Do not bring your own signs. We will have banners and signs ready for you.
FOR DRIVING DIRECTIONS TO THE NEW CITY HALL IN SAN JOSE, SEE BELOW:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/newCityHall/gettingThere.asp (http://www.sanjoseca.gov/newCityHall/gettingThere.asp)
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: Event leaders or organizers take no responsibility and will not be held responsible for any injuries or accidents that may occur during the posted events. It is your responsibility to abide by law. By joining this event, you are taking responsibility for your own safety and well-being.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards,
Immigration Voice Core Team.
Dear Members:
Immigration Voice is organizing its first peaceful protest rally in San Jose, CA on July 14th in order to protest the broken system of legal high-skills immigration. This protest march is being organized to oppose the enormous visas backlogs in the employment based immigration system. This protest march is also intended to oppose the recent decision of USCIS to block the adjustment of status petitions in July resulting from an unprecedented out-of-order reversal on the part of DOS and USCIS.
Please join this rally in huge numbers to create more awareness in the Media, Congress and the Administration. We are already getting attention of Congress and the Administration due to recently published articles on the flower campaign in New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/us/11visa.html) and Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/10/AR2007071002055.html) on July 11th. If you cannot join but if you know someone who lives in San Jose area and who doesn’t know about this effort, please ask him or her to join this rally. More numbers will get us more media coverage and more attention to this issue.
This rally has the potential to bring our issue to the attention of everyone, including the Silicon Valley tech employers who have a stake in the morale and productivity of the hi-tech foreign employees in their companies and their backlogged immigration.
EVENT:
Peaceful protest march by Legal Immigrants in San Jose, CA.
LOCATION:
The New City Hall
200 E Santa Clara St
San Jose, CA 95113
DATE:
Saturday July 14, 2007
TIME:
11:00 am To 2:30 pm
ORIGIN, DESTINATION, ROUTE & PARKING DETAILS:
11:00 AM: Meet at San Jose City Hall at 200 E Santa Clara St.
PARKING: (Free weekend parking in the 4th St. garage on 44 South Fourth St., & San Fernando St. across from the MLK Jr library; For other free parking areas in downtown San Jose see: http://www.sjdowntownparking.com/free_parking.php (http://www.sjdowntownparking.com/free_parking.php) )
1) 11:30 AM: Go to the square in front of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library (150 E San Fernando St).
2) 12:30 PM: Walk towards 635 N 1st St through S 4th St, E San Carlos St, Market Street and N 1st Street.
3) 1:15 PM: Arrive at 635 N 1st St and stay till 2:00 PM
4) 2:30 PM: back to City Hall
IMPORTANT THINGS TO REMEMBER:
1) Abide by the laws.
2) Stay on sidewalks.
3) Follow traffic rules, show courtesy to other pedestrians.
4) Do not block building entrances.
5) Dress Professionally. No shorts or Bermudas. Wear formal dress clothes, semi-casual or business-casual.
WHAT TO BRING:
Plenty of water, snacks and sun block (if needed).
BANNERS AND SIGNS:
Do not bring your own signs. We will have banners and signs ready for you.
FOR DRIVING DIRECTIONS TO THE NEW CITY HALL IN SAN JOSE, SEE BELOW:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/newCityHall/gettingThere.asp (http://www.sanjoseca.gov/newCityHall/gettingThere.asp)
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: Event leaders or organizers take no responsibility and will not be held responsible for any injuries or accidents that may occur during the posted events. It is your responsibility to abide by law. By joining this event, you are taking responsibility for your own safety and well-being.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards,
Immigration Voice Core Team.
more...
house call of duty modern warfare 2
gapala
02-04 04:56 PM
This sounds like volunteering opportunity to me. May be other senior members on the forum will also throw some light on this scenario.
As far as I know, you can volunteer in any area as long as you do not get paid for those services.
As far as I know, you can volunteer in any area as long as you do not get paid for those services.
tattoo Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 2
guyfromsg
07-26 08:24 PM
For the experts on this board, my H1 expires on 9/30/07. Should I wait till after Aug. 17 to qualify for a 3-year extension?
jazz
Please see the update in Oh law's site
Under the update July 2007 VB, visa number was unable for the entire July 2007. It remained such until July 17, 2007 when both DOS and USCIS reversed their positions. There could be some 104(c) H-1B three-year extension petitions filed in July bore the 17th. Since the July 2007 VB has been reversed and remains "current" in July, it will remain a challenging issue for these filers. Those who file after July 17, 2007 and before August 1, 2007 may not be entitled to the benefit of 104(c) extension. Accordingly, those who need three-year extension under 104(c) should not file the H-1B extension until after August 1, 2007 to obtain three year extension, even though they will have to pay the increased filing of $320 rather than the current $190. In August, the EB visa number will remain "unavailable" for the entire EB classifications, presenting the best opportunity to file such 104(c) three-year increment H-1B extension petition. What a twist and irony of the development of events?
