qasleuth
05-06 11:02 PM
Dear IV Members,
I know this is an immigration forum but I thought if I can get some valuable advice.
A couple of days back, the police forced into our apartment saying that they have heard a complain about domestic violence. I was surprised because the only thing that happenned was that our child was crying during that time. They came inside and started searching our small apartment and started to interogate me. In our bedroom, there is space where we keep our deities and do Puja. My wife is a little bit more religious than me - so she requested them not to go to that space with shoes on. However, they did not listen and just went wherever they wanted. This I think is a disrespect to other culture. Later, when they did not find anything, they just left. We were dumb-founded. We were scared too.... In our building, we are the only Indian/foreigner. This might probably leave a permanant scar in the child's mind when he sees his father interrogated for nothing.
Can someone advice if we can take the matter to someone? Any advice or help will be greatly appreciated.
This is just horrible that you had to go through such an ordeal. In my opinion: There is no need to educate anybody. If they disrespected something you believe in, then shame on them.
If you are innocent the most important thing to remember in such a situation is giving consent to 'search'. Once you give consent then you might lose the right to fight against such an infraction. If you did not give consent and they 'forced' themselves into your apartment then it is against your fourth amendment rights. Now the next question you might want to ask yourself: Now that the incident happened, what do you want to do about it? If you do not want to spend money on a lawyer, contact your local ACLU or NAACP chapter and seek advice. You have every right to do what needs to be done to feel better after being abused. And more importantly, when you lodge a complaint (after seeking advice from ACLU guys and/or lawyer) it triggers action, hopefully those officers will get some kind of training on respecting other cultures.
I know this is an immigration forum but I thought if I can get some valuable advice.
A couple of days back, the police forced into our apartment saying that they have heard a complain about domestic violence. I was surprised because the only thing that happenned was that our child was crying during that time. They came inside and started searching our small apartment and started to interogate me. In our bedroom, there is space where we keep our deities and do Puja. My wife is a little bit more religious than me - so she requested them not to go to that space with shoes on. However, they did not listen and just went wherever they wanted. This I think is a disrespect to other culture. Later, when they did not find anything, they just left. We were dumb-founded. We were scared too.... In our building, we are the only Indian/foreigner. This might probably leave a permanant scar in the child's mind when he sees his father interrogated for nothing.
Can someone advice if we can take the matter to someone? Any advice or help will be greatly appreciated.
This is just horrible that you had to go through such an ordeal. In my opinion: There is no need to educate anybody. If they disrespected something you believe in, then shame on them.
If you are innocent the most important thing to remember in such a situation is giving consent to 'search'. Once you give consent then you might lose the right to fight against such an infraction. If you did not give consent and they 'forced' themselves into your apartment then it is against your fourth amendment rights. Now the next question you might want to ask yourself: Now that the incident happened, what do you want to do about it? If you do not want to spend money on a lawyer, contact your local ACLU or NAACP chapter and seek advice. You have every right to do what needs to be done to feel better after being abused. And more importantly, when you lodge a complaint (after seeking advice from ACLU guys and/or lawyer) it triggers action, hopefully those officers will get some kind of training on respecting other cultures.
wallpaper Long curly wedding hairstyles
mihird
09-17 11:57 PM
I will tell your first hand, the path to becoming a doctor is TOUGH...
You will need a lot of brains to clear those USMLE exams
You will need a lot of money to appear for those USMLE exams/residency interviews
You will need a lot of patience since it takes a minimum of 2 years to be able to apply.
Here's what you do.
My wife was here in the US on a H4 the past 2 years while she did all her prep work/exams etc., but assuming your brother is in India.
1. Give USMLE Step 1 & Step 2 exams - they are conducted in India
Each one takes about 6 months of prep time and
shoot for a score in the upper 80s or preferably 90s - very
few people get such high scores..
2. Then one needs to get a B2 visa to appear for Step 3
Step 3 is only conducted in the US
(You WILL need the Step 3 cleared for H1 sponsorship)
Good luck getting that B2 - plenty of people are
denied this B2 in India - if you can't get this B2, that's
the end of the game.
