rustum
09-25 12:46 PM
Case might have got transferred to CSC. I applied on Jul' 23rd and no news yet.
Thanks,
-rk.
Rk,
Thanks for your reply. Lawyer sent 140 to Texas. But, it was transfered to NSC and got a receipt from NSC for 140. Do you think it is transferred to CSC not toTSC?
Thanks,
-rk.
Rk,
Thanks for your reply. Lawyer sent 140 to Texas. But, it was transfered to NSC and got a receipt from NSC for 140. Do you think it is transferred to CSC not toTSC?
wallpaper google.com screenshot
gcsomeday
06-26 06:13 PM
record conversatios with these jack ass employers. It is surprising how much crap and illegal things they tell and do during negotiations. Not sure about the legality, would not harm if you dont use it. We keep seeing news on people getting screwed and then when outed the victim is not usually screwed by the system again.
Also, I wonder if any employment contract not tied to any reasonable time estimate( like 485 - who knows when we will get it) will hold.Its akin to slavery.
Also, I wonder if any employment contract not tied to any reasonable time estimate( like 485 - who knows when we will get it) will hold.Its akin to slavery.
gauravster
07-08 04:30 PM
You are incorrect on multiple accounts.
But, before going there, let me ask you this. What is your legal reasoning to dispute the case you have mentioned?
.
The legal reasoning is "Civil Rights Act of 1964" which applies to all individuals employed by a US employer in the US and to US citizens employed by US employers outside the US.
But, before going there, let me ask you this. What is your legal reasoning to dispute the case you have mentioned?
.
The legal reasoning is "Civil Rights Act of 1964" which applies to all individuals employed by a US employer in the US and to US citizens employed by US employers outside the US.
2011 Sent to you by moya via Google
SunnySurya
08-18 01:32 PM
I don think this issue concerns you. So , with all due respect, please BACK OFF.
Sunny Surya,
With all due respect let me make a couple of observations here.
1) First you file a lawsuit that prevents fellow Eb3's from porting to Eb2 at a later date, even though those individuals may have advanced in their careers and would be eligible for better jobs.
2) Now that you have successfully broken a united community into two factions, you want the IV core to now further take up the "Eb2 cause" against the USCIS, because YOU cannot file a lawsuit against the USCIS (the 500 pound gorilla) an organization that doesnt give a c**p about the immigrants and even its own internal processing "rule"?
3) Let me ask you, WHY should the IV core help ONLY the Eb2 at this point. You and some other Eb2 members were and are flexing your muscles against the Eb3 members who have been suffering in the EXACT same manner. What exactly have YOU contributed towards uniting the Legal employment based community and what have YOU done to help the Core team so far, that you now ask the core team to specifically take the Eb2 non-sequential processing up with the law-makers?
If you see a problem with the non-sequential processing, why dont YOU write to your own senators/congressmen and ask them to follow up on your individual case?
One more thing, if you are planning on replying back saying that "This is my last post on IV" so be it. IV does not need members who think of just themselves. And yes if you are planning on giving me red/gray/green dots please feel free to do so.
Thanks!
Sunny Surya,
With all due respect let me make a couple of observations here.
1) First you file a lawsuit that prevents fellow Eb3's from porting to Eb2 at a later date, even though those individuals may have advanced in their careers and would be eligible for better jobs.
2) Now that you have successfully broken a united community into two factions, you want the IV core to now further take up the "Eb2 cause" against the USCIS, because YOU cannot file a lawsuit against the USCIS (the 500 pound gorilla) an organization that doesnt give a c**p about the immigrants and even its own internal processing "rule"?
3) Let me ask you, WHY should the IV core help ONLY the Eb2 at this point. You and some other Eb2 members were and are flexing your muscles against the Eb3 members who have been suffering in the EXACT same manner. What exactly have YOU contributed towards uniting the Legal employment based community and what have YOU done to help the Core team so far, that you now ask the core team to specifically take the Eb2 non-sequential processing up with the law-makers?
If you see a problem with the non-sequential processing, why dont YOU write to your own senators/congressmen and ask them to follow up on your individual case?
One more thing, if you are planning on replying back saying that "This is my last post on IV" so be it. IV does not need members who think of just themselves. And yes if you are planning on giving me red/gray/green dots please feel free to do so.
Thanks!
more...
jsb
08-14 08:47 AM
EB2 India
PD 5/04
I-140 approved 6/06 at TSC
I-485 filed July 2 at TSC
No receipt or check cashing yet !!!
