panini
06-18 04:45 PM
I totally agree!
Why would you divide employment based immigration in to ROW vs non-ROW? Do you think folks from ROW don't deserve any relief? This is the kind of mentality which divides this small community of EB immigrants. This community is extremely small as it is in grand scheme of things so please don't try to divide it any further and make this community so small that it becomes irrelevant. Just a piece of advise.
Why would you divide employment based immigration in to ROW vs non-ROW? Do you think folks from ROW don't deserve any relief? This is the kind of mentality which divides this small community of EB immigrants. This community is extremely small as it is in grand scheme of things so please don't try to divide it any further and make this community so small that it becomes irrelevant. Just a piece of advise.
bluekayal
03-18 02:50 PM
I wonder if my child who only has ITIN will get the $300..probably not ...Waste of money to apply for EAD for a 10 yr old!
tonyHK12
03-17 08:49 PM
@chanduv23 - Yes it does look like this is needed, for people to realize that, this is the only way they can get their own Green card on time!
Looking for good motivators, for people, to make them campaign for their own benefit............I know it sounds strange
Members - IV is not going to benefit as much as you, by doing the Advocacy days
Only 15 days left. This is our last chance until late 2013, or even later, with the presidential elections.
Enforcement is increasing and it will get worse. As you may know H1 and H4s are getting a lot of 221(g), GC applications are getting RFEs.
This is a critical time to show that we are valuable to the economy and contribute and create jobs. We have to improve our position, desperately - whether its H1b or Green Card.
THE ONLY WAY IS ADVOCACY.
.
PS: This must really hurt the anti-immigrants. you can play with the reds all you want, but its not changing anything.
.
Looking for good motivators, for people, to make them campaign for their own benefit............I know it sounds strange
Members - IV is not going to benefit as much as you, by doing the Advocacy days
Only 15 days left. This is our last chance until late 2013, or even later, with the presidential elections.
Enforcement is increasing and it will get worse. As you may know H1 and H4s are getting a lot of 221(g), GC applications are getting RFEs.
This is a critical time to show that we are valuable to the economy and contribute and create jobs. We have to improve our position, desperately - whether its H1b or Green Card.
THE ONLY WAY IS ADVOCACY.
.
PS: This must really hurt the anti-immigrants. you can play with the reds all you want, but its not changing anything.
.
lostinbeta
10-03 01:19 PM
HEY.......YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!!!!!!!!
Well fine, if you want to play like that.....
SPAM*(INFINITY*(INFINITY+1)*(INFINITY^INFINITY))
:::Runs and ducks behind a building in a dark alley, gets mugged by some thugs:::
:::evil chuckle is still heard, but is much fainter than before:::
Well fine, if you want to play like that.....
SPAM*(INFINITY*(INFINITY+1)*(INFINITY^INFINITY))
:::Runs and ducks behind a building in a dark alley, gets mugged by some thugs:::
:::evil chuckle is still heard, but is much fainter than before:::
more...
telekinesis
10-20 07:52 AM
Get the educational version! Much cheaper and is fully functional!
jatinr
08-17 10:12 PM
And you will there with your friend...//wink.. correct.
USCIS will accept any applicaiton filed at a wrong service center uptil Aug 29th. If an applicant has not filed a form as per the direct filing instructions that became effective July 30th, still USCIS will accept any application filed at wrong locaiton as per their press release for direct filing that came sometime in June.
USCIS will accept any applicaiton filed at a wrong service center uptil Aug 29th. If an applicant has not filed a form as per the direct filing instructions that became effective July 30th, still USCIS will accept any application filed at wrong locaiton as per their press release for direct filing that came sometime in June.
more...
Better_Days
12-21 01:45 AM
I just read at TOI that Dr Manmohan Singh's daughter Amrit Singh is a staff attorney at ACLU.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/PMs_daughter_puts_White_House_in_the_dock/articleshow/2639327.cms
Can she be of any help to IV's Agenda. Has IV core considered contacting her.
As a card carrying member of ACLU, all I can say is that I am proud to have the lady at ACLU :)
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/PMs_daughter_puts_White_House_in_the_dock/articleshow/2639327.cms
Can she be of any help to IV's Agenda. Has IV core considered contacting her.