3. Once you clear all the steps you need to apply through ERAS
for a nationwide match for residency.
4. Spend hoardes of money to travel to each hospital that
invites you to an interview.
5. Wait for the ERAS match results to be out.
If you are lucky you would have matched somewhere. Your hospital files a H1 on your behalf and you wait for the approval. Once you get the approval, you become a resident doctor. 4 years in residency...and then you are a doctor..
To make this long story short, lots of effort, lots of money and lots of patience is what it all takes...
You will need a lot of brains to clear those USMLE exams
You will need a lot of money to appear for those USMLE exams/residency interviews
You will need a lot of patience since it takes a minimum of 2 years to be able to apply.
Here's what you do.
My wife was here in the US on a H4 the past 2 years while she did all her prep work/exams etc., but assuming your brother is in India.
1. Give USMLE Step 1 & Step 2 exams - they are conducted in India
Each one takes about 6 months of prep time and
shoot for a score in the upper 80s or preferably 90s - very
few people get such high scores..
2. Then one needs to get a B2 visa to appear for Step 3
Step 3 is only conducted in the US
(You WILL need the Step 3 cleared for H1 sponsorship)
Good luck getting that B2 - plenty of people are
denied this B2 in India - if you can't get this B2, that's
the end of the game.
3. Once you clear all the steps you need to apply through ERAS
for a nationwide match for residency.
4. Spend hoardes of money to travel to each hospital that
invites you to an interview.
5. Wait for the ERAS match results to be out.
If you are lucky you would have matched somewhere. Your hospital files a H1 on your behalf and you wait for the approval. Once you get the approval, you become a resident doctor. 4 years in residency...and then you are a doctor..
To make this long story short, lots of effort, lots of money and lots of patience is what it all takes...
prem_goel
11-22 11:39 PM
anyone up for H-1b stamping at Tijuana - Mexico on 30th November. Please ping me and we can plan together. Thanks!
2011 Curly Hairstyles For Prom
Sakthisagar
10-04 08:49 AM
Hello,
Folks, who is in PA, Please take a print out of this document.
http://www.dot3.state.pa.us/pdotforms/fact_sheets/pub195nc.pdf
and show them the column, "Lawful Temporary Residents" they cannot refuse to give licence, the employees in DMV should get a training, Otherwise contact Harrisburg, PA DMV and talk to an officer, get his name and let the people who refuse, to call him and talk to him about the revised law 8 months back.
Folks, who is in PA, Please take a print out of this document.
http://www.dot3.state.pa.us/pdotforms/fact_sheets/pub195nc.pdf
and show them the column, "Lawful Temporary Residents" they cannot refuse to give licence, the employees in DMV should get a training, Otherwise contact Harrisburg, PA DMV and talk to an officer, get his name and let the people who refuse, to call him and talk to him about the revised law 8 months back.
more...
angelfire76
12-07 05:21 PM
Maybe the definition of project managers varies by company. Most PMs I know have maybe around 6-7 years of work experience and I definitely wouldn't classify them as executives or even say that their employment is in the National Interest.
However I do know of some cases where doctors have got NIW based on practicing in an under-served (rural?) area.
Is there a way to prove that one who created a suite of applications without which a business unit will stop functioning comes under National Interest?
Just a thought.
However I do know of some cases where doctors have got NIW based on practicing in an under-served (rural?) area.
Is there a way to prove that one who created a suite of applications without which a business unit will stop functioning comes under National Interest?
Just a thought.
mundada
11-06 04:30 PM
I did not want to start a new thread for this. But I had earlier last month contacted many senators with the official I-485 pending inventory as proof and asking them whether it was humane, ethical and moral to ask someone wait more than 15 years for a green card! And what they are doing to remedy the situation.
This is the reply I received today from Sen. Frank Lautenberg. May be this is very standard format, I am not sure but it does mention specific bill and recapture provision.
