poorslumdog
03-28 01:11 PM
Yesterday, I went for my H1b stamping but was issued a 221G. I had all documents that the VO asked for.
What are my chances of getting tbe visa without the original contract?
I had to travel to India because of a family emergency. My family is in US as kids are in school. I would really appreciate if you can answer.
Have you ever participated any of the IV's campaign on various issues. Have you ever volunteered your time or donated money.
If no, you deserve this and rot in hell. There is no solution and you people are running to IV only when disastor strikes. But its too late.
If you cannot get the original contract nothing can be done...
What are my chances of getting tbe visa without the original contract?
I had to travel to India because of a family emergency. My family is in US as kids are in school. I would really appreciate if you can answer.
Have you ever participated any of the IV's campaign on various issues. Have you ever volunteered your time or donated money.
If no, you deserve this and rot in hell. There is no solution and you people are running to IV only when disastor strikes. But its too late.
If you cannot get the original contract nothing can be done...
wallpaper wide screen hd wallpapers.
gc_chahiye
10-03 03:10 AM
so when is a visa no. allocated?
say, i filed in july when visa bulletin was current and now its retrogressed to 2004. my PD is 2006. so can it happen that if all runs smooth and application is complted, i can get my GC, even tough visa bulletin may not have yet cut past my PD? so in a nut shell, visa no. is given when 485 is recipted or when its approved?
visa number is assigned at or right about just before the approval. So if the VB is 2 years away from your PD, you are not going to see an approval. After your PD is current, you might be assigned a visa number if your application was otherwise pre-adjudicated. You will see approval either that month or shortly thereafter. Again, IF your application was assigned a visa number. not all people who become current are assigned visa numbers...
say, i filed in july when visa bulletin was current and now its retrogressed to 2004. my PD is 2006. so can it happen that if all runs smooth and application is complted, i can get my GC, even tough visa bulletin may not have yet cut past my PD? so in a nut shell, visa no. is given when 485 is recipted or when its approved?
visa number is assigned at or right about just before the approval. So if the VB is 2 years away from your PD, you are not going to see an approval. After your PD is current, you might be assigned a visa number if your application was otherwise pre-adjudicated. You will see approval either that month or shortly thereafter. Again, IF your application was assigned a visa number. not all people who become current are assigned visa numbers...
retropain
09-01 11:08 AM
What's particularly interesting is the number of 'scare words' used in this selected testimony on aspects of the CIR bill. Its a lot like Loo Dobbs "War" on the middle class. Its clear CIS, Nusa, FAIR provide the script to him on immigration matters. I knew Loo wasn't that creative in the first place
=---
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL W. CUTLER
SEPTEMBER 1, 2006
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Hostettler, Ranking Members Conyers and Jackson Lee, members of Congress, distinguished members of the panel, ladies and gentlemen. It is a distinct honor and privilege to provide testimony at this hearing because the topic of the hearing is of truly critical significance. We are here to avert what I believe would be a catastrophe for the United States. The United States Senate passed a bill, S. 2611, that would provide incentives for a massive influx of illegal aliens, aided, abetted and induced to violate our nation’s immigration laws at a time that our nation is confronting the continuing threat of terrorism and the increasing involvement of violent gangs, comprised predominantly of deportable aliens, in a wide variety of violent crimes committed against our nation’s citizens. It is of critical importance that this hearing and others like it, illuminate why S. 2611 would expose our nation to unreasonable vulnerabilities especially in the post-9/11 world.
A nation’s primary responsibility is to provide for the safety and security of its citizens and yet, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom, the members of the Senate who voted for S. 2611 are seemingly oblivious to the lessons that the disastrous amnesty of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) should have taught us. That piece of legislation lead to the greatest influx of illegal aliens in the history of our nation. Fraud and a lack of integrity of the immigration system not only flooded our nation with illegal aliens who ran our borders, hoping that what had been billed as a “one time” amnesty would be repeated, but it also enabled a number of terrorists and many criminals to enter the United States and then embed themselves in the United States.
A notable example of such a terrorist can be found in a review of the facts concerning Mahmud Abouhalima, a citizen of Egypt who entered the United States on a tourist visa, overstayed his authorized period of admission and then applied for amnesty under the agricultural worker provisions of IRCA. He succeeded in obtaining resident alien status through this process. During a 5 year period he drove a cab and had his license suspended numerous times for violations of law and ultimately demonstrated his appreciation for our nation’s generosity by participating in the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 that left 6 people dead, hundreds of people injured and an estimated one half billion dollars in damage inflicted, on that iconic, ill-fated complex. America had opened its doors to him so that he might participate in the “American Dream.” He turned that dream into our worst nightmare. The other terrorists who attacked our nation on subsequent attacks, including the attacks of September 11, 2001, similarly exploited our generosity, seeing in our nation’s kindness, weakness, gaming the immigration system to enter our country and then, hide in plain sight, among us.
