lazycis
02-14 09:19 AM
There are 71 people who have voted for a class action lawsuit.
Has anyone of them contacted Rajiv Khnanna and spent their own $600 and got an anwer? NO.
This is because nobody is serious about this. Everyone wants the other person to spend their money and time. They will only spend their time in writing posts.
I oppose this idea for number of reasons. Firstly people will not become plantiffs. They are scared. USCIS will scruitanize their applications more than anyone. Secondly people will not donate money in thousands of dollars each for it. Unless you can get hundred thousand dollars and above, you cannot go into a class action lawsuit. Thirdly nobody will go and travel on their own money and testify. Forthly, nobody will spend time helping lawyers prepare cases and research. Forthly, class action lawsuits take time and people will disappear after a while. Fifthly nobody will be willing to lead this effort. They will just dump it on IV to lead it and have core spend their time and money into it for them. Sixthly if this fail, they will blame IV for wasting the money and failing in the effort. Seventhly we do not want greencards that bad. If we wanted greencards that bad we all would have written more than 20 thousand letters till now. We should only try to bite as much as we can chew. This is just an overambitious plan and looks good in a post.
Thus I oppose this idea.
internet,
You cannot speak on behalf of other persons. Speak for yourself. Even though I have a GC, I am willing to contribute (monetary, reviewing lawyers briefs, doing legal research). I will not be able to participate as plaintiff as I have a GC.
Has anyone of them contacted Rajiv Khnanna and spent their own $600 and got an anwer? NO.
This is because nobody is serious about this. Everyone wants the other person to spend their money and time. They will only spend their time in writing posts.
I oppose this idea for number of reasons. Firstly people will not become plantiffs. They are scared. USCIS will scruitanize their applications more than anyone. Secondly people will not donate money in thousands of dollars each for it. Unless you can get hundred thousand dollars and above, you cannot go into a class action lawsuit. Thirdly nobody will go and travel on their own money and testify. Forthly, nobody will spend time helping lawyers prepare cases and research. Forthly, class action lawsuits take time and people will disappear after a while. Fifthly nobody will be willing to lead this effort. They will just dump it on IV to lead it and have core spend their time and money into it for them. Sixthly if this fail, they will blame IV for wasting the money and failing in the effort. Seventhly we do not want greencards that bad. If we wanted greencards that bad we all would have written more than 20 thousand letters till now. We should only try to bite as much as we can chew. This is just an overambitious plan and looks good in a post.
Thus I oppose this idea.
internet,
You cannot speak on behalf of other persons. Speak for yourself. Even though I have a GC, I am willing to contribute (monetary, reviewing lawyers briefs, doing legal research). I will not be able to participate as plaintiff as I have a GC.
wallpaper celebrity rehab kari ann.
gc28262
01-17 11:10 AM
Even if it is ok to fight how much resource IV have it to fight multiple issues. Resource means not just money but also time, manpower and effort. Most of the issues can be resolved if EB reform is done as people need not renew H1b as most can get GC within 3 years. Law clearly tells that there should be valid job position for H1b at the time of filing. For consulting bodyshoppers will bring persons here and search for job. That is clearly violation of law.
But certainly it can be requested to USCIS to change if geneunie persons are impacted. If memorendum is violation of law then USCIS will face lawsuit and you can also do that
This law was made by snram4 in his backyard ! :cool: No lawyer in US is aware of this.
There were indians who served British East India company during Indian Independence struggle.
But certainly it can be requested to USCIS to change if geneunie persons are impacted. If memorendum is violation of law then USCIS will face lawsuit and you can also do that
This law was made by snram4 in his backyard ! :cool: No lawyer in US is aware of this.
There were indians who served British East India company during Indian Independence struggle.
lazycis
02-14 12:58 PM
Galvez v. Howerton 503 F. Supp. 35, 39 (C.D. Cal. 1980)
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1838094&postcount=14843
"Plaintiffs herein allege that officials of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have engaged in affirmative misconduct in failing to process their applications for adjustment of status to that of permanent resident aliens. They seek a court order compelling the defendants to issue them appropriate visa numbers."
