nk2006
10-05 12:28 PM
On the topic of �getting some of our measures during lame-duck session�, I am seeing some speculation (on other sites) that there is a chance these measures getting discussed during that session. I know these are just educated guesses, but it�s encouraging. see following:
================
From another thread on this site got this link, about Yale/Ivy League grads not getting H1B�s. There is quote from someone who thinks some immigration measures may be approved in Lame-duck session.
http://www.yaledailynews.com/Article...rticleID=33577
The House bill, the Senate bill, or some compromise may be approved during Congress' lame-duck session after the general elections in November, Yale-Loehr said.
=======================
This is from a leading corporate immigration law firm�s web page. They provide headlines and commentary on new regulations. There is some speculation about immigration measures getting discussed during lame-duck session:
The Road From Here:
On a broader scope, key House and Senate members maintain their position that Congress will examine comprehensive immigration reform in the period after the November election and before the start of the next Congress in January 2007, known as the "lame-duck" session. However, many of those involved in the debate over immigration reform question the ability of negotiators to reach an agreement, given the wide ideological gap between the House and Senate with respect to treatment of America's undocumented population.
====================
your comments / speculation / educated guess.......??...
================
From another thread on this site got this link, about Yale/Ivy League grads not getting H1B�s. There is quote from someone who thinks some immigration measures may be approved in Lame-duck session.
http://www.yaledailynews.com/Article...rticleID=33577
The House bill, the Senate bill, or some compromise may be approved during Congress' lame-duck session after the general elections in November, Yale-Loehr said.
=======================
This is from a leading corporate immigration law firm�s web page. They provide headlines and commentary on new regulations. There is some speculation about immigration measures getting discussed during lame-duck session:
The Road From Here:
On a broader scope, key House and Senate members maintain their position that Congress will examine comprehensive immigration reform in the period after the November election and before the start of the next Congress in January 2007, known as the "lame-duck" session. However, many of those involved in the debate over immigration reform question the ability of negotiators to reach an agreement, given the wide ideological gap between the House and Senate with respect to treatment of America's undocumented population.
====================
your comments / speculation / educated guess.......??...
wallpaper lady gaga born this way
sss9i
08-30 11:07 AM
You are correct, NOT seeing main page.
Everytime we need to look at page 92.
IT people can create subaccount in Main page.
Thanks.
That may be the reason that this thread is not being updated frequently. Some one should create a fresh thread and link this thread.
Everytime we need to look at page 92.
IT people can create subaccount in Main page.
Thanks.
That may be the reason that this thread is not being updated frequently. Some one should create a fresh thread and link this thread.
mmanurker
02-15 02:27 PM
Donated $100...
Your receipt number for this payment is: 4620-5387-3448-6682
Your receipt number for this payment is: 4620-5387-3448-6682
2011 that reads “BORN THIS WAY”
miapplicant
10-04 11:29 AM
Applied on July 19 at NSC and still nothing.
I am also July 23rd at NSC. I think we need to start our own thread.
I am also July 23rd at NSC. I think we need to start our own thread.
more...
test101
07-09 03:38 AM
For some postal destinations the USPS offers guaranteed 2 day service. I recently mailed a package where this service was offered. The postal worker explained that if the package was mailed on a Friday, it would be delivered on Sunday. San Francisco, CA is one of the destinations where this service is offered and the package in question was, indeed, delivered on a Sunday.
You should check whether the postal service offers the 2-day service to the USCIS office.
Thank you for explainig that. My lawyer indead in CA. Thank you very much.
It was mailed on jun/29 via priorty mail.
You should check whether the postal service offers the 2-day service to the USCIS office.
Thank you for explainig that. My lawyer indead in CA. Thank you very much.
It was mailed on jun/29 via priorty mail.
gkattalu
08-20 08:57 AM
My wife and I just received the email about card production order. And, ou4 case status has changed on the website to CPO. I wish good luck to all of you. In case it helps, anyone, our details:
Priority date: Feb 26, 2006
I-485 Receipt date: Jul 27, 2007
Steps taken:
SR opened for my petition around July 17th: Response stated that my petition was in the adjudications department, and was for an officer to be assigned.
Status enquiry through the local congresswoman Aug 12th: Same result as my SR.
SR opened for my wife Aug., 10th: No response yet
Infopass appointment on Aug. 16th: Both petitions with an officer since Aug. 12th.
I appreciate the forum and all the support it offers. Donated last month.
I hear you. Goodluck to us!
Priority date: Feb 26, 2006
I-485 Receipt date: Jul 27, 2007
Steps taken:
SR opened for my petition around July 17th: Response stated that my petition was in the adjudications department, and was for an officer to be assigned.