In Response to Your Message
From: Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (senator@lautenberg.senate.gov)
Sent: Fri 11/06/09 1:00 PM
To:
1 attachment
0A953776.gif (2.8 KB)
Dear Mr. Mundada:
Thank you for contacting me about employment-based immigrant visas. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
Under current immigration law, employment-based immigration is limited to 140,000 visas, or green cards, per year. The process for obtaining employment-based visas can take years to complete, causing many of these visas to go unused. There is also an annual per-country limit that caps at seven percent the number of employment-based immigrants that can come from any one country. In some instances, this per-country cap causes employers to consider country of origin, not talent, when hiring foreign workers.
A bill has been introduced in the Senate that would address some of these delays and caps. The “Reuniting American Families Act” (S. 1085) would recapture unused employment-based visas from prior years. This bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security to issue any unused visas from Fiscal Years 1992-2007 and in the future roll over any unused visas from one year to the next. It would also increase the per-country cap for employment-based visas to ten percent of the annual total.
This bill is currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am not a member. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should this or other relevant legislation come before the full Senate. Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
FRL: mts
This is the reply I received today from Sen. Frank Lautenberg. May be this is very standard format, I am not sure but it does mention specific bill and recapture provision.
In Response to Your Message
From: Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (senator@lautenberg.senate.gov)
Sent: Fri 11/06/09 1:00 PM
To:
1 attachment
0A953776.gif (2.8 KB)
Dear Mr. Mundada:
Thank you for contacting me about employment-based immigrant visas. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
Under current immigration law, employment-based immigration is limited to 140,000 visas, or green cards, per year. The process for obtaining employment-based visas can take years to complete, causing many of these visas to go unused. There is also an annual per-country limit that caps at seven percent the number of employment-based immigrants that can come from any one country. In some instances, this per-country cap causes employers to consider country of origin, not talent, when hiring foreign workers.
A bill has been introduced in the Senate that would address some of these delays and caps. The “Reuniting American Families Act” (S. 1085) would recapture unused employment-based visas from prior years. This bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security to issue any unused visas from Fiscal Years 1992-2007 and in the future roll over any unused visas from one year to the next. It would also increase the per-country cap for employment-based visas to ten percent of the annual total.
This bill is currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am not a member. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should this or other relevant legislation come before the full Senate. Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
FRL: mts
more...
dan19
01-15 11:48 AM
jonty_11,
the canadian immigration specifically asks for the IELTS. so try to take it. it is not a difficult one.
one of my friends wrote a detailed letter to the immigration dept. showing proof of his english proficiency. i heard it worked and he wasn't asked to take IELTS. (but it all depends on the officer who evaluates the case)
Furthur the letter states: If you fail to provide results of Lang test , an assessment will be done based on information you have provided and that may result is fewer points being awarded for language abilit, influencing overall eligibility.
I am thinking of not taking this test. Anyone else with similar letter from canada Buffalo office?
the canadian immigration specifically asks for the IELTS. so try to take it. it is not a difficult one.
one of my friends wrote a detailed letter to the immigration dept. showing proof of his english proficiency. i heard it worked and he wasn't asked to take IELTS. (but it all depends on the officer who evaluates the case)
Furthur the letter states: If you fail to provide results of Lang test , an assessment will be done based on information you have provided and that may result is fewer points being awarded for language abilit, influencing overall eligibility.
I am thinking of not taking this test. Anyone else with similar letter from canada Buffalo office?
2010 Prom Hairstyles for Long Curly
dontcareaboutGC
03-19 11:24 AM
Ignore this if this is a repost!
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"Current.� Whenever the total of documentarily-qualified applicants in
a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for
the particular month, the category is considered to be
"oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the
per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant
demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of
such numbers available.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by
documentarily-qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds
the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation,
that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may
require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that
which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The
prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same
percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off
dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off
dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"Current.� Whenever the total of documentarily-qualified applicants in
a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for
the particular month, the category is considered to be
"oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the
per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant
demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of
such numbers available.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by
documentarily-qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds
the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation,
that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may
require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that
which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The
prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same
percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off
dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off
dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
more...
eb3_nepa
04-13 09:16 AM
Hello,
There was a lot of talk about the time between the passing of the CIR and it's implementation. I was wondering exactly how much time would it take from the time the bill was passed (assuming it had our provisions) and it actually becoming a law. Some say 3 months some say 6 months. What is the real number?
