bigboy007
12-10 02:18 PM
Also some one has pointed out that SOC codes should be same or similar:
Now as per DOL website:
15-1000 Computer Specialists
** 15-1010 Computer and Information Scientists, Research
**15-1011 Computer and Information Scientists, Research
15-1020 Computer Programmers
15-1021 Computer Programmers
15-1030 Computer Software Engineers
15-1031 Computer Software Engineers, Applications
15-1032 Computer Software Engineers, Systems Software
15-1040 Computer Support Specialists
15-1041 Computer Support Specialists
15-1050 Computer Systems Analysts
15-1051 Computer Systems Analysts
** 15-1060 Database Administrators
**15-1061 Database Administrators
** 15-1070 Network and Computer Systems Administrators
**15-1071 Network and Computer Systems Administrators
** 15-1080 Network Systems and Data Communications Analysts
**15-1081 Network Systems and Data Communications Analysts
15-1090 Miscellaneous Computer Specialists
15-1099 Computer Specialists, All Other
==============================================
I know "**" ones are different and doesnt apply to what i am looking does this mean people go in and around these rest of SOC as and when my new job is in "Computer Specialists" range? i am confused.
What role should i do to intimate USCIS and how do they enquire about htis is it when i do H1b Transfer ?
Now as per DOL website:
15-1000 Computer Specialists
** 15-1010 Computer and Information Scientists, Research
**15-1011 Computer and Information Scientists, Research
15-1020 Computer Programmers
15-1021 Computer Programmers
15-1030 Computer Software Engineers
15-1031 Computer Software Engineers, Applications
15-1032 Computer Software Engineers, Systems Software
15-1040 Computer Support Specialists
15-1041 Computer Support Specialists
15-1050 Computer Systems Analysts
15-1051 Computer Systems Analysts
** 15-1060 Database Administrators
**15-1061 Database Administrators
** 15-1070 Network and Computer Systems Administrators
**15-1071 Network and Computer Systems Administrators
** 15-1080 Network Systems and Data Communications Analysts
**15-1081 Network Systems and Data Communications Analysts
15-1090 Miscellaneous Computer Specialists
15-1099 Computer Specialists, All Other
==============================================
I know "**" ones are different and doesnt apply to what i am looking does this mean people go in and around these rest of SOC as and when my new job is in "Computer Specialists" range? i am confused.
What role should i do to intimate USCIS and how do they enquire about htis is it when i do H1b Transfer ?
wallpaper faye valentine sex.
anilsal
01-25 02:26 PM
should be an easy task for folks who live in the east bay to show up at the Fremont station and pass handouts.
If you cannot do this much, then it is .....
If you cannot do this much, then it is .....
arjun007
02-07 10:17 PM
No .. I did not submit my i-94 while leaving for Canada...
2011 faye valentine porn video
kpchal2
03-03 11:55 AM
chanduv
thanks for the encouraging reply. it seems like some people are getting denials without any NOIDs and are going out of status due to that. my previous company is not going to revoke my I-140 so that is not a problem. however i am concerned about any other stupid reasons that these people might put in a denial and make us go through the suffering process. do you know of any such situations or do you think that the USCIS is completely aware of this AC21 clauses and that they do not simply deny the cases. I know i am asking a completely insane question but just wanted to try any ways.
thanks a lot in advance.
thanks for the encouraging reply. it seems like some people are getting denials without any NOIDs and are going out of status due to that. my previous company is not going to revoke my I-140 so that is not a problem. however i am concerned about any other stupid reasons that these people might put in a denial and make us go through the suffering process. do you know of any such situations or do you think that the USCIS is completely aware of this AC21 clauses and that they do not simply deny the cases. I know i am asking a completely insane question but just wanted to try any ways.
thanks a lot in advance.
more...
guyfromsg
07-17 09:50 PM
Hi,
My I-140 approved in TSC( premium processing)
My Attorney sent my I-485 on July 2 to TSC
my labor approved from Wisconsin
but I read somewhere all applications needs to go to NSC , is it true?
I greatly appreciate your help
Lawyer says that should not be a problem. My 140 is pending in TSC, could that be a reason don't know.
My I-140 approved in TSC( premium processing)
My Attorney sent my I-485 on July 2 to TSC
my labor approved from Wisconsin
but I read somewhere all applications needs to go to NSC , is it true?
