ravi.shah
08-24 09:37 AM
No point in bashing each other guys....
Its not like, USCIS is reading these forums and are going to do something about it.
Just take it easy....
Its not like, USCIS is reading these forums and are going to do something about it.
Just take it easy....
GoGreen
08-11 10:13 AM
How many of us contribute to IV in terms of time, $ etc.
and how many are some free riders?
and how many are some free riders?
jaihind
07-18 01:05 PM
I just upgraded my monthly from 20 to 50 and also convinced 5 more aspirants to join and contribut 20 or 50 per month.
Let us all join hands and show our strength !!!
Let us all join hands and show our strength !!!
DSJ
07-06 01:08 PM
According to the State Department, from October 1, 2006 through May 30, 2007, the USCIS requested and was authorized the total EB visa numbers of 66,426. Between June 1 and the first few days of July (?), the USCIS requested and was authorized over 60,000 EB visa numbers, in approximately one month. Since it has been made clear by the USCIS that during the last weekend of June (2 days) the USCIS approved 25,000 EB 485 applications, apparently over 40,000 visa numbers were requested and authorized before the weekend. Obviously the 60,000 plus cases must thus have been approved (?) in one month
Source: http://www.immigration-law.com/
Source: http://www.immigration-law.com/
more...
gccube
07-19 03:29 PM
You forgot that there were another 150,000 applications in this example with RD prior to PersonB and it is very likely that many of them could have the PD of April, 2003. Therefore, PersonB will still not get it even though he/she has an older Priority date!!
I think that after this stampede of application filings in June/July/August, USCIS needs to sort them by PD first otherwise people with older priority dates will suffer simply due to the volume of applications filed!!
If a person with PD 2003 May applies for AOS only in Oct 2007. If the above said statement is true then when are they going to work on this new application they got. If they are not going to work on it until the RD becomes current why are they even accepting the case.
I think that after this stampede of application filings in June/July/August, USCIS needs to sort them by PD first otherwise people with older priority dates will suffer simply due to the volume of applications filed!!
If a person with PD 2003 May applies for AOS only in Oct 2007. If the above said statement is true then when are they going to work on this new application they got. If they are not going to work on it until the RD becomes current why are they even accepting the case.
senthil1
07-06 01:34 PM
If they would not have approved 25k cases in 2 days still they could change the cut off date instead of making unavailable. In any case accepting 500k to 700k applications when Visa number not available might create more problems for USCIS than current mess. I think USCIS well aware of potential lawsuit as they got opposition for similar thing for EB3 other workers in June. There is no strong motive for Scandals as no one gets Finanicial benefit in USCIS or DOS. It needs to be seen how Courts will handle Adminstrative mess up. It is highly unlikely for courts to order USCIS to accept I485 even if they find violation of law. But if court considers the lawsuit it will be used to fix some of the issues in VB regulations
07/07/2007: State Department Record of EB Visa Number Authorization Involving Current Fiasco
According to the State Department, from October 1, 2006 through May 30, 2007, the USCIS requested and was authorized the total EB visa numbers of 66,426. Between June 1 and the first few days of July (?), the USCIS requested and was authorized over 60,000 EB visa numbers, in approximately one month. Since it has been made clear by the USCIS that during the last weekend of June 30 and July 1 (2 days) the USCIS approved 25,000 EB 485 applications, apparently over 40,000 visa numbers were requested and authorized before the weekend. Obviously the 60,000 plus cases must thus have been approved (?) in one month. Unconformed sources indicate that they processed and approved (?) a substantial number of application on Sunday, July 1, exhausting the EB numbers by July 1 and making the EB number unavailable not from July 1 but from July 2, 2007. It is interesting that even before the legal team initiate any discovery, the truth starts coming out of the cabinet a bit by bit.