Status enquiry through the local congresswoman Aug 12th: Same result as my SR.
SR opened for my wife Aug., 10th: No response yet
Infopass appointment on Aug. 16th: Both petitions with an officer since Aug. 12th.
I appreciate the forum and all the support it offers. Donated last month.
I hear you. Goodluck to us!
more...
rajesh_kamisetty
07-21 10:20 AM
EAD RD: 21 May 2008
LUD: 6 June 2008
FP/Photo: 15 Jun 2008
Current EAD Exp Date: 30 Aug 2008
LUD: 6 June 2008
FP/Photo: 15 Jun 2008
Current EAD Exp Date: 30 Aug 2008
2010 The cover above is part of the
dhesha
08-27 12:05 PM
Yesterday we got our cards for myself and wife. Good luck to all who are still waiting.
more...
drirshad
08-13 11:12 PM
Cool calculation ..............
On aug 9 th, USCIS nebraska center issued a total of 4063 receipt nos for 485, EAD, and APs.
see the link http://.com/discuss/485eb/20866725/
From this, if we assume ~4000/day, it ll take 20 working days to clear july 2nd filers (~80,000). My guess is by 31st Aug.
On aug 9 th, USCIS nebraska center issued a total of 4063 receipt nos for 485, EAD, and APs.
see the link http://.com/discuss/485eb/20866725/
From this, if we assume ~4000/day, it ll take 20 working days to clear july 2nd filers (~80,000). My guess is by 31st Aug.
hair Lady Gaga #39;Born This Way#39;
sss9i
11-21 07:18 PM
Please think workable plan
more...
akhilmahajan
02-27 09:06 AM
Thanks a lot everyone.
Grand Total - $2162
Come on folks lets help IV, to get things done for US.
IV is I/WE. GO IV GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
Grand Total - $2162
Come on folks lets help IV, to get things done for US.
IV is I/WE. GO IV GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
hot Lady Gaga Born; Lady Gaga Born
unitednations
08-26 03:42 PM
I filed my I-129 for H1B extension in March, 2008. It is almost 5 months. I haven't got my H1B extension approval yet.
Do any of you experience delay in H1B extension? Is it normal waiting time after July 2007 fiasco?
I am also wondering why Vermont is delaying the processing of H1B though it is not processing I-485s?
Please share your experiences.
There are cases pending since last august. This is the whole theme of the thread. Lots of cases stuck in vermont service center.
Do any of you experience delay in H1B extension? Is it normal waiting time after July 2007 fiasco?
I am also wondering why Vermont is delaying the processing of H1B though it is not processing I-485s?
Please share your experiences.
There are cases pending since last august. This is the whole theme of the thread. Lots of cases stuck in vermont service center.
more...
house lady gaga born this way cover
pbojja
05-07 05:54 PM
Opening SR is like making a wish to god , which may come true
I opened SR when my wife lost her EAD in post , they gave me a 45 day time frame , nothing happened .. Called again and they open other SR , and asked again to wait for other 45 days ... I guess this cycle continues
I asked about my first SR while opening a second SR , reply they had no idea as they requested it with CIS , funny answer I also asked why there is a number if they have no idea ... By the way you will get letter from CIS stating that they received the request and they are processing it and you will hear from us with in 45 days .. If not call us ...ah ah
At last I was able to get EAD with in 5 days with the help of CISOmbudsman .
I opened SR when my wife lost her EAD in post , they gave me a 45 day time frame , nothing happened .. Called again and they open other SR , and asked again to wait for other 45 days ... I guess this cycle continues
I asked about my first SR while opening a second SR , reply they had no idea as they requested it with CIS , funny answer I also asked why there is a number if they have no idea ... By the way you will get letter from CIS stating that they received the request and they are processing it and you will hear from us with in 45 days .. If not call us ...ah ah
At last I was able to get EAD with in 5 days with the help of CISOmbudsman .
tattoo hot lady gaga born this way
chi_shark
07-10 11:28 AM
so this case has some merrit, however, the very core of this case is based on the employment being annually renewable. which means that the petitioner had to take periodic active action to be employed with the university employer... thats where the argument broke down for the petitioner... further, it is VERY GOOD to know that USCIS actually made an attempt to consider this emloyment for I-140 approval. it is good to know that they deliberated and then decided to reject instead of summarily rejecting on prima facie facts. one more very good thing to know (and avoid for ourselves) is that the petitioner in this case represented himself (no lawyer). its possible that if there was a laywer involved, they could have brought up some more documentation or at least shown the light to the university's staff as far as requirements are concerned. further still: no talk was engaged into as far as ability to pay is concerned. FURTHER FURTHER still: this case is about I-140... and we are all talking primarily about I-485 and AC21 cases within....
looks like this case actually tells me that maybe we could do self-employment easily...
