rvr_jcop
02-13 01:28 PM
got LUD on 1/29, 1/30 RFE send, 2/10 RFE evidence received, 2/11
All three of our cases looks like mailed around the same period i.e. June 2007. Looks like they looking at our files and probably pre-adjudicating. Mine went to Nebraska. What about yours?
All three of our cases looks like mailed around the same period i.e. June 2007. Looks like they looking at our files and probably pre-adjudicating. Mine went to Nebraska. What about yours?
wallpaper faye valentine redhead. faye reagan valentine. Faye Reagan - The Gauntlet 3;
willwin
02-20 01:33 PM
As everyone knows that AOS for those who already in US and CP is for those who are outside US (theoretically). It is a personal choice for a person in US to file either 485 or opt for CP. The reason for CP was a popular choice due to 485 processing delay between 2001 and 2005. Between 2001 and 2004 all EB categories were current for all countries. No one heard of term retrogression in that period. No one was worried about EB2 or EB3. However due to severe processing delay (partially due to increased security check due to 911) in 485 applications during that period, it was taking about 2 years for 485 approvals. During those entire 2 year period visa numbers were current and did not fluctuate as it is happening now. Therefore people opted to go for CP, as US consulates in abroad were not busy. They scheduled the interview right away as PD was current for all categories, during that 5 year period. That�s why CP was popular choice that period. Now, in the retrogression climate and continuous fluctuation in PD (back and forth movement), opting CP is a blunder mistake. Furthermore, now (at least before July 2007 fiasco) 485 approvals are so fast. If PD was current, USCIS was approving 485 with in 2 months before July 07. Therefore one should not even think about CP, if already in US unless if you are in EB1 or EB2-ROW category. Therefore 485 is the only option available to enjoy subsidiary benefits like EAD/AP/AC21. If any one already filed CP, to switch back to AOS they must wait till visa number available to their PD again. It will be a long road, and it complicates. As already mentioned, there is no technical ground to award EAD/AP for CP persons if already in US. If IV goes and talk to USCIS, they will laugh. To achieve same result, one can lobby for administrative fix like awarding EAD/AP for a person whose 140 was approved and legally present in the US in a valid non-immigrant status. This may be possible.
Ramba, I agree with you for the most part.
Well, there are CP filers with PD as back as 2003 (not sure if there are any 2001/2002 filers left) and these people were not aware that in July 2007, DOS/USCIS would open the flood gates and put them in this plight.
Imagine this, if DOS/USCIS had not made the PD current for everyone during 2007, what do you think the 485 filers would be doing now? They would have had approved I140 or they would have filed one, but what more? Will be just waiting for PD to become current. When it becomes current (say after 2 years), the actual processes (of going through name check, USCIS delay, FP etc) start and may take atleast a year going forward. But, when PD becomes current, guys in CP queue would get their interview.
So, it wasn't that CP guys knew this before and still made a mistake - back in 2003!
Otherwise, I agree, with this unpredictable movement of PD back and forth, 485 would be a safer route with all the changes happening to 485 processes (faster name check, proposed EAD for 3 years etc).
Your post was highly diplomatic than most of your queue-mates. Appreciate that.
Ramba, I agree with you for the most part.
Well, there are CP filers with PD as back as 2003 (not sure if there are any 2001/2002 filers left) and these people were not aware that in July 2007, DOS/USCIS would open the flood gates and put them in this plight.
Imagine this, if DOS/USCIS had not made the PD current for everyone during 2007, what do you think the 485 filers would be doing now? They would have had approved I140 or they would have filed one, but what more? Will be just waiting for PD to become current. When it becomes current (say after 2 years), the actual processes (of going through name check, USCIS delay, FP etc) start and may take atleast a year going forward. But, when PD becomes current, guys in CP queue would get their interview.
So, it wasn't that CP guys knew this before and still made a mistake - back in 2003!
Otherwise, I agree, with this unpredictable movement of PD back and forth, 485 would be a safer route with all the changes happening to 485 processes (faster name check, proposed EAD for 3 years etc).
Your post was highly diplomatic than most of your queue-mates. Appreciate that.
ksircar
03-23 02:28 PM
I have set up a meeting with the staff at Congresswoman Kathy Castor's office in Tampa on March 27th at 2.00 PM.
Anybody interested in joining please PM me.
Anybody interested in joining please PM me.
