locomotive36
11-15 10:31 AM
Posmd,
Firstly, if you notice, this topic has been posted under 'Interesting Topics' category where everthing from Vonage to cinema are discussed. IV has such a category to discuss topics like this, which may not have any direct relation to immigration.
Secondly, the time it would have taken to post your meaningless rant, you could have cast atleast 3 votes for the CNN Hero of your choice and not necessarily Narayanan Krishnan.
Thirdly, I support Narayanan Krishnanan over the others because - To cook, feed and take care of homeless, mentally ill and abdoned people every day, rain or shine, in addition to sacrificing your own aspirations and material pursuits, is a noble deed. When selfless supreme beings like Narayanan Krishnan do things are they are doing every day, my heart goes out to him.
Again, you are free to vote for whomever you like or refrain from voting altogether. Its your choice. Iam spreading the word about the good deeds by a noble person.
My 2 cents.
Firstly, if you notice, this topic has been posted under 'Interesting Topics' category where everthing from Vonage to cinema are discussed. IV has such a category to discuss topics like this, which may not have any direct relation to immigration.
Secondly, the time it would have taken to post your meaningless rant, you could have cast atleast 3 votes for the CNN Hero of your choice and not necessarily Narayanan Krishnan.
Thirdly, I support Narayanan Krishnanan over the others because - To cook, feed and take care of homeless, mentally ill and abdoned people every day, rain or shine, in addition to sacrificing your own aspirations and material pursuits, is a noble deed. When selfless supreme beings like Narayanan Krishnan do things are they are doing every day, my heart goes out to him.
Again, you are free to vote for whomever you like or refrain from voting altogether. Its your choice. Iam spreading the word about the good deeds by a noble person.
My 2 cents.
mayurcreation
04-18 08:05 AM
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
This is to certify that Mr. XXX was full time employed with CompanyName from date to date as a Sr. Programmer Analyst.
During his tenure with us, he skillfully handled major responsibilities and found him to be hardworking and very productive.
Mr. XXX job duties and responsibilities include but are not limited to:
� Job duties and responsibilities from resume�
� Job duties and responsibilities from resume�
� Job duties and responsibilities from resume�
� Job duties and responsibilities from resume�
� Job duties and responsibilities from resume�
Please feel free to contact me for further information.
Sincerely,
{Name}
{Title}
This is to certify that Mr. XXX was full time employed with CompanyName from date to date as a Sr. Programmer Analyst.
During his tenure with us, he skillfully handled major responsibilities and found him to be hardworking and very productive.
Mr. XXX job duties and responsibilities include but are not limited to:
� Job duties and responsibilities from resume�
� Job duties and responsibilities from resume�
� Job duties and responsibilities from resume�
� Job duties and responsibilities from resume�
� Job duties and responsibilities from resume�
Please feel free to contact me for further information.
Sincerely,
{Name}
{Title}
pappu
07-28 12:09 PM
I dont know whether IV could raise this issue or members of each state could talk with the DMV (highest official) or even the governor of the state so that this ridiculous rule which is causing a lot of pain to lot of our members is taken care off. They introduced this rule to keep away people who are out of status to renew the lisence. For that they only need to check the visas / other documents and need not require the person to retake the whole test. The DMV claims that this is required because as of the date of expiry of your (non renewable) lisence, you actually dont have a lisence to renew and therefore have to redo the whole thing.
Good idea. It is something state chapters can take up as an issue and take it to the local authorities. Michigan chapter had successfully done some advocacy effort. Those members can provide guidance if you are interested in taking it up in your state. IV will also help as needed and put its weight behind you, once you take it up as your action item at chapter level.
Good idea. It is something state chapters can take up as an issue and take it to the local authorities. Michigan chapter had successfully done some advocacy effort. Those members can provide guidance if you are interested in taking it up in your state. IV will also help as needed and put its weight behind you, once you take it up as your action item at chapter level.
harish
08-16 09:50 AM
Please update on who received their FP notices:
Application was mailed on 06/25/07 to NSC, but my case got transfered to TSC. My receipt number begins with SRC....
485 RD: 06/26/2007
485 ND: 08/06/2007
FP ND: Waiting..........
FP Date: Waiting.........
Application was mailed on 06/25/07 to NSC, but my case got transfered to TSC. My receipt number begins with SRC....
