H1B2GC
09-20 11:38 AM
I don't personally think we had much media coverage except some hidden links, can we post some paid adds where everyone can get know what we are addressing in here i.e., on the front page of google, yahoo, msn, cnn, etc. I know some people might have second thoughts as it involves $ but I'm ready for it to get public attention. There is a thin line between legal and illigal and they are ready to club both together for their benefits. I'm starting to wonder how many people know what is going on, we have to educate them first.
wallpaper love heart outline. red
amitjoey
05-25 03:48 PM
Transaction ID: 494504233U428035C
Payment Amount: $100
Thank you Green.Tech for your contribution
Payment Amount: $100
Thank you Green.Tech for your contribution
bestin
07-01 07:43 AM
Congrats.Techically speaking dates were current when you applied.It could be that a few lucky ones like you would have been alloted a Visa number then .Enjoy......
2011 Frame red outline,day love
J_Brown77
06-15 10:54 PM
I guess this is the best thing to do, to upgrade my current EB2, and apply for an EB3. I hope this will expedite thins around here. Looking forward to more good things come.
more...
zheng0821
03-17 09:26 AM
see the link
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:105:./temp/~bd3JRR::
So, we should fight for this bill since it does not deal with the controversial guest worker program.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:105:./temp/~bd3JRR::
So, we should fight for this bill since it does not deal with the controversial guest worker program.
needhelp!
03-05 09:32 AM
I find it weird that they cannot find the info by country of chargeability. That should have been entered when they receipted the AOS applications, right?
more...
mbartosik
09-21 07:12 PM
I cancelled my tickets because of the FP appointment I had on same day.
You could have called the local finger print office, and asked to move to another day because of travel. They let me come in 2 weeks early because of a flight. I had tickets in hand but they didn't ask to see.
You could have called the local finger print office, and asked to move to another day because of travel. They let me come in 2 weeks early because of a flight. I had tickets in hand but they didn't ask to see.
2010 Romantic guitar, love songs
vipulgarg
03-04 02:05 PM
Hello All,
I am on H1 Visa and I am planning to go for further studies and converting my H1 to F1.
Now after completing my studies, can I use same H1 petition from Old Quota or I have to apply again in Fresh H1 Quota.
Thanks for your help in advance.
Thanks and Regards,
Vipul Garg
I am on H1 Visa and I am planning to go for further studies and converting my H1 to F1.
Now after completing my studies, can I use same H1 petition from Old Quota or I have to apply again in Fresh H1 Quota.
Thanks for your help in advance.
Thanks and Regards,
Vipul Garg
more...
flresident
06-11 08:22 AM
Even though I am an EB2 filer and very happy to see the Eb2 movement, I feel sorry for EB3 guys. Hopefully Eb3 will start moving faster soon. This is good news but we should focus on our current priorities and help IV core members to accomplish our main goal. Yesterday only I contributed to IV and I hope rest of the members do the same.
Good luck to all who are current.
Eb2, PD: June 2006
Good luck to all who are current.
Eb2, PD: June 2006
hair Purple Custom Heart Outline
BharatPremi
07-05 11:01 AM
This is pathetic and hysterical at the same time. I cannot believe this. :D
After giving all b..t answers she was asking me Do you need any other help sir? And I was like.. Ya... Just b..t down and I will show you what USCIS just did on July 2nd to us. We still can not sit properly :)
After giving all b..t answers she was asking me Do you need any other help sir? And I was like.. Ya... Just b..t down and I will show you what USCIS just did on July 2nd to us. We still can not sit properly :)
more...
chanduv23
10-19 03:02 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
hot beautiful red heart outline
nag2007
04-16 06:04 PM
Fragomen has been great for me
First of all, they are arrogant and they dont understand the needs of the Client/Candidate. Most of the BIG FIRMS use Fragomen. LSI LOGIC, IBM (to name a few) used but eventually LSI LOGIC stopped services with FRAGOMEN.
Because of FRAGOMEN, I dont have EAD inspite of Earlier PD MAR 2005.
1. My Job requires BS + 5 yrs. They had to file in Eb2 but in March 2005, they told me lets file an EB3(since my 5th year was ending in couple of months) and once they are familiar they can file EB2.
2. When i asked them after an year to file in EB2, they told me that i cannot do because i am on 7th year extension. (all most all companies have done that).