2011 faye valentine dvd
Lisap
08-22 11:53 AM
You said your employer sent it by mistake on the 27th? Were you not current in June?
more...
coolmanasip
05-29 05:23 PM
It is unbelievable how much emphasis is being given to the family based immigration when this bill strives to eliminate their backlog!!! ......and amazingly enough there are very few voices (IV being one) that are really crying about the injustice to the employment based GC and H1 programs..........we have to work on getting through to mainstream media guys......its unbelievable that we are not even on the board as far as close door immigration deal negotiations are concerned.........
anilsal
12-13 12:50 AM
It is just a vicious circle of wait-n-watch gymnastics.
more...
webm
06-05 12:44 PM
Such thread are not created on this site. Even is not the place, as most applicants do not register with .
It is also possible that very few visa numbers were available during May for EB-3 India.
I agree...but sometimes few frequent users share that info here..and i dont see anything for May atleast..
It is also possible that very few visa numbers were available during May for EB-3 India.
I agree...but sometimes few frequent users share that info here..and i dont see anything for May atleast..
2010 Gallery | faye valentine
rvr_jcop
02-13 01:28 PM
got LUD on 1/29, 1/30 RFE send, 2/10 RFE evidence received, 2/11
All three of our cases looks like mailed around the same period i.e. June 2007. Looks like they looking at our files and probably pre-adjudicating. Mine went to Nebraska. What about yours?
All three of our cases looks like mailed around the same period i.e. June 2007. Looks like they looking at our files and probably pre-adjudicating. Mine went to Nebraska. What about yours?
more...
quizzer
09-27 02:12 PM
I received an RFE from NSE on Sep 2nd week asking me to prove that I have 5 years of experience after completion of degree.
Country: India
Date of Joining with current employer : Jan 2006.
PERM Filing/ Approval Date: Aug 2006.
I-485/ EAD filing Date: July 2007.
I-140 RFE received date: Sep 2007.
The RFE reads as follows.
---------------------------------------
"Please submit evidence which establishes that the beneficiary had at least five years of experience as a software engineer after receiving his bachelor's degree but prior to August XX, 2006. Since your evidence does not indicate that the beneficiary received his bachelor's degree until 2002, this does not appear possible.
If the beneficiary received a degree prior to 2002, please submit a copy of that degree. A certificate that he had completed a coursework for a degree is not a degree."
---------------------------------------
This is my history.
I did my 4-year Bachelor's of Technology in Mechanical Engineering in Dec 2000. My diploma (degree certificate) has two dates on it. December 2000 and June 2002. The December 2000 date is mentioned in Big letters as its the completion of my final semester exams. The June 2002 date was due to taking one of the supplementary exam of one subject of one of my previous semester .
I was hired by a software company in December 2000 and I have work experience ( as well as experience letter with 40 hours a week) as a software engineer from Dec 2000.
But now according to the RFE, INS is not ready to count that experience from Dec 2000. I finished my school in Dec 2000 and never had to go to the school except for one exam in 2001 and another one in June 2002. (In my university, examinations are conducted only once in 8 months). I checked my transcripts that were sent along with I-140 and it has the dates of 2001 and June 2002 due to the examination. Its present at the bottom along with Main date of Dec 2000.
I had placed the course completion certificate from my college along with the I-140 application and it looks like INS don't take that info consideration.
I am in deep trouble now. Your help is greatly appreciated. My attorney didn't find these issues before filing the labor certification on EB2.
The newspaper ad given before filing the labor certification asks for Bachelors degree and 5 years of experience.
Please help me by sharing your experience(s) as well as comments. I will really appreciate your time and effort.
My only concern is to save my labor certification so that I can keep my I-140. I read in some threads that INS gave an option to convert the case as EB3. I would have been very happy if I had received that option. I requested my attorney for EB3 conversion at this point of time. He said its not possible as conversion needs to qualify the beneficiary for both categories (EB2 as well as EB3). He added that the labor certification was done on EB2.
I have applied for my I-485/EAD in July 2007. The EAD is about to come but I have this biggest problem of I-140 RFE. If the I-140 is denied my wife's EAD will automatically get revoked which will stop her from working.
Some of my friends recommended to respond to the RFE, file an MTR if I-140 is denied and an appeal if MTR also doesn't work. They also suggested me to file a new PERM application as a backup. All this works as I don't have any plans to switch my employer till I receive my final green card. But my wife will be in trouble as she can't use the current EAD. An attorney friend of mine is saying that those actions (MTR/ Appeal) will only keep the labor and I-140 on hold/pending, but won't keep the EAD alive. Is there a way I can keep my EAD alive by those motions?