485 RD: 06/26/2007
485 ND: 08/06/2007
FP ND: Waiting..........
FP Date: Waiting.........
more...
glosrfc
01-02 05:44 PM
Are you considering actually creating something in AS1?
:)
I already have something in AS1 that fits the guidelines of this competition perfectly!
:)
I already have something in AS1 that fits the guidelines of this competition perfectly!
rahulpaper
01-01 12:13 AM
vote..............
I got FP notices today (NSC>CSC>NSC). No SR opened.
I got FP notices today (NSC>CSC>NSC). No SR opened.
more...
Munna Bhai
08-30 07:53 AM
copy of first and last paystubs of all employers?
:eek: :eek:
I can hardly find any paystub beyond 6 months, in my case. I hope and pray that I dont get an RFE like that. Do people really keep all the paystubs they ever received from employers? that is an outrage.
If this is not unfair that what else is?
WOW.......
I think the best way to handle this is, atleast contact couple of attorneys and sit down with them. Go over every single detail, and dont miss out on any papers. Some of the papers you listed, are standard attachements anyways. I wonder why your lawyer didnt submit those along with original form?
These type of issues will come only if at some stage(H1b or GC) USCIS has a red-flag associated with this case(or company).
:eek: :eek:
I can hardly find any paystub beyond 6 months, in my case. I hope and pray that I dont get an RFE like that. Do people really keep all the paystubs they ever received from employers? that is an outrage.
If this is not unfair that what else is?
WOW.......
I think the best way to handle this is, atleast contact couple of attorneys and sit down with them. Go over every single detail, and dont miss out on any papers. Some of the papers you listed, are standard attachements anyways. I wonder why your lawyer didnt submit those along with original form?
These type of issues will come only if at some stage(H1b or GC) USCIS has a red-flag associated with this case(or company).
immi_enthu
08-28 09:34 AM
They might return urs , simple.
what will happen in case of 140/485 concurrent filing ?
what will happen in case of 140/485 concurrent filing ?
more...
vgc
07-26 10:37 AM
SA 2428. Mr. CORNYN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2638, making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. EMPLOYMENT-BASED VISAS.
(a) Recapture of Unused Employment-Based Immigrant Visas.--Section 106(d) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-313; 8 U.S.C. 1153 note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``1994, 1996, 1997, 1998,'' after ``available in fiscal year'';
(B) by striking ``or 2004'' and inserting ``2004, or 2006''; and
(C) by striking ``be available'' and all that follows and inserting the following: ``be available only to--
``(A) employment-based immigrants under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b));
``(B) the family members accompanying or following to join such employment-based immigrants under section 203(d) of such Act; and
``(C) those immigrant workers who had petitions approved based on Schedule A, Group I under section 656.5 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated by the Secretary of Labor.''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``1999 through 2004'' and inserting ``1994, 1996 through 1998, 2001 through 2004, and 2006''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by amending clause (ii) to read as follows:
``(ii) DISTRIBUTION OF VISAS.--The total number of visas made available under paragraph (1) from unused visas from fiscal years 1994, 1996 through 1998, 2001 through 2004, and 2006 shall be distributed as follows:
``(I) The total number of visas made available for immigrant workers who had petitions approved based on Schedule A, Group I under section 656.5 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated by the Secretary of Labor shall be 61,000.
``(II) The visas remaining from the total made available under subclause (I) shall be allocated to employment-based immigrants with approved petitions under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (and their family members accompanying or following to join).''.
(b) H-1B Visa Availability.--Section 214(g)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (vi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating clause (vii) as clause (ix); and
(3) by inserting after clause (vi) the following:
[Page: S9966] GPO's PDF ``(vii) 65,000 in each of fiscal years 2004 through 2007;
``(viii) 115,000 in fiscal year 2008; and''.
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. EMPLOYMENT-BASED VISAS.
