priti8888
10-01 01:03 PM
This is how PD and RD work.
ASSUME ALL ARE EB3
Mr. A PD JULY 2004 RD MARCH 2005(1)
Mr B PD FEB 2004 RD DECEMBER 2005 (2)
MR C PD JAN 2003 RD JANAURY 2006 (3)
USCIS Processes applications based on RD. After they are processed they are in the "staging area" (pre-adjudicated)
IF ALL visa bulletin DATES ARE "CURRENT" MR A would get GC first
If visa bulletin date has a PD of "May 2003" Mr. C would get GC first
If visa bulletin date has a PD of "MAY 2004 "MR B would get GC first
If visa bulletin date is August 2004 "Mr A would get GC first"
In a summary, when PD is current, people with the earliest RD would get GC first. Your PD HAS to be CURRENT to be eligible for a visa number.
ASSUME ALL ARE EB3
Mr. A PD JULY 2004 RD MARCH 2005(1)
Mr B PD FEB 2004 RD DECEMBER 2005 (2)
MR C PD JAN 2003 RD JANAURY 2006 (3)
USCIS Processes applications based on RD. After they are processed they are in the "staging area" (pre-adjudicated)
IF ALL visa bulletin DATES ARE "CURRENT" MR A would get GC first
If visa bulletin date has a PD of "May 2003" Mr. C would get GC first
If visa bulletin date has a PD of "MAY 2004 "MR B would get GC first
If visa bulletin date is August 2004 "Mr A would get GC first"
In a summary, when PD is current, people with the earliest RD would get GC first. Your PD HAS to be CURRENT to be eligible for a visa number.
wallpaper Tattoo Pics? – Yahoo! Answers
Rae
07-21 12:54 PM
If you look at those two forms, one 325A has a space for "Date and Place of Termination of Marriage". Form 325 does not have a space for that. They apparently want that information so you should update your filing with the proper form.
Rae
Rae
Rajeev
09-23 08:33 AM
New jobs pitch targets companies that move jobs offshore - Sep. 22, 2010 (http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/22/news/economy/Senate_Dems_jobs/index.htm)
2011 Small Tattoo Ideas – The Best
brb2
08-09 11:14 PM
It is too early to tell if it definitely refers to us, but it is more likely that this IS referring to EB and naturalization background checks. Reasoning is like this - Background checks are required by Department of State (DOS) for issuing Visas. Department of homeland security (DHS) under which USCIS comes is responsible for those within the US. Now background checks are not conducted for issuing H1B visa etc. They are only for EB/N-400. So it is more likely they are referring us. Secondly, just two months back USCIS announced that it is going through Ombudsman's report and would be preparing a response. Last month FBI's miller came out and suggested they are happy with main file checks (which take less than 2 days to come back automatically) and USCIS is insisting of doing reference file checks and they would be keen to work with USCIS to find ways of reducing backlog processing times. Some options included they way background checks are done, and also borrowing workers from USCIS for FBI's NNC unit. Finally, when the fee increase was announced USCIS mentioned some of the money would go to reduce processing times and FBI asked for increasing the name check fee from $2 to $9 which means now that the fees increase has been implemented more resources to reduce time may be implemented.
With scores of cases against USCIS and thousands of letters to congressmen and president and articles in NYT and WS Times, finally they may have realized that it is time they attended to the background check delays issue.
With scores of cases against USCIS and thousands of letters to congressmen and president and articles in NYT and WS Times, finally they may have realized that it is time they attended to the background check delays issue.
more...
Blog Feeds
01-26 08:40 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
Jerrome
11-08 12:51 PM
It includes all the AOS i.e Family Based, EB etc... Right
more...
Rune
August 27th, 2004, 01:12 AM
Here in Europe the biggest problem is ATMs that has been modified. The most simple modification is a simple loop inserted into the slot that tries to fool its victims into believing the machine ate their card. In addition a helpful person will appear and tell the victim that there's a secret code to be keyed in (999 + personal pin code) to make the machine spit out the card again...
Then they upped the stakes a bit. Today's con-person installs a small card reader at the ATM's slot. In addition there's a small camera (here's the relevant bit) that take pictures as people enter their code. This has been used and such equipment has even been recovered in atleast one case.
As for someone looking over your shoulder in the store, and perhaps even snapping a picture of it... Well, lets just say you don't want to leave your card out of sight. Don't assume your card is worthless plastic in someone else's hands.
We card users are basically using yesterday's (actually: last decade's/century's) technology to access our money while the countless villains out there are armed with today's technology. We're sitting ducks.
