webm
03-19 02:32 PM
RD is also not a reliable predictor since there are people who have been approved who applied for AOS in July 2007 while those who had applied prior to this are still waiting to see the light.
It is a random process for sure.
yes looks like its a random pick..
There are guys which got and not got (waiting) even PD is current and RD not fall under processing dates.Its kind of mixed possibles!!
It is a random process for sure.
yes looks like its a random pick..
There are guys which got and not got (waiting) even PD is current and RD not fall under processing dates.Its kind of mixed possibles!!
wallpaper ROTC Military Ball
waitingnwaiting
01-25 09:51 PM
Can he add an amendment to divide spillover equally between EB2 and EB3 India. This will help a lot.
paskal
08-05 09:23 PM
delighted to hear you are finalizing your plans
let me know when you have things in place, also if i can help you in any way. we should encourage more mn members to join us in DC, maybe even plan on making some calls. your motivation should serve as inspiration to others!
let me know when you have things in place, also if i can help you in any way. we should encourage more mn members to join us in DC, maybe even plan on making some calls. your motivation should serve as inspiration to others!
2011 Of byrds military this video
NKR
10-13 04:18 PM
Next time I'm thinking of going Tarzan style....
They take only finger prints.. ;)
They take only finger prints.. ;)
more...
piyu7444
04-01 02:37 PM
Hi Vinnysuru
Case is approvable but my question is - will I have to wait till Visa bulletin has PD date showing NOV 2006 or beyond or Current or they can just get a visa number now (say April 08) and send it for card prodcution ?
Case is approvable but my question is - will I have to wait till Visa bulletin has PD date showing NOV 2006 or beyond or Current or they can just get a visa number now (say April 08) and send it for card prodcution ?
kondur_007
09-17 09:38 PM
I dont want to duplicate, but I think following "cut and paste" from my previous post may be a fair thing to do; just for the information.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
more...
swamy
10-27 12:54 PM
Sen Kennedy is the reason every one of us could come even be here in the US today. Please read up on some history of legal immigration - especially the one that dismantled racial barriers. The senator might not share your focus or sense of urgency in solving EB issues first and may be more passionate about the illegal issue but that does not mean he's any less interested in legal issues or make him 'exclusively' an advocate for undocumented. Dont unnecessarily diminish anyone who is your friend - once again, go back and read up on the history of immigration especially around the 60's.
2010 Military Ball
th3thirdman
03-31 12:44 AM
ya no BABIES FOR ME! I just dont want to have a child
more...
joydiptac
09-30 05:37 PM
I liked the tone and tenor of aila...
Before you get all mushy about AILA and start bashing USCIS take deep look and see if AILA is really acting as a friend or a adversary in friends disguise?
Before you get all mushy about AILA and start bashing USCIS take deep look and see if AILA is really acting as a friend or a adversary in friends disguise?
hair A Navy JROTC
meridiani.planum
07-19 04:36 PM
Hi All,
My skin test was positive, where as my x-ray was normal.Incase I get an RFE , Can I go to my PCP or need to go only to local health dept.
Can some body guide me
-Srarao
$100-so far
that is typically not an issue. lot of people (Esp from India) get a +ve on the skin test because of reaction with the BCG vaccine that they received in childhood. You will most likely not even get an RFE as USCIS knows about this.
If by chance you do, I believe you can go to a USCIS certified doctor (where you probably got those tests done) and he would prescribe some medication. You just send that report back, and you are all set.
My skin test was positive, where as my x-ray was normal.Incase I get an RFE , Can I go to my PCP or need to go only to local health dept.
Can some body guide me
-Srarao
$100-so far
that is typically not an issue. lot of people (Esp from India) get a +ve on the skin test because of reaction with the BCG vaccine that they received in childhood. You will most likely not even get an RFE as USCIS knows about this.
If by chance you do, I believe you can go to a USCIS certified doctor (where you probably got those tests done) and he would prescribe some medication. You just send that report back, and you are all set.
more...
voldemar
06-22 11:14 AM
Due to time contraints doctor sent me for a chest x-ray and skipped the TB skin test. Chest x-ray came back negative. Question: Is a TB skin test required if a chest x-ray is negative? No remarks were made as to why TB skin test was not given. Should suggest, to a reasonable person, that no active TB is presentI've got a RFE because of that. Now got TB skin test and will do X-Ray again if TB will be positive.
hot her JROTC Military Ball.
