kumarc123
03-12 12:59 PM
u would think..... that everyone follow action items...... then y would we be in this mess if everyone is doing what they should......
i think greyhair, you, kumarc123 are all part of the problem...... let me re-phrase that.... u r all a disease plaguing this eb community...... everyone has their own little petty reason for not participating...... so just eat taco with u'r $25, no need to think over.... keep volunteering me for doing things for u.... i don't care much for this bickering back & forth.... so leave me alone & let me enjoy my friday....
Excuse me who are you calling a disease?
who has given you the right to name call, when I have not used any profanity words? Please choose your words carefully, as it does not reflect a good reputation on part of a person who is trying to make a point and bring awareness.
Just because you have 1485 filed much before your PD and have the better half of the situation, does not allow you to be an advocator on behalf of IV.
The question was means for IV and PAPPU, and to galvanize this organization to do something big, than take things for granted.
Thank you
i think greyhair, you, kumarc123 are all part of the problem...... let me re-phrase that.... u r all a disease plaguing this eb community...... everyone has their own little petty reason for not participating...... so just eat taco with u'r $25, no need to think over.... keep volunteering me for doing things for u.... i don't care much for this bickering back & forth.... so leave me alone & let me enjoy my friday....
Excuse me who are you calling a disease?
who has given you the right to name call, when I have not used any profanity words? Please choose your words carefully, as it does not reflect a good reputation on part of a person who is trying to make a point and bring awareness.
Just because you have 1485 filed much before your PD and have the better half of the situation, does not allow you to be an advocator on behalf of IV.
The question was means for IV and PAPPU, and to galvanize this organization to do something big, than take things for granted.
Thank you
wallpaper Zarine and Katrina
masouds
02-15 04:52 PM
Well, I do have a vested interest in maintaining status quo, at least with regard to the per country caps.
But, working in one of the Valley companies, I see a lot of people from India and China who just don't mix with rest of the people, say, from Poland or Germany or France or Iran. US (the whole government, including USCIS) likes the idea of 'Melting pot' when it comes to immigration. When you melt a lot of metals with each other, you don't end up with a fragmented alloy, since you've capped the amount of each metal in your pot. That is how you get 'Little Italy's and 'China Town's and the latest one in San Jose, CA: 'Saigon Business district'
:mad:
Well, US government thinks otherwise about my (or USCIS') logic. If you think it is unfair, you can sue them. I won't stop you.
But, working in one of the Valley companies, I see a lot of people from India and China who just don't mix with rest of the people, say, from Poland or Germany or France or Iran. US (the whole government, including USCIS) likes the idea of 'Melting pot' when it comes to immigration. When you melt a lot of metals with each other, you don't end up with a fragmented alloy, since you've capped the amount of each metal in your pot. That is how you get 'Little Italy's and 'China Town's and the latest one in San Jose, CA: 'Saigon Business district'
:mad:
Well, US government thinks otherwise about my (or USCIS') logic. If you think it is unfair, you can sue them. I won't stop you.
saimrathi
07-05 01:45 PM
Please make this a paid website, and see how many stick around.. the results will make it clear as to what it should be.. but if you do have members quitting the message boards, they will probably not return..
Instead of debating on this trivial issue, why not spread the word about the VB fiasco to the media etc...
Instead of debating on this trivial issue, why not spread the word about the VB fiasco to the media etc...
2011 Featuring Salman Khan, Zarine
rennieallen
03-05 07:41 PM
My $0.02:
Add this option to the poll as well to get a realistic picture:
I will not buy a house tomorrow (even if I was promised a GC this evening) because we are in a recession and/or the real estate market is spiralling downwards.
Now is *exactly* the right time to buy a house (at least in California). The prices are not spiraling down (they've already hit bottom). The interest rates are low and prices are low.
Add this option to the poll as well to get a realistic picture:
I will not buy a house tomorrow (even if I was promised a GC this evening) because we are in a recession and/or the real estate market is spiralling downwards.
Now is *exactly* the right time to buy a house (at least in California). The prices are not spiraling down (they've already hit bottom). The interest rates are low and prices are low.
more...
Alabaman
10-20 09:48 AM
You all have to look at this strategically. We all know at this stage of the election that Obama will likely win. We also know that congress is currently controlled by Democrats. If we have both congress and white house being controlled by democrats, then it is likely that we will have more things accomplished than if we have one party holding to one and another party holding to the other.