Is there any way I can get this RFE cleared and have my I-140 approved? Can I keep my EAD alive somehow
What was your I140 receipt date at NSC?
Country: India
Date of Joining with current employer : Jan 2006.
PERM Filing/ Approval Date: Aug 2006.
I-485/ EAD filing Date: July 2007.
I-140 RFE received date: Sep 2007.
The RFE reads as follows.
---------------------------------------
"Please submit evidence which establishes that the beneficiary had at least five years of experience as a software engineer after receiving his bachelor's degree but prior to August XX, 2006. Since your evidence does not indicate that the beneficiary received his bachelor's degree until 2002, this does not appear possible.
If the beneficiary received a degree prior to 2002, please submit a copy of that degree. A certificate that he had completed a coursework for a degree is not a degree."
---------------------------------------
This is my history.
I did my 4-year Bachelor's of Technology in Mechanical Engineering in Dec 2000. My diploma (degree certificate) has two dates on it. December 2000 and June 2002. The December 2000 date is mentioned in Big letters as its the completion of my final semester exams. The June 2002 date was due to taking one of the supplementary exam of one subject of one of my previous semester .
I was hired by a software company in December 2000 and I have work experience ( as well as experience letter with 40 hours a week) as a software engineer from Dec 2000.
But now according to the RFE, INS is not ready to count that experience from Dec 2000. I finished my school in Dec 2000 and never had to go to the school except for one exam in 2001 and another one in June 2002. (In my university, examinations are conducted only once in 8 months). I checked my transcripts that were sent along with I-140 and it has the dates of 2001 and June 2002 due to the examination. Its present at the bottom along with Main date of Dec 2000.
I had placed the course completion certificate from my college along with the I-140 application and it looks like INS don't take that info consideration.
I am in deep trouble now. Your help is greatly appreciated. My attorney didn't find these issues before filing the labor certification on EB2.
The newspaper ad given before filing the labor certification asks for Bachelors degree and 5 years of experience.
Please help me by sharing your experience(s) as well as comments. I will really appreciate your time and effort.
My only concern is to save my labor certification so that I can keep my I-140. I read in some threads that INS gave an option to convert the case as EB3. I would have been very happy if I had received that option. I requested my attorney for EB3 conversion at this point of time. He said its not possible as conversion needs to qualify the beneficiary for both categories (EB2 as well as EB3). He added that the labor certification was done on EB2.
I have applied for my I-485/EAD in July 2007. The EAD is about to come but I have this biggest problem of I-140 RFE. If the I-140 is denied my wife's EAD will automatically get revoked which will stop her from working.
Some of my friends recommended to respond to the RFE, file an MTR if I-140 is denied and an appeal if MTR also doesn't work. They also suggested me to file a new PERM application as a backup. All this works as I don't have any plans to switch my employer till I receive my final green card. But my wife will be in trouble as she can't use the current EAD. An attorney friend of mine is saying that those actions (MTR/ Appeal) will only keep the labor and I-140 on hold/pending, but won't keep the EAD alive. Is there a way I can keep my EAD alive by those motions?
Is there any way I can get this RFE cleared and have my I-140 approved? Can I keep my EAD alive somehow
What was your I140 receipt date at NSC?
hair faye valentine warts
longq
12-20 03:41 PM
Hello IV and its core members,
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (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 shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (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 shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
more...
PMisYMMV
02-20 03:29 PM
I checked with some of my colleagues and friends. They all have sent the letters, but most of them have not participated in this poll at the start. So I wouldnt get discouraged by smaller number of votes in it.
hot faye valentine redhead. filed Faye+valentine+pic. smithrh. Apr 10,
zoozee
08-28 03:46 PM
Waiting_4_gc,
I m flying to Pittsburgh on Saturday 15th Sept and will drive to Wa-DC on 17th Monday - and will schedule to meet lawmaker on Monday.
Enjoy and see you in the rally
Zoozee,
Even I'm flying from San Jose airport on Monday evening.My flight is at 6:30 pm (AA airlines). Can you tell me about your flight schedule?
I m flying to Pittsburgh on Saturday 15th Sept and will drive to Wa-DC on 17th Monday - and will schedule to meet lawmaker on Monday.
