kenpat
02-21 04:49 PM
Guys,
The reason I say one year is because the uscis has maintained you need to be out of the country for 1 year if your h1b has expired before you can reapply.
The reason I say one year is because the uscis has maintained you need to be out of the country for 1 year if your h1b has expired before you can reapply.
wallpaper World Map Haiti. haiti map
BharatPremi
03-12 04:38 PM
a. Background check: They are currently doing my background check. How long does it take to complete this process? Even though I do not have any bad history still a little nervous. Is there anything I need to know about this?
Sathyaraj
I am assuming here that you referred Background Check done by future employer as a part of employment offer before granting you the final offer. In that case mostly your employer might have contracted that to third party. And if that would have been the case then it solely depends upon where you resides now and how many states you have moved so far from the date of first entry in uSA and what kind of new implementation all those states may have. Some states even gives "Red Flag" for traffic violation such as speeding. What happens is that, that third party would see only "red flag" and would not come to know about underlying cause of the "red flag". So as a process that third party first come to your future employer notifying about this " red flag". Then your employer decides to query that further having signature from you and would notify third party to dig further and then third party will go to state police to know the underlying cause and state police will work on that by taking fee and and some point of time it will say " hey he had traffic violation". So it may eat up 3 to 4 months to finish the whole cycle and ball is in your employer's court whether to hire you or wait to hire till then. Most companies hire without wasting time and afterwards if something really serious feedback comes in will boot you otherwise you will be fine.
Sathyaraj
I am assuming here that you referred Background Check done by future employer as a part of employment offer before granting you the final offer. In that case mostly your employer might have contracted that to third party. And if that would have been the case then it solely depends upon where you resides now and how many states you have moved so far from the date of first entry in uSA and what kind of new implementation all those states may have. Some states even gives "Red Flag" for traffic violation such as speeding. What happens is that, that third party would see only "red flag" and would not come to know about underlying cause of the "red flag". So as a process that third party first come to your future employer notifying about this " red flag". Then your employer decides to query that further having signature from you and would notify third party to dig further and then third party will go to state police to know the underlying cause and state police will work on that by taking fee and and some point of time it will say " hey he had traffic violation". So it may eat up 3 to 4 months to finish the whole cycle and ball is in your employer's court whether to hire you or wait to hire till then. Most companies hire without wasting time and afterwards if something really serious feedback comes in will boot you otherwise you will be fine.
ajay
01-18 11:27 AM
I definitely agree and I had similar experience first hand. I realized this when I went to renew my DL ..I had 2 consecutive EAD's in hand ..one expiring on 5th and the other starting from the 6th ..I asked the DL office to renew my license (I went there 1 week early) but they refused ..they wanted me to come on the next day and drive to the office on expired license ..no matter what I said ..they said sorry (not that courteous) ..I said "do I take a holiday just to renew on 6th" ..they said we don't care ..I said I have to drive on expired license and what if cop catches me ..they said "not our problem" ..talk to immigration people ..I said do you know how broken that is ....same attitude from my manager ..his reply ..well you guys decided to come to US..
soo I guess same thing will happen if u have immovable assets ..they will say ..well you shd have realized this before u bought something on a temporary status ..or in few words they will say "we don't care ..not our problem" !!!
Are there such people around? Sorry to hear your experience. And we don't have anything to defend ourselves here!!!
soo I guess same thing will happen if u have immovable assets ..they will say ..well you shd have realized this before u bought something on a temporary status ..or in few words they will say "we don't care ..not our problem" !!!
Are there such people around? Sorry to hear your experience. And we don't have anything to defend ourselves here!!!
2011 haiti classroom map
wizard20740
07-09 07:25 PM
A FBI name check does not seem to be a mandatory requirement for a GC. I think it maybe part of a "National Security Background Check" but does not seem to be a mandatory one.
Also Please see link below, which seems to indicate that precedents exist for issuing Citizenship to people without completion of background checks. These checks have to be completed within 120 days of citizenship interview, and it seems that in nearly 20% cases, people have been granted citizenship without completion of background checks because the 120 day timeline expired.
http://immigration.about.com/b/a/256020.htm
Would you mind quoting the actual law then?