There was a lot of talk about the time between the passing of the CIR and it's implementation. I was wondering exactly how much time would it take from the time the bill was passed (assuming it had our provisions) and it actually becoming a law. Some say 3 months some say 6 months. What is the real number?
hair curly hair prom hairstyles
pappu
12-01 03:40 PM
I am not sure about the exact Business Analyst vs Programmer Analyst functions, but from my own experience, just make sure that your lawyer makes your job description very broad. It will help you not just in your process with the existing company but also if you were to change the job after 485.
more...
sammyb
03-24 01:51 PM
is there any recording/archive available of the program .... all online radio sites are blocked in the office firewall :o
hot wallpaper Prom hairstyles
grupak
03-24 12:44 PM
Windows Media: http://wamu.org/audio/wamu.asx
Real Audio: http://wamu.org/audio/wamu.ram
MP3: http://wamu.org/audio/wamu.m3u
Mark Bartosik, Software Engineer; Member, Immigration Voice
Good interview Mark!
Real Audio: http://wamu.org/audio/wamu.ram
MP3: http://wamu.org/audio/wamu.m3u
Mark Bartosik, Software Engineer; Member, Immigration Voice
Good interview Mark!
more...
house Prom Hairstyles Wavy|Long Prom
vkrishn
08-12 03:37 PM
Why am i not surprised at USCIS ineffcieny. I made a similar enquory through my congresswoman and they got the response that my PD is Feb 2007 and there are no VISA's available where as my I40 approval notice and PERM laber certification approval shows as Feb 16th 2006.
Stopped by again at the congreswoman office with my I140 approval notice that shows my PD as Feb 16th 2006 (EB2).
Second instance where USCIS has some knuckle heads looking at cases is when i field a SR on July12th about my I485 to which i got a response that they cannot find my approved I140 in their system and told me to call back with the receipt number. Now when i call back they refused to take my receipt number as its not been 30 days of my SR and in order for them to take my receipt number they need to open another case and can do it only after 30 days.
Absolutely no accountability! I have mailed Ombudsman with all the replies i got from USCIS and hoping that my case is adjudicated properly.
Stopped by again at the congreswoman office with my I140 approval notice that shows my PD as Feb 16th 2006 (EB2).
Second instance where USCIS has some knuckle heads looking at cases is when i field a SR on July12th about my I485 to which i got a response that they cannot find my approved I140 in their system and told me to call back with the receipt number. Now when i call back they refused to take my receipt number as its not been 30 days of my SR and in order for them to take my receipt number they need to open another case and can do it only after 30 days.
Absolutely no accountability! I have mailed Ombudsman with all the replies i got from USCIS and hoping that my case is adjudicated properly.
tattoo long curly hairstyles for
ahaadi
01-08 01:47 PM
I also had submitted with my I-94 attached. I forgot to remove it. It was stapled and I got it back with my old passport. So dont worry.
more...
pictures prom hairstyles for long hair
rolrblade
07-27 04:44 PM
do they have to attach copy of email with the application?
In my case my application was filed on 2nd July but my attorney asked me to send the email on 3rd July just for records.
you are fine : read this from USCIS website:
Attorneys and accredited representatives filing any petition or immigration benefit application on behalf of petitioners and applicants must sign Form G-28, Notice of Appearance, and include the original with the filing. USCIS will continue accepting original Form G-28 bearing the facsimile signature of the attorney or accredited representative, e.g., a stamped signature, as allowed under the regulations governing the filing of applications and petitions and longstanding operational guidance.
Legal Requirements for the Signature on Petitions and Immigration Benefit Applications
Attorneys and Accredited Representatives: The signature of any attorney or accredited representative who has been granted legal authorization to sign on behalf of the petitioner or the applicant must be in the original.
this means as long as your attorney sent the original G-28 form with their signatures, you are okay. Also the email from you is "legal authorization" to sign.
All across these forums you will read numerous posts where people have not signed anything rather their attorneys have signed. This is very general practice.