I greatly appreciate your help
Lawyer says that should not be a problem. My 140 is pending in TSC, could that be a reason don't know.
Blog Feeds
01-26 08:40 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
silveroaks
10-03 10:37 AM
They do the same n FL and whats worse....they only issue temporary license that expires every year.
2010 faye valentine naked. faye
meetpravee
04-19 12:59 PM
Google for FASA and try to fill in the application for federal aid online. It will most probably be rejected as federal government does not provide loans for foreign students. But you need to fill in this to apply for loan in any major banks like chase, bank of america or wells fargo, salli Mae etc.
After you get rejection from FASA call any of the major banks and try for a loan. If you have a guarantor in United States with good credit score the loan will easily get approved. Even if you dont have some guarantee, just call these banks and give it a try. Who knows, you may be lucky and you might get a loan.
After you get rejection from FASA call any of the major banks and try for a loan. If you have a guarantor in United States with good credit score the loan will easily get approved. Even if you dont have some guarantee, just call these banks and give it a try. Who knows, you may be lucky and you might get a loan.
more...
indianabacklog
08-13 11:39 AM
Yes, i opened a new thread so that everybody can see that CIS does mostly work on cases according to 485 Receipt Date. Otherwise i can't justify my EAD approval. I filed 485 and AP on June 18th and got RNs 2 weeks later. But EAD was filed later on July 12th. I got the receipt number for EAD from the back of my cashed check but never got actual Receipt Notice. Today i got the email that card production has been ordered.
So if they have to approve an EAD filed in mid July, they must have gone with the 485 Receipt date. There is an LUD for our APs too for this Sunday. I'm happy that they are processing the cases in somewhat FIFO order. I was expecting EAD only 3-4months later since i filed it along with the July flood of applications.
Dec2002 EB3 India.
From your case alone this is rather a sweeping judgment. I can assure you they do NOT process based on receipt date if they did my husbands EAD which was received on May 3rd would be approved by now and yours would not. He is still waiting thirteen weeks on.
So if they have to approve an EAD filed in mid July, they must have gone with the 485 Receipt date. There is an LUD for our APs too for this Sunday. I'm happy that they are processing the cases in somewhat FIFO order. I was expecting EAD only 3-4months later since i filed it along with the July flood of applications.
Dec2002 EB3 India.
From your case alone this is rather a sweeping judgment. I can assure you they do NOT process based on receipt date if they did my husbands EAD which was received on May 3rd would be approved by now and yours would not. He is still waiting thirteen weeks on.
hair Tube8 bring you Faye Valentine
p_aluri
06-11 06:16 PM
Once the H1-B extension is approved you are good to go(This is a big gray area)!
Some says once the I-140 is revoked , the subsequent H1-B no longer valid. But there is no guidline to prove the same.
As per my knowledge once its approved you are good to go until the expiration date.
I am not a lawyer, I am telling based on information gathered from various posts/forums.
what happens to the H1 extension if the I-140 is subsequently revoked?
Some says once the I-140 is revoked , the subsequent H1-B no longer valid. But there is no guidline to prove the same.
As per my knowledge once its approved you are good to go until the expiration date.
I am not a lawyer, I am telling based on information gathered from various posts/forums.
what happens to the H1 extension if the I-140 is subsequently revoked?
more...
waitnwatch
05-30 01:02 PM
I would appreciate if you could reference the bill text (if you have), then we can together spin this news - thanks
Here is my explanation of how the new system will work -
The USCIS declares an open period for all merit based application.
Everyone on H1-B puts in an application and gets in line.
The USCIS declares the list of succesful applicants.
For oversubscribed countries (remember that the country limit is 10% of 140000) there will be unsuccessful applicants who will have to apply next year.
Those unsuccessful applicants who reach their 6th year on H1-B cannot get any more H1-B extensions because they donot have an approved I140.
So it will be goodbye to professors in Economics and Business from India and China who will not get points for either STEM or high demand occupations.
I hope this make sense.
Here is my explanation of how the new system will work -
The USCIS declares an open period for all merit based application.
Everyone on H1-B puts in an application and gets in line.
The USCIS declares the list of succesful applicants.
For oversubscribed countries (remember that the country limit is 10% of 140000) there will be unsuccessful applicants who will have to apply next year.
Those unsuccessful applicants who reach their 6th year on H1-B cannot get any more H1-B extensions because they donot have an approved I140.