By the way, latest update by TSC shows TSC at 6/28/2007 (only 2 days move!!). NSC is still at 7/1/2007
PD 5/04
I-140 approved 6/06 at TSC
I-485 filed July 2 at TSC
No receipt or check cashing yet !!!
By the way, latest update by TSC shows TSC at 6/28/2007 (only 2 days move!!). NSC is still at 7/1/2007
mayitbesoon
09-08 11:12 AM
TSC EAD Paper filing for me and spouse.
RD 8/12
ND 8/13 No LUDs
AD 8/28
RD 8/12
ND 8/13 No LUDs
AD 8/28
more...
snathan
02-10 12:10 PM
Snaju has donated $100 but she is yet to add.
So its $1044
So its $1044
2010 Yamaha DT Classic 1997
nefrateedi
08-22 04:01 PM
Application reached NSC on July 14. No receipts or cashed checks yet.
more...
vxb2004
11-25 07:45 PM
Hi,
Yesterday I got the response for my SR opened on 10/16 for still not receiving FP notice yet. The letter says that the processing on my case has been delayed since the background check on my application is still open. Please contact after 6 months if you still haven't heard back from us. My assumptions are:
1. Since they did not mention any where in the letter about biometrics, they are talking about my 485 petition and not my finger printing notice. Guess they misunderstood why I opened the SR with them. Does that make sense?
2.Is it possible that I haven't received FP notice since my background check is still in progress? I thought that these were two independent process...
Any suggestions would be appreciated!
Thanks.
Apahilaj,
FP is definitely not connected to background check. I am sailing in the same boat. My application date was july 17th and notice day was Sep 10th. I opened a SR 45 days back with no response. NSC-TSC transfer case..:confused:
Yesterday I got the response for my SR opened on 10/16 for still not receiving FP notice yet. The letter says that the processing on my case has been delayed since the background check on my application is still open. Please contact after 6 months if you still haven't heard back from us. My assumptions are:
1. Since they did not mention any where in the letter about biometrics, they are talking about my 485 petition and not my finger printing notice. Guess they misunderstood why I opened the SR with them. Does that make sense?
2.Is it possible that I haven't received FP notice since my background check is still in progress? I thought that these were two independent process...
Any suggestions would be appreciated!
Thanks.
Apahilaj,
FP is definitely not connected to background check. I am sailing in the same boat. My application date was july 17th and notice day was Sep 10th. I opened a SR 45 days back with no response. NSC-TSC transfer case..:confused:
hair Google Incorporates Ways to
english_august
07-09 04:54 PM
There is a 99% chance of a TV crew covering this event. I just spoke with them and they are just working out the logistics. They will reach the USCIS office at around 12 PM and said that it would be great if some of us are available around that time to talk to them.
Any D.C. area people interested in going there, please send me a private message with your name and phone number so that we can talk and work out the logistics.
Any D.C. area people interested in going there, please send me a private message with your name and phone number so that we can talk and work out the logistics.
more...
![google 1997. [Google]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_szSh1mK-Q7FUr0OouTrsTcXI53RM_X_QgTCXOjMcEZ-XbPfpbBVxO40NwVZvcAKwb4Ilt0zG5afFUyHX74M5-uUlX81bBCg8tmPzAdd_WlNCl6z2UXVlsx_IksITpdVjmowg=s0-d "[Google]")
akhilmahajan
04-23 11:38 AM
My understanding is after 180 days of 485 filing, even if the employer revokes the approved 140, the 485 application does not get affected if you apply AC21 and let USCIS know that you have changed employment and the job duties are similar. Is it true? or is there is any risk if employer revokes 140?
As per the Yates memo, we are covered once 180 days have passed since filing 485.
If the employer revokes 140, then USCIS will issue a RFE, most probably NOID on your 485. AC-21 papers filed or not, its up to the officer who is handling your case. Even if you sent the AC-21 papers, he/she still can issue a NOID.
Then it will up to you to prove that changing jobs was with in rules. A lot of people do it and get GC's. Its a common practice and is now becoming more visible.
So, just be cautious with the job change and make sure your job responsibilties are as close as mentioned on the labor.
I hope it helps.
GO IV GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
As per the Yates memo, we are covered once 180 days have passed since filing 485.