In my case my application was filed on 2nd July but my attorney asked me to send the email on 3rd July just for records.
you are fine : read this from USCIS website:
Attorneys and accredited representatives filing any petition or immigration benefit application on behalf of petitioners and applicants must sign Form G-28, Notice of Appearance, and include the original with the filing. USCIS will continue accepting original Form G-28 bearing the facsimile signature of the attorney or accredited representative, e.g., a stamped signature, as allowed under the regulations governing the filing of applications and petitions and longstanding operational guidance.
Legal Requirements for the Signature on Petitions and Immigration Benefit Applications
Attorneys and Accredited Representatives: The signature of any attorney or accredited representative who has been granted legal authorization to sign on behalf of the petitioner or the applicant must be in the original.
this means as long as your attorney sent the original G-28 form with their signatures, you are okay. Also the email from you is "legal authorization" to sign.
All across these forums you will read numerous posts where people have not signed anything rather their attorneys have signed. This is very general practice.
dresses curly hairstyles for prom for
guygeek007
07-24 03:27 PM
I just received some information from my attorney today about my i-140 premium processing application that was filed on 22nd of June,2007 as indicated in the information below. The package & check were returned in the first week of July. A letter indicating the reason for remittance and return was that the labor cert. attached was a photocopy and not the original.
Now what does not make sense here is that the original labor was sent along with the original i140 application filed last year.
I called the USCIS info line and the rep. suggested that i could resend it with an explanation.
What concerns me is if i do resend it, would it be considered only after suspension of i140 premium is lifted or would it be considered as a case from last month and processed under premium.
Suggestions and advice would be appreciated.
This is my GC application history
1. PD for Labor - Aug 2003
2. Labor(Regular) Application Approved - Nov 2005
3. i-140 applied in Jan 2006
4. RFE received question was for company not self, i-140 withdrawn.
5. Transferred my H1 to the companys sister concern and reapplied for i140 in June 2006.
6. Applied for i140 premium processing on June 22nd, 2007.
Current status for i-140 : Recieved and pending at Nebraska service center.
Questions
Q1. What is i-140 receipt date for premium processing. Is it the date the fed-ex package is recvd by USCIS or is it a date issued by USCIS that should reach my lawyer?
Q2. If in case the USCIS need to provide my attorney a receipt date, we have NOT received one as yet. Does that mean they have not even looked at the application as yet?
Q3. Can i apply for i485 in the worst case that i do not receive approval for i140 by Aug 17th under the concurrent filing rule.
Any assistance would be highly appreciated.
Now what does not make sense here is that the original labor was sent along with the original i140 application filed last year.
I called the USCIS info line and the rep. suggested that i could resend it with an explanation.
What concerns me is if i do resend it, would it be considered only after suspension of i140 premium is lifted or would it be considered as a case from last month and processed under premium.
Suggestions and advice would be appreciated.
This is my GC application history
1. PD for Labor - Aug 2003
2. Labor(Regular) Application Approved - Nov 2005
3. i-140 applied in Jan 2006
4. RFE received question was for company not self, i-140 withdrawn.
5. Transferred my H1 to the companys sister concern and reapplied for i140 in June 2006.
6. Applied for i140 premium processing on June 22nd, 2007.
Current status for i-140 : Recieved and pending at Nebraska service center.
Questions
Q1. What is i-140 receipt date for premium processing. Is it the date the fed-ex package is recvd by USCIS or is it a date issued by USCIS that should reach my lawyer?
Q2. If in case the USCIS need to provide my attorney a receipt date, we have NOT received one as yet. Does that mean they have not even looked at the application as yet?
Q3. Can i apply for i485 in the worst case that i do not receive approval for i140 by Aug 17th under the concurrent filing rule.
Any assistance would be highly appreciated.
more...
makeup long curly prom hairstyle
dixie
08-26 12:37 AM
Dude it is pretty clear you dont belong here. If you joined a body-shop that replaced americans with cheap bodies then your employer violated the law and you were a willing accomplice. You are no better than an illegal alien. No wonder you are so scared of being replaced by yet another cheap body ! IV does not represent people like you.
Now get the hell out of here.
