imneedy
05-06 04:57 PM
I dont think we should relay on their 15 months time line. Its too late. I am sure in coming 15 months whole immigration system will be changed. May be we will see point based system or something different. And at that time information will be no use. They are smart that is why they gave us 15 months. They will wait for 12 months to Congress to do something and then if nothing happen they will write SQL query in last 3 months.
gc_on_demand, did you or anyone else here got similar letter?
gc_on_demand, did you or anyone else here got similar letter?
wallpaper 21Return to Funny Horse
optimystic
03-18 08:35 PM
Urgh.. Here come the red squares...Why do I even bother posting comments!
Raghunadh Polavarapu
08-10 02:36 PM
EB-3 keyboard tigers are back to discuss how to get GC'ssssss:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
2011 Funny horse - animal, cavalos,
NKR
10-16 05:04 PM
I think you know pretty well what I am talking about. USCIS has not "reacted" in any malicious way against the immigrant community wrt. to July 07 actions. If you find they have done so they will be severely answerable to various laws in the country. Do you think the lawyers will keep quite when they sense blood in the water? There has been no "reaction" by USCIS, except as a figment of imagination in the minds of this community.
What happened to your sense of judgment, whoever said that USCIS is doing it maliciously? They reacted for sure but within legal boundaries. I do not understand why you keep twisted people�s answers.
USCIS has always gone by RD, not PD to a large extent (there have been deviations here and there, but none of them are due to policy issues).
That is exactly I am saying, I am asking why should it be this way, this is totally wrong. They should go by PD. Even if my application was not moved to another centre mine still would not have gotten approved because I applied in Aug and not July. I mentioned that to tell you that I have to wait even more now.
Now if you ask me why I applied in Aug and not in Jul, it is because my family was not in US at that time. If you had told me beforehand about the impending fiasco I wouldn�t have sent them in the first place. I had to call them back and cancel my trip spending hundreds of $s.
PD based processing is not sustainable as I had highlighted before. If you applied for 485 before someone else, you should be approved first. Now I am saying applied for 485, not Labor/Perm. Now dont come back with a post saying I applied July 2 00:01, but someone with July 3rd 23:55 is getting approved before I am. Afford some granularity of a week or so.
Why is it not sustainable, now you are defending something that is wrong, why should I have to wait though my GC was started ages before?
I did not say USCIS is "doodh ka dula", but DoL and USCIS are two different entities. You cant blame one for the problems of the other. USCIS has its share of blames, but to blame everything on USCIS just shows that you have lost your objectivity. You don't want to be blamed for the actions of your colleague, so why do you blame USCIS for things which are not their doing??
Just because I said USCIS is doing something wrong (not following processing order..) doesn�t mean I said that DOS did something right.. you keep assuming things..
If you keep blaming USCIS for everything (I am sure some of you want to blame the economic crisis, the Darfur issue etc. on USCIS too, come on!, you know you wanted to ;) ), the community's credibility comes into question.
Again you are running your imagination wild, who blamed all the other things on USCIS?..
End of the day, you (and/or others) are distracting the OP's idea with FUD. If you have constructive ideas to channel OPs enthusiasm you should suggest alternatives. Not make her/him fearful with untenable accusations of retribution from USCIS.
Dude, show me one post of mine which said anything against the idea. I even gave a green for what he is trying to do, at least he is doing something while the rest of us are watching�.
What happened to your sense of judgment, whoever said that USCIS is doing it maliciously? They reacted for sure but within legal boundaries. I do not understand why you keep twisted people�s answers.
USCIS has always gone by RD, not PD to a large extent (there have been deviations here and there, but none of them are due to policy issues).
That is exactly I am saying, I am asking why should it be this way, this is totally wrong. They should go by PD. Even if my application was not moved to another centre mine still would not have gotten approved because I applied in Aug and not July. I mentioned that to tell you that I have to wait even more now.
Now if you ask me why I applied in Aug and not in Jul, it is because my family was not in US at that time. If you had told me beforehand about the impending fiasco I wouldn�t have sent them in the first place. I had to call them back and cancel my trip spending hundreds of $s.
PD based processing is not sustainable as I had highlighted before. If you applied for 485 before someone else, you should be approved first. Now I am saying applied for 485, not Labor/Perm. Now dont come back with a post saying I applied July 2 00:01, but someone with July 3rd 23:55 is getting approved before I am. Afford some granularity of a week or so.
Why is it not sustainable, now you are defending something that is wrong, why should I have to wait though my GC was started ages before?
I did not say USCIS is "doodh ka dula", but DoL and USCIS are two different entities. You cant blame one for the problems of the other. USCIS has its share of blames, but to blame everything on USCIS just shows that you have lost your objectivity. You don't want to be blamed for the actions of your colleague, so why do you blame USCIS for things which are not their doing??