As a card carrying member of ACLU, all I can say is that I am proud to have the lady at ACLU :)
matreen
10-12 11:32 PM
Thanks. Can someone get me USCIS contact number to get the status on receipts.....
more...
EkAurAaya
03-19 09:43 PM
Once you are 183 days on H1b (significant presence test), you become resident alien for federal tax purposes and file 1040 just like any other resident. From my experience in real estate, I am yet to encounter an IRS form that says H1b's shall be taxed 10% more. Can you request the IRS publication number from the source? I am curious.
Thanks for your response. My understanding was the same as yours, however this came from my real estate lawyer (a good one). May be he misunderstood resident alien v/s foreigner investing here.
I still would like to hear from someone who actually sold a place on h1 or ead their experience.
Thanks for your response. My understanding was the same as yours, however this came from my real estate lawyer (a good one). May be he misunderstood resident alien v/s foreigner investing here.
I still would like to hear from someone who actually sold a place on h1 or ead their experience.
anjans
07-18 04:57 PM
You need to fill the application with date of entry anf I-95 number!
more...
.jpg "funny photoshop fails. justin bieber photoshop fail. justin bieber photoshop fail. miles01110. May 1, 02:43 PM. Apple#39;s Flash inefficiencies are")
weasley
04-16 06:25 AM
I showed my 485 Receipt notice as evidence and renewed my licence. You don't have to always produce EAD (then every 2 year you have to renew the licence).
If your 485 is pending for long, You can contact USCIS over phone and create service request. USCIS will send you a letter saying that your case is pending because of so and so reason. You can take that along with you, if the BMV is asking why your 485 is pending for long.
If your 485 is pending for long, You can contact USCIS over phone and create service request. USCIS will send you a letter saying that your case is pending because of so and so reason. You can take that along with you, if the BMV is asking why your 485 is pending for long.
amsgc
04-08 08:34 PM
If it's easy enough, please remove "United States" as a choice in the list of countries.
Then they will pick Afghanistan! :)
Lets encourage people to make a little bit of effort and update the data to reflect the correct PD and Country of chargeability.
Then they will pick Afghanistan! :)
Lets encourage people to make a little bit of effort and update the data to reflect the correct PD and Country of chargeability.
more...
fromnaija
04-20 05:28 PM
IF you move to a different city that is not within the same Metroplolitan Area, yes you will have to restart your GC process. The good news however is that you can retain the priority date if your old I-140 is approved.
AttelsActuasy
02-27 11:53 AM
pozycjonowanie (http://www.clpik-studio.com)
more...
Munna Bhai
07-12 09:48 AM
Yes, you can. You can switch to H4 and back to H1 without worrying about the Cap limitation. The only point that is little hazy is how long can you stay on a H4 before you can get back to H1 without the cap limitation kicking in. As the H1 is given in 3 year installments, would you have to get back to your H1 before that 3 year period ends, if in the middle of that period you had switched to H4?
Say, you had obtained your H1 in Jan 2007 and is good until Jan 2010 (3 years allotment), and you switched to H4 in Dec 2007 using up 1 year of your H1. I think that you can switch back to H1 without the cap limitation ONLY until Jan 2010 and your new papers will give you another 3 years of the remaining 5 years of your H1.
Let me know what you find. Good luck.
One person just told me that, I can switch to H4 but I will be subjected to Cap since my spouse is in H1b non-profit.
Currently my H1b extension is based on i-140 approval(3 years), will same rule apply to my case.
Say, you had obtained your H1 in Jan 2007 and is good until Jan 2010 (3 years allotment), and you switched to H4 in Dec 2007 using up 1 year of your H1. I think that you can switch back to H1 without the cap limitation ONLY until Jan 2010 and your new papers will give you another 3 years of the remaining 5 years of your H1.
Let me know what you find. Good luck.
One person just told me that, I can switch to H4 but I will be subjected to Cap since my spouse is in H1b non-profit.
Currently my H1b extension is based on i-140 approval(3 years), will same rule apply to my case.
qualified_trash
11-14 08:01 PM
My RIR is rejected. My LC is still pending.