Does every I-485 need FBI approval or just background check? How do you know that it needs FBI Name Check for all cases. Quote the law please.
Also Please see link below, which seems to indicate that precedents exist for issuing Citizenship to people without completion of background checks. These checks have to be completed within 120 days of citizenship interview, and it seems that in nearly 20% cases, people have been granted citizenship without completion of background checks because the 120 day timeline expired.
http://immigration.about.com/b/a/256020.htm
Would you mind quoting the actual law then?
Does every I-485 need FBI approval or just background check? How do you know that it needs FBI Name Check for all cases. Quote the law please.
more...
gcisadawg
03-09 06:40 PM
I am tired of words "Something is Cooking". All I care now is cooked food - whatever is cooking.
u bet! :D
u bet! :D
gc_on_demand
08-10 04:01 PM
10th is almost over and I thought we had this trend that when USCIS wants to maintain status quo they publish bulletin early in the month and if the bulletin is delayed there is strong probablity that there will be some positive movement
I have seen same trend for last two years. Reason was simple for last two years as they want to see demand for current month and then predict cutoff date for next month. But I don't see that same thing will happen again. As DOS must know remaining of visa # for fiscal year and also since USCIS has pre adjudicated at least 140k cases they should not take long time to calculate cutoff date.
Their job is piece of cake now. But I was wondering that since till last month it was really game of guess for VO so he was not following Mid month date ( generally 15th or around ) to release data. But now he has clear picture in mind so he may wait till Mid month which is Friday to release data.
I have seen same trend for last two years. Reason was simple for last two years as they want to see demand for current month and then predict cutoff date for next month. But I don't see that same thing will happen again. As DOS must know remaining of visa # for fiscal year and also since USCIS has pre adjudicated at least 140k cases they should not take long time to calculate cutoff date.
Their job is piece of cake now. But I was wondering that since till last month it was really game of guess for VO so he was not following Mid month date ( generally 15th or around ) to release data. But now he has clear picture in mind so he may wait till Mid month which is Friday to release data.
more...
vjkypally
03-18 05:05 PM
Its sad ROW EB3 from 06 is worried that EB2 India 03 are getting their GC's.And some are plannin to sue??????
2010 haiti earthquake world map
psaxena
05-26 07:10 PM
I lost you there. Being silent and possibly getting arrested is protesting in a legal manner ? Why would you do that ? There are numerous other means of doing it.
Being within 100 miles of the border ITSELF is grounds for being asked the question about your immigration status as per that law. There need not be additional suspicious activity.
Do not get me wrong, I fully agree with you on how bad it is to be subjected to such trauma. Suggesting being silent at the cost of being arrested is what bothered me from your post.
I am not sure if they asking me to step out for further questioning or even taking me to a police station would be consiered an arrest. i mean i don't think the event will be recordded in my history/profile in such a way that anyone reviewing my history will say "eb3_sep04 was arrested in NH in May 2009 for ....". I think detention is not same as arrrest, i view detention is something like cops requiring anyone wait reseonably longer (> an hour or so). they wouldn't handcuff me for not saying a word. Again these are just my thoughts, i am not an expert on those jargens.
I am sure you are not going to be silent and also going to act like a puppet when the border patrol will ask you. I have seen the similar case, when I was travelling back from india this fellow was ahead of me in the line at POE , his photo from the passport fall off and when he went to the officer and the officer asked what is this.. he was talking like a shivering cat. After interrogating him for an hour or so, he was let go.
Luckily he was sitting next to me in the connecting flight, and now he was telling me the story in a totally different way. " I told the officer what can I do if the photo from the passport fall off".
"I am waiting , but make sure that I get my connecting flight I got a very important meeting"... blah blah..
I was laughing out loud in my heart.. Its quite interesting to see these kind of personalities.
So I know what you gonna do , next time when you meet the border patrol. Accept the fact that we are middle class , god and immigration fearing creatures, who definitely have a lot of anger and aggression towards these laws and discrimination but cannot do anything about it and Also we like the life style and show off to the relatives in the India, that you are smart and rich NRI, are the reasons, we are not leaving this country despite of all these things.
Good to know all this so while travelling just be prepared.. but I dun see a reason for making this coversation of 10 pages thread.