If the employer revokes 140, then USCIS will issue a RFE, most probably NOID on your 485. AC-21 papers filed or not, its up to the officer who is handling your case. Even if you sent the AC-21 papers, he/she still can issue a NOID.
Then it will up to you to prove that changing jobs was with in rules. A lot of people do it and get GC's. Its a common practice and is now becoming more visible.
So, just be cautious with the job change and make sure your job responsibilties are as close as mentioned on the labor.
I hope it helps.
GO IV GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
hot US Google Data Center
Jaime
06-26 10:49 AM
Santosh_gc, I agree with you when you ask "how can illegals be granted a path to citizenship, etc" I am from Mexico and I am as much against that as you, or even more! All those illegal aliens are essentially getting a free ride and the U.S. is trying to act all "Mother Teresa" with them just to attract the vote of Hispanics. It's sickening!
At the same time, you do stereotype Mexico and that is unfair. Yes, the majority of illegals are Mexicans and that is simply because of geography. How do you explain the tens of thousands of illegals from Canada and Great Britain? (Canada is the #4 country source of illegal immigrants in the U.S. Just check the USCIS statistics page: http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/illegalalien/#Table1)
You claim you are not racist. Think again
At the same time, you do stereotype Mexico and that is unfair. Yes, the majority of illegals are Mexicans and that is simply because of geography. How do you explain the tens of thousands of illegals from Canada and Great Britain? (Canada is the #4 country source of illegal immigrants in the U.S. Just check the USCIS statistics page: http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/illegalalien/#Table1)
You claim you are not racist. Think again
more...
house Close Date 1997/11/07
h1techSlave
05-01 04:56 PM
Can you add another question in the poll?
Would you be willing to contribute towards this work? (Hiring a lawyer/FOIA request etc.)
Done, added poll.
Would you be willing to contribute towards this work? (Hiring a lawyer/FOIA request etc.)
Done, added poll.
tattoo I would like to rank Google#39;s
sriswam
07-02 08:48 AM
Delivered to Lincoln, NE on July 02, 2007 at 7:55AM.
Signed for by good old Robin Williams. This man would surely suffer from Carpal Tunnel Syndrome!
Signed for by good old Robin Williams. This man would surely suffer from Carpal Tunnel Syndrome!
more...
pictures Reno and San Francisco, 199718
sankap
07-10 12:47 PM
@desi3933:
Are you suggesting that AC-21 job does not need to be bonafide?
Then you claimed that AC-21 job does not be same/similar to labor/I-140.
Where did I say that AC-21 job does not need to be the same as I-140 petition? It's clearly a requirement on the Yates memo. "Do you even read what are you saying" (to quote you)?
Second, re "permanent" job, the Yates memo clearly doesn't say that requirement--the RFE you quoted does . Also, since no source has been able to define what a "permanent" job is, I said that ALL contract jobs and self-employment can be shown to be permanent. Surprisingly, your interpretation is that NO H-1B job is "permanent!"
Now you have changed stand on these two after seeing one RFE example.
I did not change my stand on "permanent" job--no source has been able to define what that is. So, inserting that in the EVL in case of as RFE should not be a problem.
Now, you are saying new AC-21 job does not be bonafide.
I'm not saying that the "AC-21-job does not be bona fide." You *assumed* that, which is what you need to stop in your arguments. All I asked you is, where did you read that?
Do you even read what are you saying?
.
Are you suggesting that AC-21 job does not need to be bonafide?
Then you claimed that AC-21 job does not be same/similar to labor/I-140.
Where did I say that AC-21 job does not need to be the same as I-140 petition? It's clearly a requirement on the Yates memo. "Do you even read what are you saying" (to quote you)?
Second, re "permanent" job, the Yates memo clearly doesn't say that requirement--the RFE you quoted does . Also, since no source has been able to define what a "permanent" job is, I said that ALL contract jobs and self-employment can be shown to be permanent. Surprisingly, your interpretation is that NO H-1B job is "permanent!"
Now you have changed stand on these two after seeing one RFE example.
I did not change my stand on "permanent" job--no source has been able to define what that is. So, inserting that in the EVL in case of as RFE should not be a problem.
Now, you are saying new AC-21 job does not be bonafide.
I'm not saying that the "AC-21-job does not be bona fide." You *assumed* that, which is what you need to stop in your arguments. All I asked you is, where did you read that?
Do you even read what are you saying?
