If it ain�t too late... here... http://www.jozvex.com/tutorials/fg.html :)
wallpaper Emma Stone Picture amp; Photo
No need to conduct this poll. What's your point? go by the
majority if they say no?
Make it 20$ per month and be done with it. Those who couldn't do this
are unlikely to be helpful anyway.
majority if they say no?
Make it 20$ per month and be done with it. Those who couldn't do this
are unlikely to be helpful anyway.
I-485 application instructions (http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-485instr.pdf) ask you to make photocopies of your passport.
2011 Rumors surrounding Emma Stone
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. Former INS or current USCIS’s functions and operations were not questionable and not known to public till ombudsman office was established. Ombudsman has helped customers and keep helping to improve efficiency of CIS. Ombudsman main concern (or goal) have been over the 4 years are
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The “documentarily qualified 485 applications” mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made “current” for all EB categories. This is how they determine “current” or “over-subscribed” and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “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.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
Excellent analysis and reccomendations. I feel that a visa number should be assigned at the point of 485 filing. If there is a problem it can be returned to the pool. That will be the least disruptive way to allot numbers in a timely fashion. In the end, that is likely to be the change that will come out of this.
This way, it will offer prospective applicants a more clear viewpoint of what they are up against when they consider their immigration options. i.e if you know you will have to wait 10 yrs to file an AOS even if you have an approved immigrant petition ala the family based immigrants, your plans would be different. You might not feel the wait worthwhile or even if you do, you do it fully aware of the consequences, 10 yrs exploitative employer on h1b etc.
If you notice, the level of hubris and cry is less in family based immigration even though the waits are longer. Atleast they know before they apply!
Your last point about a visa recapture is on the money. It is the least disruptive and easiest of the possible changes for current EB applicants in the current hostile atmosphere. It comes across as a rectification of USCIS inefficiency rather than a request for more immigration, which the public has clearly rejected at this time. If we can get 100-150K visas recaptured, this will greatly help EVERYONE in the EB queue for various reasons. It will buy us the 1-2 yrs needed before immigration is seriously addressed again. It will help those waiting to file 485 to file, those in 485 to have a hope to get out etc. It will help heavily retrogressed countries to keep getting more visas than the annual caps etc. I think that is something everyone can agree on as well.
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The “documentarily qualified 485 applications” mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made “current” for all EB categories. This is how they determine “current” or “over-subscribed” and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “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.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
Excellent analysis and reccomendations. I feel that a visa number should be assigned at the point of 485 filing. If there is a problem it can be returned to the pool. That will be the least disruptive way to allot numbers in a timely fashion. In the end, that is likely to be the change that will come out of this.
This way, it will offer prospective applicants a more clear viewpoint of what they are up against when they consider their immigration options. i.e if you know you will have to wait 10 yrs to file an AOS even if you have an approved immigrant petition ala the family based immigrants, your plans would be different. You might not feel the wait worthwhile or even if you do, you do it fully aware of the consequences, 10 yrs exploitative employer on h1b etc.
If you notice, the level of hubris and cry is less in family based immigration even though the waits are longer. Atleast they know before they apply!
Your last point about a visa recapture is on the money. It is the least disruptive and easiest of the possible changes for current EB applicants in the current hostile atmosphere. It comes across as a rectification of USCIS inefficiency rather than a request for more immigration, which the public has clearly rejected at this time. If we can get 100-150K visas recaptured, this will greatly help EVERYONE in the EB queue for various reasons. It will buy us the 1-2 yrs needed before immigration is seriously addressed again. It will help those waiting to file 485 to file, those in 485 to have a hope to get out etc. It will help heavily retrogressed countries to keep getting more visas than the annual caps etc. I think that is something everyone can agree on as well.
If you download and read Obama's immigration plan (PDF), it is more or less the same ( Vs MacCain's plan). Except for no mention in specific words about increasing the H1 #'s or GC #'s, the plan actually makes note of the hardships faced by legal immigrants. The problem is acknowledged and they accept that the legal immigrations system is broken, which to me, means that they will try to fix it.
-Ukats.
-Ukats.