"Where there has been affirmative misconduct on the part of the INS, the United States may be estopped to deny the availability of visas to those otherwise eligible but for the government's acts. See Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Hibi, 414 U.S. 5, 8-9, 94 S. Ct. 19, 21-22, 38 L. Ed. 2d 7 (1973); see also Villena v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 622 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1980) (en banc); Santiago v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 526 F.2d 488, 492-93 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 971, 96 S. Ct. 2167, 48 L. Ed. 2d 794 (1976). The central inquiry here is the determination whether or not the conduct of the INS, including the failure of the INS officials to understand the applicable law, the improper rejection of plaintiffs' visa applications on two occasions, and the ensuing delay, constitute affirmative misconduct.
It is the duty of the agency to inform itself of the law which Congress has authorized it to enforce. The INS admits that its personnel were not familiar with the current statute applicable to plaintiffs' visa eligibility and thus erred in returning [**8] the plaintiffs' applications on the basis of a misinterpretation of the relevant law. This failure to act in accordance with law is an aspect of the agency's affirmative misconduct which the Court cannot overlook. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. � 706(2)(A) (agency action to be set aside where "not in accordance with law").
Another aspect of the present misconduct relates to the agency's failure to fulfill a statutory duty. The INS has a statutory obligation to issue visas to qualified applicants to the full extent of the annual quota limits established by Congress. 6 The legislative history of the Immigration & Naturalization Act indicates that this duty has not been left to agency discretion, see S.Rep. No. 748, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. reprinted in (1965) U.S.Code Cong. & [*39] Ad.News, pp. 3328, 3337-38, but is obligatory upon the agency. "
"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and defendants' [**14] Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. The Court orders the defendant Secretary of State to issue A.T. Cortes and E. Cortes Fifth Preference visa numbers and to charge them to the 1979 visa allotments"
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1838094&postcount=14843
"Plaintiffs herein allege that officials of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have engaged in affirmative misconduct in failing to process their applications for adjustment of status to that of permanent resident aliens. They seek a court order compelling the defendants to issue them appropriate visa numbers."
"Where there has been affirmative misconduct on the part of the INS, the United States may be estopped to deny the availability of visas to those otherwise eligible but for the government's acts. See Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Hibi, 414 U.S. 5, 8-9, 94 S. Ct. 19, 21-22, 38 L. Ed. 2d 7 (1973); see also Villena v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 622 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1980) (en banc); Santiago v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 526 F.2d 488, 492-93 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 971, 96 S. Ct. 2167, 48 L. Ed. 2d 794 (1976). The central inquiry here is the determination whether or not the conduct of the INS, including the failure of the INS officials to understand the applicable law, the improper rejection of plaintiffs' visa applications on two occasions, and the ensuing delay, constitute affirmative misconduct.
It is the duty of the agency to inform itself of the law which Congress has authorized it to enforce. The INS admits that its personnel were not familiar with the current statute applicable to plaintiffs' visa eligibility and thus erred in returning [**8] the plaintiffs' applications on the basis of a misinterpretation of the relevant law. This failure to act in accordance with law is an aspect of the agency's affirmative misconduct which the Court cannot overlook. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. � 706(2)(A) (agency action to be set aside where "not in accordance with law").
Another aspect of the present misconduct relates to the agency's failure to fulfill a statutory duty. The INS has a statutory obligation to issue visas to qualified applicants to the full extent of the annual quota limits established by Congress. 6 The legislative history of the Immigration & Naturalization Act indicates that this duty has not been left to agency discretion, see S.Rep. No. 748, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. reprinted in (1965) U.S.Code Cong. & [*39] Ad.News, pp. 3328, 3337-38, but is obligatory upon the agency. "
"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and defendants' [**14] Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. The Court orders the defendant Secretary of State to issue A.T. Cortes and E. Cortes Fifth Preference visa numbers and to charge them to the 1979 visa allotments"
2011 celebrity rehab kari ann.
Lasantha
02-12 02:08 PM
Yeah, Tell me about it!!!
Just two more months and mine would have been current!!!!
correction: EB3 ROW = 01JAN05 !!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG!!!
