immuser
11-01 06:16 PM
http://content.msn.co.in/News/International/InternationalHinT_011107_0847.htm
London: Employment prospects for Indians in Britain could well be hit by the recent revelation that 52 per cent of all new jobs created in the country over the past decade have gone to immigrants.
According to Britain’s National Statistics Office, 1.1 million of the 2.1 million new jobs that have arisen since 1997 have been bagged by people of non-British origin.
Another government study released a few days earlier had shown that migrant workers earned on an average �424 a week, while British workers got �395. Foreign born workers, at an estimated 1.5 million, comprised 12.5 per cent of Britain’s workforce, compared to 7.4 per cent a decade ago.
“Any move to control immigration will affect Indian professionals the most,” said Amit Kapadia, convenor of the Asian organisation Highly Skilled Migrant Professionals.
The findings have revived old fears of migrants leaving local workers jobless. They raised such a furore that Prime Minister Gordon Brown intervened on Wednesday declaring plans were being finalised to control the influx of foreign workers.
These included introducing a points-based system which would give priority to immigrants with skills needed in Britain, and if required, shut out the others.
“Over the next few months, we have decided on changes... so that people can be sure we are taking action that is necessary,” Brown said
London: Employment prospects for Indians in Britain could well be hit by the recent revelation that 52 per cent of all new jobs created in the country over the past decade have gone to immigrants.
According to Britain’s National Statistics Office, 1.1 million of the 2.1 million new jobs that have arisen since 1997 have been bagged by people of non-British origin.
Another government study released a few days earlier had shown that migrant workers earned on an average �424 a week, while British workers got �395. Foreign born workers, at an estimated 1.5 million, comprised 12.5 per cent of Britain’s workforce, compared to 7.4 per cent a decade ago.
“Any move to control immigration will affect Indian professionals the most,” said Amit Kapadia, convenor of the Asian organisation Highly Skilled Migrant Professionals.
The findings have revived old fears of migrants leaving local workers jobless. They raised such a furore that Prime Minister Gordon Brown intervened on Wednesday declaring plans were being finalised to control the influx of foreign workers.
These included introducing a points-based system which would give priority to immigrants with skills needed in Britain, and if required, shut out the others.
“Over the next few months, we have decided on changes... so that people can be sure we are taking action that is necessary,” Brown said
H1B-GC
02-16 10:26 AM
Well, i feel its more of a Policy decision.If they really want to do something fast they will do it anyhow.The best example is how this woman from canada i guess,who got US citizenship in 2 days,yes its right '2 days' so she can represent US in the ongoing Winter Olympics at Turin.
Even CA state used to abjudicate Labor cases in 1 Months Time back until 2000.Later on 0 approval cases from then on.Surprising??
Even CA state used to abjudicate Labor cases in 1 Months Time back until 2000.Later on 0 approval cases from then on.Surprising??
yabadaba
06-22 03:20 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrele...ling062107.pdf
Does this mean USCIS take it back?
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/UpdateDirectFiling062107.pdf
Calm down..its there
Does this mean USCIS take it back?
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/UpdateDirectFiling062107.pdf
Calm down..its there
thomachan72
05-12 09:53 AM
Dear All,
Could you please advise, if we can port eb3 to eb2.
My husband is working for the same employer for last 6 years. He has masters degree from US and he filed for his GC in 2004. In 2004, he had only 1 year experience. The lawyer said he does not qualify for Eb2 despite his US degree.
Now after 6 years, he had a job change within his company. He became a principal engineer from just an engineer. Could we port to EB2?
If yes, what should we be careful about and how should we go about it?
Sincerely,
Augustus
In principle the main criteria would be whether the job requires a person with a masters or higher degree. If the company can prove that the job description and requirements match that for a person with masters then he would qualify. Again this is based on my awareness from reading various posts on the IV and similar websites. The attorney would be the best to decide. I know many of our friends in the IV have masters but the main problem they are facing is that the job description does not specify a masters. So the employer hesitates to reaply in EB2 catagory. If your husband fits in then I believe all he has to do is to file another 140 and port the PD of the EB3 application.
How frustating this can be, right? :(
Could you please advise, if we can port eb3 to eb2.
My husband is working for the same employer for last 6 years. He has masters degree from US and he filed for his GC in 2004. In 2004, he had only 1 year experience. The lawyer said he does not qualify for Eb2 despite his US degree.
Now after 6 years, he had a job change within his company. He became a principal engineer from just an engineer. Could we port to EB2?
If yes, what should we be careful about and how should we go about it?
Sincerely,
Augustus
In principle the main criteria would be whether the job requires a person with a masters or higher degree. If the company can prove that the job description and requirements match that for a person with masters then he would qualify. Again this is based on my awareness from reading various posts on the IV and similar websites. The attorney would be the best to decide. I know many of our friends in the IV have masters but the main problem they are facing is that the job description does not specify a masters. So the employer hesitates to reaply in EB2 catagory. If your husband fits in then I believe all he has to do is to file another 140 and port the PD of the EB3 application.