Enjoy and see you in the rally
Zoozee,
Even I'm flying from San Jose airport on Monday evening.My flight is at 6:30 pm (AA airlines). Can you tell me about your flight schedule?
more...
house faye valentine genital warts
manand24
08-10 10:23 AM
I don't care about LS. Almost all cases I know are fraud. Sometimes 2 guys got GCs on same labor(since they were not asking Original LC). Thank god USCIS banned LS.
God Bless USCIS for banning LS.
If you had the opportunity of getting a Substitute labor and potentially get your GC sooner rather than later, wouldn't you grab it with both hands. It is the GC Freedom.
I am also thankful that DOL and USCIS have banned Labor Substitutions but please give those who have used them a break. They are also in the same boat as you and me (people with regular labor). Chasing the American Dream. No offense intended.:o
God Bless USCIS for banning LS.
If you had the opportunity of getting a Substitute labor and potentially get your GC sooner rather than later, wouldn't you grab it with both hands. It is the GC Freedom.
I am also thankful that DOL and USCIS have banned Labor Substitutions but please give those who have used them a break. They are also in the same boat as you and me (people with regular labor). Chasing the American Dream. No offense intended.:o
tattoo faye valentine warts
akgind
07-13 11:09 PM
Good point. You are absolutely right, help_please. S.774 is the original DREAM Act which did not distinguish between legals and illegals. But it never went anywhere. The DREAM Act that was part of CIR specifically made it applicable to only holders of Z visa. Please refer to S.1639 on the same site and look at Sec 612-620.
We do not know which version is being introduced now. The way things are going in Congress, I would not be very surprised if they make it applicable to only undocumented.
http://thomas.loc.gov/
Please visit this site and search for bill # s. 774. This bill does not specify that you must be illegal to qualify.
We do not know which version is being introduced now. The way things are going in Congress, I would not be very surprised if they make it applicable to only undocumented.
http://thomas.loc.gov/
Please visit this site and search for bill # s. 774. This bill does not specify that you must be illegal to qualify.
more...
pictures faye valentine warts
munnu77
04-13 08:21 AM
May visa bulletin will be here today(most prob.)..they r doing the 'cut and paste" of last bulletin right now..:D
any comments on new bulletin?
any comments on new bulletin?
dresses cowboy bebop faye valentine.
meridiani.planum
01-05 03:42 PM
I am curious to know with whom he spends the night with...only that one is eligible to come on H4.
Damm...my imagination is running wild.
this confirms that you are not married.
I am, and as every married male knows, you sleep alone. Does not matter how many wives you have. Its something to do with the transformation that occurs in them as they go from girlfriend 1.0 to Wife 1.0.
Damm...my imagination is running wild.
this confirms that you are not married.
I am, and as every married male knows, you sleep alone. Does not matter how many wives you have. Its something to do with the transformation that occurs in them as they go from girlfriend 1.0 to Wife 1.0.
more...
makeup faye valentine video. faye
msyedy
05-22 03:04 PM
I wonder what our children and grandchildren will learn from all these. When they grow up and know that their parents had to go through this mess while waiting to be accepted legally for xxxx number of years and some people got the "grand reward" of being illegal for many years!! These CIRcus operators will be responsible for the loss of "very little" moral left in this country. GOD BLESS AMERICA.
They are saying that all those people who were illegal before 1st of Jan 2007 are eligible for Z visa. We all are currently in legal status.
They are saying that all those people who were illegal before 1st of Jan 2007 are eligible for Z visa. We all are currently in legal status.
girlfriend faye valentine youporn
sanbaj
05-05 03:10 PM
Sanbaj, Is there any update regarding your case ?
None so far. No updates from the Lawyer or any LUD change. My I485 RD is 08/16/07, and NSC has not reached that date as yet. My lawyer's office called and the response was "The request is attached to the file (485)". I called NSC and the IO there DO NOT know the meaning of Interfiling and the IO I got was very rude and in a hurry to finish the call. She said that these officers should not give us (AOS Adjustees) any info, please inform me if any USCIS officer has broken that rulw. I said no one has and finished the call. Now, I am waiting, as have been for last six years for various things on the GC journey, for NSC I485 Processing status to go beyond Aur/16/2007. Once it does, I will call them again.
Sorry, I was late in the response as I did not check this thread for a month or so.
The story continues...
None so far. No updates from the Lawyer or any LUD change. My I485 RD is 08/16/07, and NSC has not reached that date as yet. My lawyer's office called and the response was "The request is attached to the file (485)". I called NSC and the IO there DO NOT know the meaning of Interfiling and the IO I got was very rude and in a hurry to finish the call. She said that these officers should not give us (AOS Adjustees) any info, please inform me if any USCIS officer has broken that rulw. I said no one has and finished the call. Now, I am waiting, as have been for last six years for various things on the GC journey, for NSC I485 Processing status to go beyond Aur/16/2007. Once it does, I will call them again.