My lawyer says it is moved to TR queue
If My case is moved to TR queue, does it mean very significant delay in getting my LC? Because in such a case this is my breaking point.Ready to quit and give up after these years and years if pain
as it is clear from this post of yours, and reading your first post again, your LC conversion from regular LC to a RIR LC was rejected. does not mean your LC has been rejected and it definitely means that you do retain your PD.
while it is certainly painful for you, it definitely is not as bad as our reaction to your first post made it out to be...... so hang in there!!
My lawyer says it is moved to TR queue
If My case is moved to TR queue, does it mean very significant delay in getting my LC? Because in such a case this is my breaking point.Ready to quit and give up after these years and years if pain
as it is clear from this post of yours, and reading your first post again, your LC conversion from regular LC to a RIR LC was rejected. does not mean your LC has been rejected and it definitely means that you do retain your PD.
while it is certainly painful for you, it definitely is not as bad as our reaction to your first post made it out to be...... so hang in there!!
more...
Jaime
08-06 12:12 PM
Yeah, why not? As long as Legals ALSO get green cards!
On The Washington Post today:
A Less Ambitious Approach to Immigration
By Arlen Specter
Monday, August 6, 2007; Page A17
The charge of amnesty defeated comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate this summer. It is too important, and there has been too much legislative investment, not to try again. The time to do so is now.
Certainly the government should implement the provisions it has already enacted to improve border security and crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. But the important additions on those subjects contained in the bill defeated in June will not be enacted without also dealing with the 12 million-plus undocumented immigrants and the guest worker program.
So let's take a fresh look and try a narrower approach.
There is a consensus in Congress on most objectives and many remedies for immigration reform: more border patrols, additional fencing, drones and some form of a guest worker program. Modern technological advances provide foolproof identification so employers can -- justifiably -- be severely sanctioned if they don't verify IDs and act to eliminate the magnet attracting illegals to penetrate the border. Yet Congress is unlikely to appropriate $3 billion for border security without dealing simultaneously with the illegal immigrants already here.
The main objective in legalizing the 12 million was to eliminate their fugitive status, allowing them to live in the United States without fear of being detected and deported or being abused by unscrupulous employers. We should consider a revised status for those 12 million people. Let them hold the status of those with green cards -- without the automatic path to citizenship that was the core component of critics' argument that reform efforts were really amnesty. Give these people the company of their spouses and minor children and consider other indicators of citizenship short of the right to vote (which was always the dealbreaker).
This approach may be attacked as creating an "underclass" inconsistent with American values, which have always been to give refuge to the "huddled masses." But such a compromise is clearly better than leaving these people a fugitive class. People with a lesser status are frequently referred to as second-class citizens. Congress has adamantly refused to make the 12 million people already here full citizens, but isn't it better for them to at least be secure aliens than hunted and exploited?
Giving these people green-card status leaves open the opportunity for them to return to their native lands and seek citizenship through regular channels. Or, after our borders are secured and tough employer sanctions have been put in place, Congress can revisit the issue and possibly find a more hospitable America.
Some of the other refinements of the defeated bill can await another day and the regular process of Judiciary Committee hearings and markups. Changing the law on family unification with a point system can also be considered later. Now, perhaps, we could add green cards for highly skilled workers and tinker at the edges of immigration law, providing we don't get bogged down in endless debate and defeated cloture motions.
It would be refreshing if Congress, and the country, could come together in a bipartisan way to at least partially solve one of the big domestic issues of the day.
The writer, a senator from Pennsylvania, is the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
On The Washington Post today:
A Less Ambitious Approach to Immigration
By Arlen Specter
Monday, August 6, 2007; Page A17
The charge of amnesty defeated comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate this summer. It is too important, and there has been too much legislative investment, not to try again. The time to do so is now.
Certainly the government should implement the provisions it has already enacted to improve border security and crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. But the important additions on those subjects contained in the bill defeated in June will not be enacted without also dealing with the 12 million-plus undocumented immigrants and the guest worker program.
So let's take a fresh look and try a narrower approach.
There is a consensus in Congress on most objectives and many remedies for immigration reform: more border patrols, additional fencing, drones and some form of a guest worker program. Modern technological advances provide foolproof identification so employers can -- justifiably -- be severely sanctioned if they don't verify IDs and act to eliminate the magnet attracting illegals to penetrate the border. Yet Congress is unlikely to appropriate $3 billion for border security without dealing simultaneously with the illegal immigrants already here.
