mammoy2k
12-28 03:57 PM
As per the memo if the I-140 petition was approvable at the time of filing, one should be fine even if employer tries to withdraw unapproved I-140.
If there is an RFE, then sure things are messy if employer does not cooperate.
If you try to use AC21 without an approved I-140 your employer can withdraw the I-140 petition ( since it is not approved yet ) . So best wait a few months until it is approved and then merrily go the AC21 way
If there is an RFE, then sure things are messy if employer does not cooperate.
If you try to use AC21 without an approved I-140 your employer can withdraw the I-140 petition ( since it is not approved yet ) . So best wait a few months until it is approved and then merrily go the AC21 way
wallpaper High School of the dead music
joydiptac
06-03 06:55 PM
Voted for 1085.
Now guys will u please also vote for
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h5882/show
i.e. EB Visa recapture.
Now guys will u please also vote for
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h5882/show
i.e. EB Visa recapture.
natrajs
08-31 04:29 PM
Well, that's the job of the media. Our job is to get GC. Although the issues are true, I would still prefer having absolutely correct articles, so no anti-immigrant could point his/her finger saying "look, immigrants are spreading lies". Just like we bashed them when they were claiming that we pay less taxes. It was a good point to discredit them.
Media always narrates and presents it in a form where the commoner can understand, it needs spice.
Let us hope that we get more media attention and people start listen to us.
That�s the key here
Media always narrates and presents it in a form where the commoner can understand, it needs spice.
Let us hope that we get more media attention and people start listen to us.
That�s the key here
2011 Highschool of the Dead
ChainReaction
07-17 10:34 AM
Date moved from October 03, 2006 to October 06, 2006.. :-(
I also can't see the updated processing time for TSC
Can you tell me the processing time for i140 Skilled and professional worker
thanks
I also can't see the updated processing time for TSC
Can you tell me the processing time for i140 Skilled and professional worker
thanks
more...
punjabi
08-28 04:15 PM
hey guys...
I read this amazing thread and I am feeling terrible guilty of not going to DC for Rally. I thought contributing $100 was enough.
YES, I GOTTA GO TO RALLY AND BE A PART OF THIS EFFORT. AND I WILL GO.
Guys: If IV wins and we are able to change the law.....and then someone comes across you and ask:
"Did You help?"
What will be your reaction? Will you pump your chest out and scream "YESSSS..."?
I know, I will. How about you?
I read this amazing thread and I am feeling terrible guilty of not going to DC for Rally. I thought contributing $100 was enough.
YES, I GOTTA GO TO RALLY AND BE A PART OF THIS EFFORT. AND I WILL GO.
Guys: If IV wins and we are able to change the law.....and then someone comes across you and ask:
"Did You help?"
What will be your reaction? Will you pump your chest out and scream "YESSSS..."?
I know, I will. How about you?
485InDreams
08-20 09:36 PM
I'm sorry to hear this...Its happened...
if you really wanna bring your employer to lime light..prepare yourself..first....Remember..its your life here...anyone[including me) can give free suggestion here ....
There is no use working with this kind of Employer anymore...so my advice is switch to another employer[Good One] before you react to this...Make sure you pretend as if you are not aware of this and get the best out of him before you leave...once you r done...then show who is he to the outside world...
I'm sure you be having atleast mail proof...[If not ditch the plan of suing and move on with your next opportunity]....take some time and prepare all the possible proof...hire a good lawyer....File a case against the attorney in the local law chamber where the attorney is practising....they will definely call you to settle the case...make sure you record it as the proof[if you don't have one already ::)].....
Then hit the employer...make sure you ask a collosal sum through your attorney[Never give chances]....and then post his name and details in the Immigration blogs....
You lost one of the major milestone in your life...never give up this time....
Best of luck
if you really wanna bring your employer to lime light..prepare yourself..first....Remember..its your life here...anyone[including me) can give free suggestion here ....
There is no use working with this kind of Employer anymore...so my advice is switch to another employer[Good One] before you react to this...Make sure you pretend as if you are not aware of this and get the best out of him before you leave...once you r done...then show who is he to the outside world...
I'm sure you be having atleast mail proof...[If not ditch the plan of suing and move on with your next opportunity]....take some time and prepare all the possible proof...hire a good lawyer....File a case against the attorney in the local law chamber where the attorney is practising....they will definely call you to settle the case...make sure you record it as the proof[if you don't have one already ::)].....
Then hit the employer...make sure you ask a collosal sum through your attorney[Never give chances]....and then post his name and details in the Immigration blogs....
You lost one of the major milestone in your life...never give up this time....
Best of luck
more...
shana04
02-13 10:15 AM
I know what the job title and Job duties were stated in the Labor certification and have acopy of my Labor certification application with me, but if you can give me the format of the letter for AC21 that would be great.
Please let me know
Thanks
check post #22
Please let me know
Thanks
check post #22
2010 High School of the Dead
GCBy3000
12-12 05:03 PM
Reading the bulletin thread and prediction thread is good enough to prepare for GMAT problem solving area. I love these analysis and conclusions.
