mirage
02-06 09:40 AM
You got my point, sir!!!
Though I am posting very late, I fully agree with the intent of the thread starter. If there is anything that we can convince the "balanced" law makers, it is the discrimination based on country based quota.
A person with certain skill set brings same and equal benefits to this country. S/He is hired because the economy of this country needs him/her. Then why issue green card to one because s/he was born in XYZ country and why ask another to wait almost endlessly because s/he was born in ABC country. This is absurd, unjust, unfair and discriminatory, particularly considering the values that United States respects, believes in and follows.
We can sell only this one point to law makers. Selling an idea on how much benefits we bring to this country, and if we can buy homes with 20% down payment, is like waking up a person who is pretending to be asleep. They have decided not to buy that argument no matter what. And then there is Dick Durbyn, Grassley, Jeff Sessions, Steve King and many like them...............
Though I am posting very late, I fully agree with the intent of the thread starter. If there is anything that we can convince the "balanced" law makers, it is the discrimination based on country based quota.
A person with certain skill set brings same and equal benefits to this country. S/He is hired because the economy of this country needs him/her. Then why issue green card to one because s/he was born in XYZ country and why ask another to wait almost endlessly because s/he was born in ABC country. This is absurd, unjust, unfair and discriminatory, particularly considering the values that United States respects, believes in and follows.
We can sell only this one point to law makers. Selling an idea on how much benefits we bring to this country, and if we can buy homes with 20% down payment, is like waking up a person who is pretending to be asleep. They have decided not to buy that argument no matter what. And then there is Dick Durbyn, Grassley, Jeff Sessions, Steve King and many like them...............
wallpaper play Rainmaker in a GEN 13
vandanaverdia
09-10 03:48 PM
Well... We are eager & all hope to see Andy at the rally....
Rockford
08-29 03:36 PM
I moved to a desi consulting company after I got layed off in 6th year of h1b. ..................... But recently I asked my lawyer for a copy of my L/C and i 140 petition and she refused to give, then my employer requested them to give it to me. ............ and finally I had to talk to my employer and we deicded not to use their services anymore just for my case,.
Chandu,
Just for the record sake, the LC and I140 are your employers petitions and the lawyer is not supposed to give them to you without your employer's consent/approval.
I am sure there are other issues with your lawyer, but this case is kind of fair.
There may be some lawyers who are lenient in this aspect, especially in cases where the beneficiary is paying the lawyer directly.
Chandu,
Just for the record sake, the LC and I140 are your employers petitions and the lawyer is not supposed to give them to you without your employer's consent/approval.
I am sure there are other issues with your lawyer, but this case is kind of fair.
There may be some lawyers who are lenient in this aspect, especially in cases where the beneficiary is paying the lawyer directly.
2011 4thletter! » gen13
johnifanx98
04-04 03:48 PM
You are confused on this. IEEE is against increase of H1B visas. They have never said anything about GCs. If they have, show me where.
those who will feel abused are ones with advanced degrees from the US but did not get their H1B only to find someone from India has gotten an H1B. That person will feel abused because of the time (and maybe money) spent in getting the advanced degree.
Yes. And this is not my definition. When H1B becomes a way to make money for those bodyshoppers, it's really abused.
And I agree that it's also a abuse if an employer pay under-prevailing to a US master. But based on current situation, it's not that obvious. I think many ICC are going too far.
those who will feel abused are ones with advanced degrees from the US but did not get their H1B only to find someone from India has gotten an H1B. That person will feel abused because of the time (and maybe money) spent in getting the advanced degree.
Yes. And this is not my definition. When H1B becomes a way to make money for those bodyshoppers, it's really abused.
And I agree that it's also a abuse if an employer pay under-prevailing to a US master. But based on current situation, it's not that obvious. I think many ICC are going too far.
more...
kedrex
07-18 08:03 PM
bump
sundarpn
01-18 11:45 PM
off topic. Since you went to get yout visa stamped, was there any dealy due to the new PIMS verification system?
Which consulate did u goto? Was this renewal of your H1b stamping? How long did it take for you to get the passport back?
thx
Well, this is NOT a cooked up story. This happened to me yesterday at Harlingen (HRL) Texas airport.
On January 16, 2008, I went to Mexico for H1-B visa stamping at Matamoras US consulate. I got my H1-B visa stamped and returned to Brownville, Texas.
On January 17, 2008, I was at Harlingen (HRL), Texas airport for my final destination.
