ragz4u
03-08 02:05 PM
He has asked the absent senators via staffers that if they do not want to come to hearings, they can leave this committee and let others take their place. Apparently they need atleast one democrat to proceed.
He is waiting for atleast one more senator to turn up before 3.15 pm else hearing will be adjourned
Senator Cornyn is offering a new amendment now (#6107 ) illegal aliens convicted in felony cannot file for petition for spouse...again this is not related to us
He is waiting for atleast one more senator to turn up before 3.15 pm else hearing will be adjourned
Senator Cornyn is offering a new amendment now (#6107 ) illegal aliens convicted in felony cannot file for petition for spouse...again this is not related to us
wallpaper wallpaper selena gomez haircut
kumar1305
02-24 04:11 PM
Very coreect uma...you can forget career growth in India without a MBA degree.
I have MBA from an American university, do you think it's going to help me?
I have MBA from an American university, do you think it's going to help me?
srt57
06-01 03:59 PM
THIS IS VALID ONLY IF THE CIR BILL BECOMES A LAW IN ITS CURRENT FORM....
From what I know (largely due to the posts on these forums), if your I-140 was not filed by May 15th 2007, you will have to reapply for your GC in the new system.
LC or I-485 is not relevant here. The cutoff date is determined by your I-140 filing date.
Also, between May 15th 2007 and October 1st 2008 (likely), no new I-140s can be applied. Thus, it would make no sense to apply for a LC either. USCIS will only process backlogged I-485 cases and issue green cards.
Finally, it is really unfair for them to set this cutoff date retroactively. But it is legal for them to do this. Can't sue them for it.
Hope this clears things.
Thanks,
Jayant
But this generally applies to people affected by retrogression. If one isn't affected by retrogression, applies for I-140 after 5/15/2007 and gets green card before 10/1/2008 (which is possible) then that person should be ok, is that right?
From what I know (largely due to the posts on these forums), if your I-140 was not filed by May 15th 2007, you will have to reapply for your GC in the new system.
LC or I-485 is not relevant here. The cutoff date is determined by your I-140 filing date.
Also, between May 15th 2007 and October 1st 2008 (likely), no new I-140s can be applied. Thus, it would make no sense to apply for a LC either. USCIS will only process backlogged I-485 cases and issue green cards.
Finally, it is really unfair for them to set this cutoff date retroactively. But it is legal for them to do this. Can't sue them for it.
Hope this clears things.
Thanks,
Jayant
But this generally applies to people affected by retrogression. If one isn't affected by retrogression, applies for I-140 after 5/15/2007 and gets green card before 10/1/2008 (which is possible) then that person should be ok, is that right?
2011 selena gomez haircut with
H1Girl
03-03 04:25 PM
...
But he is kind of busy with other important issues and our issue is not that important for him reason may be we are not his vote bank and will get to the curve of getting the GC when we are very close to our graves.
...
Saburi
It may be true that Mr Change has been occupied by other priorities but even then I don't think anyone will ever care about legal aliens who pays Taxes every year. US won't get anything if they issue GCs to us. Remember they have to tackle unemployment in US if they issue GCs to every H1/L1. It's the gimmick just like any other tricks that US paly around the world. They lure best talent to US with GCs etc etc but what they really need is Taxes (and ofcourse some talent) from us which they are anyway getting.
Please read they way US brought african americans and chinese people few hundred years ago and used them like anything.
So guys and girls, take it easy...if they want to issue GCs they can change the policy overnight just by one signature and issue GCs rightway. But they NEVER do since they are getting what they wanted to.
here is my conclusion:
a) Illegal immigrants: Yes, US cares about them since they pose as security threat and they loose the Tax
b) Refugees: Yes, US cares about them since they pose as security threat and they loose the Tax
c) Highly Educated (EB1) like Ph.ds: Yes they care because thye want to ahead of others
d) Middle class people (Eb2 and EB3 and others): No one cares since they are getting Tax anyway.