For the greater good I am choosing to delete my previous posts in this thread.
Though I don't rescind my opinion, however as certain people object, I chose to withdraw.
No offense was intended and I apologize for any caused.
The thread subject is "when do you plan to buy a house?"
I decided to buy due to economic conditions at the time, not my immigration status.
This means I also pay considerable property taxes.
Hopefully the 292 votes so far will be sufficient for WSJ et al.
Though I don't rescind my opinion, however as certain people object, I chose to withdraw.
No offense was intended and I apologize for any caused.
The thread subject is "when do you plan to buy a house?"
I decided to buy due to economic conditions at the time, not my immigration status.
This means I also pay considerable property taxes.
Hopefully the 292 votes so far will be sufficient for WSJ et al.
Impact of rule 2 will be minimal and that rule will be really used not to displace
US workers if that is the purpose. If companies are not really displacing US workers why should they bother about this rule? This rule will certainly minimise the outsourcing by laying off people as H1b persons are required for offshore co-ordination.
Rule 3 is putting ad that is just like a Labor process in green card. It will delay h1b hiring for a month and really impact will be minimal
Those 2 rules are worth if companies can get best people in the world(that was the intention of H1b program. That is what Google and Microsoft are arguing)
With the restrictions we are getting 115 to 180k H1bs. If there is some plan for clearing backlog for gc then we can very well support CIR
Correct me if my understanding is wrong.
Hi, Senthil and Bugmenot
You said :They will allow some form of consulting and they may ban subcontracting in H1b.
Now you agree that consulting will be there. So the bill have to be tweeked or else even small american companies will shut down.
ex bearing point....
Rule 2 of restriction - Company cannot hire 6 months before or after it has laid of a person.
Impossible to be applied.
(Big companies will be affected with this, small companies like CDI, ABC.. who might hire a H1-B on their pay roll but they let them go when they are not able to find a new client that they can place that person).
Rule 3 - You have to advertise before you get an H1-B might be allowed but ignored like L1 is ignored now.
I will show you how the merit based system have to change for EB in my next post.
Got to go...
US workers if that is the purpose. If companies are not really displacing US workers why should they bother about this rule? This rule will certainly minimise the outsourcing by laying off people as H1b persons are required for offshore co-ordination.
Rule 3 is putting ad that is just like a Labor process in green card. It will delay h1b hiring for a month and really impact will be minimal
Those 2 rules are worth if companies can get best people in the world(that was the intention of H1b program. That is what Google and Microsoft are arguing)
With the restrictions we are getting 115 to 180k H1bs. If there is some plan for clearing backlog for gc then we can very well support CIR
Correct me if my understanding is wrong.
Hi, Senthil and Bugmenot
You said :They will allow some form of consulting and they may ban subcontracting in H1b.
Now you agree that consulting will be there. So the bill have to be tweeked or else even small american companies will shut down.
ex bearing point....
Rule 2 of restriction - Company cannot hire 6 months before or after it has laid of a person.
Impossible to be applied.
(Big companies will be affected with this, small companies like CDI, ABC.. who might hire a H1-B on their pay roll but they let them go when they are not able to find a new client that they can place that person).
Rule 3 - You have to advertise before you get an H1-B might be allowed but ignored like L1 is ignored now.
I will show you how the merit based system have to change for EB in my next post.
Got to go...
2010 Emma Stone turned up for
Here you go - conversion should not impact this as the number of LC approvals remains the same:
Here are all the LC approvals for India in the last seven years.
Year, Total LC Approved, Total India
2007 85112 24573
2006 79782 22298
2005 6133 1350
2004 43582 No Info
2003 62912 No Info
2002 79784 No Info
2001 77921 No Info
2000 70204 No Info
Lets assume about 25% of pre-PERM LCs are India based on post-PERM data. Thus for fiscal 2004 (Oct 2003 thru Sep 2004) the total LC number is 43,852. Assume 25% of that to be India based on PERM data. That gives about 11,000 India LCs in 2004 alone (All EB categories combined). If you assume an average of 2.5 dependents then the number of visas required for all India EB categories for 2004 is 27,500 (11,000*2.5). The regular quota for EB2 and EB3 combined is only about 9,800. That means 17,700 visas have to come from somewhere. I dont think those many visas are remaining for this year. Be prepared to see FIFO thrown under the bus and approvals with PDs that are all over the place. Please critique this analysis without piling on. Thoughts?