3. After that in OCTOBER 2006, i asked to convert my eb3 from NON-RIR to RIR, they took almost 5 months and finally filed on the last day for RIR conversion and by that time BEC stopped processing RIR and started all NON-RIR cases and my labor was not cleared before AUG 17.
4. After that labor was cleared, they took 2 months to file my I-140. They received my papers and i had to literally bang at them to get my I-140 filed.
After all these, they give ask me to give a feedback. i screwed them up and informed my CEO and CFO about the Attitude of Fragomen.
First of all, they are arrogant and they dont understand the needs of the Client/Candidate. Most of the BIG FIRMS use Fragomen. LSI LOGIC, IBM (to name a few) used but eventually LSI LOGIC stopped services with FRAGOMEN.
Because of FRAGOMEN, I dont have EAD inspite of Earlier PD MAR 2005.
1. My Job requires BS + 5 yrs. They had to file in Eb2 but in March 2005, they told me lets file an EB3(since my 5th year was ending in couple of months) and once they are familiar they can file EB2.
2. When i asked them after an year to file in EB2, they told me that i cannot do because i am on 7th year extension. (all most all companies have done that).
3. After that in OCTOBER 2006, i asked to convert my eb3 from NON-RIR to RIR, they took almost 5 months and finally filed on the last day for RIR conversion and by that time BEC stopped processing RIR and started all NON-RIR cases and my labor was not cleared before AUG 17.
4. After that labor was cleared, they took 2 months to file my I-140. They received my papers and i had to literally bang at them to get my I-140 filed.
After all these, they give ask me to give a feedback. i screwed them up and informed my CEO and CFO about the Attitude of Fragomen.
more...
house Heart Outline Red.
dagabaaj
09-21 11:56 PM
My 2 cents to this discussion.....
Progress of IV and processing of papers cannot be stopped. I want to be able look back and tell my son that I was there on that day. To me this rally was equal to the "I dream" march by Dr. King in the context of American history. If we do not set these examples then who will.
Those who did not make it and see the point now will join us as we go along. There will be more of this as we go along. Everyone will get a chance.
I propose that we organize rallies in most major cities on the same day. This will give a chance to all those who wanted to be there but could not make it. Maybe the local chapters can take this up.
Progress of IV and processing of papers cannot be stopped. I want to be able look back and tell my son that I was there on that day. To me this rally was equal to the "I dream" march by Dr. King in the context of American history. If we do not set these examples then who will.
Those who did not make it and see the point now will join us as we go along. There will be more of this as we go along. Everyone will get a chance.
I propose that we organize rallies in most major cities on the same day. This will give a chance to all those who wanted to be there but could not make it. Maybe the local chapters can take this up.
tattoo Red Heart outline Teddies
bitzbytz
09-25 12:20 AM
need specifics
more...
pictures Large red wooden heart outline
pushkarw
11-26 06:21 PM
http://www.jackson-hertogs.com/quota/eb-ind.htm
This link tracks visa bulletin date movement for applicants from India only.
This link tracks visa bulletin date movement for applicants from India only.
dresses love heart outline tattoos.
gcisadawg
05-17 09:32 PM
done! thanks for the opportunity!
more...
makeup heart Love+heart+outline
nave_kum
07-22 03:24 AM
07/21/2007: RFE/NOID Flexible Time Frame Rule and Need for USCIS Discretion for Pe-July 17, 2007 EB-485 Filers
July VB Fiasco was a tragic event in the American immigration history and we are grateful that the USCIS rectified the problem on July 17, 2007 by reversing its decision to deny July 2007 EB-485 applications. We do not have specific statisics on EB-485 filers from July 2, 2007 until July 17, 2007. However, for the two reasons, among others, a large number of applicants sent in EB-485 applications during the period. Firstly, they more or less anticipated that either DOS or USCIS would rectify the problems because of the potential serious flaws in their decisions. Secondly, AILF was preparing class action lawsuits and they wanted to make it sure that they took advantage of being a member of the class without actually being named as plaintiffs. One time, people thought it was a smart move and right thing to do it, even though this reporter suggested to the people to wait until August VB was released.