But he is kind of busy with other important issues and our issue is not that important for him reason may be we are not his vote bank and will get to the curve of getting the GC when we are very close to our graves.
...
Saburi
It may be true that Mr Change has been occupied by other priorities but even then I don't think anyone will ever care about legal aliens who pays Taxes every year. US won't get anything if they issue GCs to us. Remember they have to tackle unemployment in US if they issue GCs to every H1/L1. It's the gimmick just like any other tricks that US paly around the world. They lure best talent to US with GCs etc etc but what they really need is Taxes (and ofcourse some talent) from us which they are anyway getting.
Please read they way US brought african americans and chinese people few hundred years ago and used them like anything.
So guys and girls, take it easy...if they want to issue GCs they can change the policy overnight just by one signature and issue GCs rightway. But they NEVER do since they are getting what they wanted to.
here is my conclusion:
a) Illegal immigrants: Yes, US cares about them since they pose as security threat and they loose the Tax
b) Refugees: Yes, US cares about them since they pose as security threat and they loose the Tax
c) Highly Educated (EB1) like Ph.ds: Yes they care because thye want to ahead of others
d) Middle class people (Eb2 and EB3 and others): No one cares since they are getting Tax anyway.
more...
raysaikat
01-07 01:04 AM
raysaikat, and others, can we call a truce and focus on the original intent of the thread? I am sure we can all agree that the top 5 % of the worst university (does not matter which, or where) are usually better than the bottom 5 % of the best university (again, does not matter).
In my life, in our company, I've seen some of the sharpest brains around (PhDs working for the Russian defence before they defected in late 70's and early 80's) and some of the dumbest (a mechanical engineer who refused to believe me when I mentioned the sun was approximately 300000 bigger than the earth in terms of mass and 1000000 times bigger in terms of volume). Believe it or not, I've met a taxi driver who graduated from an Ivy League institution and used to work at NASA in 60s and 70s and worked on developing algorithms for decompressing transmissions. There are all sorts who make the world a pretty interesting, if unpredictable place. :)
You never know whom you are sitting next to on the plane! ;)
Rather than arguing over silly matters, perhaps we should focus on intelligent analysis and if necessary, rebuttal of arguments.
We do not prove anything by arguing over IIT vs Osmania, or North Vs South, but merely conform the worst aspects of Prof. Wadhwa's sweeping generalizations.
I, for one, have serious questions:
A) The video was edited. It is a collection of sound bites. How do we know the context of the statements if we do not have the full transcript?
B) We have no visuals of the charts and figures referred to by Prof Wadhwa.
C) We have no access to the raw data used by Prof. Wadhwa. He may had published it, but I have not seen any of it. (Unless Macaca can ferret out the details.. if anyone can, he is the man!). I have, for instance, basic questions whether immigrants and foreign students were excluded when he (Wadhwa) was counting the openings filled and engineers graduated in US.
I do not mean to offend anyone, nor am I commenting on any country, university, or anything.. so please do not misunderstand me. Let us focus on the what is more important.
I browsed through Wadhwa's paper. My impression is that he has used ASEE data for the U.S. and very likely it includes international students. Can anyone send him an email and seek clarification?
I have access to ASEE database, but I cannot share the excel files. I can however post summary informations.
2006:
Total M.S. 38880
Foreign 15533
Total B.S. 74186
Foreign 5345
I can also report data by disciplines, among other things. But it is a bit tedious to do so.
In my life, in our company, I've seen some of the sharpest brains around (PhDs working for the Russian defence before they defected in late 70's and early 80's) and some of the dumbest (a mechanical engineer who refused to believe me when I mentioned the sun was approximately 300000 bigger than the earth in terms of mass and 1000000 times bigger in terms of volume). Believe it or not, I've met a taxi driver who graduated from an Ivy League institution and used to work at NASA in 60s and 70s and worked on developing algorithms for decompressing transmissions. There are all sorts who make the world a pretty interesting, if unpredictable place. :)
You never know whom you are sitting next to on the plane! ;)
Rather than arguing over silly matters, perhaps we should focus on intelligent analysis and if necessary, rebuttal of arguments.