Forget the election rhetoric, Obama is not against legal immigrants (neither is McCain). At this stage, we have to look at the big picture which I just highlighted. What we should be working for right now (well I know we are not partisan) is for more democrats to win seats at the congressional and senate level so that bills that are pushed forward we have a better chance of passing and hopefully the ones that favor us and eliminate this backlog too.
So please you all should support Rick Norriega for TX senate (and all Democrat senatorial and congressional candidates) You can check out his immigration plan here http://www.ricknoriega.com/assets/img/immigration_plan.pdf
What say you??
Forget the election rhetoric, Obama is not against legal immigrants (neither is McCain). At this stage, we have to look at the big picture which I just highlighted. What we should be working for right now (well I know we are not partisan) is for more democrats to win seats at the congressional and senate level so that bills that are pushed forward we have a better chance of passing and hopefully the ones that favor us and eliminate this backlog too.
So please you all should support Rick Norriega for TX senate (and all Democrat senatorial and congressional candidates) You can check out his immigration plan here http://www.ricknoriega.com/assets/img/immigration_plan.pdf
What say you??
abstractvision
03-19 11:31 AM
I called USCIS this morning and the lady took 3 mnute to explain me why the delay was happening. She mentioned that they will conduct a sweep on Fri Apr 4th to determine the I-485 cases in light of new visa bulletin and that cases will be assigned to IOs by Mon Apr 14th.
Not that I believe on help desk type of info with their primary job is get the caller off the phone but I have to admit that she was polite.
I will call again on Apr 4th and keep the forum updated.
Not that I believe on help desk type of info with their primary job is get the caller off the phone but I have to admit that she was polite.
I will call again on Apr 4th and keep the forum updated.
more...
Ramba
07-14 06:18 PM
You are correct but his case could be that his employer cancelled his 140 which could damage his case more than the use of AC21 to change employers.
The fundamental rule (for getting GC) is the longterm intent of having permanent employment relationship between employer and employee at the time of filing 140 and 485 (see the Q&A). The intet has to be "at the time of filing" only. The employee has worked 3 years in H1B for thr sponser. It clearly establishes the both party's intent at the time of filing. So, even if the employer revokes his approved 140, he is 100% safe.
The fundamental rule (for getting GC) is the longterm intent of having permanent employment relationship between employer and employee at the time of filing 140 and 485 (see the Q&A). The intet has to be "at the time of filing" only. The employee has worked 3 years in H1B for thr sponser. It clearly establishes the both party's intent at the time of filing. So, even if the employer revokes his approved 140, he is 100% safe.
2010 Zarine khan
go_gc_way
12-29 11:23 AM
good question - I do not visit the website often. I remembered the website out of the blue only yesterday. After about 1 1/2 year I visited that website yesterday. So it was out of my mind.
Also, I am cannot use internet at work that often and going home I have other stuff to take care, dont get enough time to come to IV as well. I am glad you could do what I should have done long before :).
Thanks WillBLucky, I appreciate your willingness to do something but can't because of your other obligations.
I know, though all you folks want to do something, you are stuck with obligations.
BUT IN THE END IF EVERY ONE OF YOU CAN PULL OF THAT 15 MINUTES (which is for your green card), IT WORK MAGICS. BUT FOR IT TO WORK MAGICS, ALL NEED POST THEM VERY VERY VERY SOON.
If IV core team is working , dedicated, I am sure you all can spend 15 minutes. SEND YOUR GIFT TO IV and let us know on this thread, when you sent it, Thanks Friends :)
Also, I am cannot use internet at work that often and going home I have other stuff to take care, dont get enough time to come to IV as well. I am glad you could do what I should have done long before :).
Thanks WillBLucky, I appreciate your willingness to do something but can't because of your other obligations.
I know, though all you folks want to do something, you are stuck with obligations.
BUT IN THE END IF EVERY ONE OF YOU CAN PULL OF THAT 15 MINUTES (which is for your green card), IT WORK MAGICS. BUT FOR IT TO WORK MAGICS, ALL NEED POST THEM VERY VERY VERY SOON.