As I recall, when IRCA was proposed, one of the selling points was that along with amnesty for what was believed to have been a population of some 1.5 million illegal aliens would be a new approach to turn off what has been described as the “magnet” that draws the majority of illegal aliens into the United States in the first place, the prospect of securing employment in the United States. In order to accomplish this important goal, IRCA imposed penalties against those unscrupulous employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens. My former colleagues and I were pleased to see that under the employer sanctions of IRCA, the unscrupulous employers of illegal aliens would be made accountable, or so we thought. We were frustrated that we had seen all too many employers hire illegal aliens and treat them horrendously They paid them sub-standard wages and created unsafe, indeed hazardous working conditions for the illegal aliens they hired, knowing full well that these aliens would not complain because they feared being reported to the INS. Meanwhile the employer would not face any penalty for his outrageous conduct. Finally, it seemed that the employer sanctions provisions of IRCA would discourage employers from hiring illegal aliens and would also make it less likely they would treat their employees as miserably as some of these employers did.
Of course, we now know that the relative handful of special agents who were assigned to conduct investigations of employers who hired illegal aliens made it unlikely that employers would face a significant risk of being caught violating these laws and that they would face an even smaller chance of being seriously fined. Furthermore, the way that the amnesty provisions of the law were enacted simply created a cottage industry of fraud document vendors who provided illegal aliens with counterfeit or altered identity documents and supporting documents to enable the illegal alien population to circumvent the immigration laws. Ultimately approximately 3.5 million illegal aliens emerged from the infamous shadows to participate in the amnesty program of 1986. I have never seen an explanation for the reason that more than twice as many aliens took advantage of the 1986 amnesty than was initially believed would but I believe that two factors came into play. It may well be that the number of illegal aliens in the country was underestimated. I also believe, however, that a large number of illegal aliens were able to gain entry into the United States long after the cutoff point and succeeded in making false claims that they had been present in the country for the requisite period of time.
To put this in perspective, I have read various estimates about the number of illegal aliens who are currently present in the United States. These estimates range from a low of 12 million to a high of 20 million. If, for argument sake, we figure on a number of 15 million illegal aliens, or ten times the number that had been estimated prior to the amnesty of 1986, and if the same sort of under counting occurs and if a comparable percentage of aliens succeed in racing into the United States and making a false claims that they had been here for the necessary period of time to be eligible to participate in the amnesty program that the Reid-Kennedy provisions would reward illegal aliens with, then we might expect some 35 million illegal aliens will ultimately participate in this insane program. Once they become citizens they would then be eligible to file applications to bring their family members to the United States, flooding our nation with tens of millions of additional new lawful immigrations while our nation’s porous borders, visa waiver program and extreme lack of resources to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States would allow many millions of illegal aliens to continue to enter the United States in violation of law.
The utterly inept and incompetent USCIS, which is now unable to carry out it’s most basic missions with even a modicum of integrity would undoubtedly disintegrate. The system would simply implode, crushed by the burden of its vicious cycle of attempting to deal with an ever increasing spiral of rampant fraud thereby encouraging still more fraudulent applications to be filed. Terrorists would not find gaming this system the least bit challenging and our government will have become their unwitting ally, providing them with official identity documents in false names and then, ultimately, providing them with the keys to the kingdom by conferring resident aliens status and then, United States citizenship upon those who would destroy our nation and slaughter our citizens.
I hope that this doomsday scenario will not be permitted to play out.
Insanity has been described as doing the same things the same way and expecting a different result. Where our nation’s security is concerned it would be indeed, insane to ignore the lessons of IRCA.
When I was a boy my dad used to tell me that there were no mistakes in life, only lessons, provided we learn from what goes wrong and make the appropriate changes in the way we do things. However, to repeat the same mistakes was to him and to me, simply unforgivable.
Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Hostettler, I commend your leadership in calling this hearing to make certain that these concerns are made public and are taken into account, especially as we approach the anniversary of the fifth anniversary of the attacks of September 11 and our nation continues to grapple with the immigration crisis.
America is at historic crossroads at this moment in time. Courageous decisions need to be made by our nation’s leaders. If our nation fails to select the proper path, there will be no going back. If our nation decides to provide amnesty to millions of undocumented and illegal aliens, I fear that our national security will suffer irreparable harm as we aid and abet alien terrorists who seek to enter our country and embed themselves within it in preparation for the deadly attacks they would carry out. The priority must be clear, national security must be given the highest consideration and priority where the security of our nation’s borders and the integrity of the immigration system are concerned.