We do not prove anything by arguing over IIT vs Osmania, or North Vs South, but merely conform the worst aspects of Prof. Wadhwa's sweeping generalizations.
I, for one, have serious questions:
A) The video was edited. It is a collection of sound bites. How do we know the context of the statements if we do not have the full transcript?
B) We have no visuals of the charts and figures referred to by Prof Wadhwa.
C) We have no access to the raw data used by Prof. Wadhwa. He may had published it, but I have not seen any of it. (Unless Macaca can ferret out the details.. if anyone can, he is the man!). I have, for instance, basic questions whether immigrants and foreign students were excluded when he (Wadhwa) was counting the openings filled and engineers graduated in US.
I do not mean to offend anyone, nor am I commenting on any country, university, or anything.. so please do not misunderstand me. Let us focus on the what is more important.
I browsed through Wadhwa's paper. My impression is that he has used ASEE data for the U.S. and very likely it includes international students. Can anyone send him an email and seek clarification?
I have access to ASEE database, but I cannot share the excel files. I can however post summary informations.
2006:
Total M.S. 38880
Foreign 15533
Total B.S. 74186
Foreign 5345
I can also report data by disciplines, among other things. But it is a bit tedious to do so.
bkam
01-31 03:04 AM
Dear "colleagues in faith" :-), there is only one way to change the things with this immigration trap - we have to win the public opinion!
Currently 350,000 highly qualified professionals working for this country are in a legal limbo which continues for years. Our current legal status is that of slaves. Yes, slaves! Nowadays it takes anywhere between 5 - 10 years from applying to receiving of a GC. We cannot change our employers within this period, the members of our families cannot work (at least legally) and our spouses lose their professional carrier; if our kids get in college they are treated as "aliens" (full tuition, no student loans, no scholarship); the loans we get are with higher interest rate (for "protection"); at the borders we are treated as "intruders" etc.
The average Americans are honest hardworking people. If they are aware of the immigration problems faced by 350,000 hardworking professionals in this country, they will raise their voice and will help for resolving of this issue. They just need to know that. I believe that in addition to talking to senators etc., we have to find ways our issues to reach the media - newspapers, magazines and so on. An article in Times may lead to a lot of positive changes in the immigration system.
Currently 350,000 highly qualified professionals working for this country are in a legal limbo which continues for years. Our current legal status is that of slaves. Yes, slaves! Nowadays it takes anywhere between 5 - 10 years from applying to receiving of a GC. We cannot change our employers within this period, the members of our families cannot work (at least legally) and our spouses lose their professional carrier; if our kids get in college they are treated as "aliens" (full tuition, no student loans, no scholarship); the loans we get are with higher interest rate (for "protection"); at the borders we are treated as "intruders" etc.
The average Americans are honest hardworking people. If they are aware of the immigration problems faced by 350,000 hardworking professionals in this country, they will raise their voice and will help for resolving of this issue. They just need to know that. I believe that in addition to talking to senators etc., we have to find ways our issues to reach the media - newspapers, magazines and so on. An article in Times may lead to a lot of positive changes in the immigration system.
more...
pappu
06-10 02:11 PM
I don't follow. Are you saying that DOS is disclosing VISA bulletin to IV (core members) even before the actual date of bulletin???
NO.
NO.
2010 Selena Gomez and Bangs
FraudGultee
04-17 09:04 AM
Many congratulations
more...
nk2006
10-16 04:29 PM
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases – especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer – and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications – ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD’s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to: Ombudsman
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant’s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant’s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases – especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer – and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications – ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD’s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to: Ombudsman
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant’s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant’s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
hair See other Selena Gomez
EndlessWait
07-23 03:41 PM
Lets hope they process by PD. and stop further nonsense.
more...
lonedesi
06-19 10:05 AM
Also, please contact this person:
Helen Parker
Regional Administrator
U.S. Department of Labor/ETA
Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth St. Rm. 6M12
Atlanta,GA 30303
Phone: (404) 562-2092
Fax: (404) 562-2149
Send faxes and call to request them to process our PERM applications. Please act now, if not we will miss the bus.