jazz
Please see the update in Oh law's site
Under the update July 2007 VB, visa number was unable for the entire July 2007. It remained such until July 17, 2007 when both DOS and USCIS reversed their positions. There could be some 104(c) H-1B three-year extension petitions filed in July bore the 17th. Since the July 2007 VB has been reversed and remains "current" in July, it will remain a challenging issue for these filers. Those who file after July 17, 2007 and before August 1, 2007 may not be entitled to the benefit of 104(c) extension. Accordingly, those who need three-year extension under 104(c) should not file the H-1B extension until after August 1, 2007 to obtain three year extension, even though they will have to pay the increased filing of $320 rather than the current $190. In August, the EB visa number will remain "unavailable" for the entire EB classifications, presenting the best opportunity to file such 104(c) three-year increment H-1B extension petition. What a twist and irony of the development of events?
more...
pictures Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2
delhikadesi
05-02 01:45 AM
nothing personal against GCmuddu and other jumping for EB2.
As said, USCIS should be the one stopping this porting of date within categories..
Till the time keep jumping!!
As said, USCIS should be the one stopping this porting of date within categories..
Till the time keep jumping!!
dresses call of duty modern warfare 2
idd
09-19 04:26 PM
Originally posted by fadingblack
Anyway, do you think is that good to buy it or do you think you can do the same stuff with photoshop?? I'm afraid painter is much powerfurl in some aspects. What do you think, as owner of painter 6 and a manual???
yeh, i've wonder the same thing many a time. havent really gotten to use it, just a few times here and there. anything you can tell us about it?
Anyway, do you think is that good to buy it or do you think you can do the same stuff with photoshop?? I'm afraid painter is much powerfurl in some aspects. What do you think, as owner of painter 6 and a manual???
yeh, i've wonder the same thing many a time. havent really gotten to use it, just a few times here and there. anything you can tell us about it?
more...
makeup of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
valuablehurdle
06-19 11:24 AM
A quick question:
I just have the FRONT side copy of the EAD stored.
Why do we need the BACK side of the copy?
Responses will be appreciated.
I just have the FRONT side copy of the EAD stored.
Why do we need the BACK side of the copy?
Responses will be appreciated.
girlfriend call of duty modern warfare 2
indianabacklog
06-10 12:48 PM
You have the instructions since you quote them. Send exactly what they are asking for, i.e. the form, photos, copy of front and back of previous EAD and check to pay them.
I would suggest you send separate checks if only to be able to get the case number from the back of them when they are cashed.
The instructions clearly say make check payable to the Department of Homeland Security. I believe if you did write them to the USCIS they will still get cashed but follow the instructions.
You seem to have it all under control. Have confidence in yourself and get the applications sent in.
I would suggest you send separate checks if only to be able to get the case number from the back of them when they are cashed.
The instructions clearly say make check payable to the Department of Homeland Security. I believe if you did write them to the USCIS they will still get cashed but follow the instructions.
You seem to have it all under control. Have confidence in yourself and get the applications sent in.
hairstyles Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
gcseeker2002
11-05 01:08 PM
^^^ bump ^^^
^^^^^^^^ bump ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^ bump ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
santa123
07-22 07:40 PM
I have an appointment on August 11th in chennai consulate and I am flying tomorrow to India to submit my documents to VFS.
Can any one tell when will the visa number assigned to the CP case?
The reason I am asking is because I am little worried if the date gets moved back after 1st week of august (From last year July fiasco experience) or some thing and I will be in India already, then I will be in big trouble.
Any insight would be appreciated.
I am curious to know why you opted for CP, since you are already present in the US. I am in a dilemma wrt CP or AOS. Thanks!
Can any one tell when will the visa number assigned to the CP case?
The reason I am asking is because I am little worried if the date gets moved back after 1st week of august (From last year July fiasco experience) or some thing and I will be in India already, then I will be in big trouble.
Any insight would be appreciated.
I am curious to know why you opted for CP, since you are already present in the US. I am in a dilemma wrt CP or AOS. Thanks!
abhaykul
09-10 09:02 AM
Gr8 job ! Shilpa and Aman and all core members ...Keep it up
No comments:
Post a Comment