eb3_nepa
07-12 04:49 PM
The FBI name check is a bottleneck agreed. BUTTT It has NOTHING to do with the recent VB fiasco!
Some people were approved by the USCIS even WITHOUT the name checks. This is entirely a US Dept of State vs USCIS mess.
Some people were approved by the USCIS even WITHOUT the name checks. This is entirely a US Dept of State vs USCIS mess.
wallpaper Pirate desktop wallpaper
jhaalaa
11-11 10:56 AM
I agree that every single job loss matters and I support keeping jobs here where possible - unless essential.
Interestingly, jobs lost due to outsourcing are far less than other factors. Here is some interesting survey link:
Where the Jobs Went - Careers (http://www.cioinsight.com/c/a/Careers/Where-the-Jobs-Went-517950/?kc=CIOMINUTE11112009CIOA)
The reason I posted it here is because the anti-immigrant lobby also views immigrants as supporters of outsourcing - which is not true because we look wholistically from an economic perspective. Also we are comparatively less emotionally charged about local issues, something that we should be more involved in to ensure comfortable assimilation for natives and immigrants alike.
Interestingly, jobs lost due to outsourcing are far less than other factors. Here is some interesting survey link:
Where the Jobs Went - Careers (http://www.cioinsight.com/c/a/Careers/Where-the-Jobs-Went-517950/?kc=CIOMINUTE11112009CIOA)
The reason I posted it here is because the anti-immigrant lobby also views immigrants as supporters of outsourcing - which is not true because we look wholistically from an economic perspective. Also we are comparatively less emotionally charged about local issues, something that we should be more involved in to ensure comfortable assimilation for natives and immigrants alike.
ck_b2001
07-20 09:07 PM
Yes, it's definitely a issue. Talk to your lawyer immediately.
Even though the form looks similar, G-325A requires 4 copies where G-325 has only 2 copies. I was almost about to make the same mistake.
No big deal....you should worry if you have signature missing, check not included, wrong fee, no medical exam etc. Others are trivial things and could only delay processing by few week or at most an RFE. you are not the only one who is making mistakes. There would be thousand who have made some mistake, some without knowing about it.
Even though the form looks similar, G-325A requires 4 copies where G-325 has only 2 copies. I was almost about to make the same mistake.
No big deal....you should worry if you have signature missing, check not included, wrong fee, no medical exam etc. Others are trivial things and could only delay processing by few week or at most an RFE. you are not the only one who is making mistakes. There would be thousand who have made some mistake, some without knowing about it.
2011 Golf Pirate
Raju
04-09 03:39 PM
Friends,
I am working for company A and I have offer from Company B, I thinking of my options, Here is my situation
1. I have approved I140 > 180 days in actually 300 days
2. I have approved EAD
3. mine is labor transfer case and I used an existing labor that matched my job profile
4. Company B is ready to hire me in the same/similar role and are ready to give AC21 employment letter with same details as in my labor.
5. I have approved copy of my labor that was transferred and all other copies related to my case like I140, I485 application and Advance parole etc,....
Please give me some guidance on if I should be accepting the offer from Company B, I am concerned because my labor was transferred from another employee. I have worked for company A for nearly 4 years now and my GC is in process for almost 4 years, labor switch was done like 2 years ago.
Based on this explanation do you see any risk and am I missing anything here, in terms of getting specific documentation from company A application..
please help
I think you are in good shape here
I am working for company A and I have offer from Company B, I thinking of my options, Here is my situation
1. I have approved I140 > 180 days in actually 300 days
2. I have approved EAD
3. mine is labor transfer case and I used an existing labor that matched my job profile
4. Company B is ready to hire me in the same/similar role and are ready to give AC21 employment letter with same details as in my labor.
5. I have approved copy of my labor that was transferred and all other copies related to my case like I140, I485 application and Advance parole etc,....
Please give me some guidance on if I should be accepting the offer from Company B, I am concerned because my labor was transferred from another employee. I have worked for company A for nearly 4 years now and my GC is in process for almost 4 years, labor switch was done like 2 years ago.
Based on this explanation do you see any risk and am I missing anything here, in terms of getting specific documentation from company A application..
please help
I think you are in good shape here
more...
Desi Unlucky
07-27 08:51 PM
I 140 and 485 filed concurrently.
Let's say I 140 is approved after 200 (greater than 180) days, If employer revokes I 140 after 230 days (let's say he is pissed off that i left the company using Ac 21 portability)
will it create any issue for my GC ?
