gsc999
07-09 07:09 PM
USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez, has become a member of IV...Or he started reading our posts in this forum
----
Yeah, maybe it was all his idea in the first place to order so many flowers for himself!
----
Yeah, maybe it was all his idea in the first place to order so many flowers for himself!
wallpaper VOGUE US July 2011 - Emma
widad2020
09-20 08:32 PM
I see the same. my pd is may 20.
Did anyone see any Soft LUDs on their 485 or old EADs before their approvals/RFEs?
My PD is June 7 2006, not current. Yesterday, I had a soft LUD on my 485 and my first EAD. These two haven't seen any activity since early 2009, and I'm wondering if this means anything or if I'm reading into this a little too much.
thanks,
Did anyone see any Soft LUDs on their 485 or old EADs before their approvals/RFEs?
My PD is June 7 2006, not current. Yesterday, I had a soft LUD on my 485 and my first EAD. These two haven't seen any activity since early 2009, and I'm wondering if this means anything or if I'm reading into this a little too much.
thanks,
Robert Kumar
04-03 07:27 AM
Don't know.
Thanks.
Can somebody please give us the link of the document that shows how many applied , yearwise.
Thanks.
Can somebody please give us the link of the document that shows how many applied , yearwise.
2011 Emma Watson Vogue US July 2011
desi3933
08-07 01:01 PM
Ok, i will try to make it as simple as possible:
2 guys (names - JE and MBA respectively) graduate with BS in Engineering in 2001.
Both go to USA in 2002.
JE goes on H1B (as Junior Engineer) while MBA goes for an MBA on F1.
In 2003, JEs company files for his GC, PD 2003, EB3
In 2004, MBA graduates and joins a company as a manager.
In 2005, MBA's company applies for his GC in EB2, PD 2005.
So far so good.
Now, it is 2008. Both are still waiting for their GC.
Ideally, both are in same position (they should be, as both have same amount of exposure to professional world after undergrad - one replaced the work experience by higher degree and vice-versa).
Now, JE wants to port his PD and get into EB2 category with PD 2003. This will make him exactly 2 years ahead of MBA. If he doesn't port, they are approximately in the same situation, so the chances of them getting a GC in 2009 will be same.
What do you think is fair?
P.S. - I do not support this lawsuit.
What stopped (from legal stand point) MBA guy to file for eb3 based GC in 2003? Remember both have BS in Engineering at that time. No employer was ready to file GC for the MBA guy (in 2003) is not a valid legal argument.
Remember, one does not need to be employed to file for GC and GC is for the future job.
What do you think is fair?
It is not what you or I think is fair. From legal point of view, both had equal opportunity to file for GC in 2003 for eb3 job. Just because, the MBA person didn't go for it is not a valid argument. Don't you agree?
2 guys (names - JE and MBA respectively) graduate with BS in Engineering in 2001.
Both go to USA in 2002.
JE goes on H1B (as Junior Engineer) while MBA goes for an MBA on F1.
In 2003, JEs company files for his GC, PD 2003, EB3
In 2004, MBA graduates and joins a company as a manager.
In 2005, MBA's company applies for his GC in EB2, PD 2005.
So far so good.
Now, it is 2008. Both are still waiting for their GC.
Ideally, both are in same position (they should be, as both have same amount of exposure to professional world after undergrad - one replaced the work experience by higher degree and vice-versa).
Now, JE wants to port his PD and get into EB2 category with PD 2003. This will make him exactly 2 years ahead of MBA. If he doesn't port, they are approximately in the same situation, so the chances of them getting a GC in 2009 will be same.
What do you think is fair?
P.S. - I do not support this lawsuit.
What stopped (from legal stand point) MBA guy to file for eb3 based GC in 2003? Remember both have BS in Engineering at that time. No employer was ready to file GC for the MBA guy (in 2003) is not a valid legal argument.
Remember, one does not need to be employed to file for GC and GC is for the future job.
What do you think is fair?
It is not what you or I think is fair. From legal point of view, both had equal opportunity to file for GC in 2003 for eb3 job. Just because, the MBA person didn't go for it is not a valid argument. Don't you agree?
more...
InTheMoment
08-04 09:21 PM
Very relevant info regarding FBI namecheck:
http://immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16343&d=1179435102
Relevant part below:
Testimony of Michael Cannon,
Section Chief
National Name Check Program Section
Records Management Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Feb 9th, 2006, US District Court
Southern District of Florida
(1) 1 am currently the Section Chief of the National Name Check Program Section ("NNCPS"), formerly pa rt of the Record/Information Dissemination Section ("RIDS"), Records Management Division ("RMD"), at the Federal Bureau of Investigation Headqua rters ("FBIHQ")
in Washington , D.C. I have held this position since March 7, 2005 . This declaration supplements my January 30, 2006 declaration previously submitted in this ma tter and is intended to provide further information in accordance with the order issued in the above captioned case
on February 9, 2006 by the Honorable United States Dist rict Judge Ursula Ungaro-Henagcs .
(2) This Honorable Court is seeking additional information on the FBI' s name check process, including the amount of time, on average, required to complete a name check requiring a secondary manual search; the average time required to retrieve and review an FBI record for
possible derogatory information ; and why it took three years to complete the plaintiffs name check.
(3) The amount of time, on average , required to complete a name check requiring a secondary manual search varies from case to case. Because there is a backlog of cases currently pending, it is difficult to compute an overall average. As mentioned in my January 30, 2006
declaration, approximately 68% of the name checks submitted by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) are electronically returned to USCIS Headquarters as having "No Record" within 48 hours, with a secondary manual search usually identifying an additional 22% of the requests as having a "No Record," for an overall 90% "No Record " response rate . The additional 22% identified as having a "No Record" are returned to USCIS Headquarters within 30 - 60 days of the date of their original submission. As mentioned in my
January 30, 2006 declaration, the remaining 10% are identified as possibly being the subject of an FBI record, which requires the retrieval and review of the record .