Link to EB-1 case where I-140 was denied because job offered was not "permanent".
Link
http://www.uscis.gov/err/B3%20-%20Outstanding%20Professors%20and%20Researchers/Decisions_Issued_in_2004/MAR232004_01B3203.pdf
As per this document
.
looks like this case actually tells me that maybe we could do self-employment easily...
Link to EB-1 case where I-140 was denied because job offered was not "permanent".
Link
http://www.uscis.gov/err/B3%20-%20Outstanding%20Professors%20and%20Researchers/Decisions_Issued_in_2004/MAR232004_01B3203.pdf
As per this document
.
more...
pictures Lady Gaga is starting promo
shyamkishore
02-09 09:26 PM
Dear IV Guys,
I have been a passive observer of this forum.
I have done one time contribution of 100$.
Here are the details:
Payment details
Transaction ID: 57T11728MH365274A
Item Price: $100.00 USD
Total: $100.00 USD
Order Description: Contributions
Item/Product Number: Contributions
Buyer: Shyam Kishore Kuppu Rao
Regards,Shyam
I have been a passive observer of this forum.
I have done one time contribution of 100$.
Here are the details:
Payment details
Transaction ID: 57T11728MH365274A
Item Price: $100.00 USD
Total: $100.00 USD
Order Description: Contributions
Item/Product Number: Contributions
Buyer: Shyam Kishore Kuppu Rao
Regards,Shyam
dresses Lady Gaga Born This Way
kshitijnt
04-24 12:46 AM
Yeah no problem. We all have egos. Dont apologize, instead spend money on court and attorneys.
I had an RFE from NSC that they wanted to see experience letter from employer from specific format. They specifically said in RFE that they didnt want to see affidavits or paystubs or offer letter or any other document. Remember EB2 category criterion is "5 years of progressive work experience" word progressive is important and offer letter doesnt prove it.
If you havent been in this situation, do not offer unnecessary advise based on your gut feeling.
I had an RFE from NSC that they wanted to see experience letter from employer from specific format. They specifically said in RFE that they didnt want to see affidavits or paystubs or offer letter or any other document. Remember EB2 category criterion is "5 years of progressive work experience" word progressive is important and offer letter doesnt prove it.
If you havent been in this situation, do not offer unnecessary advise based on your gut feeling.
more...
makeup dresses hot lady gaga born
zoooom
07-20 02:32 PM
Zoooom, Anzeraja & All pledgers,
Thanks for driving this effort. Subsequent to Aman's post, we can direct these pledges to the normal contribution drive for IV.
It was amazing to see such response to call for funds for Aman and other core members.
So whats the verdict..Do we ask all the members to donate towards the core fund..Anzzeraja what do u say...SAM??
Thanks for driving this effort. Subsequent to Aman's post, we can direct these pledges to the normal contribution drive for IV.
It was amazing to see such response to call for funds for Aman and other core members.
So whats the verdict..Do we ask all the members to donate towards the core fund..Anzzeraja what do u say...SAM??
girlfriend lady gaga born this way cover.
Ramba
04-20 03:50 PM
First there is not enough AC21 cases to give feed back how their 485s were handled (approved/detail of RFE/denied) due to job change. Becase, almost all guys who used ac21 still in waiting game due to retrogression.
The main thing what I see here is, USCIS has not yet published the final regulation to interpret AC21 act, even after 7 years of passing AC21 act. They are issuing internal field office memo. These memos are non-binding. In other words, one cannot firmly relay on memos or challange the USCIS decision on AC21 portability according to these memos.
However, sofar, these memos are very favorable to workers, including allowing self-employment, one can port even before 140 approval ect...However, USCIS were cautioning in each memos, that the final regulation may be restrictive than memos. If they took restrictive position in final regulation, it will be a huge problem for most peoples, as they might have violated the final regulation.
Another issue is, definition of "same or similar occupational classification". This is going to be very subjective based on how uscis adjudicator going to compare old and new jobs. The memo says by comparing job duties both old and new jobs and based on SOC or ONET code of old and new job they have to decide both jobs are same or similar. As there is no clear regulation it is big issue to go howmuch level of similarity between jobs. For example one guy may think "database administrator" and "network administrator" are similar job to port. The USCIS may think it may not. It is not quantified.