The card companies are reluctant to tell us this, but eventually as they roll out new technology (smart cards with bio-signatures) it will become blatantly apparent to everyone. Here in Norway they're scheduled to do this over the next year I think.
Then they upped the stakes a bit. Today's con-person installs a small card reader at the ATM's slot. In addition there's a small camera (here's the relevant bit) that take pictures as people enter their code. This has been used and such equipment has even been recovered in atleast one case.
As for someone looking over your shoulder in the store, and perhaps even snapping a picture of it... Well, lets just say you don't want to leave your card out of sight. Don't assume your card is worthless plastic in someone else's hands.
We card users are basically using yesterday's (actually: last decade's/century's) technology to access our money while the countless villains out there are armed with today's technology. We're sitting ducks.
The card companies are reluctant to tell us this, but eventually as they roll out new technology (smart cards with bio-signatures) it will become blatantly apparent to everyone. Here in Norway they're scheduled to do this over the next year I think.
2010 small tattoos.
munnu77
04-15 03:21 PM
Continue with the GC..The wmployer has to pay the salry on the GC only after your I 485 is approved. Wht i think, wht you are getting now has no connection with GC,
if they are decresing your salry, inform the DOL , you will be alright if ur decreased salry is more thn wht is required by the DOL.
Contact an attorney, i am sure there is a way out.
if they are decresing your salry, inform the DOL , you will be alright if ur decreased salry is more thn wht is required by the DOL.
Contact an attorney, i am sure there is a way out.
more...
bank_king2003
04-21 11:29 AM
I did try to get into it so that i can start an effort to file a lawsuit but it seems after spending couple of hundread dollars to talk to lawyers I came across that federal courts have no power to do anything against USCIS if it is ineffeciency due to beurocracy delays.
So Technically you can file a lawsuit even as an individual but then Federal Court wont be able to held USCIS accountable as USCIS will give excuse as beurocracy delays and lack of resources and that lands on Congress so Federal court will have to get Congress involved.
Very Sad ... but its true ... this is a clean example how unfair this country is and it still preaches other countries on this planet about liberty, justice blah blah ...
So Technically you can file a lawsuit even as an individual but then Federal Court wont be able to held USCIS accountable as USCIS will give excuse as beurocracy delays and lack of resources and that lands on Congress so Federal court will have to get Congress involved.
Very Sad ... but its true ... this is a clean example how unfair this country is and it still preaches other countries on this planet about liberty, justice blah blah ...
hair Small tattoos can have a big
sunny26
02-23 11:31 AM
I already finished 14month 8days and still pending in NSC
2 friggin days... man they got to be kidding... :eek::eek::eek: at this rate it will take me 15 months to get my 140 approved... mine was filed on july 27th.....
2 friggin days... man they got to be kidding... :eek::eek::eek: at this rate it will take me 15 months to get my 140 approved... mine was filed on july 27th.....
more...
zico123
06-14 07:49 PM
Share experiences of good and bad consulting companies here. Help someone avoid the trap of fraud consulting firms which ruin peoples careers.
|
http://h1b.wikidot.com/h1b-companies
|
Share this site with others and lets put an end to the consulting trauma.
|
http://h1b.wikidot.com/h1b-companies
|
Share this site with others and lets put an end to the consulting trauma.
hot Small Tattoos On Back Of Neck.
ksircar
10-13 11:20 AM
:confused:
Dear gurus,
I have one fundamental question.
why EAD renewal can take up to 3 months? (90 days). It just does not make sense. I can understand if it is fresh application OR it has been expired for quite sometime before applying for renewal. If it is fresh app, there might be some security checks, application verificaiton checks etc. But EAD Renewal is very simple. You were approved once, your application does not boast any address changes. All you are requesting is renewal based on pending I-485. No common sense!:eek:
This is very very unacceptable and shows the lazyness of USCIS in adjucating timely. But they are VERY TIMELY in increasing fees....:eek:
I know I am very furious but dont we think we should raise some momentum in allowing special processing for EAD renewal or allowing local offices to issue Renewals for EAD which has been eliminated now????
Sincerely...
There are so many things in life that doesn't make sense, but still we accept all those unacceptable things. Friend, consider yourself lucky if you get your EAD card (with all correct info. on the card) in 90 days.
Dear gurus,
I have one fundamental question.
why EAD renewal can take up to 3 months? (90 days). It just does not make sense. I can understand if it is fresh application OR it has been expired for quite sometime before applying for renewal. If it is fresh app, there might be some security checks, application verificaiton checks etc. But EAD Renewal is very simple. You were approved once, your application does not boast any address changes. All you are requesting is renewal based on pending I-485. No common sense!:eek:
This is very very unacceptable and shows the lazyness of USCIS in adjucating timely. But they are VERY TIMELY in increasing fees....:eek:
I know I am very furious but dont we think we should raise some momentum in allowing special processing for EAD renewal or allowing local offices to issue Renewals for EAD which has been eliminated now????