The main objective in legalizing the 12 million was to eliminate their fugitive status, allowing them to live in the United States without fear of being detected and deported or being abused by unscrupulous employers. We should consider a revised status for those 12 million people. Let them hold the status of those with green cards -- without the automatic path to citizenship that was the core component of critics' argument that reform efforts were really amnesty. Give these people the company of their spouses and minor children and consider other indicators of citizenship short of the right to vote (which was always the dealbreaker).
This approach may be attacked as creating an "underclass" inconsistent with American values, which have always been to give refuge to the "huddled masses." But such a compromise is clearly better than leaving these people a fugitive class. People with a lesser status are frequently referred to as second-class citizens. Congress has adamantly refused to make the 12 million people already here full citizens, but isn't it better for them to at least be secure aliens than hunted and exploited?
Giving these people green-card status leaves open the opportunity for them to return to their native lands and seek citizenship through regular channels. Or, after our borders are secured and tough employer sanctions have been put in place, Congress can revisit the issue and possibly find a more hospitable America.
Some of the other refinements of the defeated bill can await another day and the regular process of Judiciary Committee hearings and markups. Changing the law on family unification with a point system can also be considered later. Now, perhaps, we could add green cards for highly skilled workers and tinker at the edges of immigration law, providing we don't get bogged down in endless debate and defeated cloture motions.
It would be refreshing if Congress, and the country, could come together in a bipartisan way to at least partially solve one of the big domestic issues of the day.
The writer, a senator from Pennsylvania, is the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
tonyHK12
01-11 09:28 AM
The second part also sounds pretty reasonable to me:
This PAV would be issued upon successful completion of an application process that would involve the following:
1. Providing documentary evidence (school records, doctor�s records, etc.) that the applicant was in the United States before he or she reached their thirteenth birthday and be no older than twenty-five at the time they file their application;
2. Background checks for any prior convictions involving fraud, assault, reckless driving or DWI, failure to appear at any immigration hearing, or any past record of voluntary or involuntary deportation. Any such convictions would lead to a presumption of an unsuccessful application;
3. Evidence of the withholding of any relevant information, or submitting false information would result in the automatic failure of an application. Any failure of an application would result in the applicant returning to his previous immigration status;
4. Failure of an application due to withholding information or providing false information would subject the applicant to expedited removal proceedings;
5. Waivers of any requirement connected with the application process could only be made on a case by case basis by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security setting out in detail the "compelling evidence" underlying such a waiver and the evidence used to support such a determination.
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following authorizations:
1. PAV holders would be allowed to legally work and obtain a U.S. passport (on the condition of turning in any other passports) for foreign travel;
2. It would allow holders to establish residency in any state according to that state's requirements and be on equal footing with other legal immigrants with regard to state and local laws and policies;
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following prohibitions:
1. Holders of the PAV would not be able to sponsor family members and relatives for LPR status;
2. Holding an PAV would not imply any safe harbor for applicant's family members;
3. Holders of PAVs would not be eligible to receive means-tested public welfare benefits;
4. Holders of PAVs would not be able to adjust their immigration status for a period of 10 years and then only through an administrative hearing in which the holder presented compelling evidence that such an adjustment is in the public interest. Such evidence would consist of, but not be limited to, applicant's work history, community service, military service, family circumstances, and the results of policy and security checks.
A One-time Only Policy: Consistent with the knowledge that adjusting the status of illegal immigrants brings with it the expectation that adjustments of the same kind will be made in the future, the language authorizing this initiative will explicitly state that:
1. That no further adjustments to legal status will be made for children brought into the country illegally after the date on which this bill becomes law;
2. That parents who bring their young children into the country illegally after the date of enactment will be subject to expedited removal proceedings.