I feel IV should advocate on liberal/quantifyable defintion for similar jobs in AC21 interpretation. For example, all computer professional jobs should be considered as similar jobs as well as all engineering jobs should be considered similar to port. For example mining engineer can port to chemical engineer job etc...
Also, if any one port to self employment in similar job, there is no much information available wheter one should open a company in his/her name or not (by just working in 1099 etc.. for multiple positions). This needs to have a flexible option for workers, like one can work in 1099 w/o opening a bussiness.
Also, IV should advocate on not to have any restrictive interpretation in final regulation.
The main thing what I see here is, USCIS has not yet published the final regulation to interpret AC21 act, even after 7 years of passing AC21 act. They are issuing internal field office memo. These memos are non-binding. In other words, one cannot firmly relay on memos or challange the USCIS decision on AC21 portability according to these memos.
However, sofar, these memos are very favorable to workers, including allowing self-employment, one can port even before 140 approval ect...However, USCIS were cautioning in each memos, that the final regulation may be restrictive than memos. If they took restrictive position in final regulation, it will be a huge problem for most peoples, as they might have violated the final regulation.
Another issue is, definition of "same or similar occupational classification". This is going to be very subjective based on how uscis adjudicator going to compare old and new jobs. The memo says by comparing job duties both old and new jobs and based on SOC or ONET code of old and new job they have to decide both jobs are same or similar. As there is no clear regulation it is big issue to go howmuch level of similarity between jobs. For example one guy may think "database administrator" and "network administrator" are similar job to port. The USCIS may think it may not. It is not quantified.
I feel IV should advocate on liberal/quantifyable defintion for similar jobs in AC21 interpretation. For example, all computer professional jobs should be considered as similar jobs as well as all engineering jobs should be considered similar to port. For example mining engineer can port to chemical engineer job etc...
Also, if any one port to self employment in similar job, there is no much information available wheter one should open a company in his/her name or not (by just working in 1099 etc.. for multiple positions). This needs to have a flexible option for workers, like one can work in 1099 w/o opening a bussiness.
Also, IV should advocate on not to have any restrictive interpretation in final regulation.
hairstyles Lady Gaga “Born This Way”
ThinkTwice
07-19 07:06 PM
Zoom, I appreciate you having started this thread, I have a suggession - Can you please
- give a little back ground as to why we are starting this effort
- The source http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jul2007/db20070718_012859.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index _businessweek+exclusives
- Also some one mentioned that Aman was even considering SELLING his house to support OUR cause.
- what we intend to accomplish by this effort
- The manner in which the money that is collected will be admistered ( If this has not been finalized may be just mention that this is WIP)
- what our target is.
If you add all this information in the initial post it will give direction and substance to this effort.
Thanks
TT
Although the thread title says "Reimburse the core team" and I know that the core team will not take any money (and do not expect the memebrs to reimburse them) from the fund that we are planning on creating here...Stilll by contributing to this fund we can make sure that core does not have to bear any out of pocket personal expense in future while working on "our" goal.
Lets see how many of us are actually inetested in contributing. Once we have the number we can set a realistic goal and divide amongst ourselves.
For that I suggest we give this thread good two days to develop and check other members responses...
So here is a chance for everyone to contribute to our own goal. Lets keep this going. Who ever is interested pls reply. I will do a final count after 2 days as suggested and take it from there....
Guys: Its good to see response...Pls reply "In" and the amount.
- give a little back ground as to why we are starting this effort
- The source http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jul2007/db20070718_012859.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index _businessweek+exclusives
- Also some one mentioned that Aman was even considering SELLING his house to support OUR cause.
- what we intend to accomplish by this effort
- The manner in which the money that is collected will be admistered ( If this has not been finalized may be just mention that this is WIP)
- what our target is.
If you add all this information in the initial post it will give direction and substance to this effort.
Thanks
TT
Although the thread title says "Reimburse the core team" and I know that the core team will not take any money (and do not expect the memebrs to reimburse them) from the fund that we are planning on creating here...Stilll by contributing to this fund we can make sure that core does not have to bear any out of pocket personal expense in future while working on "our" goal.
Lets see how many of us are actually inetested in contributing. Once we have the number we can set a realistic goal and divide amongst ourselves.
For that I suggest we give this thread good two days to develop and check other members responses...
So here is a chance for everyone to contribute to our own goal. Lets keep this going. Who ever is interested pls reply. I will do a final count after 2 days as suggested and take it from there....
Guys: Its good to see response...Pls reply "In" and the amount.
kondur_007
07-28 02:08 PM
As I mentioned in my previous post in this thread, I am now posting information that explains why this "horizontal" spill occurred and no amount of campaign will reverse it (other than change in law).