Helen Parker
Regional Administrator
U.S. Department of Labor/ETA
Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth St. Rm. 6M12
Atlanta,GA 30303
Phone: (404) 562-2092
Fax: (404) 562-2149
Send faxes and call to request them to process our PERM applications. Please act now, if not we will miss the bus.
hot hairstyle by Selena Gomez.
plassey
07-21 12:13 PM
It says at least 55,000
According to LATimes article
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-visas21jul21,1,3932099.story?coll=la-headlines-business&ctrack=1&cset=true
only 55000 applications so far this month.
"There was intense public reaction," said Bill Wright, spokesman for the citizenship and immigration agency, in explaining the reason for the reversal. "We heard that and did listen."
Wright said at least 55,000 applications had been filed this month; the window will remain open until Aug. 17. "
According to LATimes article
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-visas21jul21,1,3932099.story?coll=la-headlines-business&ctrack=1&cset=true
only 55000 applications so far this month.
"There was intense public reaction," said Bill Wright, spokesman for the citizenship and immigration agency, in explaining the reason for the reversal. "We heard that and did listen."
Wright said at least 55,000 applications had been filed this month; the window will remain open until Aug. 17. "
more...
house selena gomez bangs. hair
gjoe
10-03 04:47 PM
We have to first fight to get all visa number allocated. How?
1) Assign visa numbers to all I485 cases based on PD at the begining of each year
2) After assigning the visa number they can do the rest of the processing
3) If application is denied they can transfer the visa number to the next application in queue as per the PD
I think this is a good start and fair system which would slove some of the problem we have today.
We can work on getting the backlog eliminated seperately because this issue is going to take lot of efforts, money and politics.
1) Assign visa numbers to all I485 cases based on PD at the begining of each year
2) After assigning the visa number they can do the rest of the processing
3) If application is denied they can transfer the visa number to the next application in queue as per the PD
I think this is a good start and fair system which would slove some of the problem we have today.
We can work on getting the backlog eliminated seperately because this issue is going to take lot of efforts, money and politics.
tattoo Selena Gomez Bangs Hairstyle.
johnnybhai
03-27 02:45 PM
State Virginia: No 45 Day Notice yet.
more...
pictures selena gomez haircut with
spicy_guy
10-21 06:49 PM
I am still not sure, if its considered 8+2=10 months to complete the PERM labor or we should just consider 2 months from start. Every application should go through the first part of it ( in this case 8 months). Right?
dresses selena gomez bob with angs.
vengaiah
10-17 05:02 PM
fromcisombudsman <Cisombudsman@dhs.gov>
toVengi Mutthineni
dateFri, Oct 17, 2008 at 2:49 PM
subjectRE: Please consider the request
mailed-bydhs.gov
Thank you for your recent inquiry.
Under the authority of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the CIS Ombudsman assists individuals and employers who experience specific problems during the USCIS benefits seeking process, largely to identify problems and to formulate recommendations to improve the USCIS service. Please see our website for more information about the CIS Ombudsman (www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman/).
Our office believes that first hand information from individuals like you is the best source for identifying systemic problems in the immigration benefits process. Accordingly, our office will consider the information you provided regarding AC21 as we develop recommendations to improve USCIS� practices and procedures.
Thank you for taking the time to contact our office, and for giving us the opportunity to serve you.
Sincerely,
CIS Ombudsman
toVengi Mutthineni
dateFri, Oct 17, 2008 at 2:49 PM
subjectRE: Please consider the request
mailed-bydhs.gov
Thank you for your recent inquiry.
Under the authority of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the CIS Ombudsman assists individuals and employers who experience specific problems during the USCIS benefits seeking process, largely to identify problems and to formulate recommendations to improve the USCIS service. Please see our website for more information about the CIS Ombudsman (www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman/).