So it will be goodbye to professors in Economics and Business from India and China who will not get points for either STEM or high demand occupations.
I hope this make sense.
hot faye valentine movie
frostrated
10-26 01:41 PM
Is there is any way can we see the data.
is this what you are asking for?
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/New%20Structure/3rd%20Level%20(Left%20Nav%20Children)/Green%20Card%20-%203rd%20Level/Pending%20Form%20I485%20Reports.pdf
is this what you are asking for?
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/New%20Structure/3rd%20Level%20(Left%20Nav%20Children)/Green%20Card%20-%203rd%20Level/Pending%20Form%20I485%20Reports.pdf
more...
house faye valentine porn video
Appu
04-17 04:01 PM
Sign this petition on Sen Kennedy's website in support of immigration reform:
http://www.tedkennedy.com/fightforfairness
It may help...
http://www.tedkennedy.com/fightforfairness
It may help...
tattoo Faye Valentine Cosplay Preview
leo2606
07-29 01:09 PM
Old Pork Chops asked:
Has anyone heard of cases where immigration lawyers have successfully petitioned on behalf of parents of a US baby (way before the age of 18) to become GC holders or citizens?
But he didn't ask if the application is through Baby or Not (he just asked petitioned on behalf of parents of a US baby).
So I was just saying My application is filed in EB2 through my employment being parent of a US baby.I tried to be funny but I got red square for my reputation:(
Any way I would like to be out of this thread.
I did not understand your answer.
How come your 4 year old son apply in EB2 category and sponsor the parents. I know the application is for future employment. But this one is stretching too far? :)
Has anyone heard of cases where immigration lawyers have successfully petitioned on behalf of parents of a US baby (way before the age of 18) to become GC holders or citizens?
But he didn't ask if the application is through Baby or Not (he just asked petitioned on behalf of parents of a US baby).
So I was just saying My application is filed in EB2 through my employment being parent of a US baby.I tried to be funny but I got red square for my reputation:(
Any way I would like to be out of this thread.
I did not understand your answer.
How come your 4 year old son apply in EB2 category and sponsor the parents. I know the application is for future employment. But this one is stretching too far? :)
more...
pictures Mp4 faye valentine free lt;lt;free video 3gp of bullet for my valentine clipgt;gt;
gparr
November 25th, 2005, 09:45 AM
The first one says "delicate, little flowers" better than the second one. However, as has been mentioned, both shots need considerably more depth of field to be effective. In fact, the second one doesn't work at all for me. As for the first shot, the blown out bloom is distracting. Some kind of diffuser would have helped even out the light. I always find it difficult to shoot these flower clusters because they require more DOF than you think, but it's hard to know when to stop so that the background stays out of focus and doesn't start to compete with the flower cluster. Try a series of shots starting with an aperture in the f/25 range and backing off in one-stop increments then evaluate the series to see which one works best. Also, try a shorter tube and/or just the lens, if it will focus close enough. Whatever you try, please post the results. This is the kind of photographic challenge I love and what you learn will help me, and others I hope, when the flowers bloom again in the spring.
Gary
Gary
dresses faye valentine redhead.
dontcareaboutGC
03-19 11:24 AM
Ignore this if this is a repost!
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"Current.� Whenever the total of documentarily-qualified applicants in
a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for
the particular month, the category is considered to be
"oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the
per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant
demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of
such numbers available.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by
documentarily-qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds
the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation,
that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may
require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that
which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The
prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same
percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off
dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off
dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"Current.� Whenever the total of documentarily-qualified applicants in
a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for
the particular month, the category is considered to be
"oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the
per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant
demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of
such numbers available.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by
documentarily-qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds
the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation,
that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may
require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that
which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The
prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same
percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off
dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off
dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
more...
makeup Video de a-kon 2007 - #27 spike spiegel faye valentine en youtube - Project
HV000
10-27 12:31 AM
Being a Democrat, Kennedy is ONLY going to care about ILLEGALS. We all know how much time he spent debating CIR few months ago.
Canned response is a SLAP ON THE FACE!!
Canned response is a SLAP ON THE FACE!!
girlfriend faye valentine sex_21. faye
anurakt
01-08 09:23 AM
Are you 100% sure that it's the stamped visa date which will be given on the arrival and not the extension date ?? I was under the impression other way round ?