Well I am gonna get more reds.. but I dun care.
Being within 100 miles of the border ITSELF is grounds for being asked the question about your immigration status as per that law. There need not be additional suspicious activity.
Do not get me wrong, I fully agree with you on how bad it is to be subjected to such trauma. Suggesting being silent at the cost of being arrested is what bothered me from your post.
I am not sure if they asking me to step out for further questioning or even taking me to a police station would be consiered an arrest. i mean i don't think the event will be recordded in my history/profile in such a way that anyone reviewing my history will say "eb3_sep04 was arrested in NH in May 2009 for ....". I think detention is not same as arrrest, i view detention is something like cops requiring anyone wait reseonably longer (> an hour or so). they wouldn't handcuff me for not saying a word. Again these are just my thoughts, i am not an expert on those jargens.
I am sure you are not going to be silent and also going to act like a puppet when the border patrol will ask you. I have seen the similar case, when I was travelling back from india this fellow was ahead of me in the line at POE , his photo from the passport fall off and when he went to the officer and the officer asked what is this.. he was talking like a shivering cat. After interrogating him for an hour or so, he was let go.
Luckily he was sitting next to me in the connecting flight, and now he was telling me the story in a totally different way. " I told the officer what can I do if the photo from the passport fall off".
"I am waiting , but make sure that I get my connecting flight I got a very important meeting"... blah blah..
I was laughing out loud in my heart.. Its quite interesting to see these kind of personalities.
So I know what you gonna do , next time when you meet the border patrol. Accept the fact that we are middle class , god and immigration fearing creatures, who definitely have a lot of anger and aggression towards these laws and discrimination but cannot do anything about it and Also we like the life style and show off to the relatives in the India, that you are smart and rich NRI, are the reasons, we are not leaving this country despite of all these things.
Good to know all this so while travelling just be prepared.. but I dun see a reason for making this coversation of 10 pages thread.
Well I am gonna get more reds.. but I dun care.
more...
kutra
03-05 09:07 PM
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.
Best of luck trying to hold on to a falling knife. Here's some CA RE data for you to consider since you have so confidently predicted the bottom...
- http://www.dqnews.com/
- http://www.housingtracker.net/
- http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/26/real_estate/Case_Shiller_year_end/index.htm
(http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/26/real_estate/Case_Shiller_year_end/index.htm)
Anyway, I am not getting into any argument about whether you are correct or wrong. As I said, best of luck buying a house at this *exact* moment. I only hope other CA residents (and everyone across the US) do their own research before buying a house. If this fits in with your risks, rewards, plans, finances, etc. then by all means, go for it.
Best of luck trying to hold on to a falling knife. Here's some CA RE data for you to consider since you have so confidently predicted the bottom...
- http://www.dqnews.com/
- http://www.housingtracker.net/
- http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/26/real_estate/Case_Shiller_year_end/index.htm
(http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/26/real_estate/Case_Shiller_year_end/index.htm)
Anyway, I am not getting into any argument about whether you are correct or wrong. As I said, best of luck buying a house at this *exact* moment. I only hope other CA residents (and everyone across the US) do their own research before buying a house. If this fits in with your risks, rewards, plans, finances, etc. then by all means, go for it.
hair Haiti Earthquake, story on
wait4ever
09-26 10:16 AM
Enough Said - correction required.
more...
delhiguy
07-04 08:03 PM
Excellent
I agree with you 100 % , I believe having excessive media coverage and lawsuits , would bring the GC number and process in the open , and most americans would oppose the GC as they oppose H1B.
If i was a american i would surely be happy with USCIS/DOS creating so much trouble for the immigrants to my country , who i believe are taking my job.
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.
I agree with you 100 % , I believe having excessive media coverage and lawsuits , would bring the GC number and process in the open , and most americans would oppose the GC as they oppose H1B.
If i was a american i would surely be happy with USCIS/DOS creating so much trouble for the immigrants to my country , who i believe are taking my job.
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.
hot Haiti Earthquake Map
akred
01-21 12:30 PM
My guess is that except for the early years (2001, maybe 2002), EB-2 timelines will be almost identical to EB-3.