GCchakravyuh
07-13 11:43 AM
Dressing up professional makes utmost sense. Afterall they are dealing with 'professional legal immigrants' , not the illegal ones.
So guys , gals... make sure please NO JEANS. if you have summer wear suit fine, otherwise please do wear offical dress code- ofcourse summerwear.
So guys , gals... make sure please NO JEANS. if you have summer wear suit fine, otherwise please do wear offical dress code- ofcourse summerwear.
more...
house Navy JROTC Military Ball
JazzByTheBay
09-08 11:49 AM
Given the demographics of the greater Seattle area in general, and Redmond in particular - I'm surprised "softies" haven't taken over the WA chapter completely... :)
Hope to see all of you in DC..
cheers!
jazz
My wife and me have joined the yahoogroups for WA chapter, We are going for the rally, how can we encourage more friends in WA state to go? I know there are people willing to sponsor, provide part of funds, help with accommodation and so on and if anyone in WA has any of these limitations, people are willing to coordinate. How do we get the point across to all Washingtonian GC sufferers or people who just filed for 485 and don't see the bleak tomorrow. How do we wake them up all up? We have so many employers here, is there something we can do to wake them up from the slumber and mirage of filing 485? I must admit, I was sleeping too until yesterday when we booked our tickets.
Hope to see all of you in DC..
cheers!
jazz
My wife and me have joined the yahoogroups for WA chapter, We are going for the rally, how can we encourage more friends in WA state to go? I know there are people willing to sponsor, provide part of funds, help with accommodation and so on and if anyone in WA has any of these limitations, people are willing to coordinate. How do we get the point across to all Washingtonian GC sufferers or people who just filed for 485 and don't see the bleak tomorrow. How do we wake them up all up? We have so many employers here, is there something we can do to wake them up from the slumber and mirage of filing 485? I must admit, I was sleeping too until yesterday when we booked our tickets.
tattoo The Military Ball 2008
trueguy
12-11 01:43 AM
In a testimony to the House Judiciary Committee back in Apr/May 08, the USCIS clearly stated that it had changed its policy regarding which applications would be adjudicated first.
As I remember, USCIS stated that it was now following a policy where cases that had a possibility of getting a visa number in the near future were adjudicated first. It said that this change in policy was made in order to reduce waste of immigrant visas.
The problem with this approach is that:
- It is not FIFO
- EB2-I/C and EB3 not only continue to remain retrogressed, but retrogression worsens.
Here is how:
Since EB2-I/EB3-I categories are already retrogressed, the I-485 applications in this category will be shelved until it appears that a visa number may become available in the foreseeable future.
So, USCIS puts most of these cases in cold storage while it adjudicates and approves the EB2ROW applications as it receives them on a continuous basis.
When time comes to roll over excess EB2 ROW numbers, two things happen:
- Already substantial use of EB2ROW numbers make few numbers available for roll over
- Limited adjudication of Eb2-I/C and EB3 cases make a very small pool of pre-adjudicated applications. USCIS requests DOS to move dates so that it has access to a larger pool for cherry picking.
The result is that VB dates move forward by leaps and bounds and cases are approved haphazardly with PDs all over the map. When the excess numbers are used up, the dates for EB2-I/C and EB3 retrogress back to previous cutoff dates because there are still a lot of old cases that have not even been brought out of cold storage. The EB2ROW dates are again current because USCIS has adjudicated and approved EB2ROW cases throughout the year- so no backlog there.
If USCIS followed FIFO, then the following would happen:
- USCIS would be adjudicating old EB2I/C and EB3 cases right now, and not the recently received EB2ROW cases.
- This would reduce the number of pre-adjudicated EB2ROW cases and hence lower the demand in the EB2ROW category.
- When time would come to roll over numbers not used by EB2ROW:
- A large pool number of excess visas would be available
- A large pool of pre-adjudicated EB2-I/C and EB3 cases with old PDs would be available that could be readily assigned visa numbers.
As a result, old cases would be assigned visa numbers and backlog would be reduced.
Unfortunately, USCIS has confused its process of adjudicating cases (which is FIFO) with its effort to enforce the country quota. The country limits come into picture only when cases ready for adjudication are to be assigned visa numbers. The process of adjudication should still be FIFO, and not determined by the country quota.