Just 1.25 more year and I would have been current! Damn!!!!
Just two more months and mine would have been current!!!!
correction: EB3 ROW = 01JAN05 !!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG!!!
Just 1.25 more year and I would have been current! Damn!!!!
more...
sriramkalyan
01-13 07:55 PM
My take is BODY SHOPPING is killed.
H1Bs can work at direct employer or as an employee of direct vendor at off site.
No more small consulting firms sending resumes to direct vendors. May be in long term its good for H1Bs.
Mostly Desi consulting firms will get hit. Outsourcing companies like TCS,Infosys are direct vendors to big clients. They will OK ..
H1Bs can work at direct employer or as an employee of direct vendor at off site.
No more small consulting firms sending resumes to direct vendors. May be in long term its good for H1Bs.
Mostly Desi consulting firms will get hit. Outsourcing companies like TCS,Infosys are direct vendors to big clients. They will OK ..
bubba
06-12 01:15 AM
People need to understand that you need to give some to win some. I would like to propose to IV a kind of proposal that would be a win win for both the immigrants and the US.
1. It is meaningless to fight for the rights of ALL the visa holders. Any such attempts would always be resisted by the anti immigrant lobby.
2. Acknowledge their fundamental point of view that jobs are being stolen due to wage destruction and perpetual visa fraud by these outsourcing companies. Of course resist all these racist BS types. They are the just the noise in the immigration debate.
My Proposal
1. Support the Grassley bill in its entirety. If you notice it is those outsourcing companies that are making all the noise but not the genuine companies that use H1B for innovation purposes. These outsourcing neither follow the rules or spirit of the H1B/L1 visas nor provide much of innovation to the market place. There is no point in expecting them to police themselves. We have tried this and they are not here to play by the rules.
2. In fact, provide the concessions to eliminate the H1/L1 visas for these outsourcers. In return, request visa number recapture for the H1Bs who are employed directly by the companies. I strongly believe that if you are a H1B employed directly by the company (not outsourcing cos), it is unlikely that you would be underskilled or underpaid. A few minor expections may be there but we can safely ignore these exceptions.
3. Again, people may argue that some of the consultants are highly skilled too. If that were the case, they would have been or would be hired into a permenant position soon once the Grassley bill passes. No company would like to let go of a good performer irrespective of whether they are permenant employees or contractors.
If you notice, some people echo the sentiment that the Grassley bill would lead to more offshoring. That in my opinion is absolute BS. Only low level jobs would be offshored and in my opinion a h1b visa should not be used for these low level jobs. The high skilled jobs would always stay here and they would not be under wage pressure. The best and the fittest would survive and get the same.
I strongly believe that by providing these concessions, atleast the skilled immigrants would be sparred the trauma of this mindless wait for a GC. I wish to reiterate here that I am neither anti immigration nor anti any ethnicity. I am simply trying to reiterate that we need to lose some to win some. There is no point in the Indian style of negotiations of win all or win none. Let us adapt to the give some take some style of concession building. In this process, it is okay to give up on the interests of those blood sucking outsourcers. For this, I am willing to provide financial, logistical and intellectual support.
By following this route, we prevent wage destruction which is what the anti immigrant lobby is clamouring about. It is a win win for all and a lose situation for the blood suckers
If you have seen any companies misuse the H1 and L1 visa, you can complain about them. Dont go screaming around that the whole H1 and L1 program is bad. Its because of people like you that a whole group gets a bad name due to some rotten apples. Btw, all your arguments dont seem to help the IV community. Why are you even here on IV if your idealogy is not aligned with IV ? If you cant support us we dont need suggestions from a traitor like you.
1. It is meaningless to fight for the rights of ALL the visa holders. Any such attempts would always be resisted by the anti immigrant lobby.
2. Acknowledge their fundamental point of view that jobs are being stolen due to wage destruction and perpetual visa fraud by these outsourcing companies. Of course resist all these racist BS types. They are the just the noise in the immigration debate.