Currently, these early filers are literally going through nightmares, hardships, and sleepless nights because of the two reasons. The first reason is that their cases have been on hold and no Receipt Notices have been issued. The second reason is that recently the USCIS revised its rule (1) allowing the adjudicating officers to exercise a discretion and issue a RFE with the response time of less than 12 weeks and (2) to exercise a discretion to either reject or deny a petition or an application without issuing RFE when the "initial evidence" is missing in the filing. Combination of these facts is currently creating a turmoil to these filers for the two reasons. There are some filers who submitted I-140/I-485 application without a sufficient documentation in haste, for instance, medical report, or other flaws in the submitted evidence. These people are restless not knowing whether their application could be rejected or denied, indeed a truly deadly consequences. The circumstances force them to wonder whether they should refile the petition/application before August 17, 2007 not to take any chances. There are, however, two hurdles to such decision. One is the recent denial of I-140 petitions by the adjudicators if the petition was not accompanied by the "original" labor certification. The another reason is no fixed rule or policy on the filing of multiple I-485 applications. This creates a fear that their second filing may also be rejected or denied. They are thus trapped! The second victims are international travelers. If the application is either rejected or denied and they are present in the U.S., they will be able to refile it after correcting the flaws in their initial evidence before August 17, 2007. However, when they are not present in the U.S., they will be deprived of such opportunities, which may be considered "deadly." Some people are still present in the U.S. at this time, but because of business or personal emergency, they will have to travel outside of the country using their H-1B/H-4 or L-1/L-2 visa. If their cases are rejcted or denied during their absence, they will not be able to refile it timely before August 17, 2007. They are trapped again! Their act which was considered a right thing to do to one time turns out to be a nightmare. Who would have anticipated the nightmare?
We urge the USCIS to consider the following actions to relieve these applicants from the unnecesary hardship:
Under he RFE/NOID Flexible Timeframe rule, a decision to reject or deny without a RFE remains a "discretion" of the individual adjudicator in each case. This reporter proposes that considering the unusual circumstances involving the July VB fiasco and the USCIS unusual remedial action at the last minute, the USCIS exempts these filers from the rule and make it mandatory to issue RFE before rejection or denial unless the following flaws are found in the filing:
No filing fee checks or flaws in the filing fee checks
Missing signatures in the forms
Missing forms
Missing underlying certified labor certification application for I-140 petitions (either original or copy).
Should the filers decide to refile it before August 17, 2007, the USCIS should accept a copy of the certified labor certification application rather than rejection or denial of the refiled I-140 petition. In fact, it has been the INS/USCIS tradition to accept I-140 petition with a copy of the certified labor certification application inasmuch as the original was on file with the agency, albeit in other file of the same applicant or other applicants. Accordingly, it should be a matter of adhering to the tradition and to instruct the adjudicators not to reject such refiling on the issue of a copy of the certified labor certification application. Additionally, inasmuch as there is an evidence that the labor certification has been certified by the DOL but the applicant was unable to submit the original or copy because the application was lost or yet to be delivered to the applicant, such I-140 which was filed during the period should not be rejected or denied. Again, it has been a tradition of the agency to request a duplicate certified labor certification from the DOL by the agency itself when there was a proof of certification. We urge the USCIS to exercise the discretion and instruct the adjudicators not to reject or deny I-140 filed during the problem period for the reasons of missing "original."
Foregoing actions will relieve these filers from most of the nightmares or status of being trapped. It is thus strongly urged that the leaders of the USCIS extend a compassion on a human level and exercise a discretion immediately to take the foregoing actions. This reporter has been receiving hundres of emails from these filers and had to share the pains and emotional despair since there was no answer to the foregoing issues under the curcumstances. Since the deadline of filing is August 17, 2007, the USCIS should swiftly release an announcement to relieve these people from the problem "effectively." On behalf of all these trapped, this reporter personally pleas the leaders of the USCIS to act quickly.
July VB Fiasco was a tragic event in the American immigration history and we are grateful that the USCIS rectified the problem on July 17, 2007 by reversing its decision to deny July 2007 EB-485 applications. We do not have specific statisics on EB-485 filers from July 2, 2007 until July 17, 2007. However, for the two reasons, among others, a large number of applicants sent in EB-485 applications during the period. Firstly, they more or less anticipated that either DOS or USCIS would rectify the problems because of the potential serious flaws in their decisions. Secondly, AILF was preparing class action lawsuits and they wanted to make it sure that they took advantage of being a member of the class without actually being named as plaintiffs. One time, people thought it was a smart move and right thing to do it, even though this reporter suggested to the people to wait until August VB was released.