EB2 has been on or Apr 2004 for a long time so all the ones before should have got the GC or at least most would have when we are calculation numbers for calculating retrogation We have to consider the numbers in in a particular category 11000 number as you say includes all the EB categories you have to discount out the EB1's because they have got their GCs long back. EB3 will also have to cut out form the calculation because they are not being counted. even if you consider 40% of these to be EB2 (a conservative estimate) then total GC needed including the dependents will be closer to 11000 (Total not just primary) and as Vdlrao and others have shown there should be more than this number available in this fiscal year alone. So I will have to agree with them that the numbers will go back but not all the way to Apr 2004 It should easily come in 2005 range may even come to 2006 since there were very few cases applied during 2005. Also can some one let me know if during 2005 when perm was instigated was regular labor processing also going on or was it completed stopped during that time.
Also conversations will affect this because people converting from EB3 to EB2 will make sure that they port their priority dates and hence if say all the EB3 people from 2003 convert to EB2 and successfully port their dates it will definitely push the dates south of 2003. Did I make sense???
Here are all the LC approvals for India in the last seven years.
Year, Total LC Approved, Total India
2007 85112 24573
2006 79782 22298
2005 6133 1350
2004 43582 No Info
2003 62912 No Info
2002 79784 No Info
2001 77921 No Info
2000 70204 No Info
Lets assume about 25% of pre-PERM LCs are India based on post-PERM data. Thus for fiscal 2004 (Oct 2003 thru Sep 2004) the total LC number is 43,852. Assume 25% of that to be India based on PERM data. That gives about 11,000 India LCs in 2004 alone (All EB categories combined). If you assume an average of 2.5 dependents then the number of visas required for all India EB categories for 2004 is 27,500 (11,000*2.5). The regular quota for EB2 and EB3 combined is only about 9,800. That means 17,700 visas have to come from somewhere. I dont think those many visas are remaining for this year. Be prepared to see FIFO thrown under the bus and approvals with PDs that are all over the place. Please critique this analysis without piling on. Thoughts?
EB2 has been on or Apr 2004 for a long time so all the ones before should have got the GC or at least most would have when we are calculation numbers for calculating retrogation We have to consider the numbers in in a particular category 11000 number as you say includes all the EB categories you have to discount out the EB1's because they have got their GCs long back. EB3 will also have to cut out form the calculation because they are not being counted. even if you consider 40% of these to be EB2 (a conservative estimate) then total GC needed including the dependents will be closer to 11000 (Total not just primary) and as Vdlrao and others have shown there should be more than this number available in this fiscal year alone. So I will have to agree with them that the numbers will go back but not all the way to Apr 2004 It should easily come in 2005 range may even come to 2006 since there were very few cases applied during 2005. Also can some one let me know if during 2005 when perm was instigated was regular labor processing also going on or was it completed stopped during that time.
Also conversations will affect this because people converting from EB3 to EB2 will make sure that they port their priority dates and hence if say all the EB3 people from 2003 convert to EB2 and successfully port their dates it will definitely push the dates south of 2003. Did I make sense???
I got a similar reply as above from CNN
hair Emma Stone is actually a
Chill guys just kidding no point getting worked up about all this.I know it's causing a lot of angst.The best course of action is to get back to our lives and let the chips fall as they may.
you write some ridiculous stuff in your first post and you want us to chill out. Get a sense of this board and its professional members, before you post any nonsense like that.
you write some ridiculous stuff in your first post and you want us to chill out. Get a sense of this board and its professional members, before you post any nonsense like that.
Its a matter of interpretation. Cops are not lawyers and neither am I. Arguing simply makes matters worse. None the less, you can argue as much as you want but if the cop has one on his mind and you have another, it certainly doesn't help your situation.