My Proposal
1. Support the Grassley bill in its entirety. If you notice it is those outsourcing companies that are making all the noise but not the genuine companies that use H1B for innovation purposes. These outsourcing neither follow the rules or spirit of the H1B/L1 visas nor provide much of innovation to the market place. There is no point in expecting them to police themselves. We have tried this and they are not here to play by the rules.
2. In fact, provide the concessions to eliminate the H1/L1 visas for these outsourcers. In return, request visa number recapture for the H1Bs who are employed directly by the companies. I strongly believe that if you are a H1B employed directly by the company (not outsourcing cos), it is unlikely that you would be underskilled or underpaid. A few minor expections may be there but we can safely ignore these exceptions.
3. Again, people may argue that some of the consultants are highly skilled too. If that were the case, they would have been or would be hired into a permenant position soon once the Grassley bill passes. No company would like to let go of a good performer irrespective of whether they are permenant employees or contractors.
If you notice, some people echo the sentiment that the Grassley bill would lead to more offshoring. That in my opinion is absolute BS. Only low level jobs would be offshored and in my opinion a h1b visa should not be used for these low level jobs. The high skilled jobs would always stay here and they would not be under wage pressure. The best and the fittest would survive and get the same.
I strongly believe that by providing these concessions, atleast the skilled immigrants would be sparred the trauma of this mindless wait for a GC. I wish to reiterate here that I am neither anti immigration nor anti any ethnicity. I am simply trying to reiterate that we need to lose some to win some. There is no point in the Indian style of negotiations of win all or win none. Let us adapt to the give some take some style of concession building. In this process, it is okay to give up on the interests of those blood sucking outsourcers. For this, I am willing to provide financial, logistical and intellectual support.
By following this route, we prevent wage destruction which is what the anti immigrant lobby is clamouring about. It is a win win for all and a lose situation for the blood suckers
If you have seen any companies misuse the H1 and L1 visa, you can complain about them. Dont go screaming around that the whole H1 and L1 program is bad. Its because of people like you that a whole group gets a bad name due to some rotten apples. Btw, all your arguments dont seem to help the IV community. Why are you even here on IV if your idealogy is not aligned with IV ? If you cant support us we dont need suggestions from a traitor like you.
more...
hiralal
06-01 07:28 PM
ss benefits when we retire is such a long way away ..who knows what the situation will be that time ..US just needs a law change and ss benefits can be denied at that time ,,,so it makes more sense to discuss and act on recapture rather than waste time on something that will occur is 2025 or later ..just a thought
2010 into #39;Celebrity Rehab#39;
wandmaker
07-22 02:16 PM
See, we need to understand, life is a Lottery. No place for Logic. USCIS LOVES lottery...after diversity visa lottery, they are also doing LOTTERY for H1 now, and one day if they like the idea of doing LOTTERY, for EB cases, they might throw away this all mambo jambo of EB1,2,3/PD/RD/ROW/IN/CH...and JUST DO THE LOTTERY!! After this post, I will go buy a Californial Lotto...;)
:D
:D
more...
mbartosik
12-13 07:16 PM
As you use the phrase Check Mate....
Chess is all about thinking strategically several moves ahead.
Given the current political climate on immigration I think that we will be in a check mate position (on the loosing end) if we pursue that road.
The anti's would be all over us as soon as we filed in federal district court probably even before a hearing, and definitely after a hearing. If we lost in lower courts the Supreme Court would probably refuse to hear the appeal, in the mean time we'd have just stirred up the anti's hornets nest against us, just as much if not worse than against the illegals.
Asking Congress to make small changes in the existing laws annoys the anti's. Telling them or forcing them to wholesale rewrite their laws would make us public enemy #1. We would be lucky to have more than a handful of law makers willing to stand up for us. It would kill off all lobbying ability.
Think of lobbying as polite negotiation.
Think of Supreme court case as picking a fist fight, in which we are badly out numbered.
Once you have started a fist fight it is much harder to negotiate, especially from a loosing position.
I would rather negotiate than fight, I would rather lobby than court challenge.
So yes, check mate, if we follow this route.
Alternatively, a British phase: Royally screwed!
Chess is all about thinking strategically several moves ahead.
Given the current political climate on immigration I think that we will be in a check mate position (on the loosing end) if we pursue that road.