07/07/2007: State Department Record of EB Visa Number Authorization Involving Current Fiasco
According to the State Department, from October 1, 2006 through May 30, 2007, the USCIS requested and was authorized the total EB visa numbers of 66,426. Between June 1 and the first few days of July (?), the USCIS requested and was authorized over 60,000 EB visa numbers, in approximately one month. Since it has been made clear by the USCIS that during the last weekend of June 30 and July 1 (2 days) the USCIS approved 25,000 EB 485 applications, apparently over 40,000 visa numbers were requested and authorized before the weekend. Obviously the 60,000 plus cases must thus have been approved (?) in one month. Unconformed sources indicate that they processed and approved (?) a substantial number of application on Sunday, July 1, exhausting the EB numbers by July 1 and making the EB number unavailable not from July 1 but from July 2, 2007. It is interesting that even before the legal team initiate any discovery, the truth starts coming out of the cabinet a bit by bit.
more...
belmontboy
09-01 07:03 PM
----
Mind what you say in an open forum.
These type of information can fuel anti's cause.
Job requirements "exist" in the company.
They are not created by employers or lawyers for the sake of GC.
Mind what you say in an open forum.
These type of information can fuel anti's cause.
Job requirements "exist" in the company.
They are not created by employers or lawyers for the sake of GC.
Napoleon
03-10 09:38 PM
Question #3 and #4 should conclude this discussion.
Also how do you define an established company.
If I stay employed for 2-3 yrs on my spouse's LLC and bring 200K each year, is that established?
From the above paragraph (quoted on Murthy site), it seems that it would be very much possible to just get self-employed (of course job description should be same and legal).
But here are the Questions:
1). How will USCIS be convinced that the original job offer was really the intended employment at the time the I-140 and I-485 were filed??
2). How do you prove to USCIS that the original job offer was something that you intended to take on getting your GC?
From the below excerpt (same Murthy site and part of above doc)
Ability of New Sponsor to Pay
m
The Memo clarifies that there should not be requests for "ability to pay" proof from the new sponsor as part of the I-140 approval process. However, the Memo does state that it would be appropriate to check the legitimacy of the new employer and the job offer in connection with the I-485 approval. So, the new employer may have to show financial viability and prove that there is a valid job offer in order for the foreign national employee and any family members to obtain the I-485 approval.
Questions:
3).Doesn�t the above mean that USCIS will still check to see if your (lets say) spouse�s company or start-up company has the ability to pay you?
4). So, even though USCIS is saying �Yes� to self employment, will they (excerpt from mandersons musings)
�..ask for 2 yrs of tax filings of future employer to prove that it's an established company (although they are not supposed to bring up 'ability to pay' issue which is already covered in approved 140 -- but being USCIS anything goes...)???
Also how do you define an established company.
If I stay employed for 2-3 yrs on my spouse's LLC and bring 200K each year, is that established?
From the above paragraph (quoted on Murthy site), it seems that it would be very much possible to just get self-employed (of course job description should be same and legal).
But here are the Questions:
1). How will USCIS be convinced that the original job offer was really the intended employment at the time the I-140 and I-485 were filed??
2). How do you prove to USCIS that the original job offer was something that you intended to take on getting your GC?
From the below excerpt (same Murthy site and part of above doc)
Ability of New Sponsor to Pay
m
The Memo clarifies that there should not be requests for "ability to pay" proof from the new sponsor as part of the I-140 approval process. However, the Memo does state that it would be appropriate to check the legitimacy of the new employer and the job offer in connection with the I-485 approval. So, the new employer may have to show financial viability and prove that there is a valid job offer in order for the foreign national employee and any family members to obtain the I-485 approval.
Questions:
3).Doesn�t the above mean that USCIS will still check to see if your (lets say) spouse�s company or start-up company has the ability to pay you?
4). So, even though USCIS is saying �Yes� to self employment, will they (excerpt from mandersons musings)
�..ask for 2 yrs of tax filings of future employer to prove that it's an established company (although they are not supposed to bring up 'ability to pay' issue which is already covered in approved 140 -- but being USCIS anything goes...)???
more...
missourian
06-02 07:37 PM
Guys I am a new member of IV , joined two weeks back, just made a one time contribution, Please follow the fund drive thread and contribute and ask new members to join IV.
gsc999
07-19 06:30 AM
A small contribution for the future goals....$500 today and more to come....