Just because I said USCIS is doing something wrong (not following processing order..) doesn�t mean I said that DOS did something right.. you keep assuming things..
If you keep blaming USCIS for everything (I am sure some of you want to blame the economic crisis, the Darfur issue etc. on USCIS too, come on!, you know you wanted to ;) ), the community's credibility comes into question.
Again you are running your imagination wild, who blamed all the other things on USCIS?..
End of the day, you (and/or others) are distracting the OP's idea with FUD. If you have constructive ideas to channel OPs enthusiasm you should suggest alternatives. Not make her/him fearful with untenable accusations of retribution from USCIS.
Dude, show me one post of mine which said anything against the idea. I even gave a green for what he is trying to do, at least he is doing something while the rest of us are watching�.
more...
sanju_dba
07-24 11:15 AM
The early the 485 filing , the early you are from your citizen ship date?
qplearn
11-24 11:02 AM
Ok. This is new to me. Can someone confirm if this is true? Is there any link that supports this?
--------
I guess Employer cannot revoke I-140 after 180 days - You may want to check with Immigration Specialist/lawyer
Yes this is correct. If you have an approved I-140 and your I-485 is pending for 180 days, the employer cannot revoke your I-140 unless there is fraud in getting the I-140. If you have done joint filing of the two, if you get your I-140 within 6 months of the joint filing, you can change employers immediately after that. Of course, you can't just go to any employer; it has a to be a similar job.
--------
I guess Employer cannot revoke I-140 after 180 days - You may want to check with Immigration Specialist/lawyer
Yes this is correct. If you have an approved I-140 and your I-485 is pending for 180 days, the employer cannot revoke your I-140 unless there is fraud in getting the I-140. If you have done joint filing of the two, if you get your I-140 within 6 months of the joint filing, you can change employers immediately after that. Of course, you can't just go to any employer; it has a to be a similar job.
more...
desi3933
07-09 04:42 PM
Certainty is related to belief not reality. It still means the name check was not completed. The law does not say they "when you are certain that the FBI name check can be cleared..please allot a visa."
Would you mind quoting the actual law then?
Does every I-485 need FBI approval or just background check? How do you know that it needs FBI Name Check for all cases. Quote the law please.
Would you mind quoting the actual law then?
Does every I-485 need FBI approval or just background check? How do you know that it needs FBI Name Check for all cases. Quote the law please.
2010 Horses?
roseball
07-09 03:55 PM
Yes, you are right that we cannot sue anyone for working harder. I agree with that part too.
I didnt say they broke the "law" by processing several thousands of cases. What they did is broke their own "regulations" by approving applications with incomplete security/back ground checks.....In the current environment the country is in, this could be a very serious issue. Well again they can argue that regulations can be moulded/twisted to their liking.....
From Oct 2006 - June 2007 USCIS only used 80k of 140k immigrant numbers available and by the end of June, they consumed all of the 140k quota.....There were cases where 485s were approved on 2nd and 3rd of July.....They made a complete mockery of their own regulations is alloting visa numbers as they like....
I didnt say they broke the "law" by processing several thousands of cases. What they did is broke their own "regulations" by approving applications with incomplete security/back ground checks.....In the current environment the country is in, this could be a very serious issue. Well again they can argue that regulations can be moulded/twisted to their liking.....
From Oct 2006 - June 2007 USCIS only used 80k of 140k immigrant numbers available and by the end of June, they consumed all of the 140k quota.....There were cases where 485s were approved on 2nd and 3rd of July.....They made a complete mockery of their own regulations is alloting visa numbers as they like....
more...
ashkam
07-28 08:11 AM
It's India Pale Ale, not India Pale Beer. Lord Ganesha would be shocked at your ignorance.
hair Horses / Funny Horse 2 /
chmur
02-21 10:18 PM
I'd posted elsewhere about my Feb 13, 2008 conversation with the DOS official who sets cutoff dates:
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
is there not a better nuance way to divulge the details without revealing the source.
What if someone at DOS creates problem for this gentlemen for discussing the PD's with you ahead .
Please exercise caution
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
is there not a better nuance way to divulge the details without revealing the source.
What if someone at DOS creates problem for this gentlemen for discussing the PD's with you ahead .
Please exercise caution
more...
sat0207
04-27 09:18 AM
Hey read this link very informative http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/factsheets/security_checks_42506.pdf
hot Funny Horse Pictures
akilhere
10-14 10:09 AM
That's better. Collect the radiologist's report and send them at the earliest. Make sure your attorney sends it to addressed mentioned in the letter. Someone's attorney in this forum used FedEx's service (sent to non-PO Box address) and took longer time to reach right department.