How frustating this can be, right? :(
more...
mlkedave
03-06 07:56 PM
I was the first to show my site, then paddy, then dark and then fern so i really dont see any influence may it be progressive or negative...
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
iwantgc
05-08 10:47 AM
Hello all and Pappu, thank you all for your response. I will take Pappu's advice as far as what to discuss with them plus my family's concern, my husband who had to be away from me for straight two years has returned to US and been hopeful to get a work permit through my GC process.
I am planning to return a call to the office of congressat 12 noon mountain time, im in Nebraska. I will keep in touch with IV core members after then.
I am planning to return a call to the office of congressat 12 noon mountain time, im in Nebraska. I will keep in touch with IV core members after then.
aadimanav
11-01 09:40 PM
Hello experts,
Could someone explain to me why is that 61,000 visa recapture exclusively for nurses is not good for EB3 category? To me it will make the EB3 queue smaller (i.e. Current Applications In the EB3 Queue MINUS 61,000). Why this is not good, and why I don't hear any body say so?
* Is this not good because 61,000 visas will be recaptured EXCLUSIVELY for NURSES. This 61,000 quota should have been spread over all categories EB1, EB2, EB3.
* Is this not good because it doesn't help EB2 and EB1?
* Some other reason
Please educate and comment.
Could someone explain to me why is that 61,000 visa recapture exclusively for nurses is not good for EB3 category? To me it will make the EB3 queue smaller (i.e. Current Applications In the EB3 Queue MINUS 61,000). Why this is not good, and why I don't hear any body say so?
* Is this not good because 61,000 visas will be recaptured EXCLUSIVELY for NURSES. This 61,000 quota should have been spread over all categories EB1, EB2, EB3.
* Is this not good because it doesn't help EB2 and EB1?
* Some other reason
Please educate and comment.
more...
Lisap
09-06 02:23 PM
Congratulations and all the best to you!
justAnotherFile
07-11 09:01 PM
That was a very good inquisition in your letter GCBy3000. Thanks for your effort to send it to David Obey (is he a journalist btw).
It appears that he has circulated this and it has somehow gotten into the political circle.
it is very good for us to increase visibility on this issue more on Capitol HIll.
It appears that he has circulated this and it has somehow gotten into the political circle.
it is very good for us to increase visibility on this issue more on Capitol HIll.
more...
motown
10-21 10:50 PM
I work as a dentist in a company which was held in partnership by 2 partners.I have a approved H1b and my I 140 is filed in May 2006.Now as of Oct 01 the original company is finished as the partners have seperated.I am confused about my case, if I have to file a new H1b and 140 or an ammendment or just nothing.The tax id number for the company which will now give my paycheck has changed.As for me my work location has not changed and I still work in the same position.Can I take paychecks from the new company which now belongs to one of the partners or do I need to inform immigration to refile H1 or I140 or both.Any advice is appriciated
AC-21 Public law 106-396 might be applicable to your case. Please read the last paragraph in page 10 from the following link
http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/handbook/ac21guide.pdf
I am not an attorney. Use it at your own risk.
Good Luck.
Motown
AC-21 Public law 106-396 might be applicable to your case. Please read the last paragraph in page 10 from the following link
http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/handbook/ac21guide.pdf
I am not an attorney. Use it at your own risk.
Good Luck.
Motown
gc_on_demand
06-15 04:21 PM
Now they have all cases almost pre adjucted and must have entered information into some sort of computer system . can we put pressure to get information based on PD and country of origin so we can idea about wait and also we can show to congress man.
more...
ivjobs
11-10 10:02 AM
Couple of polls have been started in the entrepreneurship group. Please follow the below link to participate
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/ivstartup/polls
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/ivstartup/polls
hpandey
05-08 03:14 PM
My opinion:
Well, can the Java Programmer walk the ramp and pull it off like a professional model? Their work is a lot harder than it appears on the outside taking into account the success rate among models. Considering that even school kids can write excellent java programs, if we still want to consider the Java programmer as "highly skilled", then so are models.
Giselle Bundchen is worth half a billion dollars or somewhere in that range.
Btw, I am in the programming line myself in case someone thinks I have a problem with programmers. But I wouldn't mind swapping places with a successful model ;)
I agree with you . Their job is some ways is a lot tougher than us IT folks. If any of us loses their job there are 100's standing behind to take the place but it is quite a task to replace a well known successful experienced model.
( And imagine the restrictions on food , regular gym , maintaining figure , lots of travel .. )
Just my thought ..