Thank you IV for your time, effort and support through the emotional roller coaster.
Shatabdi & Amit: Great! Thank you for your large donations of $500 each.
Thank you IV for your time, effort and support through the emotional roller coaster.
Shatabdi & Amit: Great! Thank you for your large donations of $500 each.
more...
nogc_noproblem
07-11 01:30 PM
In order to avoid visa wastage, there is no ‘per country limit’ during the last quarter, that could be the main reason for this quantum leap in EB2-I PD movement.
Looks like DOS was not clear about the number of pending cases until a month ago and that’s why this movement was not happened last month - July, which was the first month in last quarter.
There could be two reasons for this huge forward movement for EB2.
1) They want to minimize wastage by making more visas available for CP.
2) There was some heartburn among EB2 China applicants when their PD was set to April 2004. Since there are a lot more EB2 India applicants with PD's earlier than that, they felt that most of the EB2-ROW spillover would go to India. Moving the dates forward to 2006 would ensure that EB2 China gets a decent share of the spillover.
Although this is unfair to folks with earlier PD's and is sure to cause a lot of heartburn, I would rather see the visas get used than get wasted again. Looks like the USCIS is setting a pattern of giving a year end bonanza to a few fortunate folks. Let the annual sweepstakes begin! Good luck everyone!!
Looks like DOS was not clear about the number of pending cases until a month ago and that’s why this movement was not happened last month - July, which was the first month in last quarter.
There could be two reasons for this huge forward movement for EB2.
1) They want to minimize wastage by making more visas available for CP.
2) There was some heartburn among EB2 China applicants when their PD was set to April 2004. Since there are a lot more EB2 India applicants with PD's earlier than that, they felt that most of the EB2-ROW spillover would go to India. Moving the dates forward to 2006 would ensure that EB2 China gets a decent share of the spillover.
Although this is unfair to folks with earlier PD's and is sure to cause a lot of heartburn, I would rather see the visas get used than get wasted again. Looks like the USCIS is setting a pattern of giving a year end bonanza to a few fortunate folks. Let the annual sweepstakes begin! Good luck everyone!!
tushbush
03-05 04:01 PM
same here my friend.
ditto
ditto
more...
Milind123
09-12 10:03 PM
Looks like you will soon cross My 350 Contribution ;)
I pledge 100$ more once Milind123 crosses 400 !!:D
Any Takers !!!
thats the Least we non attending :( :(
folks can do
Can you please make that "equals" from "crosses". :D (I am sorry written too much code in my life)
I pledge 100$ more once Milind123 crosses 400 !!:D
Any Takers !!!
thats the Least we non attending :( :(
folks can do
Can you please make that "equals" from "crosses". :D (I am sorry written too much code in my life)
chanduv23
06-10 10:48 AM
Why not do a flower campaign or the like, that we did last time? Clearly that worked and the phone campaign doesnt "have the appearance" of working. I am not saying it is not working, it just isint having the same media impact as last time. It doesnt have to be the flower campaign again, heck we can do a fruit basket deal this time.
Our message should be "Please stop punishing people that came here the right way, in order to help the people that did not". We are not against undocumented workers getting amnesty, we just dont want their issues to hold up everyone else's.
There are reasons we MUST NOT do anything like that. Lobbying works on the long run. These days lawmmakers are more informed about the situation and it is just a matter of time.
Do not lose hope - we will succeed.
Please convince your friends and coworkers to make phone calls and visits to law makers offices.
Our message should be "Please stop punishing people that came here the right way, in order to help the people that did not". We are not against undocumented workers getting amnesty, we just dont want their issues to hold up everyone else's.
There are reasons we MUST NOT do anything like that. Lobbying works on the long run. These days lawmmakers are more informed about the situation and it is just a matter of time.
Do not lose hope - we will succeed.
Please convince your friends and coworkers to make phone calls and visits to law makers offices.
more...
sanju_dba
09-08 10:45 AM
Came here in july 1997
filed LC in 2003 thinking it would be useful to stay on H1 as long as possible!! and the rest is on my profile..