The anti's would be all over us as soon as we filed in federal district court probably even before a hearing, and definitely after a hearing. If we lost in lower courts the Supreme Court would probably refuse to hear the appeal, in the mean time we'd have just stirred up the anti's hornets nest against us, just as much if not worse than against the illegals.
Asking Congress to make small changes in the existing laws annoys the anti's. Telling them or forcing them to wholesale rewrite their laws would make us public enemy #1. We would be lucky to have more than a handful of law makers willing to stand up for us. It would kill off all lobbying ability.
Think of lobbying as polite negotiation.
Think of Supreme court case as picking a fist fight, in which we are badly out numbered.
Once you have started a fist fight it is much harder to negotiate, especially from a loosing position.
I would rather negotiate than fight, I would rather lobby than court challenge.
So yes, check mate, if we follow this route.
Alternatively, a British phase: Royally screwed!
hair Celebrity Rehab: The Squeeky
gc28262
01-18 10:19 AM
It is true.They were implemented stirctly. But to cheat that many of bodyshoppers are creating fake Paystubs. Getting just payroll expenses and tax from consultant and creating paystubs. How do you prevent that? When good faith effort fails more and more regulations are coming. If our bodyshoppers are honest there would have no regulations like that.
Probably you are your relatives did these kinds of stuff. Most of us on this forum didn't.
When did you get your GC ?
Probably you are your relatives did these kinds of stuff. Most of us on this forum didn't.
When did you get your GC ?
more...
rajsenthil
05-02 01:33 PM
If there's ethnic cleansing or genocide happening in sri lanka how come tamils lead prosperous lives in other parts of the country?
I do not understand what do you mean by this? Can you explain it?
I do not understand what do you mean by this? Can you explain it?
hot Kari Ann Peniche Part 1: #39;I#39;ve
dealsnet
09-04 01:45 PM
So next time of election, take vacation and go home, do campaigning, spend money and vote out the govt. you dislike, if you are real serious.
Only the people that were part of those grabbings are happier. Let the poor people get back all their lands first and then you guys talk.
How about all the "Anna's" that were killed by him who came to him when he invited and then killed them mercilessly.
So, did you mourn when he killed all the "Anna's"? I am sure you would have distributed Sweets when "Anna's" were killed. Right?
Isn't it Jesus Christ right? Jesus is God and he punished YSR with such a worst killing. Even face could not be recognized.
Only the people that were part of those grabbings are happier. Let the poor people get back all their lands first and then you guys talk.
How about all the "Anna's" that were killed by him who came to him when he invited and then killed them mercilessly.
So, did you mourn when he killed all the "Anna's"? I am sure you would have distributed Sweets when "Anna's" were killed. Right?
Isn't it Jesus Christ right? Jesus is God and he punished YSR with such a worst killing. Even face could not be recognized.
more...
house of Celebrity Rehab with
_TrueFacts
09-04 10:57 AM
Mr. or Mrs, so called "TrueFacts", you must be ashamed of your own thoughts. On seeing this thread, you created a fake account and became a keyboard warrior. Why? What is your other avatar? Are you suffering from multiple personality syndrome?
....
RajSenthil,
Picking on me will not change the fact that YSR was a corrupt, factionist gunda, land grabber who has killed numerous people. If you have a point against that, say so.
I am providing links to that reason.
Why any one (pseudo or not) should have sympathy for the dead? Do you have sympathy for Saddam, Hitler? Facts are facts. YSR�s death has contributed to this discussion. It does not matter what my ID is, where I am and if I am Mr or Mrs.
....
RajSenthil,
Picking on me will not change the fact that YSR was a corrupt, factionist gunda, land grabber who has killed numerous people. If you have a point against that, say so.
I am providing links to that reason.
Why any one (pseudo or not) should have sympathy for the dead? Do you have sympathy for Saddam, Hitler? Facts are facts. YSR�s death has contributed to this discussion. It does not matter what my ID is, where I am and if I am Mr or Mrs.
tattoo Playboy model Kari Ann Peniche
qvadis
12-13 05:28 PM
Folks,
Since this can potentially be a great win for us, why don't we take the advice of a top constitutional attorney.