(4) Many times, the delay associated with the processing of the remaining 10% is not so much the actual time it takes to process a name check, but the time it takes for an analyst to get to the name check request in order to process it. This is due to the constant volume of name
checks submitted by USCIS, in addition to the FBI's other customers, combined with the FBI's current work on processing the residual name checks from the 2 .7 million name check requests submitted by USCIS in November 2002, as compared to the National Name Check Program's
(NNCP's) limited resources. So far this fiscal year, the NNCP has received a total average of over 62,400 name checks per week, with over 27,700 coming from USCIS on a weekly basis .
(5) The average time required to retrieve and review an FBI record for possible derogatory information is case specific, it depends on the number of files an analyst must obtain (which is dictated by the number of "hits" on a name), the location and availability of those files, and the amount of information contained in a file . If a file is located at the Alexandria Records Center located in Alexandria, Virginia, an analyst will be able to obtain a file within a matter of days . If a file is located in a field office or other FBI location, the applicable information must be requested from that location. 'here are over 265 different FBI locations that could house information pertinent to a name check request, If a file is electronically available, an analyst will have immediate access to a file. Additionally, once an analyst receives the file, or the pertinent information contained in a file, the analyst must review it for possible derogatory information . The length of time this takes depends on the amount of information in a file and its complexity.
(6)The name check request for the plaintiff Maria Trujillos was submitted by USCIS 28 on March 25, 2003 . The timing was such that the submission of the plaintiffs name check request immediately followed the submission of the 2 .7 million names resubmitted by USCIS November 2002 , which unfortunately delayed NNCP' s ability to immediately address the plaintiffs name check request. Plaintiffs name check could not be immediately addressed because the submission of the 2.7 million name checks further depleted NNCP's ability to quickly address its current workload at that time , in addition to hindering NNCP's ability to address future submissions, which included the plaintiff s name check . This, combined with the factors outlined in paragraphs (3) - (5) above, contributed to the time it took to complete the plaintiffs name check .
http://immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16343&d=1179435102
Relevant part below:
Testimony of Michael Cannon,
Section Chief
National Name Check Program Section
Records Management Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Feb 9th, 2006, US District Court
Southern District of Florida
(1) 1 am currently the Section Chief of the National Name Check Program Section ("NNCPS"), formerly pa rt of the Record/Information Dissemination Section ("RIDS"), Records Management Division ("RMD"), at the Federal Bureau of Investigation Headqua rters ("FBIHQ")
in Washington , D.C. I have held this position since March 7, 2005 . This declaration supplements my January 30, 2006 declaration previously submitted in this ma tter and is intended to provide further information in accordance with the order issued in the above captioned case
on February 9, 2006 by the Honorable United States Dist rict Judge Ursula Ungaro-Henagcs .
(2) This Honorable Court is seeking additional information on the FBI' s name check process, including the amount of time, on average, required to complete a name check requiring a secondary manual search; the average time required to retrieve and review an FBI record for
possible derogatory information ; and why it took three years to complete the plaintiffs name check.
(3) The amount of time, on average , required to complete a name check requiring a secondary manual search varies from case to case. Because there is a backlog of cases currently pending, it is difficult to compute an overall average. As mentioned in my January 30, 2006
declaration, approximately 68% of the name checks submitted by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) are electronically returned to USCIS Headquarters as having "No Record" within 48 hours, with a secondary manual search usually identifying an additional 22% of the requests as having a "No Record," for an overall 90% "No Record " response rate . The additional 22% identified as having a "No Record" are returned to USCIS Headquarters within 30 - 60 days of the date of their original submission. As mentioned in my
January 30, 2006 declaration, the remaining 10% are identified as possibly being the subject of an FBI record, which requires the retrieval and review of the record .
(4) Many times, the delay associated with the processing of the remaining 10% is not so much the actual time it takes to process a name check, but the time it takes for an analyst to get to the name check request in order to process it. This is due to the constant volume of name
checks submitted by USCIS, in addition to the FBI's other customers, combined with the FBI's current work on processing the residual name checks from the 2 .7 million name check requests submitted by USCIS in November 2002, as compared to the National Name Check Program's
(NNCP's) limited resources. So far this fiscal year, the NNCP has received a total average of over 62,400 name checks per week, with over 27,700 coming from USCIS on a weekly basis .
(5) The average time required to retrieve and review an FBI record for possible derogatory information is case specific, it depends on the number of files an analyst must obtain (which is dictated by the number of "hits" on a name), the location and availability of those files, and the amount of information contained in a file . If a file is located at the Alexandria Records Center located in Alexandria, Virginia, an analyst will be able to obtain a file within a matter of days . If a file is located in a field office or other FBI location, the applicable information must be requested from that location. 'here are over 265 different FBI locations that could house information pertinent to a name check request, If a file is electronically available, an analyst will have immediate access to a file. Additionally, once an analyst receives the file, or the pertinent information contained in a file, the analyst must review it for possible derogatory information . The length of time this takes depends on the amount of information in a file and its complexity.
(6)The name check request for the plaintiff Maria Trujillos was submitted by USCIS 28 on March 25, 2003 . The timing was such that the submission of the plaintiffs name check request immediately followed the submission of the 2 .7 million names resubmitted by USCIS November 2002 , which unfortunately delayed NNCP' s ability to immediately address the plaintiffs name check request. Plaintiffs name check could not be immediately addressed because the submission of the 2.7 million name checks further depleted NNCP's ability to quickly address its current workload at that time , in addition to hindering NNCP's ability to address future submissions, which included the plaintiff s name check . This, combined with the factors outlined in paragraphs (3) - (5) above, contributed to the time it took to complete the plaintiffs name check .