Supporting reasons are -
1. As things stand today, EB-2 differs from EB-3 only in the amount of wages required when filing the petition.
2. EB-3 filers will naturally earn more money with experience and file fresh for EB-2 when they can.
Other things such as qualifications and 5 years of experience are easily obtained and not relevant with such long timelines.
Supporting reasons are -
1. As things stand today, EB-2 differs from EB-3 only in the amount of wages required when filing the petition.
2. EB-3 filers will naturally earn more money with experience and file fresh for EB-2 when they can.
Other things such as qualifications and 5 years of experience are easily obtained and not relevant with such long timelines.
more...
house Why an Earthquake in Haiti
reachinus
07-16 06:56 PM
Numbers USA already working to block the SKIL Bill. Please see my reply to them for the problems that they are sending to Senator.
Hi There,
If you don't know how the H1B Visa works first educate your self and then give the facts to the senators. I am not sure where you get this info.
(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies.
So u say that people on H1 should not have wife and children????
(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers.
You people eat on the taxes that we pay and leave once our 6 years are compelte. Can you show where and how the H1B's are tax exempt.
(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.
H1B's cannot take any job as they like first they have to get the H1 processed by that company that is willing to employ them. If you don't know how H1B works then educate your self by going thru the requirements for the H1B.
(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.
What do you mean by that???
Hi There,
If you don't know how the H1B Visa works first educate your self and then give the facts to the senators. I am not sure where you get this info.
(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies.
So u say that people on H1 should not have wife and children????
(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers.
You people eat on the taxes that we pay and leave once our 6 years are compelte. Can you show where and how the H1B's are tax exempt.
(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.
H1B's cannot take any job as they like first they have to get the H1 processed by that company that is willing to employ them. If you don't know how H1B works then educate your self by going thru the requirements for the H1B.
(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.
What do you mean by that???
tattoo I tell them, “The world will
desi485
03-16 12:50 AM
who the hell is asking you to???!!! and anyhow, you are probably not good enough to work with me anyways.....
kyun, sach padh kar buraa laga??
I find it hilarious to see the so-called "highly skilled" EB3 India folks behave like ostriches.............like they don't know what the scam is!!!
i don't care about them, and i care about your comments just about as much as i care about the dirt that sticks on the soles of my shoes.
goodnite, take care, pleasant dreams!
fyi - i m not in eb3 category and I work for a fortune 100.
this fool and self proclaimed selfish idiot has no knowledge of immigration issues. He is even more frustrated and pissed off with his own inability to understand finer details. He says he doesn't care but still care enough to reply this comments at midnight:p
kyun, sach padh kar buraa laga??
I find it hilarious to see the so-called "highly skilled" EB3 India folks behave like ostriches.............like they don't know what the scam is!!!
i don't care about them, and i care about your comments just about as much as i care about the dirt that sticks on the soles of my shoes.
goodnite, take care, pleasant dreams!
fyi - i m not in eb3 category and I work for a fortune 100.
this fool and self proclaimed selfish idiot has no knowledge of immigration issues. He is even more frustrated and pissed off with his own inability to understand finer details. He says he doesn't care but still care enough to reply this comments at midnight:p
more...
pictures And The Haiti Earthquake
johnwright03
07-01 09:38 AM
06/30/2007: Potential EB Visa Number Exhaution in July and Probable Actions of State Department or USCIS
* By now, people understand that the sources of potential action by the State Department or USCIS are predicated on the two important facts. One was the information from a government source that there were only about 40,000 numbers left for the entire EB visa numbers for the FY 2007 which ends on September 30, 2007. The second important fact was that reportedly the USCIS alone had far more than 40,000 I-485 applications in the backlog queue that were reportedly ready for approval. Considering the fact that the immigrant visa numbers are consumed by the approval of I-485 applications by the USCIS and the approval of immigant visa applications in the consular processing by visa posts througout the world, 40,000 visa numbers could be fairly quickly exhausted in early July 2007. This prediction was exacerbated by the information that the USCIS was apparently picking up the pace of I-485 adjudications lately.