Of course. Judges are the ones who interpret the laws. Officers just do what they are instructed to do. My point was just out of curiosity, how I think this law is being interpreted.
But of course. My opinion is not only not to argue with officers, but don't even talk to them. When I feel that officer wants some "conversation" with me, my favorite response is "sorry officer, me no understand, no speak english". period. Smile to his face, keep saying "sorry". Don't show any extra document - just only what is required, nothing extra. Officer can be asking any questions, just hand him business card of your lawyer, say "my lawyer, talk him". as worse English you will use, as better it will be for you. My experience.
When I first entered United States I was kept at secondary check for 4 hours (1999, IAD, Virginia). They kept asking me all kinda questions, it was no end. Finally I got pissed, I said "Sorry, I don't speak English good" and started playing with them. I took my dictionary and starting looking up every word. My next answer took 5 minutes. In next 5 minutes a woman walked to me, handed my documents and said "Welcome to America".
Of course. Judges are the ones who interpret the laws. Officers just do what they are instructed to do. My point was just out of curiosity, how I think this law is being interpreted.
But of course. My opinion is not only not to argue with officers, but don't even talk to them. When I feel that officer wants some "conversation" with me, my favorite response is "sorry officer, me no understand, no speak english". period. Smile to his face, keep saying "sorry". Don't show any extra document - just only what is required, nothing extra. Officer can be asking any questions, just hand him business card of your lawyer, say "my lawyer, talk him". as worse English you will use, as better it will be for you. My experience.
When I first entered United States I was kept at secondary check for 4 hours (1999, IAD, Virginia). They kept asking me all kinda questions, it was no end. Finally I got pissed, I said "Sorry, I don't speak English good" and started playing with them. I took my dictionary and starting looking up every word. My next answer took 5 minutes. In next 5 minutes a woman walked to me, handed my documents and said "Welcome to America".
hot Emma Stone Los Angeles Premiere of
Spciy thread?? This is not spicy. This is serious stuff. I am not the OP, but the subject of the thread might be spicy to some folks. This discussion has come so many times. Atleast now we see that we have equal number of people split on both sides.
Assume you make it paid. Then what. We will have maximum 400-500 users and you want to go and lobby or fight with congress with that much number of users. I still do not understand why this thread is still active. Well my post is going to bump it up so I'll not respond to this post any more. Lets focus on other drives as suggested by pappu. We are just waiting too much time discussing fruitile things.
Assume you make it paid. Then what. We will have maximum 400-500 users and you want to go and lobby or fight with congress with that much number of users. I still do not understand why this thread is still active. Well my post is going to bump it up so I'll not respond to this post any more. Lets focus on other drives as suggested by pappu. We are just waiting too much time discussing fruitile things.
house emma stone bangs.
Thanked her, appreciated her and also
requested her to look into our issues and come up with something similar for all of us looking to shroten the route to GC!
requested her to look into our issues and come up with something similar for all of us looking to shroten the route to GC!
tattoo Emma Stone Picture amp; Photo
With the new form available on uscis web site.
It clearly says the documents to be attached to 485 and it says employment letter as initial evidence.
So we should attach it . If not now, then you will get RFE. Why to get RFE ?
It clearly says the documents to be attached to 485 and it says employment letter as initial evidence.
So we should attach it . If not now, then you will get RFE. Why to get RFE ?
pictures emma stone quotes. Posted 2 weeks ago | Quote; Posted 2 weeks ago | Quote
I know a person who was sent back; IO called the end client to verify his employment and asked if they could hire american worker instead, when the employer said they could, IO sent him back. I think they are only going after H1's working for smaller consulting companies.