Lisap
09-07 12:32 PM
Just curious.... When do they do the name check? Is it after the fingerprints are complete??
more...
rcr_bulk
08-24 02:09 PM
I think you need to send an email via vonage account to refer someone and the system automatically gives your account a credit when the other person signs up. Dont know if you can give a phone # and say that MR ABC should get the benefit of 'refer a friend'
I thing you can sign-up by entering phone number from following page Vonage Refer-A-Friend Program (http://www.vonage.com/lp/US/friend/)
I did like that today morning but not received any email confirmation yet and showing pending when login online.
I thing you can sign-up by entering phone number from following page Vonage Refer-A-Friend Program (http://www.vonage.com/lp/US/friend/)
I did like that today morning but not received any email confirmation yet and showing pending when login online.
2010 us emma watson vogue july
H1B-GC
02-02 04:03 PM
eb_retrogression,
Can you post the article here? I'm not able to get to it.
Admin,
Here you go ::p
President Takes Dual Tack on Immigration
White House Seeks Tougher Enforcement,
While Pushing Idea of Guest-Worker Program
By JUNE KRONHOLZ
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
February 2, 2006; Page A8
WASHINGTON -- President bush drew big applause during his State of the Union address with a renewed call for "a rational, humane guest-worker program" to keep the economy humming.
But that appeal came only after Mr. Bush issued a much sterner one first -- for tougher enforcement of immigration laws, more vigilance on the border and an immigration policy that "reflects our values."
The message Mr. Bush delivered to lawmakers is the same one an increasingly vocal anti-immigration chorus is sending to him: First get tough; then we'll talk.
Mr. Bush was cheered by an unlikely alliance of pro-business Republicans, Democrats, unions and immigrant groups when he called for a guest-worker program in his State of the Union address two years ago. But the idea has hit a wall of opposition from the party's cultural conservatives and security hawks who first want to stop the flood of illegal immigrants into the U.S. (See related article.)
In December, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would, among other things, extend a short wall on the border with Mexico to 700 miles. The Senate, which had planned to overhaul immigration laws when it takes up its own bill in a few weeks, now also is under pressure from some Republicans to toughen border controls first.
As immigration soars to an all-time high, that get-tough argument is gaining political steam. With the 2006 elections still 10 months away, a half-dozen candidates are running for national office on pledges to stop illegal immigration. Bills on the issue, many denying benefits to illegal immigrants, have been introduced in 31 state legislatures.
STATE OF THE UNION REVIEW
• Can President's Plan Keep America Competitive?
• Bush's Energy Plan Faces Hurdles
• Industry Cheers Cleaner-Coal Push
• Full Text: Read the complete prepared text of the address.
• Question of the Day: Which topic should the Bush administration make its top priority this year?
And polls show mounting voter unease about immigration: A December 2005 Wall Street Journal-NBC poll found that 57% of those questioned think the U.S. is "too open to immigrants."
"It's astonishing how much this has become an issue across the country," says Brian Bilbray, a San Diego Republican who hopes to return to the U.S. House of Representatives this year after spending the past six years as a lobbyist for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which wants to restrict immigration.
But for all the emotion immigration is stirring up, political operatives in both parties warn that it isn't an issue that rallies voters. "Will this impact your electoral ambitions?" asks Ryan Ellis of the conservative group Americans for Tax Reform, who has studied the role immigration played in recent elections. "All history has indicated 'no,' whether you're in Arizona or Maine," he answers.
It didn't prove a successful strategy for the Virginia governor's race in November. Republican Jerry Kilgore seized late in the campaign on the issue of taxpayer-funded job centers for illegal immigrants, and in a stinging television ad asked of his Democratic opponent, "What part of illegal does Tim Kaine not understand?" Although immigration was only one issue in the campaign, Mr. Kaine won with 52% of the vote.
Likewise, in December, in a special House election in California's Orange County -- where illegal immigration is a flashpoint -- Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, a volunteer border-patrol group, won just 25% of the vote.
Mr. Ellis of Americans for Tax Reform also points to seven 2004 Republican primaries where immigration-restriction candidates never won more than 46% of the vote. Among those beating back challenges: Arizona Congressmen James Kolbe and Jeff Flake, who are sponsors of a House bill that would let illegal immigrants earn legal residency in the U.S.
Candidates who want to restrict immigration seem not to fare well because very few people worry enough about immigration to vote on it -- even though many of them tell pollsters they're worried. In the Wall Street Journal-NBC poll, 78% of those questioned favored "tightening" the border with Mexico -- but only 7% said illegal immigration was their biggest national concern.
Immigration is "a loud debate that produces few voters," says Frank Sharry, director of the National Immigration Forum, a Washington immigrants-rights group.
But that doesn't mean immigration won't be talked about this campaign season. Most prominently among 2006 candidates, Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican, is toying with a symbolic run for the White House. Among other things, Mr. Tancredo wants to deport the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants now in the U.S. and deny citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.
Immigration restrictionists also have announced runs for governor in Colorado, for the U.S. Senate from California and for a smattering of House seats. San Diego's Mr. Bilbray is running in an April primary to succeed former Rep. Randall "Duke" Cunningham while also pursuing a class-action lawsuit that would prevent California public colleges from offering in-state tuition to illegal aliens.
Some state legislatures are considering extending in-state tuition, health benefits and driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, even while others want to ban such benefits. In Ohio, a statehouse Republican has said he is considering an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to exclude illegal immigrants from the census counts that are used to apportion Congressional seats.