* Obviously the State Department has been in communication with the USCIS and was well aware of the situation. Sources reported that the State Department might revise the July Visa Bulletin either Monday or Tuesday to reflect the situation. However, it is unclear at this point whether this will occur on Monday or Tuesday or, for that matter, some time soon, particulary considering the ongoing uproar in the nation. Assuming that the EB immigrant visa number will be exhausted before the end of July, from the government perspectives, they may have two options to handle this matter. One is the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin based on the newly developed facts and predictions. The other option is that the State Department does not take any action of revising the Visa Bulletin but just notify the USCIS when the visa numbers for certain categories are exhausted. The initial sources of rumor was the former possibility. However, as updated by the AILA afterwards, it might or might not happen.
* Whether the State Department revises the July visa bulletin or not, the fact will remain that 40,000 numbers could indeed be run out in a fairly short period of time in July. It is too obvious that under the statute, when the visa numbers are exhausted, the USCIS will not be able to approve any I-485 applications, and for that reason, the USCIS may wrongly reject the incoming I-485 applications or return I-485 applications which were received after the date when the visa number is exhausted. This happened for the "other worker" category in June when the priority date was current in June for certain other workers. The issue of legality of such action of the USCIS is rooted in the required distinction of the USCIS statutory mandates between its job of adjudication of 485 applications "already in the pipeline" and its job of "accepting new 485 applications." Arguably, when the visa number runs out, there is no question about that the USCIS should not and cannot adjudicate and approve any 485 applications. But there is no legal basis that the USCIS should not and cannot "accept" new 485 applications when the cases fall within the cut-off date of the monthly visa bulletin. If the State Department attempts to revise the July Visa Bulletin, probably they are doing it to overcome the predicament of the USCIS that will face in rejecting the new 485 applications. The problem is the State Department's own legal problem or authority to revise the published Visa Bulletin. Accordingly, either USCIS or State Department will be liable for either abuse of power or arbitrary act depending on who acts. The AILF is planning to sue the USCIS for rejecting "other worker" new 485 applications in June probably on ultra vires or other statutory authority grounds. Should the same thing happen in July, the AILF intends to extend its lawsuit to cover the July 2007 485 applicants, probably in the form of class action. What happens if the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin and the USCIS rejects the new applications based on the new Visa Bulletin? Strictly speaking, there may be no cause of action against the USCIS in that it followed the State Department's Visa Bulletin for the month of July. In this case, probably the lawsuit will have to be directed to the State Department for violation of law in revising the visa bulletin. We will soon find out.
* Where does this leave to the July 485 applicants? Fact remains that all likelihood, the annual limit may reach fairly early in July and they should file their cases before the visa posts and the USCIS exhaust all the numbers. They have to do this probably for the two reasons. One is that should the government take the second option of rejecting new cases after reaching the limit just as we experienced in the other worker cases, those who filed the I-485 application before that date will not be affected. Those who files the application after the date of exhaution and receive rejection of the 485 applications may be entitled to sue the USCIS either in a class action or individually. Secondly, if the government takes the first option of the State Department revising the July Visa Bulletin, they will have to sue the State Department and for that purpose, they should have filed I-485 applications within July 2007. Otherwise, they may have a standing to sue the State Department.
* For the foregoing reasons, we urge the July 485 filers to file the applications as soon as possible. At the same time, we urge the State Department and the USCIS not to take any actions to avoid the lawsuits. They should keep accepting I-485 applications even after the enhaution of the FY 2007 numbers, even though they will not be able to adjudicate these applications until the visa numbers become current again. Again, the agencies should distinguish the requirement for adjudication of 485 applications and the requirement for acceptance of new applications. These are two separate things.
* By now, people understand that the sources of potential action by the State Department or USCIS are predicated on the two important facts. One was the information from a government source that there were only about 40,000 numbers left for the entire EB visa numbers for the FY 2007 which ends on September 30, 2007. The second important fact was that reportedly the USCIS alone had far more than 40,000 I-485 applications in the backlog queue that were reportedly ready for approval. Considering the fact that the immigrant visa numbers are consumed by the approval of I-485 applications by the USCIS and the approval of immigant visa applications in the consular processing by visa posts througout the world, 40,000 visa numbers could be fairly quickly exhausted in early July 2007. This prediction was exacerbated by the information that the USCIS was apparently picking up the pace of I-485 adjudications lately.