Let's say I 140 is approved after 200 (greater than 180) days, If employer revokes I 140 after 230 days (let's say he is pissed off that i left the company using Ac 21 portability)
will it create any issue for my GC ?
continuedProgress
04-19 02:21 PM
Since its rare for a denial to automatically turn into an approval. :)
Do you care to share what you had to do?
Do you care to share what you had to do?
more...
obviously
08-04 11:05 AM
Hi, can someone help crack this puzzle?
I have an EB3 application with a PD of Nov 2002 (India). Filed I-485 in June 2007, along with medical forms etc. Of course, that category is 'unavailable' now.
In 2005, we started an EB2 application, within the same company, for a new job, this one requiring a Masters degree.
The EB2 I-140 was just approved, and the notice has the Nov 2002 Priority Date.
The attorney had earlier said they could port the priority dates from the EB3 to EB2 and interfile.
Now, he just called saying he is confused and not sure!
His views:
- There is no formal way to find out if the new I-140 was matched up with the old I-485.
- He says he will ask his peers and will also call USCIS Customer Service.
- He thinks we might need to file a new I-485 to support the new EB2 I-140 to show that there is a pending I-485 - because the underlying EB3 is Unavailable.
Appreciate any inputs!
Cheers!
I have an EB3 application with a PD of Nov 2002 (India). Filed I-485 in June 2007, along with medical forms etc. Of course, that category is 'unavailable' now.
In 2005, we started an EB2 application, within the same company, for a new job, this one requiring a Masters degree.
The EB2 I-140 was just approved, and the notice has the Nov 2002 Priority Date.
The attorney had earlier said they could port the priority dates from the EB3 to EB2 and interfile.
Now, he just called saying he is confused and not sure!
His views:
- There is no formal way to find out if the new I-140 was matched up with the old I-485.
- He says he will ask his peers and will also call USCIS Customer Service.
- He thinks we might need to file a new I-485 to support the new EB2 I-140 to show that there is a pending I-485 - because the underlying EB3 is Unavailable.
Appreciate any inputs!
Cheers!
2010 Fat Princess wallpaper
jase21
11-23 04:26 AM
seems like flower by flocke button is lacking symmetry, or is it a design in its own sense.. But its beautiful.
Its hard to vote for just one!
Its hard to vote for just one!
more...
avi101
05-19 04:10 AM
Here's my 2c
- I guess you may already be aware that you can file I485 only if your PD is current.
- Don't delay applying for your I140. Atleast get that going. The more you delay, the more things may change, rules may change at USCIS.. you never know. Plus, once you get your I40 approved and if you decide to quit your current employer you should be able to port your Priority Date. (There are conflicting opinions on what happens should the employer revoke your I140, so research more on that.) If DOL comes out with rule to end labor substitution, then your employer wont have any benefit in revoking your I140. A decision on labor substitution may be coming soon.
- Beside the I140 application notice, you also need employment support letter from your employer for your I485 as yours is an employment based GC. Your employer can delay all they want. My suggestion would be get in good terms with him\her (I know its difficult but suck up for some time), see if you can work out an NON-WRITTEN agreement on continuing to work for an extended period of time. If you put something in writing saying that you wont work afte r x number of months, it could potentially hurt you. GC needs good faith intent from both employer and beneficiary. Your employer can use that against you. Also, if there are any I140 RFEs you may still need your employer's help.
So don't burn bridges if you can. If you can't tolerate your employer any more, atleast try to get your I140 applied and approved so that you have a shot at retaining your PD.
- I guess you may already be aware that you can file I485 only if your PD is current.
- Don't delay applying for your I140. Atleast get that going. The more you delay, the more things may change, rules may change at USCIS.. you never know. Plus, once you get your I40 approved and if you decide to quit your current employer you should be able to port your Priority Date. (There are conflicting opinions on what happens should the employer revoke your I140, so research more on that.) If DOL comes out with rule to end labor substitution, then your employer wont have any benefit in revoking your I140. A decision on labor substitution may be coming soon.
- Beside the I140 application notice, you also need employment support letter from your employer for your I485 as yours is an employment based GC. Your employer can delay all they want. My suggestion would be get in good terms with him\her (I know its difficult but suck up for some time), see if you can work out an NON-WRITTEN agreement on continuing to work for an extended period of time. If you put something in writing saying that you wont work afte r x number of months, it could potentially hurt you. GC needs good faith intent from both employer and beneficiary. Your employer can use that against you. Also, if there are any I140 RFEs you may still need your employer's help.
So don't burn bridges if you can. If you can't tolerate your employer any more, atleast try to get your I140 applied and approved so that you have a shot at retaining your PD.
hair Pirate
ash27
04-02 09:55 PM
Thanks Ams. Do you see any issues using AC21 to move to companies like TekSystems? Also, do you have any information on some of the new provisions in the pipeline.
more...