(a) Recapture of Unused Employment-Based Immigrant Visas.--Section 106(d) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-313; 8 U.S.C. 1153 note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``1994, 1996, 1997, 1998,'' after ``available in fiscal year'';
(B) by striking ``or 2004'' and inserting ``2004, or 2006''; and
(C) by striking ``be available'' and all that follows and inserting the following: ``be available only to--
``(A) employment-based immigrants under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b));
``(B) the family members accompanying or following to join such employment-based immigrants under section 203(d) of such Act; and
``(C) those immigrant workers who had petitions approved based on Schedule A, Group I under section 656.5 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated by the Secretary of Labor.''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``1999 through 2004'' and inserting ``1994, 1996 through 1998, 2001 through 2004, and 2006''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by amending clause (ii) to read as follows:
``(ii) DISTRIBUTION OF VISAS.--The total number of visas made available under paragraph (1) from unused visas from fiscal years 1994, 1996 through 1998, 2001 through 2004, and 2006 shall be distributed as follows:
``(I) The total number of visas made available for immigrant workers who had petitions approved based on Schedule A, Group I under section 656.5 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated by the Secretary of Labor shall be 61,000.
``(II) The visas remaining from the total made available under subclause (I) shall be allocated to employment-based immigrants with approved petitions under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (and their family members accompanying or following to join).''.
(b) H-1B Visa Availability.--Section 214(g)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (vi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating clause (vii) as clause (ix); and
(3) by inserting after clause (vi) the following:
[Page: S9966] GPO's PDF ``(vii) 65,000 in each of fiscal years 2004 through 2007;
``(viii) 115,000 in fiscal year 2008; and''.
wandmaker
03-26 01:19 AM
My employer had mentioned a salary of 87,000$ in my labor.
Other folks have given the answers to your question. Just to summarize, as long as your current salary is >= H1B LCA you are fine and GC LCA rate applies only after you get GC. Till then chill out and BTW - Lighter note, If you are moving to similar or same job with another employer and invoking AC21, make sure you are getting paid greater than or equal to 87K/Year. Thats my two cents.
Other folks have given the answers to your question. Just to summarize, as long as your current salary is >= H1B LCA you are fine and GC LCA rate applies only after you get GC. Till then chill out and BTW - Lighter note, If you are moving to similar or same job with another employer and invoking AC21, make sure you are getting paid greater than or equal to 87K/Year. Thats my two cents.
more...
cooltypes
06-04 12:56 PM
New Immigration Bill Amendment Could Help Keep Foreign Tech Workers In U.S.
http://www.shusterman.com/cgi-bin/ex-link.pl?www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=UWJRQUDRODHLAQSNDLPCK HSCJUNN2JVN?articleID=199800102&queryText=immigration
http://www.shusterman.com/cgi-bin/ex-link.pl?www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=UWJRQUDRODHLAQSNDLPCK HSCJUNN2JVN?articleID=199800102&queryText=immigration
vactorboy29
07-17 07:04 PM
I think we need to send flowers with thank you note to IV core members and congress woman.Let us get vote and send flowers to those addresses.
Thank you
Thank you
more...
americandesi
10-21 07:41 PM
Refer http://www.murthy.com/news/n_staiss.html and search for "Multiple I-485 Filings Not Advisable"
willy007
10-20 08:35 PM
The old lawyer has to notify USCIS that he is pulling out of your case or the new lawyer has to send the new G-28.
bump
^^^^^^^
What if he/she chose not to let USCIS know about it? Basically, you have no options than to hire a new lawyer to file G-28; otherwise USCIS will continue to send correspondence to the lawyer on file. If you don't file new G-28, the old lawyer can get every information on file from USCIS. Read G-28 for more information.
You are required to send the letter to where your case is filed.
I hope this helps and good luck on your green card chase.
Thanks canmt.
By the way, for the G-28, it doesn't have to be an attorney right? So, I can get somebody else that I trust to sign them to be my representative. Will this work? If I were to put my own name to be my own representative, is that going to flag them?
Do you know how much is it to get an attorney to sign the G-28 form? My PD is 3 years away, so I am pretty sure that the attorney won't have to do anything for quite a while (except for signing the form of course). If there are no RFE, the attorney possibly would not need to do anything at all.
bump
^^^^^^^
What if he/she chose not to let USCIS know about it? Basically, you have no options than to hire a new lawyer to file G-28; otherwise USCIS will continue to send correspondence to the lawyer on file. If you don't file new G-28, the old lawyer can get every information on file from USCIS. Read G-28 for more information.
You are required to send the letter to where your case is filed.
I hope this helps and good luck on your green card chase.
Thanks canmt.