Sincerely...
There are so many things in life that doesn't make sense, but still we accept all those unacceptable things. Friend, consider yourself lucky if you get your EAD card (with all correct info. on the card) in 90 days.
more...
house Best Tattoos for Women
DDash
09-23 04:44 PM
Hi boreal,
I had a problem with my wifes AP- they had not acted on it for 4 months I asked them to expedite it since we wanted to visit my father in law who was hospitalized for a medical condition- they did not respond to that request so I contacted my Senators office and asked if they could assist in this matter. They asked me for some medical documentation and faxed it to USCIS.. I noticed yesterday that her online status had changed to document mailed..we are still to get it but are optimistic that we should receive it soon.
In the absence of any compelling circumstances though I am not sure how it would work. but I would definitely recommend contacting your Senators office.
Thanks for this info. Would you mind sharing the fax number? Thanks in advance.
I had a problem with my wifes AP- they had not acted on it for 4 months I asked them to expedite it since we wanted to visit my father in law who was hospitalized for a medical condition- they did not respond to that request so I contacted my Senators office and asked if they could assist in this matter. They asked me for some medical documentation and faxed it to USCIS.. I noticed yesterday that her online status had changed to document mailed..we are still to get it but are optimistic that we should receive it soon.
In the absence of any compelling circumstances though I am not sure how it would work. but I would definitely recommend contacting your Senators office.
Thanks for this info. Would you mind sharing the fax number? Thanks in advance.
tattoo small date tattoos. tattoos.
DDLMODES
07-05 02:48 PM
Until they say is open again, it is still closed.
I don't think they will say that until 2 weeks have passed and they put out all I-140's they had in premium processing...
I don't think they will say that until 2 weeks have passed and they put out all I-140's they had in premium processing...
more...
pictures Small Star Tattoos
bluez25
07-15 02:46 PM
My Priority date is Feb 1st 2006. I got my 140 approved some time in May 2006 and Here I am today..
dresses Small Tattoos Make Your Choice
senthil1
05-09 11:58 PM
As for as I knw You can be out of job for any period in EAD. But when they process I485 you need to be in the job. Many unemployed persons are getting GC interview. If you do not get RFE or interview then it is ok even if you are unemployed at the time of receiving gc.
more...
makeup small sea creatures tattoo
makemygc
07-18 12:12 PM
There's no need for you to be negative.
Obviously you have benefitted already from what's happened. Think about people who are stuck (just as you were up until recently) and want to 'try' to make things work for them too....
wish people were more understanding of others also. Why is it people forget what it was like for them when they were in same boat?
I edited my previous message as I do agree I sounded negative but that's not what I mean.
Some of my suggestions:-
1. Creating a petition and getting it signed by more than 10000 victims stuck in BEC and sending it to relevant people in congress and USCIS.
2. Doing a rally in NY, Sanjose etc.
3. Working closely with USCIS and IV core and see how we can improve the situation.
Obviously you have benefitted already from what's happened. Think about people who are stuck (just as you were up until recently) and want to 'try' to make things work for them too....
wish people were more understanding of others also. Why is it people forget what it was like for them when they were in same boat?
I edited my previous message as I do agree I sounded negative but that's not what I mean.
Some of my suggestions:-
1. Creating a petition and getting it signed by more than 10000 victims stuck in BEC and sending it to relevant people in congress and USCIS.
2. Doing a rally in NY, Sanjose etc.
3. Working closely with USCIS and IV core and see how we can improve the situation.
girlfriend small tattoos on feet
gcadream
03-04 08:24 AM
Thanks a lot Rakson for updating the forum with valuable question and answers with the lawyer. Really appreciate it !!
It cleared lot of my doubts as well but regarding point 'C'
[C. Can new company (B) transfer Priority date even if existing company(A) revokes their I-140?]
I have heard lawyers saying in this forum itself that it can be a problem if the previous employer revokes the approved I-140, irrespective whether it was fraud or not. I don't have the links saved for that discussion, otherwise I would have pasted it.
But are you very sure about point 'C' that what ever ur lawyer said is correct and final ?
It cleared lot of my doubts as well but regarding point 'C'
[C. Can new company (B) transfer Priority date even if existing company(A) revokes their I-140?]
