thepaew
05-26 08:29 PM
I have no problems if Americans want to institute a totalitarian state. But, I do not think that random searches will pass constitutional muster.
Actually entire state of NH is within 100 miles of Canada and the coast.
I feel the 100 mile rule is very reasonable and Border Patrol has every right to conduct random searches, question or detain whoever they suspect is breaking the law. Since it is clear that they could do that in this area, it is absolutely no burden for me to carry my papers when traveling here. At least it is easy when I know where the enforcement will be tighter. Harassment... absolutely not! I would so encourage something similar in my own country :)
I myself was once stopped on a cold December night in 2003 in VT on I-91 by the border patrol and all 4 occupants in the car were questioned about citizenship. We showed our I-94's. We felt good that there is someone is actually doing the enforcement of immigration laws.
Actually entire state of NH is within 100 miles of Canada and the coast.
I feel the 100 mile rule is very reasonable and Border Patrol has every right to conduct random searches, question or detain whoever they suspect is breaking the law. Since it is clear that they could do that in this area, it is absolutely no burden for me to carry my papers when traveling here. At least it is easy when I know where the enforcement will be tighter. Harassment... absolutely not! I would so encourage something similar in my own country :)
I myself was once stopped on a cold December night in 2003 in VT on I-91 by the border patrol and all 4 occupants in the car were questioned about citizenship. We showed our I-94's. We felt good that there is someone is actually doing the enforcement of immigration laws.
wallpaper Prom hairstyles for short hair
clif
03-07 09:23 AM
What if my employer is definitely going to revoke my approved I-140 upon my resignation (past 180 days)? Do I need to file "Notice of I-140 Portability"?
Also, in the above posts when people are saying that almost no support is needed from the new employer to keep 485 process going smoothly, is it safe to assume they are changing jobs using EAD and not doing H1B transfer?
One more question, my employer will revoke my I-140 and my H1B. How long can I be without a job after they do that? Are the above actions of my employer very likely to result in a RFE from USCIS? If so, what will USCIS ask for in RFE?
Thank for all the advise.
---------------------------------
Contributed $100.
Also, in the above posts when people are saying that almost no support is needed from the new employer to keep 485 process going smoothly, is it safe to assume they are changing jobs using EAD and not doing H1B transfer?
One more question, my employer will revoke my I-140 and my H1B. How long can I be without a job after they do that? Are the above actions of my employer very likely to result in a RFE from USCIS? If so, what will USCIS ask for in RFE?
Thank for all the advise.
---------------------------------
Contributed $100.
xela
07-13 08:09 AM
I know most of you are EB2 but hey I am happy that EB3 finally moved to 2004 now I just am waiting for it to go to june 2005 and I just might get my card ;-)
Grats to all that became current and good luck guys! I know being current doesnt always mean you get your crad right away, so I wish you all the best!
:)
Grats to all that became current and good luck guys! I know being current doesnt always mean you get your crad right away, so I wish you all the best!
:)
2011 hairstyles for long hair updos
senthil1
06-12 03:10 PM
If no H1b restrictions then mostly lottery for new H1b for every year( I think 115k is not enough as Consulting companies will rush to get the quota on first day) unless unlimited H1b was given. Lottery is very bad for good companies. Best way is to put restrictions only for new H1bs and exclude from extensions and transfers.
If people think that after CIR fails, we will have a better chance of getting favorable provisions with some other Bill or on coat tails of appropriation bills, it could be a risky gamble.
However, looking at the mood of Senate there is a very good chance that post-CIR we might be thrown a curve ball with some hard line H1B restrictions and fee increases extracted from almost passed CIR. So opposing CIR due to H1 alone is not the best strategy.
CIR is on the table because there are lot of interests driving its existence. If Compete America and us(IV) cannot drive in a small amendment into a popular bill like this, it would be a big blow. Is there enough bite in the coalition to create our own bill or fight an anti-H1 wave out there? That's up for judgement.
My point is, please do not assume H1B status quo will stay that way even if CIR fails. Like someone pointed out in these forums, big Corporations might enlist these anti-consulting restrictions/fee increases and use as compromise to increase H1 numbers(even post CIR).
And we thought life was tough now, imagine paying 10K for every H1 extension and not being able to consult and status quo on current GC system still place. Thats a hair raising thought for me.
If people think that after CIR fails, we will have a better chance of getting favorable provisions with some other Bill or on coat tails of appropriation bills, it could be a risky gamble.
