PHANI_TAVVALA
02-14 03:38 PM
Web Accept Payment Sent (Unique Transaction ID #3D549434CG194093F)
Original Transaction
Date Type Status Details Amount
Feb 14, 2011 Payment To Immigration Voice Completed ... -$50.00 USD
Original Transaction
Date Type Status Details Amount
Feb 14, 2011 Payment To Immigration Voice Completed ... -$50.00 USD
wallpaper out of “Transformers 3″
ganguteli
07-08 11:11 AM
Where is Moira from Buisnessweek?
Why can't she cover this?
Why can't she cover this?
nashim
05-12 12:31 PM
June VB is out !
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4231.html
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4231.html
2011 Rosie Huntington Whiteley
czarseattle
05-03 07:14 PM
More conservatives are backing our cause than liberals. Seems counter initutive to me. Mid-western, southern red state senators are supporting high-tech immigration while I dont seem to hear anything from coastal blue state senators except about illegal immgirants. Why?
more...
sanhari
07-26 09:43 AM
GCperm, Thank you for your inputs.
I actually got this input of contacting congressman to implement this change, from USCIS only(their blog). I will also contact the ones mentioned in your posting. I also request all EB folks affected by this spillover usage not based on priority date, to contact them in addition to their local congressman. Let's not leave any stone unturned to make this happen, to help us all out. If this happens soon to create an impact, we may see some light in the upcoming bulletins. So all of you please do your part to contact them today(if not done already), I am on it now.
Sanhari,
If we go with your feeling, and run the Campaign right way then following is summary.
1) What you mentioned was there is no need to Legislative change for your solution only Interpretation of INA need to be changed challenged.
2) EB3 Folks want only on using Fall Across / Down /UP visa's to be allocated based on PD, rather then category.
3) Removing Country quota will need legislative change and EB3 folks don't want to take it on hand at this time.
4) You and EB3 folks are good with division created by this Campaign.
Now, If above summary is true then You need to be doing following,
1) READ INA and Find where is violation or Incorrect interpretation in Applying VISA to EB2.
2) You need to be contacting DOS - Mr. Charles Oppenheim / Hillary Clinton their 2007 interpretation of Applying VISA to EB2.
3) You need to be contacting DOS Liaison to Challenge their 2007 interpretation of Applying VISA to EB2.
4) If EB3 Guys are confident of incorrect INA interpretation, collect Money and Prepare for Law-Suit if needed.
5) As there is no Legislative changes needed, there is no need to contact Law makers (Senators, House members).
6) There is no Process improvements so no need to reach out to USCIS ombudsman.
7) Its About VISA allocation by DOS, so contacting USCIS won't help either.
Now Contacts for DOS,
Followings are Contact Information for DOS Liaison,
Palma R. Yanni (dl), DOS Liaison Committee Chair, AILA Past President, Washington, DC Contact Information (http://www.palma-yanni.com/contact.htm)
Jerome G. Grzeca, DOS Liaison Committee Vice-Chair, AILA Board of Governors, Milwaukee, WI http://www.grzecalaw.com/contact_us.cfm
Following is the Link to Send email/Questions to Department of State.
Contact Us at the U.S. State Department (http://contact-us.state.gov/cgi-bin/state.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php?p_sid=4Eiijc*j&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=264&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfc m93X2NudD0xMTYsMTE2JnBfcHJvZHM9JnBfY2F0cz0mcF9wdj0 mcF9jdj0mcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1hbnN3ZXJzLnNlYXJjaF9ub CZwX3BhZ2U9MQ)
Following is the Contact information for DOS
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/111781.pdf
Oppenheim, Charles W. CA/VO/F/IV L415(CHIEF SA-1 (202) 663-1087
Good Luck and God Bless.
I actually got this input of contacting congressman to implement this change, from USCIS only(their blog). I will also contact the ones mentioned in your posting. I also request all EB folks affected by this spillover usage not based on priority date, to contact them in addition to their local congressman. Let's not leave any stone unturned to make this happen, to help us all out. If this happens soon to create an impact, we may see some light in the upcoming bulletins. So all of you please do your part to contact them today(if not done already), I am on it now.
Sanhari,
If we go with your feeling, and run the Campaign right way then following is summary.
1) What you mentioned was there is no need to Legislative change for your solution only Interpretation of INA need to be changed challenged.
2) EB3 Folks want only on using Fall Across / Down /UP visa's to be allocated based on PD, rather then category.
3) Removing Country quota will need legislative change and EB3 folks don't want to take it on hand at this time.
4) You and EB3 folks are good with division created by this Campaign.
Now, If above summary is true then You need to be doing following,
1) READ INA and Find where is violation or Incorrect interpretation in Applying VISA to EB2.