One of the TSA security personnel�s is in process of verifying my ticket before proceeding to security check. As every one knows, we must present one of the government issued PHOTO-ID to them to clear the security check. I have shown my driver license and he has cleared the security check (name check).
I was about to proceed further for security screening; mean while, a Police Officer came to me and asked me following questions.
Sir, are you a US citizen?
I said, No
Then, he asked me, can I see your immigration documents.
I have shown my passport to the police officer.
He looked at H1-B visa and I-94 and asked me; who do you work for?
I said my employer�s name.
Later, he gave me my passport back.
Now,
I have asked the Police Officer few questions
1. Sir, I�m in domestic traveling, is it mandatory to carry my immigration documents at all times?
Police Officer said, as per the US LAW, all non-immigrants must carry immigration documents and passport at all times.
2. What would you have done to me, if I had failed to present my passport?
Police office said, I could have DEPORTED you.
3. Sir, it is not possible for any one to carry passport at all times. Could the LAW allow me to carry photo copies of my passport and immigrations documents?
Police office said, No. Technically, you must carry original documents at all times.
I would advice you to carry Passport at all times.
I did not know this until Police Officer told me about this LAW.
P.S: BTW, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) level is in �ORGANE�.
Which consulate did u goto? Was this renewal of your H1b stamping? How long did it take for you to get the passport back?
thx
Well, this is NOT a cooked up story. This happened to me yesterday at Harlingen (HRL) Texas airport.
On January 16, 2008, I went to Mexico for H1-B visa stamping at Matamoras US consulate. I got my H1-B visa stamped and returned to Brownville, Texas.
On January 17, 2008, I was at Harlingen (HRL), Texas airport for my final destination.
One of the TSA security personnel�s is in process of verifying my ticket before proceeding to security check. As every one knows, we must present one of the government issued PHOTO-ID to them to clear the security check. I have shown my driver license and he has cleared the security check (name check).
I was about to proceed further for security screening; mean while, a Police Officer came to me and asked me following questions.
Sir, are you a US citizen?
I said, No
Then, he asked me, can I see your immigration documents.
I have shown my passport to the police officer.
He looked at H1-B visa and I-94 and asked me; who do you work for?
I said my employer�s name.
Later, he gave me my passport back.
Now,
I have asked the Police Officer few questions
1. Sir, I�m in domestic traveling, is it mandatory to carry my immigration documents at all times?
Police Officer said, as per the US LAW, all non-immigrants must carry immigration documents and passport at all times.
2. What would you have done to me, if I had failed to present my passport?
Police office said, I could have DEPORTED you.
3. Sir, it is not possible for any one to carry passport at all times. Could the LAW allow me to carry photo copies of my passport and immigrations documents?
Police office said, No. Technically, you must carry original documents at all times.
I would advice you to carry Passport at all times.
I did not know this until Police Officer told me about this LAW.
P.S: BTW, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) level is in �ORGANE�.
more...
Jaime
09-28 06:11 PM
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070926/eu_immigration.html?.v=1
2010 to be Rainmaker in Gen 13
starving_dog
07-24 11:22 AM
No, for employment based citizenship you must get your green card to start the five year clock ticking for naturalization. You may apply for citizenship after 54 months of naturalization.
more...
Ramba
07-04 07:25 PM
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. Former INS or current USCIS�s functions and operations were not questionable and not known to public till ombudsman office was established. Ombudsman has helped customers and keep helping to improve efficiency of CIS. Ombudsman main concern (or goal) have been over the 4 years are
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The �documentarily qualified 485 applications� mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made �current� for all EB categories. This is how they determine �current� or �over-subscribed� and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered �Current.�
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be �oversubscribed� and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories �current� for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories �current� ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of �current� there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making �current� for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as �current� in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The �documentarily qualified 485 applications� mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made �current� for all EB categories. This is how they determine �current� or �over-subscribed� and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered �Current.�
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be �oversubscribed� and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories �current� for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories �current� ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of �current� there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making �current� for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as �current� in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
hair Rainmaker
Naveen
04-07 08:12 AM
Well said! I came back first week of Feb 09 and no issues. Just usual jibber-jabber.
Rumor, rumor, and more rumors. We Indians get a kick out of this stuff, dont we? This actually happened with me couple of weeks ago.
......
Rumor, rumor, and more rumors. We Indians get a kick out of this stuff, dont we? This actually happened with me couple of weeks ago.
......
more...
Jelena
07-14 08:23 AM
Yes, this letter is a bit late but it's still very well-written an exactly to the point. I couldn't help but nodding all the way through.