However, looking at the mood of Senate there is a very good chance that post-CIR we might be thrown a curve ball with some hard line H1B restrictions and fee increases extracted from almost passed CIR. So opposing CIR due to H1 alone is not the best strategy.
CIR is on the table because there are lot of interests driving its existence. If Compete America and us(IV) cannot drive in a small amendment into a popular bill like this, it would be a big blow. Is there enough bite in the coalition to create our own bill or fight an anti-H1 wave out there? That's up for judgement.
My point is, please do not assume H1B status quo will stay that way even if CIR fails. Like someone pointed out in these forums, big Corporations might enlist these anti-consulting restrictions/fee increases and use as compromise to increase H1 numbers(even post CIR).
And we thought life was tough now, imagine paying 10K for every H1 extension and not being able to consult and status quo on current GC system still place. Thats a hair raising thought for me.
more...
arnab221
09-26 09:39 AM
This is bad what has happened. They need to be educated about the protest.
Is there any email address to the CNN editor? I can writeup a message about this.
You can send the message to editor from the message itself . We should all do that and educate them about what we really need .
Is there any email address to the CNN editor? I can writeup a message about this.
You can send the message to editor from the message itself . We should all do that and educate them about what we really need .
srkamath
07-03 10:18 PM
Country-wise caps are clearly not a sensible way to retain the best talent in the world in the US. The purpose of the EB visa program is to get the best contributors to the US economy mostly when and where Americans are not available. The EB immigration system is not a socialist entitlement program for prospective immigrants from China, India or the ROW. The program must be fair to the US, fairness (or lack thereof) to all qualified prospective immigrants is a consequence not the intent of the law.
The sad truth is that, no matter how sensible that argument is - a large section of people will not understand that or will choose to distort it out of fears such as losing their perceived entitlement - simply put many will simply refuse to buy it. Therefore, if we wish to pursue this issue we need a middle ground proposal.
Here's an amendment that strikes middle ground ......
For a given year, to estimate the demand, first calculate from the last three years data, the average number (percentage) of visas charged to each country under EB1, 2 & 3. For any country that was charged more than an average of 7% of the visas in the last three years, limit the visa allocation in the first quarter to 7%. In the second and third quarters, limit the allocation to the actual average percentage for the last three years. In the last quarter, remove all such country-wise limits to ensure maximum usage.
I'm no legislative expert, but after reading the text of the law at http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe (chapter 1 - Selection System) , it is my understanding that the law already permits something very close what i have proposed. It is up to the executive branch to change their policy here - this seems like a classic case for an Executive Order.
Any thoughts / comments?
The sad truth is that, no matter how sensible that argument is - a large section of people will not understand that or will choose to distort it out of fears such as losing their perceived entitlement - simply put many will simply refuse to buy it. Therefore, if we wish to pursue this issue we need a middle ground proposal.
Here's an amendment that strikes middle ground ......
For a given year, to estimate the demand, first calculate from the last three years data, the average number (percentage) of visas charged to each country under EB1, 2 & 3. For any country that was charged more than an average of 7% of the visas in the last three years, limit the visa allocation in the first quarter to 7%. In the second and third quarters, limit the allocation to the actual average percentage for the last three years. In the last quarter, remove all such country-wise limits to ensure maximum usage.
I'm no legislative expert, but after reading the text of the law at http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe (chapter 1 - Selection System) , it is my understanding that the law already permits something very close what i have proposed. It is up to the executive branch to change their policy here - this seems like a classic case for an Executive Order.
Any thoughts / comments?
more...
royus77
06-22 04:00 PM
correct me if i'm wrong , but you can get 140 approval notice requesting thru' FOI Act don't u ...
so after 6 months of filing 485 ( given that u have the receipt notice ) u r pretty much free to take your process with u.
You wont get the copy of I 140 using FOI act ( its a company document) unless your employer/Attorney is willing to share with you.You dont require copy of I 140 to move after 6 months using AC21 . All you need to know that you are moving to a similar position .for that a copy of your approved LC is sufficient
so after 6 months of filing 485 ( given that u have the receipt notice ) u r pretty much free to take your process with u.
You wont get the copy of I 140 using FOI act ( its a company document) unless your employer/Attorney is willing to share with you.You dont require copy of I 140 to move after 6 months using AC21 . All you need to know that you are moving to a similar position .for that a copy of your approved LC is sufficient
2010 Jessica Biel has her wavy long
ramus
07-02 07:43 PM
If you don't belive in giving fight back and feel not contributing then its okay..