I wonder if anybody thinks it makes sense to create a law which simply says after 15 (or some X years) of legal presence in the US you will be given a GC no matter the back ground! In that way we know exactly where the deadline is irrespective of some government agency's whim.
to make it more arbitrable, how about if one completes the 40 tax credits and is clean of criminal records.
filed LC in 2003 thinking it would be useful to stay on H1 as long as possible!! and the rest is on my profile..
I wonder if anybody thinks it makes sense to create a law which simply says after 15 (or some X years) of legal presence in the US you will be given a GC no matter the back ground! In that way we know exactly where the deadline is irrespective of some government agency's whim.
to make it more arbitrable, how about if one completes the 40 tax credits and is clean of criminal records.
AabTuAgaGC
12-27 03:35 PM
Received date July 27th, 2007. No AP yet:mad::mad::mad::mad:I have to travel in February:(:(
more...
k2006
06-01 04:46 PM
I have a question here. If this bill becomes law in its current form what happens to those I-140 filed on May 15, 2007 itself. Can they saty in old system or they have to go to the new system ? I looked into AILA interpretation but its not clear about those are filed on May 15, 2007 itself.
HRPRO
05-09 02:06 PM
Can someone on EAD start a S-Corp or LLC? IF SO WHICH ONE IS BETTER S-CORP OR LLC? PLEASE ADVISE
You can. LLC is def easier to manage
You can. LLC is def easier to manage
saimrathi
07-06 11:08 AM
I like your analogy...
I agree with you 100%.
The material damages to would-be July filers are a travesty. That is undeniable and deserves, at the minimum, material compensation.
But making the bulletins current in the first place, instead of a making a measured movement in the priority dates was like trying to fill a glass of water with a firehose. Broken glass and severe water damage were sure to follow.
I agree with you 100%.
The material damages to would-be July filers are a travesty. That is undeniable and deserves, at the minimum, material compensation.
But making the bulletins current in the first place, instead of a making a measured movement in the priority dates was like trying to fill a glass of water with a firehose. Broken glass and severe water damage were sure to follow.
nyte_crawler
04-25 11:33 AM
Coming in through H1 does'nt show your intention of becoming a permanent resident of this country. It only happens when the LC is applied. Although the entry date is an ingenious way, it will only create more issues. Now some one who comes in F1 can also ask for the same benefit when they move to H1, to take their entry date in F1 as their priority date. I believe the culprits are the labor substitution and the labor certification sales. Those are unfair. Stop labor substitutions, and if they need one, then use the 140 RD as the PD. That should solve most of the problems and people from using labor sub to jump the line.
nk2006
10-17 04:01 PM
Under the authority of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the CIS Ombudsman assists individuals and employers who experience specific problems during the USCIS benefits seeking process, largely to identify problems and to formulate recommendations to improve the USCIS service. Please see our website for more information about the CIS Ombudsman (www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman/).
Our office believes that first hand information from individuals like you is the best source for identifying systemic problems in the immigration benefits process. Accordingly, our office will consider the information you provided regarding AC21 as we develop recommendations to improve USCIS� practices and procedures.
Thank you for taking the time to contact our office, and for giving us the opportunity to serve you.
Sincerely,
CIS Ombudsman
Thanks for the update.
Its positive and a direct answer to try improving USCIS practises regarding AC21. Hope more people will get inspired with this and send letters.
Note: from the earlier experiences it was pointed out that we need to send letters in thousands to get immediate attention. please keep sending.
Our office believes that first hand information from individuals like you is the best source for identifying systemic problems in the immigration benefits process. Accordingly, our office will consider the information you provided regarding AC21 as we develop recommendations to improve USCIS� practices and procedures.
Thank you for taking the time to contact our office, and for giving us the opportunity to serve you.
Sincerely,
CIS Ombudsman
Thanks for the update.
Its positive and a direct answer to try improving USCIS practises regarding AC21. Hope more people will get inspired with this and send letters.
Note: from the earlier experiences it was pointed out that we need to send letters in thousands to get immediate attention. please keep sending.
No comments:
Post a Comment