My lawyer (company's lawyer, to be exact) didn't even bother telling me about either July bulletin or July 2nd fiasco - I found about it in the Internet.
My lawyer (company's lawyer, to be exact) didn't even bother telling me about either July bulletin or July 2nd fiasco - I found about it in the Internet.
hot from the comic GEN13,
minimalist
04-03 12:41 PM
tying GC to housing initiative. You say there are things that can be done without money. Then, when I requested you to outline each step on how to approach, gather people and take it forward, you vanished and you sprout here again.
COntributing or not contributing money is your prerogative. If you don't see merit in something you do not have to contribute. But if you feel something can be done, just don't expect someone else to execute that idea. YOU have to take ownership.
There was a good explanation given on why it needs 10,000. EVeryone knows USCIS asked 5000. That would probably take 2 years time as there are 20,000 requests in queue before this one. Given that fact, they had some ideas to see if they can get a faster response time following a different path. They estimated it would cost about 5000 more.
People who trust them (in terms of their ability and honesty), contributed. If you do not trust them, that is fair enough. But they earned the trust of so many people who are willing to contribute. Believe me, none of the people who contributed have done so after careful deliberation.
Well, even for this initiative, you are welcome to outline steps and then am sure many of the IV members will join you.
very good point and I agree 100 percent ..sad part is that such a good post gets buried under 20 posts which ask for more donations.
as far as I know FOIA campaign was for 5000 dollars ..then it was increased to 10,000. will it increase again ?
COntributing or not contributing money is your prerogative. If you don't see merit in something you do not have to contribute. But if you feel something can be done, just don't expect someone else to execute that idea. YOU have to take ownership.
There was a good explanation given on why it needs 10,000. EVeryone knows USCIS asked 5000. That would probably take 2 years time as there are 20,000 requests in queue before this one. Given that fact, they had some ideas to see if they can get a faster response time following a different path. They estimated it would cost about 5000 more.
People who trust them (in terms of their ability and honesty), contributed. If you do not trust them, that is fair enough. But they earned the trust of so many people who are willing to contribute. Believe me, none of the people who contributed have done so after careful deliberation.
Well, even for this initiative, you are welcome to outline steps and then am sure many of the IV members will join you.
very good point and I agree 100 percent ..sad part is that such a good post gets buried under 20 posts which ask for more donations.
as far as I know FOIA campaign was for 5000 dollars ..then it was increased to 10,000. will it increase again ?
more...
house comics including “Gen 13.”
logiclife
12-26 03:46 PM
I see an increasing incidence of activities/offers/utilities with restrictions, citizen/green card status only, here are some examples, perhaps others can share experiences too:
1. I tried to travel to Mexico. if you do not have a GC, here is what you have to do (for many not all nationals, India is on the list):
appear in a consulate (350 miles for me) personally, with all family members present, the consulate will send a request for permission to proccess to Mexico City. then cool your heels at least 6 weeks. Once permission is obtained the entire family reappers in person to apply for the visa.
I chose not to travel.
2. Amex is advertising a glopal trip protection insurance, with the caveat that you may only apply if citizen or GC.
3. I've been a Citibank customer for a decade, and have considerable funds with them, one click of a button opens me a new e-account- except that the fine print says you have to be Citizen/GC to do it.
4. A travel package to Europe offers an incentive- 1 euro for 1 dollar at the hotel....you guessed it! only citizens and GC....
5. i heard someone complain about Discover earlier....they send preapproved offers then reject you if you tell them you are not Citizen/GC. I've had one for years, they happened to send me an approved offer without the question....the whole thing is tragicomic :-)
6. If your visa is expired as mine is (btw a feb date has never opened up anywhere in India to date...i'm sick and tired and frustrated....getting an appt is a major hassle) the you better choose your airline carefully, the French embassy demands personal appearance (350 miles) for the 10 min it takes to issue a visa- which then lets me walk from one gate to another at De Gaulle....
I'm not dying to be a permanent resident. I don't consider it my right. I have not taken anyone's job...I was recruited after a long search failed. Since I have joined our practice has grown many fold, my revenue itself has doubled and we have recruited more providers - Americans, incidentally.
But i would love to have a green card as long as i'm here, life would just be easier...
I dont think you need a transit visa for Charles De Gaulle airport anymore. They used to have that if you dont have a valid visa you were going to use for return trip. I think that's gone. It caused Air France to lose a lot of business and they probably got that removed by French Govt.