Very good points. I can't agree with you any more.
The question is how do we raise it as an issue so USCIS follow FIFO.
As I remember, USCIS stated that it was now following a policy where cases that had a possibility of getting a visa number in the near future were adjudicated first. It said that this change in policy was made in order to reduce waste of immigrant visas.
The problem with this approach is that:
- It is not FIFO
- EB2-I/C and EB3 not only continue to remain retrogressed, but retrogression worsens.
Here is how:
Since EB2-I/EB3-I categories are already retrogressed, the I-485 applications in this category will be shelved until it appears that a visa number may become available in the foreseeable future.
So, USCIS puts most of these cases in cold storage while it adjudicates and approves the EB2ROW applications as it receives them on a continuous basis.
When time comes to roll over excess EB2 ROW numbers, two things happen:
- Already substantial use of EB2ROW numbers make few numbers available for roll over
- Limited adjudication of Eb2-I/C and EB3 cases make a very small pool of pre-adjudicated applications. USCIS requests DOS to move dates so that it has access to a larger pool for cherry picking.
The result is that VB dates move forward by leaps and bounds and cases are approved haphazardly with PDs all over the map. When the excess numbers are used up, the dates for EB2-I/C and EB3 retrogress back to previous cutoff dates because there are still a lot of old cases that have not even been brought out of cold storage. The EB2ROW dates are again current because USCIS has adjudicated and approved EB2ROW cases throughout the year- so no backlog there.
If USCIS followed FIFO, then the following would happen:
- USCIS would be adjudicating old EB2I/C and EB3 cases right now, and not the recently received EB2ROW cases.
- This would reduce the number of pre-adjudicated EB2ROW cases and hence lower the demand in the EB2ROW category.
- When time would come to roll over numbers not used by EB2ROW:
- A large pool number of excess visas would be available
- A large pool of pre-adjudicated EB2-I/C and EB3 cases with old PDs would be available that could be readily assigned visa numbers.
As a result, old cases would be assigned visa numbers and backlog would be reduced.
Unfortunately, USCIS has confused its process of adjudicating cases (which is FIFO) with its effort to enforce the country quota. The country limits come into picture only when cases ready for adjudication are to be assigned visa numbers. The process of adjudication should still be FIFO, and not determined by the country quota.
Very good points. I can't agree with you any more.
The question is how do we raise it as an issue so USCIS follow FIFO.
more...
pictures ROTC Military Ball-NMHU-1985
lazycis
05-01 12:52 PM
If I-485 is still pending, you can try to use AC21 and port old I-140 to new employer. Nothing to lose, a lot to gain if it works out. AC21 is not clearly defined and it's not codified in regulations so you have a good chance to prevail. The only problem I see is that the old employer no longer exists. Termination of the employer's business is one of the reasons for automatic revocation of I-140 (see 8 CFR 205.1(a)(iii)(D)). However if old employer was simply merged into another company, you can argue that business was not terminated.
dresses Seventh annual military ball
Libra
08-05 08:32 PM
To capture unused visa numbers we need to make DC rally big, so lets go to DC on sept 13th and make it big success.......
get relief from retrogression. Capture of unused visa numbers etc will make us ignore how many apps USCIS received.
Good thing is that people will get interim benefits like EAD/AP.
get relief from retrogression. Capture of unused visa numbers etc will make us ignore how many apps USCIS received.
Good thing is that people will get interim benefits like EAD/AP.
more...
makeup ROTC Military Ball King and
amitsri_74
06-27 04:45 PM
I am on H1-B which expired on June 18th (extension filed) and my I-485 is pending since Sep 2007. I got my EAD in Feb 2008 but I am still using my H1-B with my current employer. My wife is on H4 (extension filed with mine) and her EAD is received at USCIS May 13th under processing
I need expert's help to understand the following
1) I am getting a good job offer and want to move to other employer July 31 on EAD.
2) Since my H1-Extension is no received I cannot transfer it now but I get it I will transfer it.
3) Can I join my new employer using my EAD (which was not used with my current employer) invoking AC21 and 180 period is passed since the 485 Application receipt date (Sep 14th)
4) If I join using EAD, will my wife be out of status as H4 will be void, however her EAD is under process but not yet received.
Any help will be highly appreciated
Amit
I need expert's help to understand the following
1) I am getting a good job offer and want to move to other employer July 31 on EAD.