=---
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL W. CUTLER
SEPTEMBER 1, 2006
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Hostettler, Ranking Members Conyers and Jackson Lee, members of Congress, distinguished members of the panel, ladies and gentlemen. It is a distinct honor and privilege to provide testimony at this hearing because the topic of the hearing is of truly critical significance. We are here to avert what I believe would be a catastrophe for the United States. The United States Senate passed a bill, S. 2611, that would provide incentives for a massive influx of illegal aliens, aided, abetted and induced to violate our nation’s immigration laws at a time that our nation is confronting the continuing threat of terrorism and the increasing involvement of violent gangs, comprised predominantly of deportable aliens, in a wide variety of violent crimes committed against our nation’s citizens. It is of critical importance that this hearing and others like it, illuminate why S. 2611 would expose our nation to unreasonable vulnerabilities especially in the post-9/11 world.
A nation’s primary responsibility is to provide for the safety and security of its citizens and yet, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom, the members of the Senate who voted for S. 2611 are seemingly oblivious to the lessons that the disastrous amnesty of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) should have taught us. That piece of legislation lead to the greatest influx of illegal aliens in the history of our nation. Fraud and a lack of integrity of the immigration system not only flooded our nation with illegal aliens who ran our borders, hoping that what had been billed as a “one time” amnesty would be repeated, but it also enabled a number of terrorists and many criminals to enter the United States and then embed themselves in the United States.
A notable example of such a terrorist can be found in a review of the facts concerning Mahmud Abouhalima, a citizen of Egypt who entered the United States on a tourist visa, overstayed his authorized period of admission and then applied for amnesty under the agricultural worker provisions of IRCA. He succeeded in obtaining resident alien status through this process. During a 5 year period he drove a cab and had his license suspended numerous times for violations of law and ultimately demonstrated his appreciation for our nation’s generosity by participating in the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 that left 6 people dead, hundreds of people injured and an estimated one half billion dollars in damage inflicted, on that iconic, ill-fated complex. America had opened its doors to him so that he might participate in the “American Dream.” He turned that dream into our worst nightmare. The other terrorists who attacked our nation on subsequent attacks, including the attacks of September 11, 2001, similarly exploited our generosity, seeing in our nation’s kindness, weakness, gaming the immigration system to enter our country and then, hide in plain sight, among us.
As I recall, when IRCA was proposed, one of the selling points was that along with amnesty for what was believed to have been a population of some 1.5 million illegal aliens would be a new approach to turn off what has been described as the “magnet” that draws the majority of illegal aliens into the United States in the first place, the prospect of securing employment in the United States. In order to accomplish this important goal, IRCA imposed penalties against those unscrupulous employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens. My former colleagues and I were pleased to see that under the employer sanctions of IRCA, the unscrupulous employers of illegal aliens would be made accountable, or so we thought. We were frustrated that we had seen all too many employers hire illegal aliens and treat them horrendously They paid them sub-standard wages and created unsafe, indeed hazardous working conditions for the illegal aliens they hired, knowing full well that these aliens would not complain because they feared being reported to the INS. Meanwhile the employer would not face any penalty for his outrageous conduct. Finally, it seemed that the employer sanctions provisions of IRCA would discourage employers from hiring illegal aliens and would also make it less likely they would treat their employees as miserably as some of these employers did.
Of course, we now know that the relative handful of special agents who were assigned to conduct investigations of employers who hired illegal aliens made it unlikely that employers would face a significant risk of being caught violating these laws and that they would face an even smaller chance of being seriously fined. Furthermore, the way that the amnesty provisions of the law were enacted simply created a cottage industry of fraud document vendors who provided illegal aliens with counterfeit or altered identity documents and supporting documents to enable the illegal alien population to circumvent the immigration laws. Ultimately approximately 3.5 million illegal aliens emerged from the infamous shadows to participate in the amnesty program of 1986. I have never seen an explanation for the reason that more than twice as many aliens took advantage of the 1986 amnesty than was initially believed would but I believe that two factors came into play. It may well be that the number of illegal aliens in the country was underestimated. I also believe, however, that a large number of illegal aliens were able to gain entry into the United States long after the cutoff point and succeeded in making false claims that they had been present in the country for the requisite period of time.