As I said earlier, my doctor was not in USCIS's current list. So, I had to redo everything. My status has changed to 'Respone to RFE review'
FeedFront
I got the radiologist's report. Its on an official letterhead of the hospital and it includes his findings, recommendations etc. but it doesn't contain his signature. It only says "Read By: Dr. XXX and Prepared by: Dr. XXX. Nothing is handwritten, its all in print and the top portion says Radiology Report. It includes all my information including my DOB etc.
But the RFE says that the Radiologist's report should be on an official letterhead and signed by the Radiologist.
When i called the Doctor's office, they said that these documents are received electronically and are E-Signed so there won't be any signatures as such. They have mailed me a sealed copy but I'm wondering if this will be a problem since it doesn't contain the Radiologists's signature.
Any inputs on this would be appreciated.
Thanks,
As I said earlier, my doctor was not in USCIS's current list. So, I had to redo everything. My status has changed to 'Respone to RFE review'
FeedFront
I got the radiologist's report. Its on an official letterhead of the hospital and it includes his findings, recommendations etc. but it doesn't contain his signature. It only says "Read By: Dr. XXX and Prepared by: Dr. XXX. Nothing is handwritten, its all in print and the top portion says Radiology Report. It includes all my information including my DOB etc.
But the RFE says that the Radiologist's report should be on an official letterhead and signed by the Radiologist.
When i called the Doctor's office, they said that these documents are received electronically and are E-Signed so there won't be any signatures as such. They have mailed me a sealed copy but I'm wondering if this will be a problem since it doesn't contain the Radiologists's signature.
Any inputs on this would be appreciated.
Thanks,
more...
house funny horses running.
permfiling
11-27 07:37 PM
You can add additional white paper sheet and mention the section number and details.
tattoo 2011 funny quote of day. funny
bigboy007
06-11 10:24 AM
I humbly disagree with you on TARP analogy. TARP was due to direct funding by Government to save "Too Big to Fail" companies and obviously they had a say in that case since it was tax payers money. The focus was only on those limited companies. Having said that this text has a wider repercussions and doesn't spare anyone, whether they are financially sound or goverment funded.
I completely agree with you that US offers better job prospects and earning potential. However, when the noose around the neck turns tighter with such "headless" bills, people will sooner or later, start looking at options.
Trust me companies don't hesitate to move on if the environment isn't business friendly(reasons are higher tax, difficulty hiring immigrants, finding people with right skillsets, and so on) as they are more accountable to shareholders and they would care less if it is US today or Brazil tomorrow, the show must go on.
You have heard of horrific stories of people getting CDN PR and hard to find jobs. Failure stories show up lot quicker than the success stories. I have known three close ones who are well placed in Canada.
There are always two sides of coin and so is the half glass full, a half glass empty.
Bottomline is if such bills turn into bill, its not just immigrant community but the economy as whole gets impacted.
Bhattji
Well I leave that anology up for discussion. But for sure I see lawmakers in the current election year wouldnt be thinking all those as they were years earlier. if this amendment was tied to any jobs bill or BP oil spill bill etc... then for sure many lawmakers wont be reading through as we are doing here.
For canadian immigration stuff I lived there for a while and I know how that economy operates. its certainly low market than that of US many jobs (IT) etc are very low paying and jobs are scarce for experienced but if one has one they are good. That statement is made in context of "Moving" to immigration friendly countries and start living there.
I completely agree with you that US offers better job prospects and earning potential. However, when the noose around the neck turns tighter with such "headless" bills, people will sooner or later, start looking at options.
Trust me companies don't hesitate to move on if the environment isn't business friendly(reasons are higher tax, difficulty hiring immigrants, finding people with right skillsets, and so on) as they are more accountable to shareholders and they would care less if it is US today or Brazil tomorrow, the show must go on.
You have heard of horrific stories of people getting CDN PR and hard to find jobs. Failure stories show up lot quicker than the success stories. I have known three close ones who are well placed in Canada.
There are always two sides of coin and so is the half glass full, a half glass empty.
Bottomline is if such bills turn into bill, its not just immigrant community but the economy as whole gets impacted.
Bhattji
Well I leave that anology up for discussion. But for sure I see lawmakers in the current election year wouldnt be thinking all those as they were years earlier. if this amendment was tied to any jobs bill or BP oil spill bill etc... then for sure many lawmakers wont be reading through as we are doing here.