If this is repetition of what has already been discussed elsewhere on the site, I apologize.
First, let me point out when and how the interpretation changed:
Following is from immigration-information.com site (Ron Gotcher):
�Last week, I wrote to Charles Oppenheim of the State Department, asking several specific questions. This morning, I had a long talk with him, when he very graciously called to respond to the questions I e-mailed him earlier. In the course of our discussion, I learned a great deal about the present backlog situation and what is being done about it. First, let me deal with the questions I had asked.
Mr. Oppenheim explained that while the Visa Office initially took the view that visa numbers had to fall down into employment third preference before the could fall across to the individual country quotas, but after further review, additional legislation, and consultation with Congress, they concluded that they have to allocate the fall across within individual preference petitions first.�
Direct link to above post:
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5456
Some more information from Ron Gotcher�s site can be found at following link
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5703
Now, let�s look at the actual law on this (above is only the interpretation from Mr Oppenheim, following is the actual text of the law: (my comment is in italics)
8 CFR Sec 202(a)
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS-
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph (read as under that EB category: if it is EB1, it goes to EB1 and if it is EB2 it goes to EB2) shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
Read the entire Sec 202 (a) here:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe
A glimpse of Sec 203(b) is:
b) Preference Allocation for Employment-Based Immigrants. - Aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 201(d) for employment-based immigrants in a fiscal year shall be allotted visas as follows:
(1) Priority workers. - Visas shall first be made available in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (4) and (5), to qualified immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): �.
Please read the entire section 203(b) here:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe
So, in nutshell:
1. The law is actually clear on this.
2. Now Mr. Oppenheim has interpreted it correctly as well.
3. It don�t think we can convince anyone to change the interpretation (because interpretation appears to be correct. If it was interpreted differently in past, then that was a mistake).
4. The only way to deal with it is to CHANGE THE LAW.
5. More importantly, push for bills to increase overall numbers (recapture, STEM exemption) etc�
6. The big picture: All these is likely to look completely different once CIR comes in, and we need to include our agenda in CIR that would benefit every category for several years to come (not just my GC or your GC).
If this is repetition of what has already been discussed elsewhere on the site, I apologize.
First, let me point out when and how the interpretation changed:
Following is from immigration-information.com site (Ron Gotcher):
�Last week, I wrote to Charles Oppenheim of the State Department, asking several specific questions. This morning, I had a long talk with him, when he very graciously called to respond to the questions I e-mailed him earlier. In the course of our discussion, I learned a great deal about the present backlog situation and what is being done about it. First, let me deal with the questions I had asked.
Mr. Oppenheim explained that while the Visa Office initially took the view that visa numbers had to fall down into employment third preference before the could fall across to the individual country quotas, but after further review, additional legislation, and consultation with Congress, they concluded that they have to allocate the fall across within individual preference petitions first.�
Direct link to above post:
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5456
Some more information from Ron Gotcher�s site can be found at following link
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5703
Now, let�s look at the actual law on this (above is only the interpretation from Mr Oppenheim, following is the actual text of the law: (my comment is in italics)
8 CFR Sec 202(a)
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS-
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph (read as under that EB category: if it is EB1, it goes to EB1 and if it is EB2 it goes to EB2) shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
Read the entire Sec 202 (a) here:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe
A glimpse of Sec 203(b) is:
b) Preference Allocation for Employment-Based Immigrants. - Aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 201(d) for employment-based immigrants in a fiscal year shall be allotted visas as follows:
(1) Priority workers. - Visas shall first be made available in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (4) and (5), to qualified immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): �.
Please read the entire section 203(b) here:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe
So, in nutshell:
1. The law is actually clear on this.
2. Now Mr. Oppenheim has interpreted it correctly as well.
3. It don�t think we can convince anyone to change the interpretation (because interpretation appears to be correct. If it was interpreted differently in past, then that was a mistake).
4. The only way to deal with it is to CHANGE THE LAW.
5. More importantly, push for bills to increase overall numbers (recapture, STEM exemption) etc�
6. The big picture: All these is likely to look completely different once CIR comes in, and we need to include our agenda in CIR that would benefit every category for several years to come (not just my GC or your GC).
gccovet
02-09 03:38 PM
Hi,
I have sent my contribution of $21 through paypal.
Payment Sent (Unique Transaction ID #0FB67301XJ308793P)
Thank you Pachaik,
With 15 contributors, We are now at $484.00
I have sent my contribution of $21 through paypal.
Payment Sent (Unique Transaction ID #0FB67301XJ308793P)
Thank you Pachaik,
With 15 contributors, We are now at $484.00
No comments:
Post a Comment