To put this in perspective, I have read various estimates about the number of illegal aliens who are currently present in the United States. These estimates range from a low of 12 million to a high of 20 million. If, for argument sake, we figure on a number of 15 million illegal aliens, or ten times the number that had been estimated prior to the amnesty of 1986, and if the same sort of under counting occurs and if a comparable percentage of aliens succeed in racing into the United States and making a false claims that they had been here for the necessary period of time to be eligible to participate in the amnesty program that the Reid-Kennedy provisions would reward illegal aliens with, then we might expect some 35 million illegal aliens will ultimately participate in this insane program. Once they become citizens they would then be eligible to file applications to bring their family members to the United States, flooding our nation with tens of millions of additional new lawful immigrations while our nation’s porous borders, visa waiver program and extreme lack of resources to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States would allow many millions of illegal aliens to continue to enter the United States in violation of law.
The utterly inept and incompetent USCIS, which is now unable to carry out it’s most basic missions with even a modicum of integrity would undoubtedly disintegrate. The system would simply implode, crushed by the burden of its vicious cycle of attempting to deal with an ever increasing spiral of rampant fraud thereby encouraging still more fraudulent applications to be filed. Terrorists would not find gaming this system the least bit challenging and our government will have become their unwitting ally, providing them with official identity documents in false names and then, ultimately, providing them with the keys to the kingdom by conferring resident aliens status and then, United States citizenship upon those who would destroy our nation and slaughter our citizens.
I hope that this doomsday scenario will not be permitted to play out.
Insanity has been described as doing the same things the same way and expecting a different result. Where our nation’s security is concerned it would be indeed, insane to ignore the lessons of IRCA.
When I was a boy my dad used to tell me that there were no mistakes in life, only lessons, provided we learn from what goes wrong and make the appropriate changes in the way we do things. However, to repeat the same mistakes was to him and to me, simply unforgivable.
Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Hostettler, I commend your leadership in calling this hearing to make certain that these concerns are made public and are taken into account, especially as we approach the anniversary of the fifth anniversary of the attacks of September 11 and our nation continues to grapple with the immigration crisis.
America is at historic crossroads at this moment in time. Courageous decisions need to be made by our nation’s leaders. If our nation fails to select the proper path, there will be no going back. If our nation decides to provide amnesty to millions of undocumented and illegal aliens, I fear that our national security will suffer irreparable harm as we aid and abet alien terrorists who seek to enter our country and embed themselves within it in preparation for the deadly attacks they would carry out. The priority must be clear, national security must be given the highest consideration and priority where the security of our nation’s borders and the integrity of the immigration system are concerned.
2011 HD 16:9
kumar1
08-05 06:43 PM
If every EB3 is ported to EB2 then EB2 will retrogress to 2001 and EB3 will become current.
I must tell you......I loved your response.
I must tell you......I loved your response.
more...
number30
04-12 12:10 AM
Hi guys,
I am a new bie but in deep trouble,
My case is like this
Have valid I-797 - till - Jan 16,2009 ( now expired right )
Valid I-94 - till -Jan 24 , 2009 ( now expired right )
Applied for extension in --- Sept 2008( 5months before I-94 expiry date)
Applied for premium in -- Feb 26, 2009
RFE -- Mar 2, 2009
Denied -- Mar 31,2009
Trying to transfer my H1- to another product company under premium.
I heard if you appeal the denial, you cant file the transfer, so i dont want to appeal,
Please correct me if this is incorrect ???? gurus please help me,
As I know I dont have any status but denial letter says appeal with in 33 days.
Consulted PRODUCT COMPANY ATTERNEY , said you can stay up till 30 days.
Is it possible to transfer with out appeal or MTR for the current denial ?
Please advice, as I am already running out of time....
thanks
jvs
There is bigger problem than H1 approval i.e. overstaying. If overstay more then six months you will barred for 3 years. So go out as soon as possible and come back with another H1
I am a new bie but in deep trouble,
My case is like this
Have valid I-797 - till - Jan 16,2009 ( now expired right )
Valid I-94 - till -Jan 24 , 2009 ( now expired right )
Applied for extension in --- Sept 2008( 5months before I-94 expiry date)
Applied for premium in -- Feb 26, 2009
RFE -- Mar 2, 2009
Denied -- Mar 31,2009
Trying to transfer my H1- to another product company under premium.
I heard if you appeal the denial, you cant file the transfer, so i dont want to appeal,
Please correct me if this is incorrect ???? gurus please help me,
As I know I dont have any status but denial letter says appeal with in 33 days.
Consulted PRODUCT COMPANY ATTERNEY , said you can stay up till 30 days.
Is it possible to transfer with out appeal or MTR for the current denial ?
Please advice, as I am already running out of time....
thanks
jvs
There is bigger problem than H1 approval i.e. overstaying. If overstay more then six months you will barred for 3 years. So go out as soon as possible and come back with another H1
gc_in_30_yrs
11-21 01:16 PM
I saw the following status on I-131
Application Type: I131, APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT
Current Status: Document mailed to applicant.