You may write it off as a rumor, so be it, but IV needs to step in and take necessary action.
well if the employer is not supporting you ..then maybe the IO does have the authority to refuse ?? (well assuming that these cases are correct ..then I guess we can assume that IO has recd instructions from his superiors) it is good to hear from Pappu that IV is ready to take up this issue ...but till someone comes foward ..can IV focus on other issues like recapture, removal of country limits etc (there is no shortage of issues where focus is needed)
You may write it off as a rumor, so be it, but IV needs to step in and take necessary action.
well if the employer is not supporting you ..then maybe the IO does have the authority to refuse ?? (well assuming that these cases are correct ..then I guess we can assume that IO has recd instructions from his superiors) it is good to hear from Pappu that IV is ready to take up this issue ...but till someone comes foward ..can IV focus on other issues like recapture, removal of country limits etc (there is no shortage of issues where focus is needed)
dresses Emma Stone at The Critic#39;s
I am wondering when will they discuss about Humans ?:mad:
makeup Gallery | emma stone
Completed just now
girlfriend emma stone elle cover
It all depend how we interpret the law.
Here is the arguement by stuck labor
"INA: ACT 245 - ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF NONIMMIGRANT TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE
(a) The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States 1/ or the status of any other alien having an approved petition for classification under subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii) of section 204(a)(1) or may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if
(3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed."
BUT
The above is applicable for adjustment of status only not for filing of 485.
Here the case in point is to argue for filing 485, not for adjusting of status even VISA numbers are not available. It is not mentioned anywhere in the act that the 485 petition cannot be filed. It is worth to give a try with USCIS. The present law does not mention anything about filing and we can take advantage of that.
Here is the arguement by stuck labor
"INA: ACT 245 - ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF NONIMMIGRANT TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE
(a) The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States 1/ or the status of any other alien having an approved petition for classification under subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii) of section 204(a)(1) or may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if
(3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed."
BUT
The above is applicable for adjustment of status only not for filing of 485.
Here the case in point is to argue for filing 485, not for adjusting of status even VISA numbers are not available. It is not mentioned anywhere in the act that the 485 petition cannot be filed. It is worth to give a try with USCIS. The present law does not mention anything about filing and we can take advantage of that.
hairstyles EMMA STONE BLOG - Maxim Girls
.....
....
She has worked only 1 month in 2009 this will be reflected on 2009 w-2. I have couple of questions:
Will she be considered as "out of status" from Feb 1 to April end?
.....
.....
Before I answer your questions, I have couple of them -
Will she get paid starting Feb 1st? If no, why not. Please explain.
Will she on unpaid leave?
Will she still be Full Time Employee?
....
She has worked only 1 month in 2009 this will be reflected on 2009 w-2. I have couple of questions:
Will she be considered as "out of status" from Feb 1 to April end?
.....
.....
Before I answer your questions, I have couple of them -
Will she get paid starting Feb 1st? If no, why not. Please explain.
Will she on unpaid leave?
Will she still be Full Time Employee?
Texcan,
Thanks for reading a long vent. Trust me, what happened to me in 9 months could happen to people in matter of moments.
So, I still consider myself lucky. Please pray for all those who arent lucky enough.
Thanks
Thanks for reading a long vent. Trust me, what happened to me in 9 months could happen to people in matter of moments.
So, I still consider myself lucky. Please pray for all those who arent lucky enough.
Thanks
Good work everybody , you guys have made this rally a great success.
I brought up this issue of standing out a legal immigrants in one of my posts, but most of them in the forum said they wanted to wear the IV T-Shirt.
I can help with things to do with psychology or mass communication, please feel free to contact me through PM if you need my services. I am not a trained professional but it is my hobby since a long time.
QUOTE=gjoe;157591]I would agree with idea of dressing professionally. We need not carry laptops and stuff like that but a neat formal dress would send out a clearer and bolder message about skilled immigrants.
We are a small crowd ( legal immigrants) we have to differentiate ourselves, the least we can do is dress formally. Formal dressd, organized and well behaved crowd will garner lot of attention (the right kind) and serve the purpose (of the rally).
Thanks,
PS: All this advice is based on my knowledge about human mind and social psychology.[/QUOTE]
First, I would like to congratulate everyone who contributed to the success of the DC rally on Sep 18, 2007...
I was there and I am proud of our ImmigrationVoice members for this FANTASTIC effort!
We are just starting and taking baby steps with these kind of activities...So, anything I mention below is not a critic, but a humble feedback/opinion...Please don't get offended.