I think that the DOS (Dept of State) releases VISA Numbers on a quarterly basis. If that is the case, there should be movement in EB2 India in Jan 2007.
The other possibility always exists that the numbers were released for this quarter but the demand was SO HIGH that the net date did not move at all.
possible?? maybe!!
I think that the DOS (Dept of State) releases VISA Numbers on a quarterly basis. If that is the case, there should be movement in EB2 India in Jan 2007.
The other possibility always exists that the numbers were released for this quarter but the demand was SO HIGH that the net date did not move at all.
possible?? maybe!!
more...
venky08
01-06 02:44 PM
all right, thats enough bashing guys:D
i corrected the word....where are my green dots?:confused:
i corrected the word....where are my green dots?:confused:
hair Highschool of the Dead picture
shana04
02-12 05:15 PM
Friends,
If any one needs AC21 letter format do let me know. I can give you the format.
Good luck.
If any one needs AC21 letter format do let me know. I can give you the format.
Good luck.
more...
NWISE
05-31 03:53 PM
Voted and commented... keep the momentum up! The vote is reaching 500... let's keep it moving up.
I think we're on the right track and this bill will bring some relief to us and for those to come.
I think we're on the right track and this bill will bring some relief to us and for those to come.
hot High School of the Dead
FinalGC
01-06 09:39 AM
It is correct that a MBA will prepare one for mutiple fields, however the question being asked is specific for IT professionals who are trying to jump into management.
I believe the confusion is there between MBA and PMP, because some of the folks are at a juncture where they want to make a quick buck and are also thinking of career advancement.
Yes for a quick buck you can get a PMP and move up the ladder, but for long term sustainance you need MBA for senior management posts.
I believe the confusion is there between MBA and PMP, because some of the folks are at a juncture where they want to make a quick buck and are also thinking of career advancement.
Yes for a quick buck you can get a PMP and move up the ladder, but for long term sustainance you need MBA for senior management posts.
more...
house Dead High School
longq
12-20 03:41 PM
Hello IV and its core members,
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
tattoo Highschool of the Dead OP
eilsoe
02-03 07:12 AM
guig0: U posted the final one? Where...?
more...
pictures Tags: Highschool the dead .
jsb
01-14 11:01 AM
Tired of waiting ( PD: August 2001) I finally wrote to both my local congressman and Senator today. My senator is on senate Immigration commitee so lets see what happens. Hopefully something will move.
If this doesnt help I will try Ombudsman next after couple of months. The Ombudsman form has a question of if you have tried through Congressman etc first so we can try and see that.
Guys its so funny when you see ppl with PD of 2003 and 2005 complaining and bitching. Here we have waited 7 + yrs our PD's are current and we are doing OK. Wait sure brings maturity :)
USCIS does not process cases in PD order, because they can't. Thousands of files they receive, are sequenced in order they receive them at Centers. They claim that cases are processed in order they receive them. "Receive Date" is not what you see on your receipt, it is the date they physically received the case on (thus if case is moved from one center to another, true Receive Date is the date it was recieved by the last center). You see this data online status as "...we received (or transferred) your case on ...".
PD critieria is limited to certain countries only. Therefore, by and large, "cases are processed in order they are received..." works well. However, for India, China etc. where PD cutoff has to be factored, it is used merely to decide to work or skip a file (when seen in the receive date order). If PD cutoff date is very restricted, they will have to skip a lot of cases, which slows them down. That's the reason every July they ask for wider PD cutoff dates so that they can consume a lot of visas, as they don't have to skip that many cases.
This process is a mockery of the PD cutoff dates, but that's how it works. If you sent your case on June 28, 07, with July 2, 07 as the printed Receive Data on your receipt, but the case where it finally rested, was entered in their database on Oct. 28, '07 (with a Notice Date soon thereafter), you case will not be looked at, no matter what the PD cutoff date is, unless all cases received before Oct. 28, '07 have been reviewed.
If this doesnt help I will try Ombudsman next after couple of months. The Ombudsman form has a question of if you have tried through Congressman etc first so we can try and see that.
Guys its so funny when you see ppl with PD of 2003 and 2005 complaining and bitching. Here we have waited 7 + yrs our PD's are current and we are doing OK. Wait sure brings maturity :)
USCIS does not process cases in PD order, because they can't. Thousands of files they receive, are sequenced in order they receive them at Centers. They claim that cases are processed in order they receive them. "Receive Date" is not what you see on your receipt, it is the date they physically received the case on (thus if case is moved from one center to another, true Receive Date is the date it was recieved by the last center). You see this data online status as "...we received (or transferred) your case on ...".
PD critieria is limited to certain countries only. Therefore, by and large, "cases are processed in order they are received..." works well. However, for India, China etc. where PD cutoff has to be factored, it is used merely to decide to work or skip a file (when seen in the receive date order). If PD cutoff date is very restricted, they will have to skip a lot of cases, which slows them down. That's the reason every July they ask for wider PD cutoff dates so that they can consume a lot of visas, as they don't have to skip that many cases.