On November 21, 2007 we mailed the document to the address we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service.
Does it mean that I-131 is approved?
Yes, I guess.
Application Type: I131, APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT
Current Status: Document mailed to applicant.
On November 21, 2007 we mailed the document to the address we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service.
Does it mean that I-131 is approved?
Yes, I guess.
more...
chanduv23
07-06 09:49 PM
with the lack of regulation on AC 21 law, each attorney's take different position when it comes to handling AC 21 cases, in my case the primary reason driven to file AC 21 is the small window of period available in getting I 485 adjudicated when the PD is current, so I don't want to loose time when the PD is current and get an RFE from USCIS and running back and forth to get the RFE responded before loosing PD, more over I took the 20 minute counselling with Murthy law firm and they advised to notify USCIS about employer change.Later I was fortunate that USCIS did not issue RFE(may be it helped USCIS by notifying them in advance and clear their doubt) and approve my I 485 when PD was current.
Cheers
Kris
Issuing RFE or not is an individual decision taken by the officer. In most cases, RFE is issued when 140 gets revoked because an underlying job offer is a necessity. Even if you sent AC21 letter, as long as your 140 is still intact, the officer may chose not to issue an RFE.
Some people have received RFEs in more than one ocassion. Once when 140 was revoked and once during preadjudication process. So if for some reason USCIS decides to do a second round of preadjudication just because they have not other work or any specific reason then we may expect RFEs (This is something I made up - I don't think there will be another round of preadjudication.
Informing USCIS in advance helps rarely but maybe useful at times if you know your 140 could potentially be revoked and in a lot of cases 485 gets deined as a result. The MTR filing process can include a communication trail about informing USCIS which could be of help.
Cheers
Kris
Issuing RFE or not is an individual decision taken by the officer. In most cases, RFE is issued when 140 gets revoked because an underlying job offer is a necessity. Even if you sent AC21 letter, as long as your 140 is still intact, the officer may chose not to issue an RFE.
Some people have received RFEs in more than one ocassion. Once when 140 was revoked and once during preadjudication process. So if for some reason USCIS decides to do a second round of preadjudication just because they have not other work or any specific reason then we may expect RFEs (This is something I made up - I don't think there will be another round of preadjudication.
Informing USCIS in advance helps rarely but maybe useful at times if you know your 140 could potentially be revoked and in a lot of cases 485 gets deined as a result. The MTR filing process can include a communication trail about informing USCIS which could be of help.
2010 makeup hp wallpapers widescreen. htc hp wallpapers widescreen.
mikemeyers
12-26 05:42 PM
According to my knowledge, going back to F-1 is your best bet. The reason is whether u are legal in the country or not while ur H1 application is pending is decided by USCIS by approving change of status. If they don't u will be out of status, u have to leave the country and come back. but if you r on f-1, u'll be in legal status all the time. Just make sure, u transfer ur SEVIS I-20 before 60-day OPT grace period expires. Then, u'll be able to avoid worst case scenarios of being out of status in case ur H-1 is approved but change of status is not.
more...
fide_champ
08-04 05:41 PM
Please see my answers inside:
I came to US in March 2007 on L1B, mean time applied for H1b during April 2008 which got approved with COS effective from Oct 1 2008,
I could not work on H1b for some reasons, continued work on L1 until end of may 09 , went back to india during last week of May 2009 and returned in a month time (last week of June 09) with same L1 visa,
Now I have a valid I94 fo L1 until Feb 2010, also H1B I94 says valid until 2011 which I assume is no more valid due to re-entry on L1 n offcourse never having worked on H1b till date.
Now I would like to take up H1B in a month time, following are my questions
1. I assume that my employer need to apply for COS from L1-H1 now (form I-539) correct me if iam wrong,also is it legal to work while COS approval is in progress?
Ans: You cannot work for new employer while COS is in progress. You can do that during H1 transfer but not during COS from L1-H1.
2. Is there a premium processing for COS? to make sure I get approval first and then start working,how long does it take to process premium and what is the typical time frame for normal one?
Ans: COS is eligible for premium processing. If your client is waiting, better go for premium processing as getting a client is more harder these days than getting a visa.
3. My family is back in India, are they legal to travel during my COS being in progress with necessary stamping ? This is in case iam legal to work while COS is in progress, or
you recommend me getting them before COS is initiated with there L2 visa n then apply COS for them too ? Risk here is if COS is not approved for some reasons everyone have to leave
Ans:It's better to get your family here first and then apply for COS. If you change your status to H1, then your family will have to get H4 stamped before they can enter USA. That can be a problem sometimes if your company is not a well established one. They could avoid the H4 stamping and the hassles that comes with it(221g processing).