By the way, for the G-28, it doesn't have to be an attorney right? So, I can get somebody else that I trust to sign them to be my representative. Will this work? If I were to put my own name to be my own representative, is that going to flag them?
Do you know how much is it to get an attorney to sign the G-28 form? My PD is 3 years away, so I am pretty sure that the attorney won't have to do anything for quite a while (except for signing the form of course). If there are no RFE, the attorney possibly would not need to do anything at all.
more...
pappu
05-20 10:54 AM
It is surprising why your case is among the unfortunate ones in such background checks. There was a memo few years ago after IV's efforts that eliminated FBI name checks. Read http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=81&Itemid=61
I am also unable to understand why you are getting conflicting information from congressional inquiries.
If you think there might be a lot of people stuck in namecheck issue these days, please collect everyone on this thread to see how widespread this problem is. You can ask on IV and other websites and have them assemble here. The numbers will help us understand the extent of the problem. I personally do not think there are any such namecheck problems beyond the 6 month period as stated in the 2008 memo. Have not seen anyone reporting on IV except your thread. Some effort may be needed by you to explore the extent of the problem. In terms of resolving it, looks like you are doing what people do to get status.
I am also unable to understand why you are getting conflicting information from congressional inquiries.
If you think there might be a lot of people stuck in namecheck issue these days, please collect everyone on this thread to see how widespread this problem is. You can ask on IV and other websites and have them assemble here. The numbers will help us understand the extent of the problem. I personally do not think there are any such namecheck problems beyond the 6 month period as stated in the 2008 memo. Have not seen anyone reporting on IV except your thread. Some effort may be needed by you to explore the extent of the problem. In terms of resolving it, looks like you are doing what people do to get status.
nihar
11-23 08:07 PM
The issue is that i had applied for my h1 status this year and im completing my mba this year , as i thought i would be able to complete get a job . But alas now all im in is a soup . im about to complete my mba and be eligible for my cpt at the same time i have a dilema about my h1 approved or not . the query is dated the same day as the approval letter . now wat shud i do . i want to get a job and also guide me as to how should i apply for my jobs and also what should i do
more...
eb3retro
04-16 12:33 PM
anyone from plano, texas here? pls PM me. Thanks.
nanibabu
10-06 10:49 PM
Nevermind. Online status of my case just changed to Card production ordered. Finally.
sobers
07-26 03:24 PM
Guess I've lot track of time now too
:)
anyway its going to be important to keep an eye on bills like these given that CIR is not going anywhere, and SKIL is not looking too good either. the 20,000advanced degree H1B exemption was introduced in the 2004-05 Omnibus Appropriations bill. maybe we can get a few simple administrative provisions like 485 filing in some bill.
I mean last year they got the real ID provisions in the iraq spending bill. this is not anywhere as controversial as that, but we we need the will to get this through. maybe we can have a fundraising effort for just this purpose...i'm sure lots of folks would join in..
I know you guys are doing your best under the present circumstances...
:)
anyway its going to be important to keep an eye on bills like these given that CIR is not going anywhere, and SKIL is not looking too good either. the 20,000advanced degree H1B exemption was introduced in the 2004-05 Omnibus Appropriations bill. maybe we can get a few simple administrative provisions like 485 filing in some bill.
I mean last year they got the real ID provisions in the iraq spending bill. this is not anywhere as controversial as that, but we we need the will to get this through. maybe we can have a fundraising effort for just this purpose...i'm sure lots of folks would join in..
I know you guys are doing your best under the present circumstances...
arunkotte
06-04 09:46 AM
Monday, June 4, 2007
2:30 p.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.(Morning business at 2:30pm :cool: )
Thereafter, resume consideration of S. 1348, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act.
2:30 p.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.(Morning business at 2:30pm :cool: )
Thereafter, resume consideration of S. 1348, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act.
snathan
05-25 01:48 PM
Search the forum, it full of post where people has called SNATHAN a MORON
now I am not saying so... he might not be a MORON but then why most of people call him so ??
Welcome back PlainSpeak...aka Poornima,
Jet flyer is waiting for you...
Its time for IV to ban your IP....you know the dog's tail.
now I am not saying so... he might not be a MORON but then why most of people call him so ??
Welcome back PlainSpeak...aka Poornima,
Jet flyer is waiting for you...
Its time for IV to ban your IP....you know the dog's tail.
No comments:
Post a Comment