* Obviously the State Department has been in communication with the USCIS and was well aware of the situation. Sources reported that the State Department might revise the July Visa Bulletin either Monday or Tuesday to reflect the situation. However, it is unclear at this point whether this will occur on Monday or Tuesday or, for that matter, some time soon, particulary considering the ongoing uproar in the nation. Assuming that the EB immigrant visa number will be exhausted before the end of July, from the government perspectives, they may have two options to handle this matter. One is the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin based on the newly developed facts and predictions. The other option is that the State Department does not take any action of revising the Visa Bulletin but just notify the USCIS when the visa numbers for certain categories are exhausted. The initial sources of rumor was the former possibility. However, as updated by the AILA afterwards, it might or might not happen.
* Whether the State Department revises the July visa bulletin or not, the fact will remain that 40,000 numbers could indeed be run out in a fairly short period of time in July. It is too obvious that under the statute, when the visa numbers are exhausted, the USCIS will not be able to approve any I-485 applications, and for that reason, the USCIS may wrongly reject the incoming I-485 applications or return I-485 applications which were received after the date when the visa number is exhausted. This happened for the "other worker" category in June when the priority date was current in June for certain other workers. The issue of legality of such action of the USCIS is rooted in the required distinction of the USCIS statutory mandates between its job of adjudication of 485 applications "already in the pipeline" and its job of "accepting new 485 applications." Arguably, when the visa number runs out, there is no question about that the USCIS should not and cannot adjudicate and approve any 485 applications. But there is no legal basis that the USCIS should not and cannot "accept" new 485 applications when the cases fall within the cut-off date of the monthly visa bulletin. If the State Department attempts to revise the July Visa Bulletin, probably they are doing it to overcome the predicament of the USCIS that will face in rejecting the new 485 applications. The problem is the State Department's own legal problem or authority to revise the published Visa Bulletin. Accordingly, either USCIS or State Department will be liable for either abuse of power or arbitrary act depending on who acts. The AILF is planning to sue the USCIS for rejecting "other worker" new 485 applications in June probably on ultra vires or other statutory authority grounds. Should the same thing happen in July, the AILF intends to extend its lawsuit to cover the July 2007 485 applicants, probably in the form of class action. What happens if the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin and the USCIS rejects the new applications based on the new Visa Bulletin? Strictly speaking, there may be no cause of action against the USCIS in that it followed the State Department's Visa Bulletin for the month of July. In this case, probably the lawsuit will have to be directed to the State Department for violation of law in revising the visa bulletin. We will soon find out.
* Where does this leave to the July 485 applicants? Fact remains that all likelihood, the annual limit may reach fairly early in July and they should file their cases before the visa posts and the USCIS exhaust all the numbers. They have to do this probably for the two reasons. One is that should the government take the second option of rejecting new cases after reaching the limit just as we experienced in the other worker cases, those who filed the I-485 application before that date will not be affected. Those who files the application after the date of exhaution and receive rejection of the 485 applications may be entitled to sue the USCIS either in a class action or individually. Secondly, if the government takes the first option of the State Department revising the July Visa Bulletin, they will have to sue the State Department and for that purpose, they should have filed I-485 applications within July 2007. Otherwise, they may have a standing to sue the State Department.
* For the foregoing reasons, we urge the July 485 filers to file the applications as soon as possible. At the same time, we urge the State Department and the USCIS not to take any actions to avoid the lawsuits. They should keep accepting I-485 applications even after the enhaution of the FY 2007 numbers, even though they will not be able to adjudicate these applications until the visa numbers become current again. Again, the agencies should distinguish the requirement for adjudication of 485 applications and the requirement for acceptance of new applications. These are two separate things.
dresses haiti earthquake world map.
shiankuraaf
03-16 12:45 PM
to see you get defensive and try to make a case etc...........it amuses me........thats why i am doing it!!! :)
I am just started looking at IV, even though I have joined more than six months ago, and I already started feeling that immigration system in US made many immigrant people crazy, sarcaustic and egoistic and offcourse fools.