.
dresses 1997 Suzuki DR650 added by
eager_immi
12-12 03:16 PM
Does anyone know what bill was AC21 attached to in Clinton's Administartion. That will give us some clue what bills we can tag to. I know the world is really very different after 9/11 but this is something we should look into to see what worked before might work again.
more...
makeup Originally, Google ran under
reddymjm
06-12 05:58 AM
Sent in concurrent filing 1-140 & I-1485 on June 1st .
RD June 4th
ND June 5th
All checks cashed including PP for I-140 ON 2nd June 2007.
I have a couple of questions:-
How long before i get a answer on Premium Processing on I-140.
How long for Finger Printing notice.
How long before i get EAD.
Can i renew my CA drivers license with I-1485 filing receipt or do i have to wait for EAD.
Thanks folks and hang in there.( It took 6 years for LC approval).
Usually it is a maximum of 2 weeks. NSC approved some in 2 days.
FP notice in a month or so..
EAD 90 days minimum I guess. I don't know about the other one as I live in MI. we do not need anything like that here.
RD June 4th
ND June 5th
All checks cashed including PP for I-140 ON 2nd June 2007.
I have a couple of questions:-
How long before i get a answer on Premium Processing on I-140.
How long for Finger Printing notice.
How long before i get EAD.
Can i renew my CA drivers license with I-1485 filing receipt or do i have to wait for EAD.
Thanks folks and hang in there.( It took 6 years for LC approval).
Usually it is a maximum of 2 weeks. NSC approved some in 2 days.
FP notice in a month or so..
EAD 90 days minimum I guess. I don't know about the other one as I live in MI. we do not need anything like that here.
girlfriend Wembley Stadium 1997-2007
immig4me
02-04 03:59 PM
/\/\/\
hairstyles [Google]
vbkris77
05-04 08:09 PM
OK Guys, it is not part of INA but part of CFR which is I believe admin decision. But I leave it to IV core to decide.
Below is the link
http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/42-32-employment-based-preference-immigrants-19720782
TITLE 22 - FOREIGN RELATIONS
CHAPTER I - DEPARTMENT OF STATE
SUBCHAPTER E - VISAS
PART 42 - VISAS: DOCUMENTATION OF IMMIGRANTS UNDER THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, AS AMENDED
subpart d - IMMIGRANTS SUBJECT TO NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS
42.32 - Employment - based preference immigrants.
Aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 201(d) for employment-based immigrants in a fiscal year shall be allotted visas as indicated below.
(a) First preferencePriority workers(1) Entitlement to status. An alien shall be classifiable as an employment-based first preference immigrant under INA 203(b)(1) if the consular office has received from INS a Petition for Immigrant Worker approved in accordance with INA 204 to accord the alien such Preference status, or official notification of such an approval, and the consular officer is satisfied that the alien is within one of the classes described in INA 203(b)(1).
(2) Entitlement to derivative status. Pursuant to INA 203(d), and whether or not named in the petition, the child or spouse of an employment-based first preference immigrant, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa, is entitled to a derivative status corresponding to the classification and priority date of the beneficiary of the petition.
(b) Second preferenceProfessionals with advanced degrees or persons of exceptional ability(1) Entitlement to status. An alien shall be classifiable as an employment-based second preference immigrant under INA 203(b)(2) if the consular officer has received from INS a Petition for Immigrant Worker approved in accordance with INA 204 to accord the alien such preference status, or official notification of such an approval, and the consular officer is satisfied that the alien is within one of the classes described in INA 203(b)(2).
(2) Entitlement to derivative status. Pursuant to INA 203(d), and whether or not named in the petition, the child or spouse of an employment-based second preference immigrant, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa, is entitled to a derivative status corresponding to the classification and priority date of the beneficiary of the petition.
(c) Third preferenceSkilled workers, professionals, other workers(1) Entitlement to status. An alien shall be classifiable as an employment-based third preference immigrant under INA 203(b)(3) if the consular officer has received from INS a Petition for Immigrant Worker approved in accordance with INA 204 to accord the alien such preference status, or official notification of such an approval, and the consular officer is satisfied that the alien is within one of the classes described in INA 203(b)(3).
(2) Entitlement to derivative status. Pursuant to INA 203(d), and whether or not named in the petition, the child or spouse of an employment-based third preference immigrant, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa, is entitled to a derivative status corresponding to the classification and priority date of the beneficiary of the petition.