Note that it would certainly not benefit the other 60%+ from countries other than India that are also stuck in various steps (EB3, name check). So, unless you want IV to stand for IndiaVoice, you should concentrate your admirable effort on increasing the overall quota (with increased per-country quota), excluding dependents, etc.
Since this can potentially be a great win for us, why don't we take the advice of a top constitutional attorney.
Note that it would certainly not benefit the other 60%+ from countries other than India that are also stuck in various steps (EB3, name check). So, unless you want IV to stand for IndiaVoice, you should concentrate your admirable effort on increasing the overall quota (with increased per-country quota), excluding dependents, etc.
more...
pictures Kari Ann Peniche -- the
Rohan99
07-21 12:03 PM
I am annoyed with these stalkers, they get your phone number and then keep calling you. So I have decided to write their names here
Amitabh Mishra From Sunnyvale area California. You can find this stalker in Sunnyvale area.
More than the money, these guys are plain stalkers! They don't leave you even if you are not interested and even after blindly telling them right on their face. Anywhere you go, Costco, Walmrt, Indian grocery stores, Malls these guys are right behind you. Next time i am calling COPS and i am going to report these guys.
Enough of leaving it or taking it lightly becasue of so called "your countrymen" stuff.
what a PITA!
Amitabh Mishra From Sunnyvale area California. You can find this stalker in Sunnyvale area.
More than the money, these guys are plain stalkers! They don't leave you even if you are not interested and even after blindly telling them right on their face. Anywhere you go, Costco, Walmrt, Indian grocery stores, Malls these guys are right behind you. Next time i am calling COPS and i am going to report these guys.
Enough of leaving it or taking it lightly becasue of so called "your countrymen" stuff.
what a PITA!
dresses Kari Ann Peniche Celebrity
logiclife
06-27 11:35 AM
From pages 36-37 of CIS Ombudsman's 2007 Annual Report to Congress (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual%20Report_2007.pdf).
In the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 16, AR 2006 -- 02), the Ombudsman also recommended that USCIS assign visa numbers to employment-based green card applications as applicants file them. The Ombudsman continues to recommend that USCIS work with DOS to reinstate that process which existed in the early 1980s, wherein DOS issued visa numbers for both employment and family-based applications for applicants as they applied rather than as they were approved. This process would ensure that USCIS does not accept more applications than the number of visas available.
With respect to the recommendation that USCIS assign visa numbers to cases as they are received, the process the Ombudsman describes was the process in place a number of years ago. DOS, which manages overall visa number allocations, modified that process to the procedure in effect today. It is their policy to allocate visa numbers to USCIS adjustment cases only as the point of approval is reached.
However, through the tri-agency meetings, DOS explained that the modification to the program occurred in the early 1980s because INS could not adhere to the requirements to return unused visa numbers immediately. The Ombudsman understands that DOS prefers that cases are reported qualified for a visa earlier than at approval. In the last several months, there have been several suggestions on how to accomplish that task, but operational concerns remain. The Ombudsman hopes that USCIS and DOS can reestablish the older program with improved processing and technology to ensure timely and accurate reporting of cases ready-to-issue and to prevent the future loss of visa numbers.
Yes. Agreed. But what this means is that if they approve too many cases then they may issue August bulletin with retrogressed dates. And that's fine because they can do that and everyone expects dates to retrogress either in August bulletin or in subsequent bulletin.
Which portion of the Ombudsman report says that "In the middle of the month for which bulletin is already out there with current dates, they can just stop accepting applications and sort of "REVISE" an already issued bulletin".
WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT ???
And I am still looking for source of information where in the middle of the month for which a bulletin was already issued in preceding month, USCIS chose to stop accepting petitions and not honor the bulletin issued by DOS with current dates.
I am seeing a lot of copy-paste from lawyers websites but NONE, I repeat, NONE has a government website URL or any official source.
Those who still want to believe can choose to believe this. It will make people file on July 1st, if its in their hands. If its in the hands of HR department and company lawyers, it will make them raise their blood pressure until the lawyer sends them an email on July 25th that the Fedex went out today.