Gravitation
12-14 12:57 PM
Please post the URL of the school you are attending.
Thanks,
babson.edu
Thanks,
babson.edu
hot Pirate Wallpaper
WeldonSprings
02-25 03:01 PM
USCIS can pre-adjudicate a case, even when visa numbers are not available. This means that USCIS processes all the application, but just waits for a visa number to finalize it.
The processing date listed is the received date of the oldest case that they have not adjudicated or pre-adjudicated yet (maybe due to some problem). It does not mean that cases filed after April 2007 are or will not be adjudicated.
The processing date listed is the received date of the oldest case that they have not adjudicated or pre-adjudicated yet (maybe due to some problem). It does not mean that cases filed after April 2007 are or will not be adjudicated.
more...
house Pirate Wallpaper Mural; pirate wallpaper. Music Pirate Wallpaper 3D
maxy
10-16 01:19 PM
sounds good...thanks
look at your labor app... it states your proffered wage, job description etc. those are the terms and conditions... you can still get an EVL from your employer and have your lawyer (or have yourself) write a letter explaining how the EVL covers terms and conditions on the labor cert. in any case, this is a really stupid and unenforceable rfe... i mean how can the new employer even know whats in the labor and i-140? and without knowing that how can an employer "indicate" any compliance with t&c of labor and 140? i think you should be fine with just a plain evl that matches your job description and salary... at most, you can write a letter saying that "yeah the t&c continues to be valid".
my 2 cents.
look at your labor app... it states your proffered wage, job description etc. those are the terms and conditions... you can still get an EVL from your employer and have your lawyer (or have yourself) write a letter explaining how the EVL covers terms and conditions on the labor cert. in any case, this is a really stupid and unenforceable rfe... i mean how can the new employer even know whats in the labor and i-140? and without knowing that how can an employer "indicate" any compliance with t&c of labor and 140? i think you should be fine with just a plain evl that matches your job description and salary... at most, you can write a letter saying that "yeah the t&c continues to be valid".
my 2 cents.
tattoo Wallpaper 800×600. Pirate
permfiling
12-15 08:55 PM
Thanks psam. Did they say what was the issue and how many days did it take to get the card after the issue was found out?
more...
pictures Technology - Pirate Wallpaper
malibuguy007
09-16 01:38 PM
House Judiciary Committee MembersBelow or go to the thread mentioned above
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member new_horizon)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV members cnag & Prashant)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member little_willy)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY SPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member new_horizon)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV members cnag & Prashant)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member little_willy)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY SPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
dresses Pirate iPhone Wallpaper
Googler
06-18 05:10 PM
Our beloved DHS secretary Chertoff says on June 14, 2007:
http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/speeches/sp_1181915713176.shtm
"know Secretary Gutierrez is also dedicated, as am I, to working very hard with members of Congress. We've been up there probably more than in our own offices over the last couple months, trying to make sure that members understand that comprehensive reform, while not perfect, offers the best chance to get all the sectors of the economy what they need in terms of work, offers the opportunity to deal humanely with what is a continuing social problem, and from my standpoint, offers us the best opportunity to maximize our efforts on national security, because, as I have said time and again, when I have agents out hunting illegal lettuce pickers, waiters and housekeepers, they're not chasing drug dealers, criminals and terrorists. I, frankly, think the drug dealers, criminals and terrorists are the biggest threat to this country."
Then why the hell are law abiding scientists, tech workers, students et al being subjected to these kafka-esque name checks?? Seriously. I think we should start bombarding Congressional offices and Chertoff et all with phone calls. Now that the Ombudsman's data is out, USCIS and FBI can no longer say what they have been saying all these years, that the scale of the problem is miniscule.
Instead in CIR Section 531 (COMPLETION OF BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS) takes away the right for courts to rule on writs of mandamus filings:
"(k) Prohibition of Judicial Enforcement- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court may require any act described in subsection (i) or (j) to be completed by a certain time or award any relief for the failure to complete such acts."
Sen. Obama and Rep. Gutierrez introduced the Citizen Promotion Act in March 2007. The bill has a provision that asks for a namecheck to be completed in 90 days (also includes mumbo jumbo about GAO studying the problem, but the results are already in thanks to the Ombudsman).