Sorry, I was late in the response as I did not check this thread for a month or so.
The story continues...
hairstyles faye valentine redhead. faye reagan valentine. cowboy bebop faye valentine;
bobyal
05-12 09:03 AM
The bill text says there is NO fee and the applications need to be processed expedited.
--------------------------------------------
SEC. 10. EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS; PROHIBITION ON FEES.
Regulations promulgated under this Act shall provide that applications under this Act will be considered on an expedited basis and without a requirement for the payment by the applicant of any additional fee for such expedited processing.
--------------------------------------------
So once this bill passes, we can just forget about legal immigration applications for 2 ~3 years, until all illeagul and UNDOCUMENTED applications are processed.
This is going to effect all legal immigrant community, think about waiting for AP, EAD, H1B application and guess people might have to suffer loosing jobs while waiting for these applications processed.
--------------------------------------------
SEC. 10. EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS; PROHIBITION ON FEES.
Regulations promulgated under this Act shall provide that applications under this Act will be considered on an expedited basis and without a requirement for the payment by the applicant of any additional fee for such expedited processing.
--------------------------------------------
So once this bill passes, we can just forget about legal immigration applications for 2 ~3 years, until all illeagul and UNDOCUMENTED applications are processed.
This is going to effect all legal immigrant community, think about waiting for AP, EAD, H1B application and guess people might have to suffer loosing jobs while waiting for these applications processed.
lazycis
01-26 07:13 PM
This type of clause is to protect employer for one year. Usually, it is not only trainig cost, it is business also.
You can seek legal protection, complain USCIS and so on. When an employee joins contracts are for 12 months, when you work on niche technology, it will be confidentiality agreement for 2-3 years, and so on. Mostly they are goodwill agreements. If you have problem in signing for this 12 months, how would you be signing technology related agreements?
I have seen business to business relationship broken due to employee running away from clients location. In the begining, even if formal training is not there, clients do compromize to bring to speed. Most of the consultant placements are business to business chains.
Do you intend to break before 12 months?
I have signed for confidentiality contracts up to 5 years, and refused to sign, when wanted not to honour contract, thereby not working for those clients.
If possible avoid troubles otherwise, you already have several suggestions.
That's a totally different story. It's normal to have non-compete clause and it is enforceable, but even non-compete clause will be hard to enforce if it sets unreasonable conditions (i.e. prohibits working for a client for more than 6 months). Also, if you sign a contract, it does not mean you are obligated to fulfill it. If contract violates US laws, it's null and void (i.e. you can sign a clause that you will be a slave for company's boss, but it does not mean company's boss can enforce it in court).
You can seek legal protection, complain USCIS and so on. When an employee joins contracts are for 12 months, when you work on niche technology, it will be confidentiality agreement for 2-3 years, and so on. Mostly they are goodwill agreements. If you have problem in signing for this 12 months, how would you be signing technology related agreements?
I have seen business to business relationship broken due to employee running away from clients location. In the begining, even if formal training is not there, clients do compromize to bring to speed. Most of the consultant placements are business to business chains.
Do you intend to break before 12 months?
I have signed for confidentiality contracts up to 5 years, and refused to sign, when wanted not to honour contract, thereby not working for those clients.
If possible avoid troubles otherwise, you already have several suggestions.
That's a totally different story. It's normal to have non-compete clause and it is enforceable, but even non-compete clause will be hard to enforce if it sets unreasonable conditions (i.e. prohibits working for a client for more than 6 months). Also, if you sign a contract, it does not mean you are obligated to fulfill it. If contract violates US laws, it's null and void (i.e. you can sign a clause that you will be a slave for company's boss, but it does not mean company's boss can enforce it in court).
pappu
08-09 12:52 PM
Hope this helps.
Pappu, there is nothing wrong in seeking exact clarification though from USCIS because things are not really clear on this regard and its better to get clear cut answer to the immigrant community..
Let's see examples of real cases. Not 'opinions'.
Pappu, there is nothing wrong in seeking exact clarification though from USCIS because things are not really clear on this regard and its better to get clear cut answer to the immigrant community..
Let's see examples of real cases. Not 'opinions'.
No comments:
Post a Comment