Well, can the Java Programmer walk the ramp and pull it off like a professional model? Their work is a lot harder than it appears on the outside taking into account the success rate among models. Considering that even school kids can write excellent java programs, if we still want to consider the Java programmer as "highly skilled", then so are models.
Giselle Bundchen is worth half a billion dollars or somewhere in that range.
Btw, I am in the programming line myself in case someone thinks I have a problem with programmers. But I wouldn't mind swapping places with a successful model ;)
I agree with you . Their job is some ways is a lot tougher than us IT folks. If any of us loses their job there are 100's standing behind to take the place but it is quite a task to replace a well known successful experienced model.
( And imagine the restrictions on food , regular gym , maintaining figure , lots of travel .. )
Just my thought ..
more...
thomachan72
04-18 07:17 AM
one of my friends.
Premium processing, general (non-masters) catagory got email notification for reciept of his application yesterday evening.
Premium processing, general (non-masters) catagory got email notification for reciept of his application yesterday evening.
chanduv23
07-30 09:36 AM
Pappu - it is defnitely pathetic that people have not been able to make best use of Ombudsman's calls.
But we have to accept reality. In general, from what I understand, Ombudsman calls are for common man and people who participate may not necessarily be an IV member or come to IV forums regularly or think in the way we think. Even if an IV member is on the call and is a regular visitor to forums and is wanting to do something collectively, he/she may want to deal with their case.
If IV is organizing the Ombudsman call and requests IV active members to utilize the opportunity in the best possible way - it is a different thing but that may also not help.
I do share your feelings but I guess it takes a lot lot lot of time to organize people to stand up for collective issues and collective resolutions rather than their oown individuial needs.
But we have to accept reality. In general, from what I understand, Ombudsman calls are for common man and people who participate may not necessarily be an IV member or come to IV forums regularly or think in the way we think. Even if an IV member is on the call and is a regular visitor to forums and is wanting to do something collectively, he/she may want to deal with their case.
If IV is organizing the Ombudsman call and requests IV active members to utilize the opportunity in the best possible way - it is a different thing but that may also not help.
I do share your feelings but I guess it takes a lot lot lot of time to organize people to stand up for collective issues and collective resolutions rather than their oown individuial needs.
more...
shreekhand
04-28 07:34 PM
Go Utah! ... Go Texas !
prom2
07-22 12:00 AM
New fee is 1010 (I-485 + FP) + $305 (AP) + $340 (EAD) = $1655
First year EAD and AP are Included. Not Life long EAD/AP. Wishful thinking in your part Nothing comes free here.
You guys are wrong.
1) The new fee for I-485 is a package fee (includes EAD and AP)
2) EADs and APs are included as long your adjustement application is pending.
Read the last paragraph here:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/FinalUSCISFeeSchedule052907.pdf
First year EAD and AP are Included. Not Life long EAD/AP. Wishful thinking in your part Nothing comes free here.
You guys are wrong.
1) The new fee for I-485 is a package fee (includes EAD and AP)
2) EADs and APs are included as long your adjustement application is pending.
Read the last paragraph here:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/FinalUSCISFeeSchedule052907.pdf
thamizhan
07-18 10:49 AM
http://newspostindia.com/report-7892
dbevis
October 23rd, 2003, 11:59 PM
Funny Don, I was just over at Holliday Park about a week and a half ago scouting a location for a shoot. Too bad that area is fenced off, it would be perfect.
Yeah, stopped there after I left your place the other day. It's too bad they don't fix it up and get the fountain working again. And the fence doesn't do anything for the appearance :( Then again, it is called "the ruins". It might have been put up due to a skateboarder problem, dunno.
Don
Yeah, stopped there after I left your place the other day. It's too bad they don't fix it up and get the fountain working again. And the fence doesn't do anything for the appearance :( Then again, it is called "the ruins". It might have been put up due to a skateboarder problem, dunno.
Don
Ramba
09-26 05:07 PM
Hello,
I am in serious trouble. Sometime ago I tried to switch my I-140 from EB3 to EB2. Now I get NOID to deny 140. Something related to prevailing wage (lawyer has actual letter). In my LC the offered wage was OK for EB3 but low for EB2. Lawyer says he'll try to reinstate EB3, but not sure. Has any one of you been able to reinstate EB3 140? Please help...
The information you posted is not sufficient to provide any opinion. If you post complete details of your case, then someone can thro some light.
I am in serious trouble. Sometime ago I tried to switch my I-140 from EB3 to EB2. Now I get NOID to deny 140. Something related to prevailing wage (lawyer has actual letter). In my LC the offered wage was OK for EB3 but low for EB2. Lawyer says he'll try to reinstate EB3, but not sure. Has any one of you been able to reinstate EB3 140? Please help...
The information you posted is not sufficient to provide any opinion. If you post complete details of your case, then someone can thro some light.