Bills in New Hampshire and North Carolina would require local policemen to enforce federal immigration laws, and one in Virginia would require proof of legal residency to obtain a marriage license.
With Republicans largely leading the anti-immigration charge, the issue is causing heartburn for the national party, which was hoping that its generally pro-immigration stand would help it pick up Hispanic voters. Twelve years ago, California's Republican Gov. Pete Wilson won re-election in part by campaigning for a ballot measure that would deny benefits to illegal aliens -- a rare instance where an anti-immigration stand won the day.
But a decade passed before Republicans won the governor's office again, and they still haven't won back Hispanic voters. "It was a metaphor for short-term gain, long-term loss," says the National Immigration Forum's Mr. Sharry.
Republican pollster Ed Goeas says he urges his clients to talk about solutions to illegal immigration instead of focusing on emotion-charged issues like immigrant job centers if they want to win. His firm, the Tarrance Group, does polling for several immigration-restriction candidates, including Mr. Tancredo, he says.
But in anticipation of the 2006 elections, he's also running voter focus groups to help candidates handle such volatile issues as amnesty for illegal immigrants and whether to allow guest workers to eventually stay in the U.S. After voters let off steam, he says, focus groups show that immigration "becomes a very reasoned conversation very quickly."
Write to June Kronholz at june.kronholz@wsj.com
Source : Wall Street Journal : 02/01/2006
Can you post the article here? I'm not able to get to it.
Admin,
Here you go ::p
President Takes Dual Tack on Immigration
White House Seeks Tougher Enforcement,
While Pushing Idea of Guest-Worker Program
By JUNE KRONHOLZ
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
February 2, 2006; Page A8
WASHINGTON -- President bush drew big applause during his State of the Union address with a renewed call for "a rational, humane guest-worker program" to keep the economy humming.
But that appeal came only after Mr. Bush issued a much sterner one first -- for tougher enforcement of immigration laws, more vigilance on the border and an immigration policy that "reflects our values."
The message Mr. Bush delivered to lawmakers is the same one an increasingly vocal anti-immigration chorus is sending to him: First get tough; then we'll talk.
Mr. Bush was cheered by an unlikely alliance of pro-business Republicans, Democrats, unions and immigrant groups when he called for a guest-worker program in his State of the Union address two years ago. But the idea has hit a wall of opposition from the party's cultural conservatives and security hawks who first want to stop the flood of illegal immigrants into the U.S. (See related article.)
In December, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would, among other things, extend a short wall on the border with Mexico to 700 miles. The Senate, which had planned to overhaul immigration laws when it takes up its own bill in a few weeks, now also is under pressure from some Republicans to toughen border controls first.
As immigration soars to an all-time high, that get-tough argument is gaining political steam. With the 2006 elections still 10 months away, a half-dozen candidates are running for national office on pledges to stop illegal immigration. Bills on the issue, many denying benefits to illegal immigrants, have been introduced in 31 state legislatures.
STATE OF THE UNION REVIEW
• Can President's Plan Keep America Competitive?
• Bush's Energy Plan Faces Hurdles
• Industry Cheers Cleaner-Coal Push
• Full Text: Read the complete prepared text of the address.
• Question of the Day: Which topic should the Bush administration make its top priority this year?
And polls show mounting voter unease about immigration: A December 2005 Wall Street Journal-NBC poll found that 57% of those questioned think the U.S. is "too open to immigrants."
"It's astonishing how much this has become an issue across the country," says Brian Bilbray, a San Diego Republican who hopes to return to the U.S. House of Representatives this year after spending the past six years as a lobbyist for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which wants to restrict immigration.
But for all the emotion immigration is stirring up, political operatives in both parties warn that it isn't an issue that rallies voters. "Will this impact your electoral ambitions?" asks Ryan Ellis of the conservative group Americans for Tax Reform, who has studied the role immigration played in recent elections. "All history has indicated 'no,' whether you're in Arizona or Maine," he answers.
It didn't prove a successful strategy for the Virginia governor's race in November. Republican Jerry Kilgore seized late in the campaign on the issue of taxpayer-funded job centers for illegal immigrants, and in a stinging television ad asked of his Democratic opponent, "What part of illegal does Tim Kaine not understand?" Although immigration was only one issue in the campaign, Mr. Kaine won with 52% of the vote.
Likewise, in December, in a special House election in California's Orange County -- where illegal immigration is a flashpoint -- Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, a volunteer border-patrol group, won just 25% of the vote.
Mr. Ellis of Americans for Tax Reform also points to seven 2004 Republican primaries where immigration-restriction candidates never won more than 46% of the vote. Among those beating back challenges: Arizona Congressmen James Kolbe and Jeff Flake, who are sponsors of a House bill that would let illegal immigrants earn legal residency in the U.S.
Candidates who want to restrict immigration seem not to fare well because very few people worry enough about immigration to vote on it -- even though many of them tell pollsters they're worried. In the Wall Street Journal-NBC poll, 78% of those questioned favored "tightening" the border with Mexico -- but only 7% said illegal immigration was their biggest national concern.
Immigration is "a loud debate that produces few voters," says Frank Sharry, director of the National Immigration Forum, a Washington immigrants-rights group.
But that doesn't mean immigration won't be talked about this campaign season. Most prominently among 2006 candidates, Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican, is toying with a symbolic run for the White House. Among other things, Mr. Tancredo wants to deport the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants now in the U.S. and deny citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.
Immigration restrictionists also have announced runs for governor in Colorado, for the U.S. Senate from California and for a smattering of House seats. San Diego's Mr. Bilbray is running in an April primary to succeed former Rep. Randall "Duke" Cunningham while also pursuing a class-action lawsuit that would prevent California public colleges from offering in-state tuition to illegal aliens.