!
I came to US in March 2007 on L1B, mean time applied for H1b during April 2008 which got approved with COS effective from Oct 1 2008,
I could not work on H1b for some reasons, continued work on L1 until end of may 09 , went back to india during last week of May 2009 and returned in a month time (last week of June 09) with same L1 visa,
Now I have a valid I94 fo L1 until Feb 2010, also H1B I94 says valid until 2011 which I assume is no more valid due to re-entry on L1 n offcourse never having worked on H1b till date.
Now I would like to take up H1B in a month time, following are my questions
1. I assume that my employer need to apply for COS from L1-H1 now (form I-539) correct me if iam wrong,also is it legal to work while COS approval is in progress?
Ans: You cannot work for new employer while COS is in progress. You can do that during H1 transfer but not during COS from L1-H1.
2. Is there a premium processing for COS? to make sure I get approval first and then start working,how long does it take to process premium and what is the typical time frame for normal one?
Ans: COS is eligible for premium processing. If your client is waiting, better go for premium processing as getting a client is more harder these days than getting a visa.
3. My family is back in India, are they legal to travel during my COS being in progress with necessary stamping ? This is in case iam legal to work while COS is in progress, or
you recommend me getting them before COS is initiated with there L2 visa n then apply COS for them too ? Risk here is if COS is not approved for some reasons everyone have to leave
Ans:It's better to get your family here first and then apply for COS. If you change your status to H1, then your family will have to get H4 stamped before they can enter USA. That can be a problem sometimes if your company is not a well established one. They could avoid the H4 stamping and the hassles that comes with it(221g processing).
!
hair wallpaper widescreen nature.
raj2227
10-17 03:12 PM
1
more...
looneytunezez
04-08 04:17 PM
Employment-based: At this time the amount of demand being received in the Employment First preference is extremely low compared with that of recent years. Absent an immediate and dramatic increase in demand, this category will remain “Current” for all countries. It also appears unlikely that a Second preference cut-off date will be imposed for any countries other than China and India, where demand is extremely high. Based on current indications of demand, the best case scenarios for cut-off date movement each month during the coming months are as follows:
Employment Second: Demand by applicants who are “upgrading” their status from Employment Third to Employment Second preference is very high, but the exact amount is not known. Such “upgrades” are in addition to the known demand already reported, and make it very difficult to predict ultimate demand based on forward movement of the China and India cut-off dates. While thousands of “otherwise unused” numbers will be available for potential use without regard to the China and India Employment Second preference per-country annual limits, it is not known how the “upgrades” will ultimately impact the cut-offs for those two countries. (The allocation of “otherwise unused” numbers is discussed below.)
China: none to three weeks expected through July. No August or September estimate is possible at this time.
India: One or more weeks, possibly followed by additional movement if demand remains stable. No August or September estimate is possible at this time.
Employment Third:
Worldwide: three to six weeks
China: one to three weeks
India: none to two weeks
Mexico: although continued forward movement is expected, no specific projections are possible at this time.
Philippines: three to six weeks
Please be advised that the above ranges are estimates based upon the current demand patterns, and are subject to fluctuations during the coming months. The cut-off dates for upcoming months cannot be guaranteed, and no assumptions should be made until the formal dates are announced.
Allocation of “otherwise unused” numbers in accordance with Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 202(a)(5)
INA Section 202(a)(5) provides that if total demand in a calendar quarter will be insufficient to use all available numbers in an Employment preference, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. Based on current levels of demand, there will be otherwise unused numbers in the Employment First and Second preferences. Such numbers may be allocated without regard to per-country limits, once a country has reached its preference annual limit. Since under INA Section 203(e) such numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability, greater number use by one country would indicate greater demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates. Based on amount and priority dates of pending demand and year-to-date number use, a different cut-off date could be applied to each oversubscribed country, for the purpose of assuring that the maximum amount of available numbers will be used. Note that a cut-off date imposed to control the use of “otherwise unused” numbers could be earlier than the cut-off date established to control number use under a quarterly or per-country annual limit. For example, at present the India Employment Second preference cut-off date governs the use of numbers under Section 202(a)(5), India having reached its Employment Second annual limit; the China Employment Second preference cut-off date governs number use under the quarterly limit, since China has not yet reached its Employment Second annual limit.
The rate of number use under Section 202(a)(5) is continually monitored to determine whether subsequent adjustments are needed in visa availability for the oversubscribed countries. This helps assure that all available Employment preference numbers will be used, while insuring that numbers also remain available for applicants from all other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit.