For canadian immigration stuff I lived there for a while and I know how that economy operates. its certainly low market than that of US many jobs (IT) etc are very low paying and jobs are scarce for experienced but if one has one they are good. That statement is made in context of "Moving" to immigration friendly countries and start living there.
more...
pictures Funny Horse Pics ~ Real or
Positive
11-11 08:25 AM
At the minimum legal action will force someone to look into what is going on here. I don't think that AILA is going to partner with us in this initiative.
dresses Funny Horses
vin
06-12 03:02 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immig13jun13,1,432583.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
There are splits within the Republican and Democratic parties over the issue, but both sides say they think they can muster 60 votes -- the number needed to overcome a filibuster -- if they can resolve their procedural issues.
McConnell said he thought it was unlikely the president's visit would sway many Republicans. "I think most senators have pretty well made up their minds where they are on this, and I think there are a reasonable number of Republicans who in the end are likely to help get us get it through," McConnell said in a conference call with reporters.
There are splits within the Republican and Democratic parties over the issue, but both sides say they think they can muster 60 votes -- the number needed to overcome a filibuster -- if they can resolve their procedural issues.
McConnell said he thought it was unlikely the president's visit would sway many Republicans. "I think most senators have pretty well made up their minds where they are on this, and I think there are a reasonable number of Republicans who in the end are likely to help get us get it through," McConnell said in a conference call with reporters.
more...
makeup funny photo of horse
jcgc
02-21 03:18 PM
Dont rely on tracitt. no one knows how many report there. It is not scientific or true. For right numbers, anlyse the DOS report for each year, if you hva more time.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html
Well that is the only available source. The DOS reports will tell you how many numbers have been used up historically. But they don;t tell you what USCIS has on its plate still pending right now by PD. And as far as i know, is the best option.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html
Well that is the only available source. The DOS reports will tell you how many numbers have been used up historically. But they don;t tell you what USCIS has on its plate still pending right now by PD. And as far as i know, is the best option.
girlfriend funny horses as singers !
snathan
04-13 11:58 AM
I urge everyone to read the donor forum...we need more people to work on couple of issues and fixes. Please become a donor and take part in this...if you are serious to fix these issues.
hairstyles Funny Horses
perm2gc
02-02 08:18 PM
It is sad that none of these desi sites have come forward to help us put our ads on their sites. None has helped us in our cause, even though they are run by immigrants like us who were at one time waiting in line for their greencards. Now after getting their greencard they do not want to help the cause but instead want to make money from it. If any such site owner is reading this post and desires to help by posting our ad on your site, contact us.
Thank you for your effort to post IV messages on various websites.
1
could you do a search on yahoo groups, msn groups, google groups on greencard, immigration, legal immigration etc and see if those groups have many members and it is not an anti immigrant group from its intro. Then join them and start posting IV messages in them. You will find hundreds of groups. Each post will send emails to all its members.
i have already done that.I found only few groups that are active and have more members.I have posted in them.
2
There are several groups in yahoo, msn, google that belong to alumni of IITs, IIMs etc and a lot of their members are in USA. you can post messages in those forums too.
I didn't try that ,they may be moderated .i will give a shot.
3
Go through my thread- ideas to increase publicity of IV from last page to first page (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=694) . You will find several sites and ideas to post IV messages online.
IV is grateful for your tireless effort posting messages. While all others lost their steam, you have continued your mission. We recognize your efforts and hope some others will join you to help.
I will also explore the thread and post.
Will post the links as i find a place to post.
Thank you for your effort to post IV messages on various websites.
1
could you do a search on yahoo groups, msn groups, google groups on greencard, immigration, legal immigration etc and see if those groups have many members and it is not an anti immigrant group from its intro. Then join them and start posting IV messages in them. You will find hundreds of groups. Each post will send emails to all its members.
i have already done that.I found only few groups that are active and have more members.I have posted in them.
2
There are several groups in yahoo, msn, google that belong to alumni of IITs, IIMs etc and a lot of their members are in USA. you can post messages in those forums too.
I didn't try that ,they may be moderated .i will give a shot.
3
Go through my thread- ideas to increase publicity of IV from last page to first page (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=694) . You will find several sites and ideas to post IV messages online.
IV is grateful for your tireless effort posting messages. While all others lost their steam, you have continued your mission. We recognize your efforts and hope some others will join you to help.
I will also explore the thread and post.
Will post the links as i find a place to post.
vin13
11-13 09:29 AM
If you do not have the time to meet the lawmakers or their aides, call them over the phone explain the situation and email the letter.
If 100s' of us try and 1 succeeds, we all succeed.
If 100s' of us try and 1 succeeds, we all succeed.
BharatPremi
03-17 01:05 PM
42% of all EB3 Green Card has priority date before December 2003!!! Man I am in deep Sh.. hmm trouble.. :eek:
No 42% load is before June 2003 and before, in other words before July 2003.
No 42% load is before June 2003 and before, in other words before July 2003.
0 comments:
Post a Comment