2) Since my H1-Extension is no received I cannot transfer it now but I get it I will transfer it.
3) Can I join my new employer using my EAD (which was not used with my current employer) invoking AC21 and 180 period is passed since the 485 Application receipt date (Sep 14th)
4) If I join using EAD, will my wife be out of status as H4 will be void, however her EAD is under process but not yet received.
Any help will be highly appreciated
Amit
girlfriend 1st Annual Hillhouse JROTC Military Ball 2011 - MrP#39;s Photos
gc_kaavaali
12-08 01:33 PM
Hi guys,
IV need contributions to invest in the omnibus bill Lobbying efforts.. for more details look at below thread...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15905
IV need contributions to invest in the omnibus bill Lobbying efforts.. for more details look at below thread...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15905
hairstyles 2007 0014 JROTC Seniors 2007
walking_dude
11-25 05:46 PM
Done.
You are doing great...Please keep up the good work...
also, add item 6 to our wish list..
6. Remove "same or similar" clause in EAD which is causing lots of confusion. Just see that anyone who gets a EAD works in the Information technology field and not flipping burgers.
Good work, but small modification.
Just take out this phrase in the list
or increase them to rational levels such as 10%-15%
You are doing great...Please keep up the good work...
also, add item 6 to our wish list..
6. Remove "same or similar" clause in EAD which is causing lots of confusion. Just see that anyone who gets a EAD works in the Information technology field and not flipping burgers.
Good work, but small modification.
Just take out this phrase in the list
or increase them to rational levels such as 10%-15%
benbear
11-09 09:39 AM
Let me simplify the EB backlog equation:
EB backlog as of Oct31 = 655K�(average lead time for FB approval)x50K/month+50KEB in Oct
Do the simple math, we can get the following table:
Average time for FB approval EB backlog
5month 455K
6month 405K
7month 355K
8month 305K
9month 255K
10month 205K
It is safe to say notice date in Sept equal to receipting by USCIS in Sept, because at notice date, USCIS actually open your file then send receipt.
So,from , EB receipt in Sept vs. receipt in Oct = 2:1
150k in Sept. include both EB(100K) and FB (50K).
(Note: assume received FB every month 50K. 50K is a reasonable assumption,
otherwise it's no way for USCIS to approve 800K AOS a year.)
Since EB in Sept vs. Oct is 2:1, so total EB receipting in Oct. should be 50K.
Out of the 655k total, the key is lead time for FB approval, how many month?
This is the key! If we assume average FB approval takes 6 month,
then EB out of the 655k is 655K-50Kx6=355K.
Add the 50K EB in Oct. Total EB backlog is 405K.
Still the key is average FB approval time, any gurus has any idea.
I am sure the time is not 12 month. If it's 12 month,
then EB backlog= 655K-50Kx12+50K=105k. :D:D:D Which is impossible!!
EB backlog as of Oct31 = 655K�(average lead time for FB approval)x50K/month+50KEB in Oct
Do the simple math, we can get the following table:
Average time for FB approval EB backlog
5month 455K
6month 405K
7month 355K
8month 305K
9month 255K
10month 205K
It is safe to say notice date in Sept equal to receipting by USCIS in Sept, because at notice date, USCIS actually open your file then send receipt.
So,from , EB receipt in Sept vs. receipt in Oct = 2:1
150k in Sept. include both EB(100K) and FB (50K).
(Note: assume received FB every month 50K. 50K is a reasonable assumption,
otherwise it's no way for USCIS to approve 800K AOS a year.)
Since EB in Sept vs. Oct is 2:1, so total EB receipting in Oct. should be 50K.
Out of the 655k total, the key is lead time for FB approval, how many month?
This is the key! If we assume average FB approval takes 6 month,
then EB out of the 655k is 655K-50Kx6=355K.
Add the 50K EB in Oct. Total EB backlog is 405K.
Still the key is average FB approval time, any gurus has any idea.
I am sure the time is not 12 month. If it's 12 month,
then EB backlog= 655K-50Kx12+50K=105k. :D:D:D Which is impossible!!
rp0lol
08-26 01:30 PM
Also, keep in mind that sometimes you don't get your passport back in time for H1 stamping. So, if you are stuck without passport then .....(you know the rest)
No comments:
Post a Comment