Currently, these early filers are literally going through nightmares, hardships, and sleepless nights because of the two reasons. The first reason is that their cases have been on hold and no Receipt Notices have been issued. The second reason is that recently the USCIS revised its rule (1) allowing the adjudicating officers to exercise a discretion and issue a RFE with the response time of less than 12 weeks and (2) to exercise a discretion to either reject or deny a petition or an application without issuing RFE when the "initial evidence" is missing in the filing. Combination of these facts is currently creating a turmoil to these filers for the two reasons. There are some filers who submitted I-140/I-485 application without a sufficient documentation in haste, for instance, medical report, or other flaws in the submitted evidence. These people are restless not knowing whether their application could be rejected or denied, indeed a truly deadly consequences. The circumstances force them to wonder whether they should refile the petition/application before August 17, 2007 not to take any chances. There are, however, two hurdles to such decision. One is the recent denial of I-140 petitions by the adjudicators if the petition was not accompanied by the "original" labor certification. The another reason is no fixed rule or policy on the filing of multiple I-485 applications. This creates a fear that their second filing may also be rejected or denied. They are thus trapped! The second victims are international travelers. If the application is either rejected or denied and they are present in the U.S., they will be able to refile it after correcting the flaws in their initial evidence before August 17, 2007. However, when they are not present in the U.S., they will be deprived of such opportunities, which may be considered "deadly." Some people are still present in the U.S. at this time, but because of business or personal emergency, they will have to travel outside of the country using their H-1B/H-4 or L-1/L-2 visa. If their cases are rejcted or denied during their absence, they will not be able to refile it timely before August 17, 2007. They are trapped again! Their act which was considered a right thing to do to one time turns out to be a nightmare. Who would have anticipated the nightmare?
We urge the USCIS to consider the following actions to relieve these applicants from the unnecesary hardship:
Under he RFE/NOID Flexible Timeframe rule, a decision to reject or deny without a RFE remains a "discretion" of the individual adjudicator in each case. This reporter proposes that considering the unusual circumstances involving the July VB fiasco and the USCIS unusual remedial action at the last minute, the USCIS exempts these filers from the rule and make it mandatory to issue RFE before rejection or denial unless the following flaws are found in the filing:
No filing fee checks or flaws in the filing fee checks
Missing signatures in the forms
Missing forms
Missing underlying certified labor certification application for I-140 petitions (either original or copy).
Should the filers decide to refile it before August 17, 2007, the USCIS should accept a copy of the certified labor certification application rather than rejection or denial of the refiled I-140 petition. In fact, it has been the INS/USCIS tradition to accept I-140 petition with a copy of the certified labor certification application inasmuch as the original was on file with the agency, albeit in other file of the same applicant or other applicants. Accordingly, it should be a matter of adhering to the tradition and to instruct the adjudicators not to reject such refiling on the issue of a copy of the certified labor certification application. Additionally, inasmuch as there is an evidence that the labor certification has been certified by the DOL but the applicant was unable to submit the original or copy because the application was lost or yet to be delivered to the applicant, such I-140 which was filed during the period should not be rejected or denied. Again, it has been a tradition of the agency to request a duplicate certified labor certification from the DOL by the agency itself when there was a proof of certification. We urge the USCIS to exercise the discretion and instruct the adjudicators not to reject or deny I-140 filed during the problem period for the reasons of missing "original."
Foregoing actions will relieve these filers from most of the nightmares or status of being trapped. It is thus strongly urged that the leaders of the USCIS extend a compassion on a human level and exercise a discretion immediately to take the foregoing actions. This reporter has been receiving hundres of emails from these filers and had to share the pains and emotional despair since there was no answer to the foregoing issues under the curcumstances. Since the deadline of filing is August 17, 2007, the USCIS should swiftly release an announcement to relieve these people from the problem "effectively." On behalf of all these trapped, this reporter personally pleas the leaders of the USCIS to act quickly.
girlfriend White Custom Heart Outline
ngopalak
07-11 01:16 PM
Your lawyer is lying.
Updates:
I got an email from my law firm, that my packet was refused to be accepted by USCIS.
I received the email from my law firm (Monday night - July 2) that:
Please note however your case was sent to Nebraska last night and did arrive - we tried!
Which means mine was sent or reached NSC sunday night or must have been hand delievered early Mon morning. Don't know exactly what happened. I just trust them!!!!
I didn't bother to ask my law firm further details. I will ping them first thing monday morning and try to give any update I get. I hope they have some proof of the refusal!!!!!!!............
Updates:
I got an email from my law firm, that my packet was refused to be accepted by USCIS.