2) You need to be contacting DOS - Mr. Charles Oppenheim / Hillary Clinton their 2007 interpretation of Applying VISA to EB2.
3) You need to be contacting DOS Liaison to Challenge their 2007 interpretation of Applying VISA to EB2.
4) If EB3 Guys are confident of incorrect INA interpretation, collect Money and Prepare for Law-Suit if needed.
5) As there is no Legislative changes needed, there is no need to contact Law makers (Senators, House members).
6) There is no Process improvements so no need to reach out to USCIS ombudsman.
7) Its About VISA allocation by DOS, so contacting USCIS won't help either.
Now Contacts for DOS,
Followings are Contact Information for DOS Liaison,
Palma R. Yanni (dl), DOS Liaison Committee Chair, AILA Past President, Washington, DC Contact Information (http://www.palma-yanni.com/contact.htm)
Jerome G. Grzeca, DOS Liaison Committee Vice-Chair, AILA Board of Governors, Milwaukee, WI http://www.grzecalaw.com/contact_us.cfm
Following is the Link to Send email/Questions to Department of State.
Contact Us at the U.S. State Department (http://contact-us.state.gov/cgi-bin/state.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php?p_sid=4Eiijc*j&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=264&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfc m93X2NudD0xMTYsMTE2JnBfcHJvZHM9JnBfY2F0cz0mcF9wdj0 mcF9jdj0mcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1hbnN3ZXJzLnNlYXJjaF9ub CZwX3BhZ2U9MQ)
Following is the Contact information for DOS
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/111781.pdf
Oppenheim, Charles W. CA/VO/F/IV L415(CHIEF SA-1 (202) 663-1087
Good Luck and God Bless.
gsc999
07-06 07:38 PM
This event has been registered at SJPD but no permit was issued.
Having a permit means you can block the traffic.
Without a permit, we are required to stay on sidewalks.
The police put down my name, driver license # and address.
However, when I asked if I have any liability for others fault, the ploice said NO. Everybody abides by law for himself.
----
Can you PM me your e-mail address, I want to join your group tomorrow and then organize a similar event on 14th July. Yes, that is what the SJPD told me also.
Having a permit means you can block the traffic.
Without a permit, we are required to stay on sidewalks.
The police put down my name, driver license # and address.
However, when I asked if I have any liability for others fault, the ploice said NO. Everybody abides by law for himself.
----
Can you PM me your e-mail address, I want to join your group tomorrow and then organize a similar event on 14th July. Yes, that is what the SJPD told me also.
more...
tikka
06-06 05:50 PM
All guys who is able to file or have filed for I-485. Please contribute to this good cause. Please help our other friends..
I know some of our friends who already have green card contributed..
Guys please give gift to IV now.. Thanks.
needed to reach the target for today!
I know some of our friends who already have green card contributed..
Guys please give gift to IV now.. Thanks.
needed to reach the target for today!
2010 Rosie Huntington-Whiteley
anujcb
06-05 03:30 PM
Did some investigation into the LIN/WAC number series that was issued starting from June 1...here are the details.
WAC071795xxxx - June 1
WAC071805xxxx - June 2
WAC071815xxxx - June 4
......
LIN071735xxxx - June 1
LIN071745xxxx - June 4
......
WAC071795xxxx - June 1
WAC071805xxxx - June 2
WAC071815xxxx - June 4
......
LIN071735xxxx - June 1
LIN071745xxxx - June 4
......
more...
rsharma
09-24 08:36 AM
In Your example, Is B working for the same company or different company in 2010. As you know experience working for the same company does not count towards EB2. B has to take another job at a different company to qualify for EB2. Am I correct in this?
(unless the title and job description totally different in 2010 for B)
By law the job should be in different company. However many desi employers are having two or more sister companies. They get it applied under another sister company's name.
Had it been a different company too this porting of date for B (my example above) is not justified. Because when B had originally applied he did not have the EB2 qualification/experience. He gained it later, so he should not be allowed to use the original date for EB2. The law should be the new perm date for the EB2 should be the priority date.
The porting of date should only be allowed in same category, if someone changes a job after 180days of 485 and remains in same category.
EB2 I applicants should point this out. I know many of my friends have started sending out memo to USCIS.. But to take any adminstrative measure more people need to follow or contact USCIS.
Else it is your fate.. you know better what to do...
(unless the title and job description totally different in 2010 for B)
By law the job should be in different company. However many desi employers are having two or more sister companies. They get it applied under another sister company's name.
Had it been a different company too this porting of date for B (my example above) is not justified. Because when B had originally applied he did not have the EB2 qualification/experience. He gained it later, so he should not be allowed to use the original date for EB2. The law should be the new perm date for the EB2 should be the priority date.
The porting of date should only be allowed in same category, if someone changes a job after 180days of 485 and remains in same category.