About AMEX, Discover, Citi issues, I guess the business is theirs to lose. There will always be competition to pick up that demand. If they are going to be picky, they are going to lose a half a million potential customers to someone else. They are not the only ones in creditcard, banking business.
1. I tried to travel to Mexico. if you do not have a GC, here is what you have to do (for many not all nationals, India is on the list):
appear in a consulate (350 miles for me) personally, with all family members present, the consulate will send a request for permission to proccess to Mexico City. then cool your heels at least 6 weeks. Once permission is obtained the entire family reappers in person to apply for the visa.
I chose not to travel.
2. Amex is advertising a glopal trip protection insurance, with the caveat that you may only apply if citizen or GC.
3. I've been a Citibank customer for a decade, and have considerable funds with them, one click of a button opens me a new e-account- except that the fine print says you have to be Citizen/GC to do it.
4. A travel package to Europe offers an incentive- 1 euro for 1 dollar at the hotel....you guessed it! only citizens and GC....
5. i heard someone complain about Discover earlier....they send preapproved offers then reject you if you tell them you are not Citizen/GC. I've had one for years, they happened to send me an approved offer without the question....the whole thing is tragicomic :-)
6. If your visa is expired as mine is (btw a feb date has never opened up anywhere in India to date...i'm sick and tired and frustrated....getting an appt is a major hassle) the you better choose your airline carefully, the French embassy demands personal appearance (350 miles) for the 10 min it takes to issue a visa- which then lets me walk from one gate to another at De Gaulle....
I'm not dying to be a permanent resident. I don't consider it my right. I have not taken anyone's job...I was recruited after a long search failed. Since I have joined our practice has grown many fold, my revenue itself has doubled and we have recruited more providers - Americans, incidentally.
But i would love to have a green card as long as i'm here, life would just be easier...
I dont think you need a transit visa for Charles De Gaulle airport anymore. They used to have that if you dont have a valid visa you were going to use for return trip. I think that's gone. It caused Air France to lose a lot of business and they probably got that removed by French Govt.
About AMEX, Discover, Citi issues, I guess the business is theirs to lose. There will always be competition to pick up that demand. If they are going to be picky, they are going to lose a half a million potential customers to someone else. They are not the only ones in creditcard, banking business.
tattoo (Rainmaker) en quot; Gen 13
indianindian2006
04-23 06:34 PM
Congratulations Googler
more...
pictures Gen 13 #12 - Road Trip,
imconfused
07-09 04:16 PM
I am yet to see any legal basis in the case which states that DoS has to give notice of x days before changing the visa bulletin. All it says that they have "policy" of visa bulletin good for a month. Such policies, unless backed by legal basis, are not enforceable.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
legally speakn, there is a commonly term used "bad faith".. this is where DOS/USCIS falls in right now. Read the document, the y did not break any law, what they did was in "Bad Faith" ,. Cant make it clearer than this...
__________________
Not a legal advice.
legally speakn, there is a commonly term used "bad faith".. this is where DOS/USCIS falls in right now. Read the document, the y did not break any law, what they did was in "Bad Faith" ,. Cant make it clearer than this...
dresses Gen 13 by Talent Caldwell
pitha
01-28 10:56 AM
I don’t want to start another war here but all I am asking for is a fair treatment of people and not discriminate against people based on country of birth. One of the reasons I left my country, India, is because of the discriminating that exists there in terms of "reservations" where everything is reserved based on your caste for 50%. Now please dont tell me reservations and country cap are different, they are not different they are the same. they accomplish the same purpose in case of skilled immigration.I never thought such a thing would happen in US but it seems worst here because Indians and Chinese make up almost 70 to 80% of H1 (which is dual intent) but when it comes to employment based green cards (which are based on H1) Indians and Chinese combined get only 14% of the visas, don’t you see the tragedy here? Why don’t they enforce the country cap on H1 also, that way people from India and china will not have to suffer worse than others? But US is a competitive country, they want the best available talent for H1 and that’s the reason they don’t put country caps on H1.
Take my case for example, I have come to this country in 1999 on F1 and have been working and paying takes since 2001. I am not even able to apply for 485. If I get laid off now I will have to leave US next year. Contrast this with somebody from Taiwan, UK or some non retrogressed country. In some cases they can get green card within the first year of coming to US. This is not a hypothetical case but a scenario which is happening quite often, especially in EB2. In my own company I have seen people (6 so far) who are 5 years junior to me (i.e joined the company 5 years after I did) get a green card where as I am dazed and confused and haven’t even applied for 485.