See
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1379:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.795:
We should enlist the co-sponsors of these bills to kill Sec 531 (k) and when CIR finally dies, to pass an amended version of the Citizen Promotion Act.
http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/speeches/sp_1181915713176.shtm
"know Secretary Gutierrez is also dedicated, as am I, to working very hard with members of Congress. We've been up there probably more than in our own offices over the last couple months, trying to make sure that members understand that comprehensive reform, while not perfect, offers the best chance to get all the sectors of the economy what they need in terms of work, offers the opportunity to deal humanely with what is a continuing social problem, and from my standpoint, offers us the best opportunity to maximize our efforts on national security, because, as I have said time and again, when I have agents out hunting illegal lettuce pickers, waiters and housekeepers, they're not chasing drug dealers, criminals and terrorists. I, frankly, think the drug dealers, criminals and terrorists are the biggest threat to this country."
Then why the hell are law abiding scientists, tech workers, students et al being subjected to these kafka-esque name checks?? Seriously. I think we should start bombarding Congressional offices and Chertoff et all with phone calls. Now that the Ombudsman's data is out, USCIS and FBI can no longer say what they have been saying all these years, that the scale of the problem is miniscule.
Instead in CIR Section 531 (COMPLETION OF BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS) takes away the right for courts to rule on writs of mandamus filings:
"(k) Prohibition of Judicial Enforcement- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court may require any act described in subsection (i) or (j) to be completed by a certain time or award any relief for the failure to complete such acts."
Sen. Obama and Rep. Gutierrez introduced the Citizen Promotion Act in March 2007. The bill has a provision that asks for a namecheck to be completed in 90 days (also includes mumbo jumbo about GAO studying the problem, but the results are already in thanks to the Ombudsman).
See
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1379:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.795:
We should enlist the co-sponsors of these bills to kill Sec 531 (k) and when CIR finally dies, to pass an amended version of the Citizen Promotion Act.
more...
makeup Alice and the pirate wallpaper
brb2
10-14 10:06 AM
US has been in number 1 in the past, moved to 2nd spot for a couple of years, in the world competitiveness rankings. For the first time, the US moved to the 6th Spot in the world rankings by the world economic forum (Europe based Institution). The main reason was because of the huge current account deficit and negative savings (mainly federal deficit) which is a threat to the US competitiveness. China moved down due to corruption etc. India moved up but any further movement will depend on structural reforms, especially controlling the huge public service and red-tape and a creaking infrastructure - power, roads, ports, water supply - all of which are run by the government. The health services in large parts of India is dismal and so is the public education system (K-12). With the left firmly controlling the ruling party, deregulation is slow and insipid, and it is the private sector which is basically contributing to the GDP and Competitiveness. Here is the link to the actual rankings for 2006-2007
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/gcr_2006/top50.pdf
The reasons for the rankings are given here
http://www.weforum.org/en/fp/gcr_2006-07_highlights/index.htm
The US is still the most competitive but the lead is shrinking...its clear that China, India and the emerging Asian economies have the size, the resources and the talent to catch up and probably surpass the US
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/gcr_2006/top50.pdf
The reasons for the rankings are given here
http://www.weforum.org/en/fp/gcr_2006-07_highlights/index.htm
The US is still the most competitive but the lead is shrinking...its clear that China, India and the emerging Asian economies have the size, the resources and the talent to catch up and probably surpass the US
girlfriend pirate wallpaper. This wallpaper download is 100% free and works on Windows
Munna Bhai
11-16 02:02 PM
what is the difference between visa bulletin and processing dates, how they are related.
Thanks,
Thanks,
hairstyles Alice and the pirate wallpaper; pirate wallpaper.
amitga
02-10 06:52 PM
UK is at lease clear what is their immigration policy. I would like to have similar stand from US Govt where they come out and say in clear words "we don't want to in here" OR "Come here, work for 6 years and leave" OR "we cant you to stay and fix the GC process.
jonty_11
06-18 01:22 PM
you are lucky if u get one....!!! Dont have ur cake and eat it too!!!
Justkidding!
Justkidding!
tnite
09-30 02:58 PM
If you dont mind, can you please elaborate little bit more on this?
I worked on-campus and I did put that info on the g325 form. The AO wanted me to send any or all work authorizations, H1B etc for the period they had mentioned. I had to send my I20, OPT EAD explaining them that I worked on campus as an F1 International student.
I think putting in oncampus jobs really messes it up and they end up issuing a RFE thinking its illegal employment.
I worked on-campus and I did put that info on the g325 form. The AO wanted me to send any or all work authorizations, H1B etc for the period they had mentioned. I had to send my I20, OPT EAD explaining them that I worked on campus as an F1 International student.
I think putting in oncampus jobs really messes it up and they end up issuing a RFE thinking its illegal employment.
No comments:
Post a Comment