If IV core team is working , dedicated, I am sure you all can spend 15 minutes. SEND YOUR GIFT TO IV and let us know on this thread, when you sent it, Thanks Friends :)
more...
sathishav
02-18 09:24 AM
Guys,
1. I live in Cary and planning to drive to DC on Apr 04/05. Open to car pool.
2. I just came across this forum and made a small $50 donation. ( More later on how things work out) . I still don't have access to Donor forums. I did mail StarSun my unique#.
inputs appreciated.
1. I live in Cary and planning to drive to DC on Apr 04/05. Open to car pool.
2. I just came across this forum and made a small $50 donation. ( More later on how things work out) . I still don't have access to Donor forums. I did mail StarSun my unique#.
inputs appreciated.
hair Salman Khan and Zarine Khan
anshuman
01-09 10:15 AM
most of the desi consultants seem to be concentrated in NJ or Chicago. Are there any reliable desi consultants for H-1 in CA? What are the websites which give info in this direction?
What are the steps to be followed and things to watch out for in selecting a desi consultant?
Join Satyam computers, the one stop shop for all your body shopping needs. :D: They will do whatever it takes to get you a green card, by hook or crook.
What are the steps to be followed and things to watch out for in selecting a desi consultant?
Join Satyam computers, the one stop shop for all your body shopping needs. :D: They will do whatever it takes to get you a green card, by hook or crook.
more...
gopalkrishan
08-10 09:24 PM
If you are trying to open philosophical topic I suggest we do it in a separate thread, because that debate will be a very long one.
BTW do you know the deal with the bees? Bees are just insects, right? But did you know that you are living here on this earth because of them? If the country is filled with geniuses then what is the worth of genius? Therefore dont compare humans in this way
For the record, illegals do end up with green cards. One should have faith, like they do
I am an EB2 filer, but I totally support EB3 cause few of my close ones are in that boat .. Anyways, this post is for GK_2000 .. If you have it in you to start an idea, light a spark etc etc .. then please learn to follow it through ..
Agreed that you don't agree with redgreen, might even be angry st such a reply, but humility is the right approach here .. Your response could have been better .."in that case could you suggest a better idea etc.." .. The response you have given does not help your attempts as people may perceive it to be an attitude problem or just "thread by an EB3 ranter".. Every great person including Mahatma Gandhi was ridiculed/scoffed when trying to start something new, but they knew hostility does not beget hostility .. Learn to hear others as you may might some new thread of information or avenues of thoughts, even in their vehemence..
Just my 2 cents and in case you find this offensive too, then I apologize in advance ..
Regards,
Gopal Krishan
BTW do you know the deal with the bees? Bees are just insects, right? But did you know that you are living here on this earth because of them? If the country is filled with geniuses then what is the worth of genius? Therefore dont compare humans in this way
For the record, illegals do end up with green cards. One should have faith, like they do
I am an EB2 filer, but I totally support EB3 cause few of my close ones are in that boat .. Anyways, this post is for GK_2000 .. If you have it in you to start an idea, light a spark etc etc .. then please learn to follow it through ..
Agreed that you don't agree with redgreen, might even be angry st such a reply, but humility is the right approach here .. Your response could have been better .."in that case could you suggest a better idea etc.." .. The response you have given does not help your attempts as people may perceive it to be an attitude problem or just "thread by an EB3 ranter".. Every great person including Mahatma Gandhi was ridiculed/scoffed when trying to start something new, but they knew hostility does not beget hostility .. Learn to hear others as you may might some new thread of information or avenues of thoughts, even in their vehemence..
Just my 2 cents and in case you find this offensive too, then I apologize in advance ..
Regards,
Gopal Krishan
hot veer
Jbpvisa
07-12 11:01 PM
http://www.murthy.com/chertoff_murthy.html
July 12, 2007
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Michael Chertoff, Esq.
Secretary
Department of Homeland Security
RE: USCIS Decision to Reject I-485 Filings
Dear Mr. Chertoff:
It was a pleasure and an honor to meet with you and to share my views during your panel discussion at the Harvard Worldwide Congress June 15, 2007 in Washington, D.C. I understand and appreciate that the responsibility vested in you as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is no simple task. We applaud your service to our nation. After meeting with you personally and speaking with you, I am more convinced than ever that you will do the right thing for our country and for the people you serve, both in terms of securing our nation and in being the leader of the DHS, with over 20 federal agencies reporting to you, including the USCIS.