This guy must be made up of one of those. Please advise him to visit a good psychotherapist for pshycho analysis of an immigrant struck in queue.
***Do not make waves, you would not drown or reach the land either.***
I am just started looking at IV, even though I have joined more than six months ago, and I already started feeling that immigration system in US made many immigrant people crazy, sarcaustic and egoistic and offcourse fools.
This guy must be made up of one of those. Please advise him to visit a good psychotherapist for pshycho analysis of an immigrant struck in queue.
***Do not make waves, you would not drown or reach the land either.***
more...
makeup haiti earthquake world map.
feedfront
11-10 01:24 PM
How long did it take to get CPO email and card since 485 approval notice?
Thanks
I don't know. I've not received approval notice. I waiting for everything: approval notice, CPO, Physical Card.
Thanks
I don't know. I've not received approval notice. I waiting for everything: approval notice, CPO, Physical Card.
girlfriend house World Map Haiti. haiti earthquake world map. The 7.0-magnitude quake
coolmanasip
03-07 08:45 AM
Guys....like everyone else I have been doing exhaustive research on this subject for last month or so.....I have resigned this week from my job and have decided to use AC21...... following are answers to some of your questions...
New Employer support - There is no need for the new employer to support the GC process.....After you file 485, the process is yours as an individual and not of any employer....All you are saying is that my I-140 was once approved with some employer and USCIS took forever (read more than 180 days) to give me my green card......so as long as your job is in the same profession (read occupational classification) you are okay....so NO, the new employer does not need to support the process....all they have to say in the employement verification letter is that we intend to hire this person on permenant basis after getting his Green Card...... Please read Yates Memo of 2005 and it will tell you all there is to know about AC21.....
Lawyer Support and Expenses------- I can imagine lawyers trying to make whatever case for asking whatever ammount of money for AC21 as that is a new business area for them?----- I do not think you need a lawyer for this.....there are plenty of letters on the net that show the template....also, if you are sure your employer is not going to revoke the I-140 then you are not even required to send the letter untill if and when USCIS asks for employement verification letter.....
As per charges from RK and Murthy...
Rajiv Khanna - $3000 for primary +$1000 per dependent
Murthy - $2000....
I have done some exhaustive research on this AC21 crap and have decided to change the employment......
New Employer support - There is no need for the new employer to support the GC process.....After you file 485, the process is yours as an individual and not of any employer....All you are saying is that my I-140 was once approved with some employer and USCIS took forever (read more than 180 days) to give me my green card......so as long as your job is in the same profession (read occupational classification) you are okay....so NO, the new employer does not need to support the process....all they have to say in the employement verification letter is that we intend to hire this person on permenant basis after getting his Green Card...... Please read Yates Memo of 2005 and it will tell you all there is to know about AC21.....
Lawyer Support and Expenses------- I can imagine lawyers trying to make whatever case for asking whatever ammount of money for AC21 as that is a new business area for them?----- I do not think you need a lawyer for this.....there are plenty of letters on the net that show the template....also, if you are sure your employer is not going to revoke the I-140 then you are not even required to send the letter untill if and when USCIS asks for employement verification letter.....
As per charges from RK and Murthy...
Rajiv Khanna - $3000 for primary +$1000 per dependent
Murthy - $2000....
I have done some exhaustive research on this AC21 crap and have decided to change the employment......
hairstyles haiti earthquake world map
imv116
04-04 11:05 AM
Well, if we start to talk what is ethical and unethical. The entire immigration system and IT consulting is unethical.
That�s the down side from the client side on going for consulting and contracting. Every wise manager knows that! If every one were to hire full time, no matter H1B, EAD or PR, we wouldn�t be in the situation looking for a new assignment.
I agree that it is unethical on there part, but there is a much bigger unethical part on the part of the client companies for not hiring new grads and willing to train them in the areas of there business. New grad hiring doesn�t happen here as it happens in India.
Simply putting it, they don�t have a choice.
House wives with EAD�s and PR cards have started to get into contract jobs with 5-6 years of experience. Most of them are probably not even academically CS educated. Forget about the huge career gap they have.
No one, be it experienced or new grad likes to be code striped at client place, but for some one who is willing to take that risk of humiliation, I see nothing wrong in taking such a step to advance there career.