I totally agree with country caps in non skilled immigration, because the only criteria is that you don’t have any diseases and don’t have a criminal background. But in skilled immigration it does not make sense to apply country caps unless you apply country caps in H1. but US is a competitive country, they want the best available talent for H1and that’s the reason they don’t put country caps on H1.
getting rid of country caps will hurt ppl from ROW. we need to be united, what do u say? H1B and EB visas are not related and should not be confused as related items. There are exemptions on H1b but none on EB.
totally agree with this.
Have full faith in IV and I am sure they will try to keep the interests of all in mind, not just of those from one country that will benefit from ending country-caps.
Take my case for example, I have come to this country in 1999 on F1 and have been working and paying takes since 2001. I am not even able to apply for 485. If I get laid off now I will have to leave US next year. Contrast this with somebody from Taiwan, UK or some non retrogressed country. In some cases they can get green card within the first year of coming to US. This is not a hypothetical case but a scenario which is happening quite often, especially in EB2. In my own company I have seen people (6 so far) who are 5 years junior to me (i.e joined the company 5 years after I did) get a green card where as I am dazed and confused and haven’t even applied for 485.
I totally agree with country caps in non skilled immigration, because the only criteria is that you don’t have any diseases and don’t have a criminal background. But in skilled immigration it does not make sense to apply country caps unless you apply country caps in H1. but US is a competitive country, they want the best available talent for H1and that’s the reason they don’t put country caps on H1.
getting rid of country caps will hurt ppl from ROW. we need to be united, what do u say? H1B and EB visas are not related and should not be confused as related items. There are exemptions on H1b but none on EB.
totally agree with this.
Have full faith in IV and I am sure they will try to keep the interests of all in mind, not just of those from one country that will benefit from ending country-caps.
more...
makeup Freefall and Rainmaker Cosplay
ushkand
07-24 11:57 AM
Simply_GC:
yes there is an option for you. When you get the I-485 receipot, mail in the employment letter along with copy of 485 receipt (just so they can track) and a another letter stating the oversight.
Doesn't receipting an application automatically mean they accepted the application?
yes there is an option for you. When you get the I-485 receipot, mail in the employment letter along with copy of 485 receipt (just so they can track) and a another letter stating the oversight.
Doesn't receipting an application automatically mean they accepted the application?
girlfriend Rainmaker
chanduv23
11-21 10:31 AM
I was one of the first few folks who moved on, immediately after the yates memo. I am a lot better now and making 2 times what I used to make and also switched to ebb2 as oppossed to eb3 in my old company where situations have never been good.
hairstyles Gen 13 Babies - JJ Kirby
like_watching_paint_dry
03-16 12:18 AM
I agree with you completely ! I wish and pray Interfilers and labor substitution applicants rot in hell.
I'm right there with you on labor substitution, but I would not really blame interfilers that much.
Though one thing that I would like to see USCIS do is allow people to port EB3 priority date to EB2 only if they were eligible for EB2 as of that priority date. i.e. If you did not have a Masters or 5 years exp. as of June 2002 and so you filed EB3 and have a June 2002 EB3 PD, you should not be allowed to claim June 2002 EB2 priority date based today based on the experience or masters degree as of today. Allowing that does not sound fair to a say a June 2003 PD EB2 person who was eligible for EB2 as of June 2003 and filed EB2.
I'm right there with you on labor substitution, but I would not really blame interfilers that much.
Though one thing that I would like to see USCIS do is allow people to port EB3 priority date to EB2 only if they were eligible for EB2 as of that priority date. i.e. If you did not have a Masters or 5 years exp. as of June 2002 and so you filed EB3 and have a June 2002 EB3 PD, you should not be allowed to claim June 2002 EB2 priority date based today based on the experience or masters degree as of today. Allowing that does not sound fair to a say a June 2003 PD EB2 person who was eligible for EB2 as of June 2003 and filed EB2.
NKR
07-29 12:06 AM
Time for a chill beer, anybody wants to join? If yes, wherever you are, cheers :cool:
Cheers dude, working on an assignment...
hick. gueesa i hadf twoo machs beor.. hick ...goodsnightsss
Cheers dude, working on an assignment...
hick. gueesa i hadf twoo machs beor.. hick ...goodsnightsss
.soulty
03-11 12:33 AM
thats better.. cool, so i'll contact grinch to see if he is happy to get this poll ready.
Post a Comment