Purpose of this Letter
I am writing to you at this time to address recent actions by the USCIS to refuse to accept I-485 adjustment of status filing during July 2007 that are having significant impact upon the reliability of the legal immigration system in this country, as well as impacting legal foreign nationals and the many U.S. businesses that rely upon the work they perform.
USCIS Decision Contradicts its Long Standing Procedure
In contradiction of its own long standing policy and procedure, we understand that the USCIS, through its Director Gonzalez, contacted the U.S. Department of State (DOS) and requested or required the DOS to issue a �revised� Visa Bulletin on July 2, 2007. The USCIS then used the revised Bulletin to refuse to accept I-485 filings. This decision deprives thousands of foreign nationals, and their families, of the rights and privileges that are attendant to the I-485 filing.
These Highly Skilled Professionals Followed All the Rules and Believe in the American Dream
These professionals and their employers have played by our established immigration laws and rules. The vast majority of these thousands of potential applicants has a U.S. employer corporation, university or other business as a sponsor for permanent resident status. The exceptions from an employer are for those who are considered of �extraordinary ability� or whose work is in our �national interest.� Many of these applicants have completed their Bachelor�s, Master�s and/or PhD programs from U.S. universities. They believe in the opportunities of this great nation and strive to achieve the American Dream by following all the rules, working hard, paying taxes, and striving to do the right thing. They believe in this country, and rely upon our systems, our government, and our processes. Unfortunately, on July 2, 2007, we let them down. The USCIS abandoned its own system and long standing practices. This happened through manipulation of the use of visa numbers, insisting upon the issuance of a "revised visa bulletin," and instituting the USCIS policy of rejecting every employment-based I-485 that could have been filed during the month of July 2007.
USCIS Decision Denies Substantive and Procedural Rights to Highly Skilled Workers and Their Employers - Many of Whom Have Already Suffered and Will Suffer Further Harm/ Injury
Not only does the USCIS' action harm the individuals and employers involved, it undermines the reliability of our entire employment-based immigration system. The unexpected decision of the USCIS to refuse to accept any I-485 filings denies both substantive and procedural due process rights to would be applicants across the U.S. All of these applicants are employment based (EB) applicants who are primarily highly skilled professionals or experienced workers, that the U.S. seeks in high demand areas, including: science, technology, medicine, research, business, academia, and education.
The harm in not accepting the filings in July 2007 goes beyond mere delay. In reliance upon the July Visa Bulletin, starting in mid-June 2007, these applicants took the steps necessary to prepare their filings and made decisions in reliance upon the USCIS accepting their filings during July 2007. In order to be present in the U.S., as required for these filings, many applicants and their families canceled travel plans abroad or arranged to return to the U.S. on short notice missing family weddings and other important life events. They undertook medical examinations and paid for the required tests which must accompany the I-485 filings. (The USCIS had refused to waive this requirement even temporarily.) They hired lawyers to process their paperwork; they arranged to obtain documents from abroad on an expedited basis, involving foreign lawyers and foreign governments, all at a significant cost. They made employment and other strategic immigration related decisions to be able to process their I-485s for them and their families. Some canceled visa appointments at the consulates, or withdrew other immigration filings, all in reliance upon the USCIS accepting I-485 filings during July 2007.
The applicants and their employers lose the rights and privileges that accompany the filing of the I-485. These include eligibility for the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and Advanced Parole (AP), thus eliminating the need for the individuals and their employers to make the filings necessary to maintain a non-immigrant, temporary status. These same ancillary benefits also apply to dependant family members. Most importantly, those that have not filed I-485s are not eligible for "portability" benefits under the �American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act� of Oct. 2000 or �AC21� as it is sometimes referred to. This ineligibility for AC21 portability forces career stagnation. This is to the detriment of the individual as well as their sponsoring employer. Under AC21 portability, employers can promote and/or relocate employees to positions that are the same or similar job classifications as the positions for which they were initially sponsored. Individuals can utilize these provisions for career advancement, and for entrepreneurship. Given that the green card process often spans many years, AC21 portability allows the necessary flexibility to permit the case to continue, to accommodate changes in the sponsoring employer's needs as well as opportunities that are specific to the beneficiary.
The list of stories of individuals and families harmed by the USCIS decision is endless. We have for example, many spouses who will now be separated potentially for years on end, as one received a green card during the USCIS' June "rush," while the other is now ineligible to file.