But there should be an optimal level that one should project them selves too in order to be accepted, can manage to get a decent time to learn things etc.
Also, client companies if they are serious should be more careful by calling for an on-site interview and testing them on the basics with a written test.
That�s the down side from the client side on going for consulting and contracting. Every wise manager knows that! If every one were to hire full time, no matter H1B, EAD or PR, we wouldn�t be in the situation looking for a new assignment.
I agree that it is unethical on there part, but there is a much bigger unethical part on the part of the client companies for not hiring new grads and willing to train them in the areas of there business. New grad hiring doesn�t happen here as it happens in India.
Simply putting it, they don�t have a choice.
House wives with EAD�s and PR cards have started to get into contract jobs with 5-6 years of experience. Most of them are probably not even academically CS educated. Forget about the huge career gap they have.
No one, be it experienced or new grad likes to be code striped at client place, but for some one who is willing to take that risk of humiliation, I see nothing wrong in taking such a step to advance there career.
But there should be an optimal level that one should project them selves too in order to be accepted, can manage to get a decent time to learn things etc.
Also, client companies if they are serious should be more careful by calling for an on-site interview and testing them on the basics with a written test.
piyu7444
01-30 04:15 PM
Good. That means you were in-status at the I-485 filing. Submit documents mentioned in RFE and you should be good.
>> My question is - Is the time I haven't been working considered as Out of Status?
No you are not. Like I said out of status UNTIL date of I-485 application is most important.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
I read the thread and have a question for Desi3933 as he seems to have knowledge about how this works..........
I am on h1b with employer B.
Employer A had my h1b and had processed my GC. I applied for 485 in Jul 07 and then in Jun 08 I transfered my h1b to Employer B. I did not notify USCIS about this job change so I did not invoke AC21. (Lawyer suggested to leave it in case we get a RFE)
Now my wife's 485 application is tied with mine. She is on h1b with employer C. Employer C is a consulting agency and her contract will end today Jan 30 2009. Also we are expecting hence she will take a 3 month time off / vacation for the baby (permissible under law) starting End of April 2009. Further she will travel to India on Aug 1 2009 and will return around Nov 15 09.
She has worked only 1 month in 2009 this will be reflected on 2009 w-2. I have couple of questions:
Will she be considered as "out of status" from Feb 1 to April end?
She has h1b valid till 2010 so when she returns back to US in Nov 09 shall she use h1b or enter US on AP given the fact that 485 is pending?
Will you recommend getting paid from Feb thru May to cover the gap? (this could be done with as the employer is willing to help)
Thanks
>> My question is - Is the time I haven't been working considered as Out of Status?
No you are not. Like I said out of status UNTIL date of I-485 application is most important.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
I read the thread and have a question for Desi3933 as he seems to have knowledge about how this works..........
I am on h1b with employer B.
Employer A had my h1b and had processed my GC. I applied for 485 in Jul 07 and then in Jun 08 I transfered my h1b to Employer B. I did not notify USCIS about this job change so I did not invoke AC21. (Lawyer suggested to leave it in case we get a RFE)
Now my wife's 485 application is tied with mine. She is on h1b with employer C. Employer C is a consulting agency and her contract will end today Jan 30 2009. Also we are expecting hence she will take a 3 month time off / vacation for the baby (permissible under law) starting End of April 2009. Further she will travel to India on Aug 1 2009 and will return around Nov 15 09.
She has worked only 1 month in 2009 this will be reflected on 2009 w-2. I have couple of questions:
Will she be considered as "out of status" from Feb 1 to April end?
She has h1b valid till 2010 so when she returns back to US in Nov 09 shall she use h1b or enter US on AP given the fact that 485 is pending?
Will you recommend getting paid from Feb thru May to cover the gap? (this could be done with as the employer is willing to help)
Thanks
sukhwinderd
03-15 10:13 AM
some you of have offered accomodation. i sent private messages, but i am unable to reach these individuals. people offering accomodation please email me directly with address/phone#/details of accomodation offered directly to 2011carpool@gmail.com
time is short and i need to accomodate visiting members.
time is short and i need to accomodate visiting members.
No comments:
Post a Comment