Some state legislatures are considering extending in-state tuition, health benefits and driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, even while others want to ban such benefits. In Ohio, a statehouse Republican has said he is considering an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to exclude illegal immigrants from the census counts that are used to apportion Congressional seats.
Bills in New Hampshire and North Carolina would require local policemen to enforce federal immigration laws, and one in Virginia would require proof of legal residency to obtain a marriage license.
With Republicans largely leading the anti-immigration charge, the issue is causing heartburn for the national party, which was hoping that its generally pro-immigration stand would help it pick up Hispanic voters. Twelve years ago, California's Republican Gov. Pete Wilson won re-election in part by campaigning for a ballot measure that would deny benefits to illegal aliens -- a rare instance where an anti-immigration stand won the day.
But a decade passed before Republicans won the governor's office again, and they still haven't won back Hispanic voters. "It was a metaphor for short-term gain, long-term loss," says the National Immigration Forum's Mr. Sharry.
Republican pollster Ed Goeas says he urges his clients to talk about solutions to illegal immigration instead of focusing on emotion-charged issues like immigrant job centers if they want to win. His firm, the Tarrance Group, does polling for several immigration-restriction candidates, including Mr. Tancredo, he says.
But in anticipation of the 2006 elections, he's also running voter focus groups to help candidates handle such volatile issues as amnesty for illegal immigrants and whether to allow guest workers to eventually stay in the U.S. After voters let off steam, he says, focus groups show that immigration "becomes a very reasoned conversation very quickly."
Write to June Kronholz at june.kronholz@wsj.com
Source : Wall Street Journal : 02/01/2006
more...
ashkam
11-24 10:09 AM
When you buy a home you sign a contract saying you will pay the loan amount at the end of the loan term with interest. There was a commitment made. And you are saying people who walk away without fulfilling their obligation are smart? Fool!
And who do you think is footing the bill for bailing out those banks? its you and me! You are not only dishonest and unethical, you must be really dumb if you think you are not going to be paying for the mistakes of people like punjabi when they "walk away" from their homes. Idiot!
This reminds me of the following exchange from Seinfeld :
Jerry : So were going to make the Post Office pay for my new stereo ?
Kramer : It's just a write off for them .
Jerry : How is it a write off ?
Kramer : They just write it off .
Jerry : Write it off what ?
Kramer : Jerry all these big companies they write off everything
Jerry : You don't even know what a write off is .
Kramer : Do you ?
Jerry : No . I don't .
Kramer : But they do and they are the ones writing it off .
Jerry : I wish I just had the last twenty seconds of my life back . But seriously, Punjabi, screwing up your credit history for 20,000 dollars is not a very smart move, especially if you're planning on living here for the rest of your life. Not sure if it will affect your job prospects in the future but what I AM sure of is everything else will be affected, even everyday things like getting car insurance. If you want to switch to a different insurer, your premium will increase if you have bad credit history. As someone else said, you need to really think this through because it will be a life-changing decision for you. People who are telling you to go ahead and do it just because it is legal are not giving you good advice. And people who are advising you to go ahead and do it and get a couple more credit cards and a new car while you are at it, well, these people really have no business giving anyone any advice about anything.
And who do you think is footing the bill for bailing out those banks? its you and me! You are not only dishonest and unethical, you must be really dumb if you think you are not going to be paying for the mistakes of people like punjabi when they "walk away" from their homes. Idiot!
This reminds me of the following exchange from Seinfeld :
Jerry : So were going to make the Post Office pay for my new stereo ?
Kramer : It's just a write off for them .
Jerry : How is it a write off ?
Kramer : They just write it off .
Jerry : Write it off what ?
Kramer : Jerry all these big companies they write off everything
Jerry : You don't even know what a write off is .
Kramer : Do you ?
Jerry : No . I don't .
Kramer : But they do and they are the ones writing it off .
Jerry : I wish I just had the last twenty seconds of my life back . But seriously, Punjabi, screwing up your credit history for 20,000 dollars is not a very smart move, especially if you're planning on living here for the rest of your life. Not sure if it will affect your job prospects in the future but what I AM sure of is everything else will be affected, even everyday things like getting car insurance. If you want to switch to a different insurer, your premium will increase if you have bad credit history. As someone else said, you need to really think this through because it will be a life-changing decision for you. People who are telling you to go ahead and do it just because it is legal are not giving you good advice. And people who are advising you to go ahead and do it and get a couple more credit cards and a new car while you are at it, well, these people really have no business giving anyone any advice about anything.
hair images Emma Watson | Vogue US
vbkris77
09-23 07:32 PM
knacath, I am hoping that EB2 will be current this year and EB3 begins to get spillover though very little this year.
Some more specifics
Annual Quota ------------------------------------------------------------------------> 140,000
Pending EB1, EB4, EB5----------------------------------------------------------------> 7,653
Estimate of all categories current applied this year and approved this year -----> 10,000
Remaining visas -----------------------------------------------------------------------> 122,347
All pending EB2s (includes retrogressed) -------------------------------------------> 74932
Remaining visas available to EB3(includes retrogressed) --------------------------> 47415
The only flaw in above is ignoring CP and assuming all 140K Quota to AOS. The majority of EB1, EB2 and EB3 are AOS. So I am safely ignoring CP. Even if CP is 15% of annual quota as some one put it, EB3 gets its allocated 40K quota and around 65K pending EB2s get out of queue.
I agree that it should be current. But knowing CIS ability to process, Shouldn't we ask DoS to move date of EB2 and make them current. So that the CIS will not waste them. They wasted earlier, So they can do it again.
It takes an year if not 2 for them to clear the new I485s. I don't anticipate many. But there will be some..