The USCIS decision also created a burden on U.S. employers. Further delays in the green card process mean that, at best, U.S. employers have to continue to file temporary petitions to keep their workforce in the U.S. legally; at worst, it jeopardizes the availability of this needed highly educated and skilled workforce.
USCIS Motive is to Collect Millions of Additional Filing Fees
Many are baffled by the USCIS decision to reject I-485 filings in July, and its use of the �revised� Visa Bulletin as an excuse. The suspected motive is the collection of the substantially higher filing fees that will be generated after July 27, 2007. This entire incident sends the wrong message about our government, our policies and our legal system reeking of greed and inconsistency. Even the appearance of such impropriety undermines our system.
.................
continue
July 12, 2007
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Michael Chertoff, Esq.
Secretary
Department of Homeland Security
RE: USCIS Decision to Reject I-485 Filings
Dear Mr. Chertoff:
It was a pleasure and an honor to meet with you and to share my views during your panel discussion at the Harvard Worldwide Congress June 15, 2007 in Washington, D.C. I understand and appreciate that the responsibility vested in you as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is no simple task. We applaud your service to our nation. After meeting with you personally and speaking with you, I am more convinced than ever that you will do the right thing for our country and for the people you serve, both in terms of securing our nation and in being the leader of the DHS, with over 20 federal agencies reporting to you, including the USCIS.
Purpose of this Letter
I am writing to you at this time to address recent actions by the USCIS to refuse to accept I-485 adjustment of status filing during July 2007 that are having significant impact upon the reliability of the legal immigration system in this country, as well as impacting legal foreign nationals and the many U.S. businesses that rely upon the work they perform.
USCIS Decision Contradicts its Long Standing Procedure
In contradiction of its own long standing policy and procedure, we understand that the USCIS, through its Director Gonzalez, contacted the U.S. Department of State (DOS) and requested or required the DOS to issue a �revised� Visa Bulletin on July 2, 2007. The USCIS then used the revised Bulletin to refuse to accept I-485 filings. This decision deprives thousands of foreign nationals, and their families, of the rights and privileges that are attendant to the I-485 filing.
These Highly Skilled Professionals Followed All the Rules and Believe in the American Dream
These professionals and their employers have played by our established immigration laws and rules. The vast majority of these thousands of potential applicants has a U.S. employer corporation, university or other business as a sponsor for permanent resident status. The exceptions from an employer are for those who are considered of �extraordinary ability� or whose work is in our �national interest.� Many of these applicants have completed their Bachelor�s, Master�s and/or PhD programs from U.S. universities. They believe in the opportunities of this great nation and strive to achieve the American Dream by following all the rules, working hard, paying taxes, and striving to do the right thing. They believe in this country, and rely upon our systems, our government, and our processes. Unfortunately, on July 2, 2007, we let them down. The USCIS abandoned its own system and long standing practices. This happened through manipulation of the use of visa numbers, insisting upon the issuance of a "revised visa bulletin," and instituting the USCIS policy of rejecting every employment-based I-485 that could have been filed during the month of July 2007.
USCIS Decision Denies Substantive and Procedural Rights to Highly Skilled Workers and Their Employers - Many of Whom Have Already Suffered and Will Suffer Further Harm/ Injury
Not only does the USCIS' action harm the individuals and employers involved, it undermines the reliability of our entire employment-based immigration system. The unexpected decision of the USCIS to refuse to accept any I-485 filings denies both substantive and procedural due process rights to would be applicants across the U.S. All of these applicants are employment based (EB) applicants who are primarily highly skilled professionals or experienced workers, that the U.S. seeks in high demand areas, including: science, technology, medicine, research, business, academia, and education.
The harm in not accepting the filings in July 2007 goes beyond mere delay. In reliance upon the July Visa Bulletin, starting in mid-June 2007, these applicants took the steps necessary to prepare their filings and made decisions in reliance upon the USCIS accepting their filings during July 2007. In order to be present in the U.S., as required for these filings, many applicants and their families canceled travel plans abroad or arranged to return to the U.S. on short notice missing family weddings and other important life events. They undertook medical examinations and paid for the required tests which must accompany the I-485 filings. (The USCIS had refused to waive this requirement even temporarily.) They hired lawyers to process their paperwork; they arranged to obtain documents from abroad on an expedited basis, involving foreign lawyers and foreign governments, all at a significant cost. They made employment and other strategic immigration related decisions to be able to process their I-485s for them and their families. Some canceled visa appointments at the consulates, or withdrew other immigration filings, all in reliance upon the USCIS accepting I-485 filings during July 2007.