Below is the link
http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/42-32-employment-based-preference-immigrants-19720782
TITLE 22 - FOREIGN RELATIONS
CHAPTER I - DEPARTMENT OF STATE
SUBCHAPTER E - VISAS
PART 42 - VISAS: DOCUMENTATION OF IMMIGRANTS UNDER THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, AS AMENDED
subpart d - IMMIGRANTS SUBJECT TO NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS
42.32 - Employment - based preference immigrants.
Aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 201(d) for employment-based immigrants in a fiscal year shall be allotted visas as indicated below.
(a) First preferencePriority workers(1) Entitlement to status. An alien shall be classifiable as an employment-based first preference immigrant under INA 203(b)(1) if the consular office has received from INS a Petition for Immigrant Worker approved in accordance with INA 204 to accord the alien such Preference status, or official notification of such an approval, and the consular officer is satisfied that the alien is within one of the classes described in INA 203(b)(1).
(2) Entitlement to derivative status. Pursuant to INA 203(d), and whether or not named in the petition, the child or spouse of an employment-based first preference immigrant, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa, is entitled to a derivative status corresponding to the classification and priority date of the beneficiary of the petition.
(b) Second preferenceProfessionals with advanced degrees or persons of exceptional ability(1) Entitlement to status. An alien shall be classifiable as an employment-based second preference immigrant under INA 203(b)(2) if the consular officer has received from INS a Petition for Immigrant Worker approved in accordance with INA 204 to accord the alien such preference status, or official notification of such an approval, and the consular officer is satisfied that the alien is within one of the classes described in INA 203(b)(2).
(2) Entitlement to derivative status. Pursuant to INA 203(d), and whether or not named in the petition, the child or spouse of an employment-based second preference immigrant, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa, is entitled to a derivative status corresponding to the classification and priority date of the beneficiary of the petition.
(c) Third preferenceSkilled workers, professionals, other workers(1) Entitlement to status. An alien shall be classifiable as an employment-based third preference immigrant under INA 203(b)(3) if the consular officer has received from INS a Petition for Immigrant Worker approved in accordance with INA 204 to accord the alien such preference status, or official notification of such an approval, and the consular officer is satisfied that the alien is within one of the classes described in INA 203(b)(3).
(2) Entitlement to derivative status. Pursuant to INA 203(d), and whether or not named in the petition, the child or spouse of an employment-based third preference immigrant, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa, is entitled to a derivative status corresponding to the classification and priority date of the beneficiary of the petition.
logiclife
05-03 08:06 PM
Here is how the parties in general stand on immigration:
Democrats: They support immigration in general. But their sympathies lie with low-skills, low-wage workers who mostly enter illegally.
Republicans: They oppose immigration in general, ESPECIALLY the illegal variety. However, they overwhelmingly support hi-tech immigration(and hi-tech immigration is mostly legal, I havent met a scientist or a Java programmer working illegally :) ) because of their close relationship to businesses and their pro-business attitude in general.
Democrats: They support immigration in general. But their sympathies lie with low-skills, low-wage workers who mostly enter illegally.
Republicans: They oppose immigration in general, ESPECIALLY the illegal variety. However, they overwhelmingly support hi-tech immigration(and hi-tech immigration is mostly legal, I havent met a scientist or a Java programmer working illegally :) ) because of their close relationship to businesses and their pro-business attitude in general.
english_august
07-09 09:56 AM
I have read in a few places that we plan to send flowers on 11, and 12th also?
If that is the case then the document has to be updated to include those dates. Also, I suggest collecting emails and fax numbers and assigning a few people to do the actual "sending". This will make it easier to coordinate.
11th and 12th were added later because by Saturday evening when the core team decided to support this campaign, we weren't entirely sure if delivery on the 10th was still possible.
However, majority of flowers are going to be delivered on the 10th so I wanted to keep the focus on that single date.
If you want to go ahead with co-ordinating the actual sending then please go ahead - I think it will be very helpful.
If that is the case then the document has to be updated to include those dates. Also, I suggest collecting emails and fax numbers and assigning a few people to do the actual "sending". This will make it easier to coordinate.
11th and 12th were added later because by Saturday evening when the core team decided to support this campaign, we weren't entirely sure if delivery on the 10th was still possible.
However, majority of flowers are going to be delivered on the 10th so I wanted to keep the focus on that single date.
If you want to go ahead with co-ordinating the actual sending then please go ahead - I think it will be very helpful.
No comments:
Post a Comment