As mentioned earlier, the number of applicants who may be “upgrading” their status from Employment Third to Employment Second preference is unknown. As a result, the cut-off date which governs use of Section 202(a)(5) numbers has been advanced more rapidly than normal, in an attempt to ascertain the amount of “upgrade” demand in the pipeline while at the same time administering use of the available numbers. This action risks a surge in demand that could adversely impact the cut-off date later in the fiscal year. However, it also limits the possibility that potential demand would not materialize and the annual limit would not be reached due to lack of cut-off date movement.
Employment Second: Demand by applicants who are “upgrading” their status from Employment Third to Employment Second preference is very high, but the exact amount is not known. Such “upgrades” are in addition to the known demand already reported, and make it very difficult to predict ultimate demand based on forward movement of the China and India cut-off dates. While thousands of “otherwise unused” numbers will be available for potential use without regard to the China and India Employment Second preference per-country annual limits, it is not known how the “upgrades” will ultimately impact the cut-offs for those two countries. (The allocation of “otherwise unused” numbers is discussed below.)
China: none to three weeks expected through July. No August or September estimate is possible at this time.
India: One or more weeks, possibly followed by additional movement if demand remains stable. No August or September estimate is possible at this time.
Employment Third:
Worldwide: three to six weeks
China: one to three weeks
India: none to two weeks
Mexico: although continued forward movement is expected, no specific projections are possible at this time.
Philippines: three to six weeks
Please be advised that the above ranges are estimates based upon the current demand patterns, and are subject to fluctuations during the coming months. The cut-off dates for upcoming months cannot be guaranteed, and no assumptions should be made until the formal dates are announced.
Allocation of “otherwise unused” numbers in accordance with Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 202(a)(5)
INA Section 202(a)(5) provides that if total demand in a calendar quarter will be insufficient to use all available numbers in an Employment preference, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. Based on current levels of demand, there will be otherwise unused numbers in the Employment First and Second preferences. Such numbers may be allocated without regard to per-country limits, once a country has reached its preference annual limit. Since under INA Section 203(e) such numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability, greater number use by one country would indicate greater demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates. Based on amount and priority dates of pending demand and year-to-date number use, a different cut-off date could be applied to each oversubscribed country, for the purpose of assuring that the maximum amount of available numbers will be used. Note that a cut-off date imposed to control the use of “otherwise unused” numbers could be earlier than the cut-off date established to control number use under a quarterly or per-country annual limit. For example, at present the India Employment Second preference cut-off date governs the use of numbers under Section 202(a)(5), India having reached its Employment Second annual limit; the China Employment Second preference cut-off date governs number use under the quarterly limit, since China has not yet reached its Employment Second annual limit.
The rate of number use under Section 202(a)(5) is continually monitored to determine whether subsequent adjustments are needed in visa availability for the oversubscribed countries. This helps assure that all available Employment preference numbers will be used, while insuring that numbers also remain available for applicants from all other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit.
As mentioned earlier, the number of applicants who may be “upgrading” their status from Employment Third to Employment Second preference is unknown. As a result, the cut-off date which governs use of Section 202(a)(5) numbers has been advanced more rapidly than normal, in an attempt to ascertain the amount of “upgrade” demand in the pipeline while at the same time administering use of the available numbers. This action risks a surge in demand that could adversely impact the cut-off date later in the fiscal year. However, it also limits the possibility that potential demand would not materialize and the annual limit would not be reached due to lack of cut-off date movement.
hot dresses wallpaper hp.
%25255B2%25255D.jpg "hd wallpapers widescreen.")
ameryki
02-26 03:17 PM
Hello,
I have not seen the 485 receipt notice come through and its been over 6 months since I applied. Down the line after a few months we will have to start preparing for EAD and AP renewal and I take it we will need a copy of the 485 receipt notice to file? Any thoughts.
I have not seen the 485 receipt notice come through and its been over 6 months since I applied. Down the line after a few months we will have to start preparing for EAD and AP renewal and I take it we will need a copy of the 485 receipt notice to file? Any thoughts.
more...
house hd-wallpapers-high-quality
franklin
02-09 01:01 AM
emailed the reporter to thank him of his support and give him more info on IV and their efforts and details on the IV agenda.
I also emailed moveon.org, and asked for their help
I also emailed moveon.org, and asked for their help
tattoo perry katy perry wallpaper widescreen hd. wide screen hd wallpapers. hot
hebbar77
09-20 10:03 PM
Atleast we see the green card at a distant horizon. People who want to start with PERM now are told by a lawyer that it might take a year for PERM alone, and upto 8 years before they see the CARRRRRD.
I just got my EAD. I will assume its my GC.