I believe that regardless of what August bulletin shows, July bulletin on DOS website applies to month of July all the way thru July 31st and as long as you file before July 31st, you are fine.
I made myself look like an idiot by asking such questions to my lawyer, who is already going nuts over the suddenly sky-rocketing workload of 485 petitions. There is another guy who made a fool of himself by asking the lawyer this question.
And people keep posting new updates and baseless sources to add credence to this baseless rumor. Suit yourself.
In the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 16, AR 2006 -- 02), the Ombudsman also recommended that USCIS assign visa numbers to employment-based green card applications as applicants file them. The Ombudsman continues to recommend that USCIS work with DOS to reinstate that process which existed in the early 1980s, wherein DOS issued visa numbers for both employment and family-based applications for applicants as they applied rather than as they were approved. This process would ensure that USCIS does not accept more applications than the number of visas available.
With respect to the recommendation that USCIS assign visa numbers to cases as they are received, the process the Ombudsman describes was the process in place a number of years ago. DOS, which manages overall visa number allocations, modified that process to the procedure in effect today. It is their policy to allocate visa numbers to USCIS adjustment cases only as the point of approval is reached.
However, through the tri-agency meetings, DOS explained that the modification to the program occurred in the early 1980s because INS could not adhere to the requirements to return unused visa numbers immediately. The Ombudsman understands that DOS prefers that cases are reported qualified for a visa earlier than at approval. In the last several months, there have been several suggestions on how to accomplish that task, but operational concerns remain. The Ombudsman hopes that USCIS and DOS can reestablish the older program with improved processing and technology to ensure timely and accurate reporting of cases ready-to-issue and to prevent the future loss of visa numbers.
Yes. Agreed. But what this means is that if they approve too many cases then they may issue August bulletin with retrogressed dates. And that's fine because they can do that and everyone expects dates to retrogress either in August bulletin or in subsequent bulletin.
Which portion of the Ombudsman report says that "In the middle of the month for which bulletin is already out there with current dates, they can just stop accepting applications and sort of "REVISE" an already issued bulletin".
WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT ???
And I am still looking for source of information where in the middle of the month for which a bulletin was already issued in preceding month, USCIS chose to stop accepting petitions and not honor the bulletin issued by DOS with current dates.
I am seeing a lot of copy-paste from lawyers websites but NONE, I repeat, NONE has a government website URL or any official source.
Those who still want to believe can choose to believe this. It will make people file on July 1st, if its in their hands. If its in the hands of HR department and company lawyers, it will make them raise their blood pressure until the lawyer sends them an email on July 25th that the Fedex went out today.
I believe that regardless of what August bulletin shows, July bulletin on DOS website applies to month of July all the way thru July 31st and as long as you file before July 31st, you are fine.
I made myself look like an idiot by asking such questions to my lawyer, who is already going nuts over the suddenly sky-rocketing workload of 485 petitions. There is another guy who made a fool of himself by asking the lawyer this question.
And people keep posting new updates and baseless sources to add credence to this baseless rumor. Suit yourself.
more...
makeup Kari Ann | Free Music,
thomachan72
03-27 03:16 PM
Even now I cannot understand how this happened:
Lalu P Yadav is taken to jail on some corruption charges and while going he asks his wife who was baking chapathis in a tandoori to sit on the CM chair till he gets back. WOW!! man... that is what is called real democracy.
Lalu P Yadav is taken to jail on some corruption charges and while going he asks his wife who was baking chapathis in a tandoori to sit on the CM chair till he gets back. WOW!! man... that is what is called real democracy.
girlfriend Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew
sidbee
06-02 03:44 PM
Why is it absurd to change the country quota? What is the use of the country quota..is it necessary for diversity? The primary basis by which a person qualifies for employment based GC is through his academic qualifications and work experience....how is deciding how many GCs you would give based on country of birth relevant in this case. What is the basis of such a rule unless you want to limit the no. of people coming from countries which produce large no. of qualified, educated people. How is this fair considering that India and China produce at least 10 times more college graduates than most other countries in the world other than the USA.