The applicants and their employers lose the rights and privileges that accompany the filing of the I-485. These include eligibility for the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and Advanced Parole (AP), thus eliminating the need for the individuals and their employers to make the filings necessary to maintain a non-immigrant, temporary status. These same ancillary benefits also apply to dependant family members. Most importantly, those that have not filed I-485s are not eligible for "portability" benefits under the �American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act� of Oct. 2000 or �AC21� as it is sometimes referred to. This ineligibility for AC21 portability forces career stagnation. This is to the detriment of the individual as well as their sponsoring employer. Under AC21 portability, employers can promote and/or relocate employees to positions that are the same or similar job classifications as the positions for which they were initially sponsored. Individuals can utilize these provisions for career advancement, and for entrepreneurship. Given that the green card process often spans many years, AC21 portability allows the necessary flexibility to permit the case to continue, to accommodate changes in the sponsoring employer's needs as well as opportunities that are specific to the beneficiary.
The list of stories of individuals and families harmed by the USCIS decision is endless. We have for example, many spouses who will now be separated potentially for years on end, as one received a green card during the USCIS' June "rush," while the other is now ineligible to file.
The USCIS decision also created a burden on U.S. employers. Further delays in the green card process mean that, at best, U.S. employers have to continue to file temporary petitions to keep their workforce in the U.S. legally; at worst, it jeopardizes the availability of this needed highly educated and skilled workforce.
USCIS Motive is to Collect Millions of Additional Filing Fees
Many are baffled by the USCIS decision to reject I-485 filings in July, and its use of the �revised� Visa Bulletin as an excuse. The suspected motive is the collection of the substantially higher filing fees that will be generated after July 27, 2007. This entire incident sends the wrong message about our government, our policies and our legal system reeking of greed and inconsistency. Even the appearance of such impropriety undermines our system.
.................
continue
more...
house Neena Gupta, Zarine Khan,
ImmiLosers
11-22 07:41 PM
Document URL
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/afm_ch22_091206R.pdf
PAGE 27
(1) Determining the Priority Date.
In general, if a petition is supported by an individual labor certification issued by DOL, the priority date is the earliest date upon which the labor certification application was filed with DOL. In those cases where the alien�s priority date is established by the filing of the labor certification, once the alien�s Form I-140 petition has been approved, the alien beneficiary retains his or her priority date as established by the filing of the labor certification for any future Form I-140 petitions, unless the previously approved Form I-140 petition has been revoked because of fraud or willful misrepresentation. This includes cases where a change of employer has occurred; however, the new employer must obtain a new labor certification if the classification requested requires a labor certification (see the section on successor in interest).
PAGE 28
If an alien is the beneficiary of two (or more) approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions, the priority of the earlier petition may be applied to all subsequently-filed employment-based petitions. For example:
Company A files a labor certification request on behalf of an alien ("Joe") as a janitor on January 10, 2003. The DOL issues the certification on March 20, 2003. Company A later files, and USCIS approves, a relating I-140 visa petition under the EB-3 category. On July 15, 2003, Joe files a second I-140 visa petition in his own behalf as a rocket scientist under the EB-1 category, which USCIS approves. Joe is entitled to use the January 10, 2003, priority date to apply for adjustment under either the EB-1 or the EB-3 classification:)
It looks like law is not clear about revocation of I-140 or am I missing something
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/afm_ch22_091206R.pdf
PAGE 27
(1) Determining the Priority Date.
In general, if a petition is supported by an individual labor certification issued by DOL, the priority date is the earliest date upon which the labor certification application was filed with DOL. In those cases where the alien�s priority date is established by the filing of the labor certification, once the alien�s Form I-140 petition has been approved, the alien beneficiary retains his or her priority date as established by the filing of the labor certification for any future Form I-140 petitions, unless the previously approved Form I-140 petition has been revoked because of fraud or willful misrepresentation. This includes cases where a change of employer has occurred; however, the new employer must obtain a new labor certification if the classification requested requires a labor certification (see the section on successor in interest).