EB2 I applicants should point this out. I know many of my friends have started sending out memo to USCIS.. But to take any adminstrative measure more people need to follow or contact USCIS.
Else it is your fate.. you know better what to do...
hair Rosie Huntington-Whiteley.
paskal
05-23 02:38 AM
good crisp message
great job!
great job!
more...
ronhira
09-25 12:00 PM
Dream ON ...! No Law is immutable buddy ;)
& who'll change it....pu55ies like u?
& who'll change it....pu55ies like u?
hot rosie huntington whiteley
trueguy
09-19 07:46 PM
I agree with above analysis except 5% assumption is not good assumption. It might be 2% or less
more...
house Rosie Huntington-Whiteley
desi3933
06-29 11:41 AM
.....
Based on the same logic, I would say that the job of stopping discrimination against EAD/H1B etc. is mainly the responsibility of Citizens and GC holders. It is their country; it is up to them to fix it.
There are laws in place, already, for discrimination against applicant having proper work authorization.
If the affected person does not report or take action, then nothing will happen. It is high time that "highly skilled workers" aware of their rights. Sanju mentioned a term "educated illiterates" for such reasons.
Many consulting companies do not pay salary on bench. If the employee does not report to DoL, will he/she get his/her salary? No. The issue of discrimination is on the similar lines.
There is no requirement for employer to consider any applicant who is on H-1B visa status. It is entirely voluntary and upto the employer whether to sponsor H1 visa or not. Same thing holds good for sponsoring green card as well.
_________________
Not a legal advice.
Based on the same logic, I would say that the job of stopping discrimination against EAD/H1B etc. is mainly the responsibility of Citizens and GC holders. It is their country; it is up to them to fix it.
There are laws in place, already, for discrimination against applicant having proper work authorization.
If the affected person does not report or take action, then nothing will happen. It is high time that "highly skilled workers" aware of their rights. Sanju mentioned a term "educated illiterates" for such reasons.
Many consulting companies do not pay salary on bench. If the employee does not report to DoL, will he/she get his/her salary? No. The issue of discrimination is on the similar lines.
There is no requirement for employer to consider any applicant who is on H-1B visa status. It is entirely voluntary and upto the employer whether to sponsor H1 visa or not. Same thing holds good for sponsoring green card as well.
_________________
Not a legal advice.
tattoo Sexy Rosie Huntington-Whiteley
snathan
02-12 06:31 PM
So far $1805...come on guys
more...
pictures Transformers 3 will be getting
gchopes
12-26 09:07 AM
I received FP notices for myself and spouse on Saturday, Dec 22 for FP at the Charlotte office on Jan 11.
- gchopes.
- gchopes.
dresses Rosie Huntington-Whiteley
hindu_king
03-06 04:12 PM
Country Cap for employment based GCs is discrimination by National Origin. It must be removed. This kind of practice would be illegal if practiced by any corporate entity. So it might be illegal even for USCIS to have a country cap for employment based visas. We might want to think about having some lawyers check into this and maybe sue USCIS so that they remove this discriminatory rule. This one small change in rule could make a huge difference to Indian community, more than any other legislative changes. Skilled workers from different countries come to USA because they all want to work in USA, not because they come from a certain country. USA should have only one queue for this reason. Having separate queues for each country is downright racist and discrimination by national origin.
more...
makeup Rosie Huntington-Whiteley
atmercyofdol
10-08 01:29 PM
I applied for the first time in 2001, and then in 2005 (due to relocation) and ended up at the backlog center. Another relocation and now my PD is March 2007, and these recent wannabes want Perm approved in 1 month, I-140 premium processing in few days and then onto I-485 which should be current with no retrogression. Amen !! When do you want the USCIS to bend over for you?
girlfriend 01 rosie huntington whitley
coolcat
06-12 11:13 AM
No, I didn't get my receipt yet. I called my lawyer and she said that the checks haven't cleared yet. It's taking toooo long. I don't know what's going on. Anybody in the same situation?
Filed on June 1st. Still waiting for receipt.
Filed on June 1st. Still waiting for receipt.
hairstyles Rosie Huntington-Whiteley
mbawa2574
09-08 01:52 PM
July 3 filer NSC : all 6 checks got cashed.
anzerraja
07-19 07:01 PM
Pledging $200.
gjoe
10-09 06:18 AM
Why do you think FIFO is scientifically impossible? If you beleive that weather forecast is reliable like most of the Americans do, making the FIFO system work more effeciently without wasting even a single visa is possible.