Our office believes that first hand information from individuals like you is the best source for identifying systemic problems in the immigration benefits process. Accordingly, our office will consider the information you provided regarding AC21 as we develop recommendations to improve USCIS� practices and procedures.
Thank you for taking the time to contact our office, and for giving us the opportunity to serve you.
Sincerely,
CIS Ombudsman
more...
makeup selena gomez haircut with
kalyan
09-12 01:32 PM
count me .I cant come out of my Place till Oct 7'th.
If you want me in Some Rally, i will be there. I am'nt anonymous.
Looks like USCIS needs people who can do Math, SQL Developers, Business Process analysts
Lets help them out who in turn can help us
Lets volunteer to work with USCIS in any form or shape they need , like digging the records, streamlining data or any other matter.
If you want me in Some Rally, i will be there. I am'nt anonymous.
Looks like USCIS needs people who can do Math, SQL Developers, Business Process analysts
Lets help them out who in turn can help us
Lets volunteer to work with USCIS in any form or shape they need , like digging the records, streamlining data or any other matter.
girlfriend selena gomez haircut with
j_bhardwaj@yahoo.com
07-14 02:50 PM
contributed $10 for me and my wife
hairstyles Selena Gomez Medium Short
diptam
08-07 02:35 PM
Now anyone can put their name in the check and encash it. If the USCIS agent is kind enough he/she would put DHS and then send for encashing...
Didn't your friend go through a Lawyer ?
one of my friends 485 check is signed and mentioned correct amount($395) but he is not written anything where he has suppossed to write department of home land security.
what are the chaces of his 485 get accepted.?
Didn't your friend go through a Lawyer ?
one of my friends 485 check is signed and mentioned correct amount($395) but he is not written anything where he has suppossed to write department of home land security.
what are the chaces of his 485 get accepted.?
alterego
06-24 12:31 PM
America is losing its attractiveness to the worlds top talent. Those of us in the system may feel that having invested so much time/effort/money already in the process, we cannot turn back now and cut our losses, however looking at it from the perspective of a promising 24 yr old researcher or graduate, the vantage point can be quite different. He has very little invested in this country and looks at the situation of those like us ahead of him/her in the pipeline to make a decision.
That decision might become that the US is not a place to settle down, that it is not a welcoming nation, that opportunities are choked off for the non natives, etc etc. Those would be the worst messages to send to the cream of the world's talent. The reaction would be to either not come in or to come in with a mindset to take the best of the education system etc and move on to the best opportunities. The US has never had to react to his type of thing, because hitherto it was a minimal issue. The current policies however are changing that.
That decision might become that the US is not a place to settle down, that it is not a welcoming nation, that opportunities are choked off for the non natives, etc etc. Those would be the worst messages to send to the cream of the world's talent. The reaction would be to either not come in or to come in with a mindset to take the best of the education system etc and move on to the best opportunities. The US has never had to react to his type of thing, because hitherto it was a minimal issue. The current policies however are changing that.
andy garcia
10-01 02:11 PM
From where did you get 174,968?
Is there any case where unused FP #'s were captured for EB?
Recapture of Employment-Based Immigrant Visa Numbers Unused in Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000 Section 106(d) of PL 106−313 provides for the recapture of those EB numbers that were available but not used in FY 1999 and 2000.
Beginning in FY 2001, those unused numbers (which totaled 130,107) will be made available to applicants in the EB1, EB2 and EB3 preference categories once the annual Employment-Based numerical limit has been reached.
In FY 2002 they used 28,951 out of 130,107. The rest is history.
Is there any case where unused FP #'s were captured for EB?
Recapture of Employment-Based Immigrant Visa Numbers Unused in Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000 Section 106(d) of PL 106−313 provides for the recapture of those EB numbers that were available but not used in FY 1999 and 2000.
Beginning in FY 2001, those unused numbers (which totaled 130,107) will be made available to applicants in the EB1, EB2 and EB3 preference categories once the annual Employment-Based numerical limit has been reached.
In FY 2002 they used 28,951 out of 130,107. The rest is history.
No comments:
Post a Comment