I have heard lawyers saying in this forum itself that it can be a problem if the previous employer revokes the approved I-140, irrespective whether it was fraud or not. I don't have the links saved for that discussion, otherwise I would have pasted it.
But are you very sure about point 'C' that what ever ur lawyer said is correct and final ?
hairstyles tattoos small. small butterfly
hopelessGC
04-20 10:34 AM
Hi Guys,
I got the good news to share every one. got the approval . its wonderful
This one is playing a joke...but if it is indeed true then it is a MIRACLE :confused:
I got the good news to share every one. got the approval . its wonderful
This one is playing a joke...but if it is indeed true then it is a MIRACLE :confused:
cinqsit
10-07 08:32 PM
Yes things are really bad. You are lucky that your company is even willing to consider filing eb2 other companies are not even filling willing to file eb3 perm. They dont want to apply any perm at all. On an average DOL is taking 9 months to approve perm, if it eb2 there is a good chace of getting audited and that will takes a couple of years.
As far as I know the business necessity statement is required whenever you apply for a Eb2 requirement (MS or bachelors+5) when according to DOL the job does not require a EB2 (basically the position you are applying for perm does not require EB2 but requires eb3 according to DOL but you are saying this position requires eb2 and not eb3). almost all jobs in IT according to DOL do not fall under EB2 they fall under Eb3, so every eb2 perm has a very good chance of getting audited. This situation has been further worsened by the economy and also the line cutters who try to jump from eb3 to eb2 by reapplying. DOL has caught on to this abuse just like they caught up with the labor sale(labor substitution) and abolished labor substitution. Similarly DOL is cracking down on any eb2 perm especially those who are reapplying. Before someone asks how does dol know you are trying to jump line by reapplying in Eb2, DOL knows because of the following information they ask in ETA form
"1. Are you seeking to utilize the filing date for a previously submitted application for Alien Employemnt Certification (ETA 750)?"
"1-A. If Yes, enter the previous filing date"
"2-A. "Indicate the previous SWA or local offiice case number OR, if not available, specify the state where case was originally filed:"
Nope! this is just some mis-information floating around - the question in the perm application form was useful when perm came into existence and was specifically for people who had traditional recruitment cases (remember TR) or RIR for that matter rotting in backlog reduction centers and who wanted to "upgrade" to better faster perm labor process and keep the same priority date
As far as I know the business necessity statement is required whenever you apply for a Eb2 requirement (MS or bachelors+5) when according to DOL the job does not require a EB2 (basically the position you are applying for perm does not require EB2 but requires eb3 according to DOL but you are saying this position requires eb2 and not eb3). almost all jobs in IT according to DOL do not fall under EB2 they fall under Eb3, so every eb2 perm has a very good chance of getting audited. This situation has been further worsened by the economy and also the line cutters who try to jump from eb3 to eb2 by reapplying. DOL has caught on to this abuse just like they caught up with the labor sale(labor substitution) and abolished labor substitution. Similarly DOL is cracking down on any eb2 perm especially those who are reapplying. Before someone asks how does dol know you are trying to jump line by reapplying in Eb2, DOL knows because of the following information they ask in ETA form
"1. Are you seeking to utilize the filing date for a previously submitted application for Alien Employemnt Certification (ETA 750)?"
"1-A. If Yes, enter the previous filing date"
"2-A. "Indicate the previous SWA or local offiice case number OR, if not available, specify the state where case was originally filed:"
Nope! this is just some mis-information floating around - the question in the perm application form was useful when perm came into existence and was specifically for people who had traditional recruitment cases (remember TR) or RIR for that matter rotting in backlog reduction centers and who wanted to "upgrade" to better faster perm labor process and keep the same priority date
raydon
09-17 09:50 AM
If CNN drops Lou that will not pass CIR or recapture. There are so much Lou Dobbs are there in USA. It is a waste of time.
Exactly. I was of the same opinion. CNN dumping a pathetic whiny loser like Lou Dobbs might give temporary satisfaction, but it has no positive effect on EB immigration. Plus there are a dozen other idiots who might be ready to replace him as the crazy-in-chief on that stupid talk show. Why even bother?
Forget worrying about about CNN and Lou Dobbs. They are NOBODY and of no significance for the quest for immigration reform.
Exactly. I was of the same opinion. CNN dumping a pathetic whiny loser like Lou Dobbs might give temporary satisfaction, but it has no positive effect on EB immigration. Plus there are a dozen other idiots who might be ready to replace him as the crazy-in-chief on that stupid talk show. Why even bother?
Forget worrying about about CNN and Lou Dobbs. They are NOBODY and of no significance for the quest for immigration reform.
No comments:
Post a Comment