PAGE 28
If an alien is the beneficiary of two (or more) approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions, the priority of the earlier petition may be applied to all subsequently-filed employment-based petitions. For example:
Company A files a labor certification request on behalf of an alien ("Joe") as a janitor on January 10, 2003. The DOL issues the certification on March 20, 2003. Company A later files, and USCIS approves, a relating I-140 visa petition under the EB-3 category. On July 15, 2003, Joe files a second I-140 visa petition in his own behalf as a rocket scientist under the EB-1 category, which USCIS approves. Joe is entitled to use the January 10, 2003, priority date to apply for adjustment under either the EB-1 or the EB-3 classification:)
It looks like law is not clear about revocation of I-140 or am I missing something
tattoo Zarine khan#39;s Hot Photos amp;
pappu
07-23 10:36 PM
May be I asked you same question before.
What is the best way to send to CIS when receipt notice is not received yet.
When you said reject, what do you mean?
Will CIS reject before issuing RN or after issuing RN?
- Which receipt notice? 140?
- I meant denial.
- After issuing RN and later during adjucation process.
What is the best way to send to CIS when receipt notice is not received yet.
When you said reject, what do you mean?
Will CIS reject before issuing RN or after issuing RN?
- Which receipt notice? 140?
- I meant denial.
- After issuing RN and later during adjucation process.
more...
pictures Zarine Khan in Veer
spicy_guy
09-21 03:48 PM
They can give us Citizenship for waiting x number of years after filing 485.
dresses Zarine Khan, Katrina Kaif#39;s
rpulipati
09-26 11:06 AM
I'm sorry if I sounded like a hypocrite. My interpretation was not to participate in FSB debate for PR visas as the debate was concentrated on H1-B visas.
I support H1-B's and please continue in the debate for H1-B's.
Actually, I think participating in the debate to present the other point of view (as in 'foreign workers are good for the US economy') is a good thing to do. Giving the forum out to the antis is a good way to make sure Durbin gets his message reaffirmed. Well, that's all true, unless you are one of those people who likes to yell 'Close the door!' right after they get in.
I support H1-B's and please continue in the debate for H1-B's.
Actually, I think participating in the debate to present the other point of view (as in 'foreign workers are good for the US economy') is a good thing to do. Giving the forum out to the antis is a good way to make sure Durbin gets his message reaffirmed. Well, that's all true, unless you are one of those people who likes to yell 'Close the door!' right after they get in.
more...
makeup episode, Salman
sent
07-24 04:52 AM
My Lawyer says there is no need of such letter to be included and filed my papers and confident about getting that approved. I'm much worried and don't know what to do If gets rejected.
Sent an email to my lawyer again and waiting for his reply.
Any clue How to handle this?
Sent an email to my lawyer again and waiting for his reply.
Any clue How to handle this?
girlfriend 2010 Zarine Khan 21 next page
StarSun
02-18 11:04 AM
Sukhwinder is coordinating the efforts on carpool and hosting options.
Members who wish to carpool please post on the thread as well as send an email to Sukhwinder - 2011carpool@gmail.com
Vinay is coordinating the efforts on airmiles, people wishing to donate air miles or request help for using the air miles, please PM vin13.
Thank you.
Members who wish to carpool please post on the thread as well as send an email to Sukhwinder - 2011carpool@gmail.com
Vinay is coordinating the efforts on airmiles, people wishing to donate air miles or request help for using the air miles, please PM vin13.
Thank you.
hairstyles Zarine Khan unveils VEER
msgrewal81
02-19 12:18 AM
There is a big Hispanic lobby to represent illegals in Congress. Who is there to represent us and put our amendments - NOBODY. So, best is to either oppose it or die.
McLuvin
03-12 01:55 PM
finally the bulletin has been posted in the DOS website...
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
walking_dude
09-19 01:07 PM
On the flight back I was watching LIES Dobbs on Communist Nativist Network...
Corrected.
On the flight back I was watching Lou Dobbs on CNN and they used a clipping from our rally and did a whole piece on illegal immigration without even mentioning the rally!! That is so typical of the media.
Corrected.
On the flight back I was watching Lou Dobbs on CNN and they used a clipping from our rally and did a whole piece on illegal immigration without even mentioning the rally!! That is so typical of the media.
Post a Comment