This PAV would be issued upon successful completion of an application process that would involve the following:
1. Providing documentary evidence (school records, doctor�s records, etc.) that the applicant was in the United States before he or she reached their thirteenth birthday and be no older than twenty-five at the time they file their application;
2. Background checks for any prior convictions involving fraud, assault, reckless driving or DWI, failure to appear at any immigration hearing, or any past record of voluntary or involuntary deportation. Any such convictions would lead to a presumption of an unsuccessful application;
3. Evidence of the withholding of any relevant information, or submitting false information would result in the automatic failure of an application. Any failure of an application would result in the applicant returning to his previous immigration status;
4. Failure of an application due to withholding information or providing false information would subject the applicant to expedited removal proceedings;
5. Waivers of any requirement connected with the application process could only be made on a case by case basis by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security setting out in detail the "compelling evidence" underlying such a waiver and the evidence used to support such a determination.
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following authorizations:
1. PAV holders would be allowed to legally work and obtain a U.S. passport (on the condition of turning in any other passports) for foreign travel;
2. It would allow holders to establish residency in any state according to that state's requirements and be on equal footing with other legal immigrants with regard to state and local laws and policies;
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following prohibitions:
1. Holders of the PAV would not be able to sponsor family members and relatives for LPR status;
2. Holding an PAV would not imply any safe harbor for applicant's family members;
3. Holders of PAVs would not be eligible to receive means-tested public welfare benefits;
4. Holders of PAVs would not be able to adjust their immigration status for a period of 10 years and then only through an administrative hearing in which the holder presented compelling evidence that such an adjustment is in the public interest. Such evidence would consist of, but not be limited to, applicant's work history, community service, military service, family circumstances, and the results of policy and security checks.
A One-time Only Policy: Consistent with the knowledge that adjusting the status of illegal immigrants brings with it the expectation that adjustments of the same kind will be made in the future, the language authorizing this initiative will explicitly state that:
1. That no further adjustments to legal status will be made for children brought into the country illegally after the date on which this bill becomes law;
2. That parents who bring their young children into the country illegally after the date of enactment will be subject to expedited removal proceedings.
jsb
03-26 09:41 AM
security clears of what? Anthrax?
For heaven's sake, those are just text, right? I dont think we can do an attachment..
There are more than 100,000 emails and more than 40,000 paper letters coming to Obama every day. I doubt, if all get acknowledged after somone reads them. Some sort of filtering process has to handle that task. With security I meant, checking on originating IP addresses against their watch-lists, certain words in the text, etc. As per reports, Obams is given some 10 letters (may be some emails) everyday to read.
For heaven's sake, those are just text, right? I dont think we can do an attachment..
There are more than 100,000 emails and more than 40,000 paper letters coming to Obama every day. I doubt, if all get acknowledged after somone reads them. Some sort of filtering process has to handle that task. With security I meant, checking on originating IP addresses against their watch-lists, certain words in the text, etc. As per reports, Obams is given some 10 letters (may be some emails) everyday to read.
lazycis
12-21 05:20 PM
The visa bulletin reads "..Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. "
Does this mean 7 % limit per country is set to combined total of FB and EB category and not just EB? Also, does this mean 25,620 annual visa can be allotted for either one of these preferences, EB or FB?:confused:
I have heard earlier that EB preference limit per country is ~9,800. How true does it stand by sections in INA?
Nothing is confusing here.
140,000 * 0.07 = 9,800 (EB1+EB2+EB3+EB4+EB5) (28.6% + 28.6% + 28.6% +7.1 % + 7.1 % =100%)
Are we not high-skilled? :)
Does this mean 7 % limit per country is set to combined total of FB and EB category and not just EB? Also, does this mean 25,620 annual visa can be allotted for either one of these preferences, EB or FB?:confused:
I have heard earlier that EB preference limit per country is ~9,800. How true does it stand by sections in INA?
Nothing is confusing here.
140,000 * 0.07 = 9,800 (EB1+EB2+EB3+EB4+EB5) (28.6% + 28.6% + 28.6% +7.1 % + 7.1 % =100%)
Are we not high-skilled? :)
arunmohan
11-19 03:42 PM
job A designation is Software engineer
Job B designation is DBA
description of both jobs are almost same.
If i switch job using AC21 is there any problem with USCIS?
what is the chance of getting RFE in future?
guys please help me on this question.
Job B designation is DBA
description of both jobs are almost same.
If i switch job using AC21 is there any problem with USCIS?
what is the chance of getting RFE in future?
guys please help me on this question.
0 comments:
Post a Comment