Some more specifics
Annual Quota ------------------------------------------------------------------------> 140,000
Pending EB1, EB4, EB5----------------------------------------------------------------> 7,653
Estimate of all categories current applied this year and approved this year -----> 10,000
Remaining visas -----------------------------------------------------------------------> 122,347
All pending EB2s (includes retrogressed) -------------------------------------------> 74932
Remaining visas available to EB3(includes retrogressed) --------------------------> 47415
The only flaw in above is ignoring CP and assuming all 140K Quota to AOS. The majority of EB1, EB2 and EB3 are AOS. So I am safely ignoring CP. Even if CP is 15% of annual quota as some one put it, EB3 gets its allocated 40K quota and around 65K pending EB2s get out of queue.
I agree that it should be current. But knowing CIS ability to process, Shouldn't we ask DoS to move date of EB2 and make them current. So that the CIS will not waste them. They wasted earlier, So they can do it again.
It takes an year if not 2 for them to clear the new I485s. I don't anticipate many. But there will be some..
more...
GCisLottery
01-24 01:21 PM
Fortunately I didn't have to go through all your pain before deciding never to fly via London.
The worst airport, dumb and pointless procedures (before the "invention" of transit Visa) were enough for me to decide. I can't even imagine filling out a form and pay to pass through that horrible airport.
I pity those who travel with kids. Those kids may never want to fly again.
Good luck on getting the money back.
The worst airport, dumb and pointless procedures (before the "invention" of transit Visa) were enough for me to decide. I can't even imagine filling out a form and pay to pass through that horrible airport.
I pity those who travel with kids. Those kids may never want to fly again.
Good luck on getting the money back.
hot emma watson vogue us july 2011
Alabaman
04-24 05:10 PM
"Provide safeguards for visa holders so they know their rights under the law. This would include wage rates and access to benefits."
What benefits are they talking about here?? As far as I am concerned, H1B visa holders have to no benefits... we pay SS taxes, federal taxes, Medicaid, state etc. As soon as we loose our jobs we are told we have a couple of days to leave the country - even when we have been here for years. What an inhumane way to treat a tax payer.
What benefits are they talking about here?? As far as I am concerned, H1B visa holders have to no benefits... we pay SS taxes, federal taxes, Medicaid, state etc. As soon as we loose our jobs we are told we have a couple of days to leave the country - even when we have been here for years. What an inhumane way to treat a tax payer.
more...
house dresses emma watson vogue us july. emma watson vogue us july.
sina
06-21 09:32 AM
I have the exact same questions. Could some one please answer these.
Questions:
1. On application form I-765, Question No 11.Have you ever file for EAD?
I have mentioned it as "Yes" (I have applied for my OPT)
2. On application form I-765, Question No 11. Date(s)? Which dates to be used, please specify ?
(EAD notice)
3. On application form I-485, page2, part 3, What is Nonimmigrant visa number? Is it the RED number (8 digit) on visa or the control number(14 digit)
4. On application form G-325A, Biographical information. Applicatan's residence last five years. List present address first. I have specified address for three years and six lines are filled and I could not show the last five years, so how should I show last five years of my residence on the form (should I attach a paper with the remaining address, please specify)
5. On application form G-325A, Biographical information. Applicant: Be sure to put your name and Alien Registration Number in the box outlined by heavy border below.
Should I write in English or in my native language and what should I write for Alien Registration Number.
Any suggestions and inputs on the above questions should help.
Thanks
Questions:
1. On application form I-765, Question No 11.Have you ever file for EAD?
I have mentioned it as "Yes" (I have applied for my OPT)
2. On application form I-765, Question No 11. Date(s)? Which dates to be used, please specify ?
(EAD notice)
3. On application form I-485, page2, part 3, What is Nonimmigrant visa number? Is it the RED number (8 digit) on visa or the control number(14 digit)
4. On application form G-325A, Biographical information. Applicatan's residence last five years. List present address first. I have specified address for three years and six lines are filled and I could not show the last five years, so how should I show last five years of my residence on the form (should I attach a paper with the remaining address, please specify)
5. On application form G-325A, Biographical information. Applicant: Be sure to put your name and Alien Registration Number in the box outlined by heavy border below.
Should I write in English or in my native language and what should I write for Alien Registration Number.
Any suggestions and inputs on the above questions should help.
Thanks
tattoo Emma Watson Vogue Cover
gc_vbin
04-01 12:48 PM
I too had similar thoughts.. why would CIS/DOS stop keeping buffers? Is there any particular reason? Once they complete all 7/2007 applications I think it makes sense to move the date for a few months so they can accept applications. Also, remember there will be new monthly quota getting allocated to all categories. So to use those numbers should they not be progressing dates?
Rodnyb,
The below number is depressing, however dont you think DOS/USCIS always believe in keeping buffer and they may push the dates somewhere into 2009 just to accept 485 filings?
Why do think they will stop keeping any buffer?
[QUOTE=rodnyb;2494192]Teddy, I agree some of your data. Mine would be (90% confidence level)
0 pass 09/31/2007
Rodnyb,
The below number is depressing, however dont you think DOS/USCIS always believe in keeping buffer and they may push the dates somewhere into 2009 just to accept 485 filings?
Why do think they will stop keeping any buffer?