I received the email from my law firm (Monday night - July 2) that:
Please note however your case was sent to Nebraska last night and did arrive - we tried!
Which means mine was sent or reached NSC sunday night or must have been hand delievered early Mon morning. Don't know exactly what happened. I just trust them!!!!
I didn't bother to ask my law firm further details. I will ping them first thing monday morning and try to give any update I get. I hope they have some proof of the refusal!!!!!!!............
hairstyles hair love heart outline
Hinglish
03-21 03:36 PM
This whole discussion got so twisted ...so here is the gist to bring everyone back on track.
USCIS's interpretation of law for the "redistribution" of unused visa numbers is as follows (FALL ACROSS) : arrows denote transfer of excess numbers from categories
EB1 -> EB2 ROW/IN/CH
EB2 ROW -> EB2 IN/CH (proportional)
EB2 ROW/IN/CH -> EB3
EB3 ROW -> EB2 IN/CH (proportional)
Ron thinks that this is wrong and it should be as follows (FALL DOWN):
EB1 ROW -> EB2 ROW -> EB3 ROW
EB1 IN -> EB2 IN -> EB3 IN
EB1 CH -> EB2 CH -> EB3 CH
and at the end then cycle through unused visas to single state categories
I believe that USCIS's interpretation preserves the intent of the law makers to create maximum benefit to the US employers.
USCIS's interpretation of law for the "redistribution" of unused visa numbers is as follows (FALL ACROSS) : arrows denote transfer of excess numbers from categories
EB1 -> EB2 ROW/IN/CH
EB2 ROW -> EB2 IN/CH (proportional)
EB2 ROW/IN/CH -> EB3
EB3 ROW -> EB2 IN/CH (proportional)
Ron thinks that this is wrong and it should be as follows (FALL DOWN):
EB1 ROW -> EB2 ROW -> EB3 ROW
EB1 IN -> EB2 IN -> EB3 IN
EB1 CH -> EB2 CH -> EB3 CH
and at the end then cycle through unused visas to single state categories
I believe that USCIS's interpretation preserves the intent of the law makers to create maximum benefit to the US employers.
xlr8r
04-30 12:14 PM
$100
Receipt ID# 3A461523KL112242M
Receipt ID# 3A461523KL112242M
gc28262
03-21 10:35 AM
OK. loud and clear Desi :D
Now, I have provided the reference to part of AC21 law with my interpretation, which allows visa portability (unofficially known as transfer) from one sponsor to another and excempt from numeric limits.
All I hear is "incorrect", "wrong" followed by individual interpretation or opinion. I respect all disagreement part, Which may be/not be accurate. Why don't you quantify your comments with references to law or CIS memo? Don't you think discussion need to be healthy and fair?
Now, I have a lot of filthy and rediculous offensive messages on the discussion threads with reds, which I would not like to post in public. If this is what our anonymous so called "highly skilled" can bring to the table, then I am speachless.
gapala,
This thread is not a discussion thread. OP asked a question. We need to provide him a precise and satisfactory answer. There is no point in confusing him with endless discussion.
His situation is very simple. There is no question of out of status here to begin with. OP knows this very well. Many of the people who responded here ( excluding me ) are quite knowledgeable in immigration matters.
When in doubt, always refer lawyer's newsletter/USCIS memos rather than us trying to interpret the law. We are no lawyers.
Now, I have provided the reference to part of AC21 law with my interpretation, which allows visa portability (unofficially known as transfer) from one sponsor to another and excempt from numeric limits.
All I hear is "incorrect", "wrong" followed by individual interpretation or opinion. I respect all disagreement part, Which may be/not be accurate. Why don't you quantify your comments with references to law or CIS memo? Don't you think discussion need to be healthy and fair?
Now, I have a lot of filthy and rediculous offensive messages on the discussion threads with reds, which I would not like to post in public. If this is what our anonymous so called "highly skilled" can bring to the table, then I am speachless.
gapala,
This thread is not a discussion thread. OP asked a question. We need to provide him a precise and satisfactory answer. There is no point in confusing him with endless discussion.
His situation is very simple. There is no question of out of status here to begin with. OP knows this very well. Many of the people who responded here ( excluding me ) are quite knowledgeable in immigration matters.
When in doubt, always refer lawyer's newsletter/USCIS memos rather than us trying to interpret the law. We are no lawyers.
No comments:
Post a Comment