This process is a mockery of the PD cutoff dates, but that's how it works. If you sent your case on June 28, 07, with July 2, 07 as the printed Receive Data on your receipt, but the case where it finally rested, was entered in their database on Oct. 28, '07 (with a Notice Date soon thereafter), you case will not be looked at, no matter what the PD cutoff date is, unless all cases received before Oct. 28, '07 have been reviewed.
dresses Highschool of the Dead,
WillIBLucky
06-19 02:26 PM
Employer letter is not required if you are attaching photocopies of two current pay stubs.
Thanks,
Jayant
You would need employee letter as well. The employee letter will state that the position is still open and they are willing the pay the amount that was initially agreed to while filing for labor.....so pay stub is not enough.....
Thanks,
Jayant
You would need employee letter as well. The employee letter will state that the position is still open and they are willing the pay the amount that was initially agreed to while filing for labor.....so pay stub is not enough.....
more...
makeup Highschool Of Dead.
heywhat
06-17 12:00 AM
I support this campaign. My 3-4 friends moved on to EAD because of just visa re-validation(rejection) fear.
girlfriend Highschool of the Dead – or
vishwak
01-13 03:33 PM
No transit visa required. I got an identical response when I checked with the german consulate in november. Nevertheless, I did not take transit visa, and with visa stamping expired in March 2010, I travelled with AP on Lufthansa from IAD to BLR in December, and returned in Jan 2011, and nobody even mentioned the word "transit" anywhere along the route. Lufthansa staff is very knowledgeable about AP, both in Wash.Dulles and BLR. In fact, In BLR I saw that even Air France also does not require transit visa for Paris and allowed people with AP to board without transit visa. So folks, dont waste time and money on transit visa. Nothing is going to happen , unless you miss your connecting flight in Frankfurt, in which case you will not get to stay in a hotel and would have to spend the transit time in the airport.
Hey gcseeker2002, after 300+ postings also how can you post such a thing.
This is new rule implemented and by thinking you as senior if someone goes and faces problem will you be responsible. So please don't do this boss.
To All Who believe no need to have valid VISA while going back to India or their country.
This is email got from German Consulate at Washington DC to my collegue.
German Cosulate Rep at DC: You wrote that your visa for the United States already expired in September 2010. Therefore you do not fall under Exception Nr. 2. This exception is meant for persons travelling to the US holding a valid US-visa (e.g. a visitors visa with one entry) on their way travelling to the US (Exception 1) and travelling back to their home country during the validity dates of this same visa, but already having used it for entering the US (Exception2) . I hope this clarifies your additional question. I suggest that you apply for an Airport Transit Visa as soon as possible to avoid any problems when travelling back to India via Frankfurt airport.
Hey gcseeker2002, after 300+ postings also how can you post such a thing.
This is new rule implemented and by thinking you as senior if someone goes and faces problem will you be responsible. So please don't do this boss.
To All Who believe no need to have valid VISA while going back to India or their country.
This is email got from German Consulate at Washington DC to my collegue.
German Cosulate Rep at DC: You wrote that your visa for the United States already expired in September 2010. Therefore you do not fall under Exception Nr. 2. This exception is meant for persons travelling to the US holding a valid US-visa (e.g. a visitors visa with one entry) on their way travelling to the US (Exception 1) and travelling back to their home country during the validity dates of this same visa, but already having used it for entering the US (Exception2) . I hope this clarifies your additional question. I suggest that you apply for an Airport Transit Visa as soon as possible to avoid any problems when travelling back to India via Frankfurt airport.
hairstyles Highschool of the Dead 12
kaisersose
05-13 05:14 PM
I am the primary applicant. I am planning to get married in next 1 year or so with a girl from India. If I get my GC then she will fall under family based which will take years for her to come here. I do not mind moving back if that happens.
Since I have valid H1 can I do something,
There is no reason for you to pull out your 485. Get your divorce expedited and get married quickly and you should be OK as EB3 India is not really moving forward unless there is a visa recapture or something like that.
Your spouse will of course lose her 485 and will have to start afresh. But I assume she already knows this and is OK with that.
Since I have valid H1 can I do something,
There is no reason for you to pull out your 485. Get your divorce expedited and get married quickly and you should be OK as EB3 India is not really moving forward unless there is a visa recapture or something like that.
Your spouse will of course lose her 485 and will have to start afresh. But I assume she already knows this and is OK with that.
h1b_slave
09-14 05:24 PM
Without GC, they were working for the same client with even more pay and life was good if not better.
.
i don't think settling for a lesser salary after getting GC is a wise thing to do & i hope you as well as most of the people here would not like to do that unless a person has outdated skills & does not want to upgrade or wants to accept whatever he gets without any efforts.
.
i don't think settling for a lesser salary after getting GC is a wise thing to do & i hope you as well as most of the people here would not like to do that unless a person has outdated skills & does not want to upgrade or wants to accept whatever he gets without any efforts.
eilsoe
02-03 03:33 AM
Ah.. finally placed my vote... :)
and it was NOT on myself, ask kirupa to check if ya don't believe me :P
and it was NOT on myself, ask kirupa to check if ya don't believe me :P
No comments:
Post a Comment