[QUOTE=rodnyb;2494192]Teddy, I agree some of your data. Mine would be (90% confidence level)
0 pass 09/31/2007
more...
pictures hot images Emma Watson | Vogue US emma watson vogue us july. emma watson
WaldenPond
02-22 08:16 PM
JUDICIARY
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
CongressDailyPM
Specter And Frist Eyeing Each Other's Immigration Efforts
Signaling that the immigration issue faces a tough fight, the Senate Judiciary Committee is planning to produce a wide-ranging bill, while Senate leaders are poised to write their own legislation. A senior GOP leadership aide said Majority Leader Frist is operating on "two tracks" on immigration, waiting to see what the Judiciary panel produces "while being ready to act in lieu thereof to meet member interest of action on this bill."Judiciary Chairman Specter sounded confident that his panel would produce a bill that would wind up on the Senate floor. "The idea of having a leadership bill ... has been abandoned," he said last week. His panel will begin marking up immigration legislation March 2. A chairman's mark expected to be introduced this week will resemble the mark Specter circulated last year, which borrows components from various immigration proposals. It included the border security provisions in the plan introduced by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., as well as the guestworker plan introduced by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
Specter has characterized the mark as a "starting point" for debate.
Frist has told colleagues he wants to begin floor debate in late March, likely March 27. Senate aides said whether the bill will be written by the committee or leadership depends on how the Judiciary Committee markup goes. "If the committee keeps the bill solid, and if it gets it done on time, Frist won't need to introduce anything," one GOP aide said.
Frist, while touring immigration detention centers Tuesday in Long Beach and Los Angeles, said he opposes giving illegal workers amnesty, but said it was too soon for him to take a position on a guestworker program, which is likely to be the most contentious component of an immigration bill and has divided Republicans. The House passed legislation last year toughening border security and requiring companies to verify the legal status of their employees. Unlike the House bill, the Senate bill is widely expected to include some version of a guestworker program. The program included in the Kennedy-McCain bill would allow illegal workers to join a temporary guestworker program, after which they could be eligible for permanent citizenship if they meet criteria and pay a fine. Under the Cornyn-Kyl plan, guestworkers ultimately would have to return to their home countries.-- by Emily Heil
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
CongressDailyPM
Specter And Frist Eyeing Each Other's Immigration Efforts
Signaling that the immigration issue faces a tough fight, the Senate Judiciary Committee is planning to produce a wide-ranging bill, while Senate leaders are poised to write their own legislation. A senior GOP leadership aide said Majority Leader Frist is operating on "two tracks" on immigration, waiting to see what the Judiciary panel produces "while being ready to act in lieu thereof to meet member interest of action on this bill."Judiciary Chairman Specter sounded confident that his panel would produce a bill that would wind up on the Senate floor. "The idea of having a leadership bill ... has been abandoned," he said last week. His panel will begin marking up immigration legislation March 2. A chairman's mark expected to be introduced this week will resemble the mark Specter circulated last year, which borrows components from various immigration proposals. It included the border security provisions in the plan introduced by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., as well as the guestworker plan introduced by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
Specter has characterized the mark as a "starting point" for debate.
Frist has told colleagues he wants to begin floor debate in late March, likely March 27. Senate aides said whether the bill will be written by the committee or leadership depends on how the Judiciary Committee markup goes. "If the committee keeps the bill solid, and if it gets it done on time, Frist won't need to introduce anything," one GOP aide said.
Frist, while touring immigration detention centers Tuesday in Long Beach and Los Angeles, said he opposes giving illegal workers amnesty, but said it was too soon for him to take a position on a guestworker program, which is likely to be the most contentious component of an immigration bill and has divided Republicans. The House passed legislation last year toughening border security and requiring companies to verify the legal status of their employees. Unlike the House bill, the Senate bill is widely expected to include some version of a guestworker program. The program included in the Kennedy-McCain bill would allow illegal workers to join a temporary guestworker program, after which they could be eligible for permanent citizenship if they meet criteria and pay a fine. Under the Cornyn-Kyl plan, guestworkers ultimately would have to return to their home countries.-- by Emily Heil
dresses 2011 Emma Watson for Vogue US July emma watson vogue us july 2011.
InTheMoment
05-26 07:19 PM
First of all when it is visa information it is just that!
Please see answers below
Hi Friends,
I am in the process of filling I-485 form and got the following question, can you please help?
My stamped visa expired 1 year back and I am currently with H1B approval notice. In the 2nd page of I-485 form, under Part 3. Processing Information, I am wondering what I need to fill for the following columns.
1. Nonimmigrant visa number: Is this the EAC number of my current I797 or the visa number from my expired visa?. If it is from the expired visa, there are multiple numbers in the visa stamp, which one is the visa number?
------> The figures in red, not the control number on your
visa stamp.
2.Consulate where visa was issued: Is it the name of the consulate issued my last visa or Department?
------> If it was issued at a consulate state that, if
department mention department.
3.Date visa isssued: Is this is the date of last visa issued or the approval date of my current I797
-----> Again the one on your visa stamp.
Thanks advance for all your valuable suggestions.
Please see answers below
Hi Friends,
I am in the process of filling I-485 form and got the following question, can you please help?
My stamped visa expired 1 year back and I am currently with H1B approval notice. In the 2nd page of I-485 form, under Part 3. Processing Information, I am wondering what I need to fill for the following columns.
1. Nonimmigrant visa number: Is this the EAC number of my current I797 or the visa number from my expired visa?. If it is from the expired visa, there are multiple numbers in the visa stamp, which one is the visa number?
------> The figures in red, not the control number on your
visa stamp.
2.Consulate where visa was issued: Is it the name of the consulate issued my last visa or Department?
------> If it was issued at a consulate state that, if
department mention department.
3.Date visa isssued: Is this is the date of last visa issued or the approval date of my current I797
-----> Again the one on your visa stamp.
Thanks advance for all your valuable suggestions.
more...
makeup emma watson vogue 2010.
SunnySurya
08-07 11:28 AM
Don't know if it is going to be that fast, I need aroung 50 victims. But we are getting there.
I challange you to file this lawsuit in the month of august.
Let us see if you really are a man of word and action.