It is not necessary to issue the visa if the case is still pending for some reason, but if it has cleared all it has a visa number ready to complete the case. If all the visa numbers are allocated ( not necessarily issued) each year there will be no waste. There is no need to go back and recapture visa numbers because all visa numbers are already allocated. Obove all these reasons, those people with PD's as old as 1999 coming out from the BEC need not face another nightmare like first waiting for the I485 to become current before even he can file and then wait in the end of the queue for new applicants to move forward before having his case handled.
This GC system broke because the system was revamped without taking into account the whole process.
First I-485 is triggered by an act of the applicant (he has to apply). So USCIS is never going to know whether an earlier applicant is still out there trying to file his application or not. In fact I would blame the entire retrogression on USCIS' attempt at FIFO which is scientifically impossible. It only results in wastage of visa numbers. In 2004 USCIS wasted 47000 visa numbers, in 2006 it wasted 10000 visa numbers. What USCIS could think of doing is just approve whoever is approvable. So the visa bulletin has only 2 possible values "C" and "U". If an earlier I485 applicant is stuck in name check then he should take appropriate action (writing to senators, FL, GWB or file WoM) and get his case adjudicated.
There are a lot of misconceptions about AoS. Let me write it here.
1. A visa number is not needed to get AoS adjudicated. A visa number is only required to file the application. But USCIS' stand is that visa number is required both while filing and adjudicating. This according to the statutes and regulations is not true and valid. If USCIS screwed up and delayed adjudicating your application that is their problem. According to statutes and regulations a visa number is only required at the time the application is filed.
2. Neither Statutes nor regulations call for any fbi name check. Remember FBI name check is different from criminal back ground check or finger print check. The name check is an arbitrary decision by FBI and USCIS and will not stand in any court of law.
3. An FBI name check was never called for by USCIS on AoS applicants. It was only required for naturalization applicants. FBI screwed up by sending every one's name through this dreaded name check and now claims that it has too many names to check.
4. If your AoS application is pending for more than a year file a law suit against USCIS because USCIS violated regulations 103.2(b)(18). According to this regulation if an investigation is pending for 6 months district director should review it. At the end of 1 year he should again review it. After that it has to be escalated to higher authorities. Trust me this never happens. Violation of regulations is a serious offense.
So FIFO will never happen because USCIS cannot control who will apply when. Second FIFO is really bad because USCIS then has to keep shuffling its visa numbers around. Instead if it just approves anyone who is approvable atleast visa numbers would get used.
It is not necessary to issue the visa if the case is still pending for some reason, but if it has cleared all it has a visa number ready to complete the case. If all the visa numbers are allocated ( not necessarily issued) each year there will be no waste. There is no need to go back and recapture visa numbers because all visa numbers are already allocated. Obove all these reasons, those people with PD's as old as 1999 coming out from the BEC need not face another nightmare like first waiting for the I485 to become current before even he can file and then wait in the end of the queue for new applicants to move forward before having his case handled.
This GC system broke because the system was revamped without taking into account the whole process.
First I-485 is triggered by an act of the applicant (he has to apply). So USCIS is never going to know whether an earlier applicant is still out there trying to file his application or not. In fact I would blame the entire retrogression on USCIS' attempt at FIFO which is scientifically impossible. It only results in wastage of visa numbers. In 2004 USCIS wasted 47000 visa numbers, in 2006 it wasted 10000 visa numbers. What USCIS could think of doing is just approve whoever is approvable. So the visa bulletin has only 2 possible values "C" and "U". If an earlier I485 applicant is stuck in name check then he should take appropriate action (writing to senators, FL, GWB or file WoM) and get his case adjudicated.
There are a lot of misconceptions about AoS. Let me write it here.
1. A visa number is not needed to get AoS adjudicated. A visa number is only required to file the application. But USCIS' stand is that visa number is required both while filing and adjudicating. This according to the statutes and regulations is not true and valid. If USCIS screwed up and delayed adjudicating your application that is their problem. According to statutes and regulations a visa number is only required at the time the application is filed.
2. Neither Statutes nor regulations call for any fbi name check. Remember FBI name check is different from criminal back ground check or finger print check. The name check is an arbitrary decision by FBI and USCIS and will not stand in any court of law.
3. An FBI name check was never called for by USCIS on AoS applicants. It was only required for naturalization applicants. FBI screwed up by sending every one's name through this dreaded name check and now claims that it has too many names to check.
4. If your AoS application is pending for more than a year file a law suit against USCIS because USCIS violated regulations 103.2(b)(18). According to this regulation if an investigation is pending for 6 months district director should review it. At the end of 1 year he should again review it. After that it has to be escalated to higher authorities. Trust me this never happens. Violation of regulations is a serious offense.
So FIFO will never happen because USCIS cannot control who will apply when. Second FIFO is really bad because USCIS then has to keep shuffling its visa numbers around. Instead if it just approves anyone who is approvable atleast visa numbers would get used.
No comments:
Post a Comment