1. We must immediately change our name to LegalImmigrationVoice.org( LIV.org)...But still Immigrationvoice.org should work....This should be done ASAP...like within next week...Please conduct a poll for this ASAP.
2. We must/should always wear formal suits for these kind of rally....this would definitely give us a very high status and definitely there will not be any confusion if the rally is by legal or illegal immigrants. Even if it is hot summer, we must stick to this dress code...
3. In all the signs we had today, we need to have one line clearly in bold as "Legal Immigrants - LegalImmigrationVoice.com - Faster Green cards for Legal highly skilled Immigrants" - bold and clear..
Also, all our T-shirts should have
"Legal Immigrants - LegalImmigrationVoice.com - Faster Green cards for Legal highly skilled Immigrants" in the back
4. One of the rally participants told me that a guide was telling a tourists bus passengers quote "these folks are illegal immigrants...", the rally participant who heard this went to the guide and explained that we are legal immigrants...if you think the guide is not smart enough to read our signs and understand that we are legal immigrants, read next point...
5. On the rally route, one gentleman, who was dressed in suit, looked well educated came up to me and asked what we are concerned about...I told him that green card process for Legal Immigrants is taking between 5-10 years and we are requesting to expedite it.....so it is clear that all our signs need this text at the bottom "Legal Immigrants - LegalImmigrationVoice.com - Faster Green cards for Legal highly skilled Immigrants"
We cannot be perfect the first or second time....Lets learn from this rally....
A pat in the back to all those who attended the rally....
Good Luck
I brought up this issue of standing out a legal immigrants in one of my posts, but most of them in the forum said they wanted to wear the IV T-Shirt.
I can help with things to do with psychology or mass communication, please feel free to contact me through PM if you need my services. I am not a trained professional but it is my hobby since a long time.
QUOTE=gjoe;157591]I would agree with idea of dressing professionally. We need not carry laptops and stuff like that but a neat formal dress would send out a clearer and bolder message about skilled immigrants.
We are a small crowd ( legal immigrants) we have to differentiate ourselves, the least we can do is dress formally. Formal dressd, organized and well behaved crowd will garner lot of attention (the right kind) and serve the purpose (of the rally).
Thanks,
PS: All this advice is based on my knowledge about human mind and social psychology.[/QUOTE]
First, I would like to congratulate everyone who contributed to the success of the DC rally on Sep 18, 2007...
I was there and I am proud of our ImmigrationVoice members for this FANTASTIC effort!
We are just starting and taking baby steps with these kind of activities...So, anything I mention below is not a critic, but a humble feedback/opinion...Please don't get offended.
1. We must immediately change our name to LegalImmigrationVoice.org( LIV.org)...But still Immigrationvoice.org should work....This should be done ASAP...like within next week...Please conduct a poll for this ASAP.
2. We must/should always wear formal suits for these kind of rally....this would definitely give us a very high status and definitely there will not be any confusion if the rally is by legal or illegal immigrants. Even if it is hot summer, we must stick to this dress code...
3. In all the signs we had today, we need to have one line clearly in bold as "Legal Immigrants - LegalImmigrationVoice.com - Faster Green cards for Legal highly skilled Immigrants" - bold and clear..
Also, all our T-shirts should have
"Legal Immigrants - LegalImmigrationVoice.com - Faster Green cards for Legal highly skilled Immigrants" in the back
4. One of the rally participants told me that a guide was telling a tourists bus passengers quote "these folks are illegal immigrants...", the rally participant who heard this went to the guide and explained that we are legal immigrants...if you think the guide is not smart enough to read our signs and understand that we are legal immigrants, read next point...
5. On the rally route, one gentleman, who was dressed in suit, looked well educated came up to me and asked what we are concerned about...I told him that green card process for Legal Immigrants is taking between 5-10 years and we are requesting to expedite it.....so it is clear that all our signs need this text at the bottom "Legal Immigrants - LegalImmigrationVoice.com - Faster Green cards for Legal highly skilled Immigrants"
We cannot be perfect the first or second time....Lets learn from this rally....
A pat in the back to all those who attended the rally....
Good Luck