I challange you to file this lawsuit in the month of august.
Let us see if you really are a man of word and action.
girlfriend Magazine: US Vogue Issue: July
saatiish
09-28 12:17 PM
I have taken an infopass tomorrow to get the I-551 stamp on my passport. Once that is done I will be mailing out the form I-90 for replacement.
What is this I-551 stamp ? Is stamping that mandatory ? What kind of documents do you need while you go for this stamping ?
If one does not plan on travelling until we receive the physical Green Card - would we still have to do this stamping ?
What is this I-551 stamp ? Is stamping that mandatory ? What kind of documents do you need while you go for this stamping ?
If one does not plan on travelling until we receive the physical Green Card - would we still have to do this stamping ?
hairstyles emma watson vogue us july.
srikondoji
06-29 04:54 PM
Let us call rumors as pure rumors, even if they are from individuals here on IV or from aila until the official agency release their report.
Let us step back a bit and analyse it with just common sense.
USCIS and whatever that other agency is, is not a fool to release a july bulletin and make everybody current. If they have made all categories current in the hope that they want to utilize all visa numbers then this is the height of stupidity. If that was their intent, they could have moved dates 2-3 months each month starting july till September.
They should have prepared themselves for the flood of applications starting july 1st, and that is the reason for suspending the premium processing.
Make PD's current and then goingback in just couple of weeks doesn't make sense at all.
If someone has done this in haste then i doubt the overal integrity of this organization and its continuity.
When i started the rumor of possible mid july retrogression, then that was based on the flood of applications that would go by july 2nd week. I am surprised that people are now talking monday or tuesday retrogression and a possible fresh bulleting from USCIS.
Who would know the fresh july bulletin updates from USCIS other than USCIS and why would they leak that information before hand?
Why should we beleive aila?
Do an independent and individual assesment of this issue and go have a beer for the weekend.
Let us step back a bit and analyse it with just common sense.
USCIS and whatever that other agency is, is not a fool to release a july bulletin and make everybody current. If they have made all categories current in the hope that they want to utilize all visa numbers then this is the height of stupidity. If that was their intent, they could have moved dates 2-3 months each month starting july till September.
They should have prepared themselves for the flood of applications starting july 1st, and that is the reason for suspending the premium processing.
Make PD's current and then goingback in just couple of weeks doesn't make sense at all.
If someone has done this in haste then i doubt the overal integrity of this organization and its continuity.
When i started the rumor of possible mid july retrogression, then that was based on the flood of applications that would go by july 2nd week. I am surprised that people are now talking monday or tuesday retrogression and a possible fresh bulleting from USCIS.
Who would know the fresh july bulletin updates from USCIS other than USCIS and why would they leak that information before hand?
Why should we beleive aila?
Do an independent and individual assesment of this issue and go have a beer for the weekend.
nk2006
01-15 11:13 AM
Hi RajuSeattle--
You nailed it man. As i said in my post yesterday what you described so well is exactly what happened and so my explanation of just 140 substitution was not accurate.
Please note the response I got from the attorney of my previous employer (the one who revoked)
This is exactly what I previously explained and what XX verified for you. The I-140 was revoked/withdrawn and the labor certification was substituted. If only the I-140 had been revoked/withdrawn then you would still be portable. However, as XX confirmed, the company used the case to substitute another employee.
Clearly the ex-employer and USCIS are at fault. I have the approved I140 and to date on my uscis portfolio it states that my I140 was approved in Feb 2005. I changed jobs in June 2006.
I am so &^^%$#@ tired, that if this does not work....I am going back. Enough is enough.
Mohican,
Your frustration is understandable but talk to a good lawyer and open an MTR immediately. From your description yours is a good example of how USCIS is confused about AC21 cases - work with your lawyer on MTR it seems MTR's are successful in most cases. Also please take time and contact Ombudsman to file DHS Form 7001 as suggested at: http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1221837986181.shtm.
(look back in this thread a few other members had similar issue - I485 denial upon withdrawal of I140 by previous employer - contact them directly to get specific lawyer info).
You nailed it man. As i said in my post yesterday what you described so well is exactly what happened and so my explanation of just 140 substitution was not accurate.
Please note the response I got from the attorney of my previous employer (the one who revoked)
This is exactly what I previously explained and what XX verified for you. The I-140 was revoked/withdrawn and the labor certification was substituted. If only the I-140 had been revoked/withdrawn then you would still be portable. However, as XX confirmed, the company used the case to substitute another employee.
Clearly the ex-employer and USCIS are at fault. I have the approved I140 and to date on my uscis portfolio it states that my I140 was approved in Feb 2005. I changed jobs in June 2006.
I am so &^^%$#@ tired, that if this does not work....I am going back. Enough is enough.
Mohican,
Your frustration is understandable but talk to a good lawyer and open an MTR immediately. From your description yours is a good example of how USCIS is confused about AC21 cases - work with your lawyer on MTR it seems MTR's are successful in most cases. Also please take time and contact Ombudsman to file DHS Form 7001 as suggested at: http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1221837986181.shtm.
(look back in this thread a few other members had similar issue - I485 denial upon withdrawal of I140 by previous employer - contact them directly to get specific lawyer info).
greencardvow
07-31 04:50 PM
Well suppose they reject your 485 for lack of Initial Evidence then you are in some trouble. The people who applied prior to new Memo was passed had there applications receipted even without EVL. What will happen after the Memo is passed ...can't say. I think EVL is considered Initial Evidence. Thats my guess.
If that's true, I hope they also accept the missing inital evidence, that is sent later, as long as the A# is provided.
If that's true, I hope they also accept the missing inital evidence, that is sent later, as long as the A# is provided.
0 comments:
Post a Comment