Look at this thread
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2636&highlight=Atlanta
Look at this thread
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2636&highlight=Atlanta
hairstyles Faye Valentine- Charisma
sparky_jones
02-03 02:44 PM
Documentation informing the USCIS of your having utilized AC21 benefits isn't necessary, but is a proactive measure usually taken to have a clean slate on the applicant's part.
It is true that in a majority of the cases the AC21 documentation might never reach the applican't 485 file, but in an unforeseen circumstance such as the denial of one's 485 based on 140 revocation (which, as we know isn't very uncommon) and matters reaching an immigration court, proof that one had taken proactive steps and gone out of one's way to inform the USCIS might make one's case stronger and thus make it easier to have the case reopened.
I was fortunate enough to not have to make that decision -whether to send AC21 documentation or not, the attorneys (Fragomen) representing the new employer recommended sending it making it easy for me.
Just my 2 cents,
I agree...sending the AC21 documentation to satisfy the "burden of proof" in extenuating circumstances, should they arise, is justifiable, as long as the applicant does not assume that the AC21 documentation will indeed be attached to their 485 file, and thus they won't get an employment-related RFE. Send the AC21 (and do it on your own, unless you have spare money to spend on a lawyer), but also keep in mind that sending the AC21 is not a legal requirement, and there is no guarantee that it will prevent USCIS from asking you to prove that you have a job that meets the certified labor at some time in the future.
It is true that in a majority of the cases the AC21 documentation might never reach the applican't 485 file, but in an unforeseen circumstance such as the denial of one's 485 based on 140 revocation (which, as we know isn't very uncommon) and matters reaching an immigration court, proof that one had taken proactive steps and gone out of one's way to inform the USCIS might make one's case stronger and thus make it easier to have the case reopened.
I was fortunate enough to not have to make that decision -whether to send AC21 documentation or not, the attorneys (Fragomen) representing the new employer recommended sending it making it easy for me.
Just my 2 cents,
I agree...sending the AC21 documentation to satisfy the "burden of proof" in extenuating circumstances, should they arise, is justifiable, as long as the applicant does not assume that the AC21 documentation will indeed be attached to their 485 file, and thus they won't get an employment-related RFE. Send the AC21 (and do it on your own, unless you have spare money to spend on a lawyer), but also keep in mind that sending the AC21 is not a legal requirement, and there is no guarantee that it will prevent USCIS from asking you to prove that you have a job that meets the certified labor at some time in the future.
chanduv23
06-12 09:32 AM
I went through it. I was fired but made to resign, and this happened in my 6th year H1b. I was given a 2 month severence check but lawyer told me it is not safe to assume that the severence period makes my stay legal. 30 to 60 days is safe period for h1b transfer.
Desi companies come of help in such cases. I found a project within 20 days and got my h1b transferred to a desi company and reapplied for Gc in PERM and also got extensions. Now I am back in track, also got 3 year h1b extension based on approved 140.
This is one big thing people never realise. The more the retrogression, the more are chances for people into falling into these situations.
Layoffs and firings are common and everyone goes through it no matter what great employee u r, u r only an employee and not the boss.
As per my definition layoff, firing, no pay hikes, working long hours, no promotions, non equal treatment among co workers, giving u crappy work, making ur work miserable etc..... everything is the same.
Desi companies come of help in such cases. I found a project within 20 days and got my h1b transferred to a desi company and reapplied for Gc in PERM and also got extensions. Now I am back in track, also got 3 year h1b extension based on approved 140.
This is one big thing people never realise. The more the retrogression, the more are chances for people into falling into these situations.
Layoffs and firings are common and everyone goes through it no matter what great employee u r, u r only an employee and not the boss.
As per my definition layoff, firing, no pay hikes, working long hours, no promotions, non equal treatment among co workers, giving u crappy work, making ur work miserable etc..... everything is the same.
psam
10-27 10:30 PM
Hi Sam,
I am in same situation i didn't receive the cards did you find any thing about your card. please let me know it helps me a lot.
Thanks
Calling up Customer service fixed it. My card did arrive a month+ after my spouse. there was some problem with production of my card first time around.
I am in same situation i didn't receive the cards did you find any thing about your card. please let me know it helps me a lot.
Thanks
Calling up Customer service fixed it. My card did arrive a month+ after my spouse. there was some problem with production of my card first time around.
0 comments:
Post a Comment