WHY funds man..Please concentrate on something else instead of working on this lawsuit. It is waste of time I think..This is my openion.
Ask funds for some other work but not for lawsuit..
WHY funds man..Please concentrate on something else instead of working on this lawsuit. It is waste of time I think..This is my openion.
Ask funds for some other work but not for lawsuit..
more...
dhirajs98
06-11 02:16 PM
Sent an email out and forwarded it to 4 friends.
hair prom updos 2011 long hair.
optimist578
01-31 01:46 PM
If one gets an H-1B approval now (Jan/Feb), can he start working right away? Or does he have to wait till the start of fiscal year, October?
What if the employer is an NGO or NPO? I believe, it is not counted against the H-1 quota but in that case, can he start working right away?
What if the employer is an NGO or NPO? I believe, it is not counted against the H-1 quota but in that case, can he start working right away?
more...
sanjaymm
10-29 01:43 PM
I have mailed a notorized letter. I have also forwarded the link to other friends who may have missed this action item.
Sanjay
Sanjay
hot easy prom updos for short hair
chanduv23
03-13 12:04 PM
where I work one of two things happen:
- HR department is clueless about EAD expiry date, so people can continue to (illegally) work once EAD expires before the new EAD comes. Or they can choose to tell HR and stop working.
- If hte case is handled by company attorneys (some AC-21 folks have stuck to their own attorneys), then company attorney sends a mail to HR saying its illegal for tha tperson to work starting from so-and-so date, and that person is put on unpaid leave starting that date.
File the extension as soon as possible (120 days) and then start praying you get it before th eold one expires.
Can we as IV community do something about this? ie communicate this to USCIS and have them clarify this with a memo and FAQ?
- HR department is clueless about EAD expiry date, so people can continue to (illegally) work once EAD expires before the new EAD comes. Or they can choose to tell HR and stop working.
- If hte case is handled by company attorneys (some AC-21 folks have stuck to their own attorneys), then company attorney sends a mail to HR saying its illegal for tha tperson to work starting from so-and-so date, and that person is put on unpaid leave starting that date.
File the extension as soon as possible (120 days) and then start praying you get it before th eold one expires.
Can we as IV community do something about this? ie communicate this to USCIS and have them clarify this with a memo and FAQ?
more...
house prom hair updos short hair.
titu1972
07-03 03:58 PM
Please contribute...
tattoo prom updos for long hair with angs. 2010 Prom Updos; 2010 Prom Updos
saatiish
07-13 10:04 AM
Dude! Just follow the upstream thread and you will find a .PDF document from finalgc
you seem to be right - the doc does say that ! - you made my day - MORE SOUP FOR YOU !
you seem to be right - the doc does say that ! - you made my day - MORE SOUP FOR YOU !
more...
pictures updos for prom with angs.
singhsa3
03-11 09:32 PM
Please see the following thread
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=229630#post229630
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=229630#post229630
dresses prom updos for long hair with angs. Long Hair with Hair Jewels
meridiani.planum
03-03 01:36 PM
I just sent a request to CNN to take a look at this thread. A formal letter may be sent soon. So please continue to vote and participate.
whats the point? 33 out of 23000 members have voted. Any result here is well beyond all statistical margins of error. Unless atleast 5000 people vote, this poll has no point. The mathematicians among us can derive the exact number, but participation has to be much greater than 33 if this has to be representative of the IV membership.
whats the point? 33 out of 23000 members have voted. Any result here is well beyond all statistical margins of error. Unless atleast 5000 people vote, this poll has no point. The mathematicians among us can derive the exact number, but participation has to be much greater than 33 if this has to be representative of the IV membership.
more...
makeup prom updos for long hair with angs. is elegantprom hair updos
ajay
12-25 02:12 PM
Nrc2008068051
girlfriend prom updos for long hair
MDix
02-08 03:42 PM
There is always chance of waste of visas, but i guess CIS is doing ok job from last two years.
hairstyles long hair updos prom. long
cal_dood
07-05 01:43 PM
I'll just go back to forums of the leading lady immigration lawyer....
hara_patta_for_rico
07-09 07:05 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
deafTunes123
02-21 01:12 PM
As per my Lawyer, You can file I-140 under both Eb2 and EB3(Porting PD from EB3 to EB2 or vice-versa). which ever the Date becomes current, you can ask the IO to use that particular category.
0 comments:
Post a Comment