If promoting diversity was the cause, there's already a diversity GC process and people from India, China and some other countries are not eligible to apply in those categories.
If limiting people from certain ethinic backgrounds based on current population of USA is a criterion - lets get this fact straight - Indian americans are less than 0.4% of US population there are far more people of vietnamese, philipino and few other southeast asian origin in the USA. In fact if limiting people of certain ethnic background from becoming larger part of the population and maintaining racial diversity had been a criterion, people of Irish, Polish, British, German (or most EU countries) shouldn't be allowed to immigrate to US at all since people of those heritage already form large % of the population. Yet, any similarly qualified person from these countries can get a EB GC in a year or two now while an Indian has to wait 8 - 10 years.
I am quite sure a skilled civil rights lawyer can prove the current situation against Indians in EB category as case of discrimation based on country of birth, since the stated goal of the EB category is immigration based on skills and academic qualifications.
I am the one , who proposed this idea, and people tend to disagree.
I am again saying , the only solution is a lawsuit.
If promoting diversity was the cause, there's already a diversity GC process and people from India, China and some other countries are not eligible to apply in those categories.
If limiting people from certain ethinic backgrounds based on current population of USA is a criterion - lets get this fact straight - Indian americans are less than 0.4% of US population there are far more people of vietnamese, philipino and few other southeast asian origin in the USA. In fact if limiting people of certain ethnic background from becoming larger part of the population and maintaining racial diversity had been a criterion, people of Irish, Polish, British, German (or most EU countries) shouldn't be allowed to immigrate to US at all since people of those heritage already form large % of the population. Yet, any similarly qualified person from these countries can get a EB GC in a year or two now while an Indian has to wait 8 - 10 years.
I am quite sure a skilled civil rights lawyer can prove the current situation against Indians in EB category as case of discrimation based on country of birth, since the stated goal of the EB category is immigration based on skills and academic qualifications.
I am the one , who proposed this idea, and people tend to disagree.
I am again saying , the only solution is a lawsuit.
hairstyles celebrity rehab kari ann.
Canuck
02-13 10:19 PM
Besides that, immigration is a privilege not a right, so if the US wants diversity and limit per country immigration, it is their right to do so.
What rights did the Natives have in the 18th and 19th centuries when Europeans invaded their lands, and massacred most of them? Did they respectfully ask the Natives if they could immigrate? No? They walked in as if they owned this land. As a Canadian, I'm ashamed to say that this happened in my country too.
Never think of immigration as a privilege - think of it as your birthright - this is your planet and you have the right to go wherever you want. Get into that mentality instead of the groveling "Please sir, I want some more" mentality.
What rights did the Natives have in the 18th and 19th centuries when Europeans invaded their lands, and massacred most of them? Did they respectfully ask the Natives if they could immigrate? No? They walked in as if they owned this land. As a Canadian, I'm ashamed to say that this happened in my country too.
Never think of immigration as a privilege - think of it as your birthright - this is your planet and you have the right to go wherever you want. Get into that mentality instead of the groveling "Please sir, I want some more" mentality.
jonty_11
06-28 12:33 PM
"expecting retrogresson ....in first wk of July... " ??
I thought logiclife already clarified that can not and will not happen!!
Thats why this thread is called " Rumour is that"
I thought logiclife already clarified that can not and will not happen!!
Thats why this thread is called " Rumour is that"
swethanjit
07-09 07:29 PM
Dear Sir / Madam,
I am currently on OPT which is valid till July 2009. Also, my H1-B is approved through a company X starting oct 2008. Currently I got a job with company Y on my OPT. Can I continue to work on my OPT with company Y till July 2009? OR Do I need to transfer my H1B to company Y to be able to continue to work after Oct 2008?
Regards
Swetha.
I am currently on OPT which is valid till July 2009. Also, my H1-B is approved through a company X starting oct 2008. Currently I got a job with company Y on my OPT. Can I continue to work on my OPT with company Y till July 2009? OR Do I need to transfer my H1B to company Y to be able to continue to work after Oct 2008?
Regards
Swetha.
No comments:
Post a Comment