I just got my EAD. I will assume its my GC.
more...
pictures HD Widescreen Wallpapers Pack
PMisYMMV
09-03 01:13 PM
I just called USCIS and confirmed with TSC and 2nd level customer service center that my case is approved on monday 09/01/09 SLUD date even though i have not recieved email for same.. Thank you all and good luck.
How did you do that? can you please provide info?
The phone number to call and would they need any information from me?
How did you do that? can you please provide info?
The phone number to call and would they need any information from me?
dresses hd wallpapers widescreen.
SivaMayam
07-17 07:35 PM
Dear Nachi,
I was listening to Rajiv's recent/previous conference call recordins(mp3 foramat can be found on main page) in which he said some of his clients were in similar situations and did not have any issues.
http://www.immigration.com/improving_immigration/conference_calls.html
Please listen to one of those(recent 2 recordings) you will get some answer. Also consult with your lawyer if you filed through an attorney. Keep all the papers ready just in case you need to refile...
Good luck
~S
I was listening to Rajiv's recent/previous conference call recordins(mp3 foramat can be found on main page) in which he said some of his clients were in similar situations and did not have any issues.
http://www.immigration.com/improving_immigration/conference_calls.html
Please listen to one of those(recent 2 recordings) you will get some answer. Also consult with your lawyer if you filed through an attorney. Keep all the papers ready just in case you need to refile...
Good luck
~S
more...
makeup wide screen hd wallpapers. hd
bheemi
03-15 11:05 AM
Hi,
I dont think anybody pushing forward about this issue..Filing of 485 during retrogression..
Immigration Voice :
Is there any scope any where to add this to current bill...are our immigration voice working towards this issue at all...if so can you pls let us know what you are doing for this issue..because I did not see anywhere updates from immigration voice ..or any ammendments on this issue..
I dont think anybody pushing forward about this issue..Filing of 485 during retrogression..
Immigration Voice :
Is there any scope any where to add this to current bill...are our immigration voice working towards this issue at all...if so can you pls let us know what you are doing for this issue..because I did not see anywhere updates from immigration voice ..or any ammendments on this issue..
girlfriend pictures hd wallpaper
raj3078
02-09 09:53 AM
I fully believe in court systems in USA, and feel that we should file the lawsuit. The bills like CIR or SKIL wont see the daylight in political fights
hairstyles wide screen hd wallpapers.
wandmaker
08-11 06:45 PM
For example, for my I-140 under EB2-NIW, NSC processing date shows February 27, 2007; and I filed in April 2007. But, I got approved. (no complaints). Technically, they shouldn't have picked up mine.
You are lucky to have your 140 approved :) There are many people that I know, whos files are still waiting to be dusted.
See, quasi-citizens i.e., people applying for Naturalization have better luck because their local congressman will be making calls and putting fire under USCIS ass because these are potential voters in November. So, they have some leverage. But people who are waiting for green card are no good now... wait for 5 years after you get it, you may have luck in getting their attention.
Focus your energy on IV activites (state chapter, campaign and etc), spend time with the family, and live your day to day life. We will get there soon enough with everyones' support ($$$$)
You are lucky to have your 140 approved :) There are many people that I know, whos files are still waiting to be dusted.
See, quasi-citizens i.e., people applying for Naturalization have better luck because their local congressman will be making calls and putting fire under USCIS ass because these are potential voters in November. So, they have some leverage. But people who are waiting for green card are no good now... wait for 5 years after you get it, you may have luck in getting their attention.
Focus your energy on IV activites (state chapter, campaign and etc), spend time with the family, and live your day to day life. We will get there soon enough with everyones' support ($$$$)
ramakrishna_ram
06-14 07:40 PM
Thank you for your inputs. I really appreciated for your help. We went to Detective office and he allowed my sister only to question. He asked couple of questions regarding that family and theft. My sister explained him that she don't know about that situation. It took about 20 minutes time there. We have below questions still remains in our mind.
1) Do we really required a Lawyer to protect?
2) I believe they should have proper information to arrest or accuse right?
3) We know my sister is innocent but feeling insecure for being happend. so what are all the chances to again question my sister?.
After viewing your messages here, we realized it is wrong to go to Detective office but we went this morning
Please help me in this
1) Do we really required a Lawyer to protect?
2) I believe they should have proper information to arrest or accuse right?
3) We know my sister is innocent but feeling insecure for being happend. so what are all the chances to again question my sister?.
After viewing your messages here, we realized it is wrong to go to Detective office but we went this morning
Please help me in this
Berkeleybee
04-03 07:29 PM
All,
We were trying to keep this fact sheet to 2-3 pages, but it would be great to compile a list of immigrant overachievers anyway. :)
We were trying to keep this fact sheet to 2-3 pages, but it would be great to compile a list of immigrant overachievers anyway. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment