vkkkk
06-22 04:13 PM
Which is the best place(Kinkos,Sears,Ritz) to take photos for I-485?
fate rules everthing......dont think toomuch
fate rules everthing......dont think toomuch
wallpaper Lionel Messi has six goals in
heavencard
05-14 07:58 PM
I am planning to file Labor under EB2. Below is my education detail.
3 years Bachelor Degree i.e. B.Com.
2 years MBA(Information Technology)
10 years pure IT experience in Java, Oracle
5 Professional Certification from Sun Microsystem,Oracle and IBM
Based on these education background will I have problem with EB2 labor and I-140 approval?
Please suggest.
3 years Bachelor Degree i.e. B.Com.
2 years MBA(Information Technology)
10 years pure IT experience in Java, Oracle
5 Professional Certification from Sun Microsystem,Oracle and IBM
Based on these education background will I have problem with EB2 labor and I-140 approval?
Please suggest.
mzafar125
10-29 02:12 PM
All u require is
- take the EAD cards
- take some ID like drivers license or passport
- fill this form
Thats it....
http://www.ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf
Folks,
I was just reviewing the form, we should select " Legal Alien Allowed to Work" on the SSN application form if we have been issued the EAD card right ? All we need to take along with us is the valid EAD , drivers license, and foreign passport. Do you know how long it takes them to process the SSN.
Do we have to wait for the SSN to apply for a job or can we start working once we have the receipt stating that we have applied for the SSN.
Thanks!
- take the EAD cards
- take some ID like drivers license or passport
- fill this form
Thats it....
http://www.ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf
Folks,
I was just reviewing the form, we should select " Legal Alien Allowed to Work" on the SSN application form if we have been issued the EAD card right ? All we need to take along with us is the valid EAD , drivers license, and foreign passport. Do you know how long it takes them to process the SSN.
Do we have to wait for the SSN to apply for a job or can we start working once we have the receipt stating that we have applied for the SSN.
Thanks!
2011 Lionel+messi+2011+goals
satishku_2000
08-30 12:32 PM
My PD is 2002 Aug
Is it a sub. labor? I heard that in sub labor cases scrutiny is much higher
Is it a sub. labor? I heard that in sub labor cases scrutiny is much higher
more...
pappu
05-11 01:24 PM
they seem to favor unskilled workers category and talk about only 5 thousand Gcs available.
vinabath
03-24 03:24 PM
You are a senior member. Why are you creating useless thread? People browse IV forums for valuable and important information. People (volunteers) works extra time on limited resources to have this website up & running. I do not understand what made you start this useless thread and waste others time?:eek:
I am sorry man, I did not think from your perspective.
I am sorry man, I did not think from your perspective.
more...
Jaime
03-29 11:07 AM
Read the Murthy article, looks like DOL is stepping up PERM approvals for non-audited cases (now let's just pray we who are waiting for PERM don't get audited!)
Best of luck to all!
MurthyDotCom : Stepped-Up PERM / LC Processing (http://murthy.com/news/n_stepup.html)
Best of luck to all!
MurthyDotCom : Stepped-Up PERM / LC Processing (http://murthy.com/news/n_stepup.html)
2010 Lionel Messi hit a hat-trick
franklin
06-27 04:41 PM
This question has been answered multiple times on this forum. Instead of starting a new thread I suggest
1. Doing a forum search
2. Donating money to IV since you will have saved so much of your time getting an immediate answer
1. Doing a forum search
2. Donating money to IV since you will have saved so much of your time getting an immediate answer
more...
mohitb272
12-10 07:17 PM
in my view software engineer and business analyst are NOT similar. One deals with generating lines of code and the other is taking requirements...in my view both are different...talk to your attorney...it is just my view only...and u know i am neither expert nor an attorney...
Well, In a small company as mine, people have to take a lot of other responsibilities besides development, including customer support and at times taking requirements. My role gradually changed but now I am a BA. Anyway, thanks for the advice.
Well, In a small company as mine, people have to take a lot of other responsibilities besides development, including customer support and at times taking requirements. My role gradually changed but now I am a BA. Anyway, thanks for the advice.
hair lionel messi 2011 goals. Lionel Messi netted the only
seahawks
06-10 01:27 AM
http://www.murthy.com/news/UDisster.html
It is possible but I don't know the time line.
It is possible but I don't know the time line.
more...
ivjobs
11-10 06:59 PM
Folks, There are some hot discussions going on in the forum, if this area is something interesting to you why dont you join us in the group...
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/ivstartup/
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/ivstartup/
hot lionel messi 2011 goals.
GCBy3000
08-03 10:50 PM
They would not have received even one application on 7/1 as this is sunday.
What about I-131. That is 7/1/2007. Its confusing
What about I-131. That is 7/1/2007. Its confusing
more...
house Lionel Messi scored two goals
newlife2
09-19 10:18 PM
Guys, I was just laid off and have efiled i539 3 days after the termination date for a status change to F2. Now working on the application letter. Do you think I should mention the layoff in the letter?
If I do mention it:
Con: The layoff might quickly catch the eyes of the immigration officer and if he want to check my status, he could find out the 3 days OOS.
Pro: My previous job was well paid. By mentioning it, I give the reason that why I want to stay at home as F2 instead of keeping the well paid job.
I guess I will mention it in the letter to explain the whole situation and hope everything will be all right. Let me know if anybody disagrees asap, I will mail out the stuff with in next two days.
If I do mention it:
Con: The layoff might quickly catch the eyes of the immigration officer and if he want to check my status, he could find out the 3 days OOS.
Pro: My previous job was well paid. By mentioning it, I give the reason that why I want to stay at home as F2 instead of keeping the well paid job.
I guess I will mention it in the letter to explain the whole situation and hope everything will be all right. Let me know if anybody disagrees asap, I will mail out the stuff with in next two days.
tattoo Lionel Messi 2011
gccube
04-08 10:18 AM
I called the TSC IO a few times and finally it got cleared. Yes my PD is current and I wish the case gets assigned to some one soon.
more...
pictures lionel messi 2011 goals.
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
dresses Messi 53 Goals 2011
eb3_nepa
08-10 05:10 PM
May be he or she has a spouse whose birth country is non retrogressed .. :)
Even THEN it is not possible. Coz the June 2007 bulletin says that even ROW has to be atlest June 2005. His PD was Dec 2005 so there is NO way he could have applied.
Even THEN it is not possible. Coz the June 2007 bulletin says that even ROW has to be atlest June 2005. His PD was Dec 2005 so there is NO way he could have applied.
more...
makeup lionel messi 2011 goals. Lionel Messi is pushing; Lionel Messi is pushing
allen_1974
01-21 11:23 AM
I think you have maintained a legal status thru the transfer from A to B. So in my view your are fine even though there is a gap in terms of Pay stub for some days. But your status is legal.
So dont worry.
:)
So dont worry.
:)
girlfriend lionel messi 2011 goals. lionel messi 2011 new.
singhsa3
08-14 10:52 PM
Employment Based (EB) Green Card (GC) Laws
• The yearly GC quota is 140K. This includes GC for spouse and children. On an average, GCs are given to ~60K families.
• Each country is allotted 7% (of 140K) GCs (equally distributed among EB-1, EB-2 and EB-3) plus any unused visa from other countries. For India, average numbers of EB GCs issued in last seven years were 32K (~12K families).
• As per USCIS Ombudsman report
o Between 2001-07, USCIS was not able process all applications and hence ~155K GCs went waste as unused GCs in a year can not be reused in following years. This was most likely due to resource constraints.
o The report estimates the submission of 500K-750K (yes 500K+) AOS applications between June 1 and August 17 2007.
o FBI security checks may be the single biggest obstacle to the timely and efficient delivery of immigration benefits.
• There were ~200K pending EB Adjustment of Status (AOS) or I-1485 applications as of June 1st.
• So far EAD renewal has been taking around 3 months. Due to the volume of applications, EAD renewal may take 3-9 months. Thus, you may have to apply for renewal more frequently.
• FBI security check backlog is likely to get worse, because the August USCIS fee increase has prompted a 50 percent rise in new naturalization applications so far this year.
• EB Immigration reform does not have enough support in Congress (failure of SKILL, STEM ..). As a matter of fact, it does not even get enough support to make it debatable, let alone final voting.
• The laws need to be changed and the process improved to fix the situation.
What does it mean?
• There will be around 1Million AOS/I-485) applications by Aug 17 which will take 1M/140K = 7+ years to clear the backlog. Thus, late priority dates will remain retrogressed for several years.
• Some, who could not file AOS by 08/17, may have to wait for several years (5+ years).
• Longer EAD/AP renewals cycle and 1 year validity may have the following affects.
o You will have to stop working, if your EAD is not renewed in time.
o Several employers (and rightly so) may view EAD as a temporary permit and may be reluctant to hire you.
• You have to be in the same position with same job responsibilities for an indefinite time period, otherwise your GC application will be rejected.
• If you were unmarried at the time of filing and planning to bring spouse to the USA upon marriage, you will need to continue on current status (e.g. H-1B) or wait till your PD become current.
Immigration Voice (IV) Executive and Legislative Efforts
• Lobbying is an efficient tool to influence law and rule making.
• IV was very active in lobbying for CIR 2006, which was passed in senate.
• IV grass-root effort (flower campaign + San Jose Rally) was an important reason for retraction of July Visa Bulletin.
• Due to upcoming presidential elections, next congress session in October’07 may be our only window of opportunity for several years to influence the lawmakers.
Your options: a) Struggle for several years b) Leave USA c) Help yourself by joining IV
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/iv/WashingtonDC_IV_Rally_w_FactSheet.doc
• The yearly GC quota is 140K. This includes GC for spouse and children. On an average, GCs are given to ~60K families.
• Each country is allotted 7% (of 140K) GCs (equally distributed among EB-1, EB-2 and EB-3) plus any unused visa from other countries. For India, average numbers of EB GCs issued in last seven years were 32K (~12K families).
• As per USCIS Ombudsman report
o Between 2001-07, USCIS was not able process all applications and hence ~155K GCs went waste as unused GCs in a year can not be reused in following years. This was most likely due to resource constraints.
o The report estimates the submission of 500K-750K (yes 500K+) AOS applications between June 1 and August 17 2007.
o FBI security checks may be the single biggest obstacle to the timely and efficient delivery of immigration benefits.
• There were ~200K pending EB Adjustment of Status (AOS) or I-1485 applications as of June 1st.
• So far EAD renewal has been taking around 3 months. Due to the volume of applications, EAD renewal may take 3-9 months. Thus, you may have to apply for renewal more frequently.
• FBI security check backlog is likely to get worse, because the August USCIS fee increase has prompted a 50 percent rise in new naturalization applications so far this year.
• EB Immigration reform does not have enough support in Congress (failure of SKILL, STEM ..). As a matter of fact, it does not even get enough support to make it debatable, let alone final voting.
• The laws need to be changed and the process improved to fix the situation.
What does it mean?
• There will be around 1Million AOS/I-485) applications by Aug 17 which will take 1M/140K = 7+ years to clear the backlog. Thus, late priority dates will remain retrogressed for several years.
• Some, who could not file AOS by 08/17, may have to wait for several years (5+ years).
• Longer EAD/AP renewals cycle and 1 year validity may have the following affects.
o You will have to stop working, if your EAD is not renewed in time.
o Several employers (and rightly so) may view EAD as a temporary permit and may be reluctant to hire you.
• You have to be in the same position with same job responsibilities for an indefinite time period, otherwise your GC application will be rejected.
• If you were unmarried at the time of filing and planning to bring spouse to the USA upon marriage, you will need to continue on current status (e.g. H-1B) or wait till your PD become current.
Immigration Voice (IV) Executive and Legislative Efforts
• Lobbying is an efficient tool to influence law and rule making.
• IV was very active in lobbying for CIR 2006, which was passed in senate.
• IV grass-root effort (flower campaign + San Jose Rally) was an important reason for retraction of July Visa Bulletin.
• Due to upcoming presidential elections, next congress session in October’07 may be our only window of opportunity for several years to influence the lawmakers.
Your options: a) Struggle for several years b) Leave USA c) Help yourself by joining IV
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/iv/WashingtonDC_IV_Rally_w_FactSheet.doc
hairstyles year Lionel Messi#39;s goal
snathan
09-17 09:11 AM
Yesterday my employer received notice that my co-workers I-140 was denied and when she went home she received denial notice for her I-485 too. She filed EB2 concurrent.
why your co-workers 140 was denied. Is it sub labour or she is the primary ?.
Thanks
why your co-workers 140 was denied. Is it sub labour or she is the primary ?.
Thanks
capriol
01-26 07:19 PM
Folks,
I am not getting my hopes too high about the EB-485 processing dates--either for the TSC or the NSC. Correct me if I am wrong...but I think that this huge progress in the EB 485 processing dates can be attributed to the fact that EB2 (India) is retrogressed and even unavailable (currently) and EB 3 (India) is also regtrogressed, and of course, not to mention China. So, perhaps both the service centers are processing EB 485's for ROW--and thus this quite impressive forward move.
If at some point India's EB2 and 3 priority dates move by a great leap beyond what it is now (ie., if the centers start processing the July 2007 VB submissions of EB2 and 3) , then should not we expect that the processing dates of the two centers be back-logged again and thus retrogressed?
What so you folks think? Thanks.
I am not getting my hopes too high about the EB-485 processing dates--either for the TSC or the NSC. Correct me if I am wrong...but I think that this huge progress in the EB 485 processing dates can be attributed to the fact that EB2 (India) is retrogressed and even unavailable (currently) and EB 3 (India) is also regtrogressed, and of course, not to mention China. So, perhaps both the service centers are processing EB 485's for ROW--and thus this quite impressive forward move.
If at some point India's EB2 and 3 priority dates move by a great leap beyond what it is now (ie., if the centers start processing the July 2007 VB submissions of EB2 and 3) , then should not we expect that the processing dates of the two centers be back-logged again and thus retrogressed?
What so you folks think? Thanks.
Munna Bhai
02-08 12:17 PM
Does anyone know if Transit visa is needed while travelling with Air India via London.
Asking since you dont change planes in London... you continue on same flight.
As far as I know, you don't need any transit visa but contact the following:
a)British embassy.
b)Airlines.
c)Directly goto airport and check at the counter ( a week ahead).
Hope this helps.
Asking since you dont change planes in London... you continue on same flight.
As far as I know, you don't need any transit visa but contact the following:
a)British embassy.
b)Airlines.
c)Directly goto airport and check at the counter ( a week ahead).
Hope this helps.
No comments:
Post a Comment