I hope you all boycot the work and do a rally. That will help those Americans replaced by you, to finally get their job back. Or even better that will help the millions of tech workers in India, who wants to get your job, a chance. So go for it.
Now get the hell out of here.
I hope you all boycot the work and do a rally. That will help those Americans replaced by you, to finally get their job back. Or even better that will help the millions of tech workers in India, who wants to get your job, a chance. So go for it.
girlfriend Prom Hairstyles Long Hair
amsgc
09-02 01:11 AM
Thanks for collecting the data.
Assuming that:
- The above people also voted in the recent EB2I Poll (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum5-all-other-green-card-issues/414123-poll-to-sample-pending-eb2-india-pds.html) and
- The ratio of EB2I applicants who post on IV to total EB2I applicants is 1:100
Then, the USCIS approved roughly 1500 apps today.
Also, since EB2-I was at 2002 a few months ago, it means that these are only spill over visas. If this year is like any of the previous years, then EB2-I should get another 10,000 or so. This should be enough (based on the recent poll) to flush out almost all EB2I 2004 and prior applications.
Immigration Voice:
NSC:
cokeraj Jun 2004
sjagadeesan Jun 2004
nni123 Aug 2004
Nashim (co-worker) Nov 2004
aachoo Dec 2004
kurtz_wolfgang Dec 2004
TSC:
ganesha Apr 2004
NolaIndian32 04.30.2004
inskrish May 2004
Tortoise May 2004
GCWhru (dependent) Sep 2004
lotus26 (dependent) Sep 2004
adriansquare (NIW) Oct 2004
GCNirvana Dec 2004
mpek Dec 2004
Service Center Unknown:
arav_m Dec 2004
Assuming that:
- The above people also voted in the recent EB2I Poll (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum5-all-other-green-card-issues/414123-poll-to-sample-pending-eb2-india-pds.html) and
- The ratio of EB2I applicants who post on IV to total EB2I applicants is 1:100
Then, the USCIS approved roughly 1500 apps today.
Also, since EB2-I was at 2002 a few months ago, it means that these are only spill over visas. If this year is like any of the previous years, then EB2-I should get another 10,000 or so. This should be enough (based on the recent poll) to flush out almost all EB2I 2004 and prior applications.
Immigration Voice:
NSC:
cokeraj Jun 2004
sjagadeesan Jun 2004
nni123 Aug 2004
Nashim (co-worker) Nov 2004
aachoo Dec 2004
kurtz_wolfgang Dec 2004
TSC:
ganesha Apr 2004
NolaIndian32 04.30.2004
inskrish May 2004
Tortoise May 2004
GCWhru (dependent) Sep 2004
lotus26 (dependent) Sep 2004
adriansquare (NIW) Oct 2004
GCNirvana Dec 2004
mpek Dec 2004
Service Center Unknown:
arav_m Dec 2004
hairstyles Long Curly Prom Hairstyles
Sheila Danzig
07-25 10:26 AM
In all of the years that I have been doing evaluations I have seen only two cases where a GC had a NOIR (Notice of intent to revoke) for education reasons. Both had 3 year degrees. One case was several years ago and approved and the other was recent and just submitted.
Do you know the reason for your notice?
Hi all,
My I-140 was approved 2.5 years back and I-485 was also approved more than an year back.
But, today the status on my I-140 got changed to "REQUEST FOR INITIAL EVIDENCE SENT, CASE PLACED ON HOLD". I am not sure, why did they reopen the case again. I checked with my company and they assured me that they didn't revoke my I-140.
Could anyone suggest me what's happening to my case. Has anyone seen an similar kind of an issue and suggest me how to proceed ?
Thanks in advance !
Do you know the reason for your notice?
Hi all,
My I-140 was approved 2.5 years back and I-485 was also approved more than an year back.
But, today the status on my I-140 got changed to "REQUEST FOR INITIAL EVIDENCE SENT, CASE PLACED ON HOLD". I am not sure, why did they reopen the case again. I checked with my company and they assured me that they didn't revoke my I-140.
Could anyone suggest me what's happening to my case. Has anyone seen an similar kind of an issue and suggest me how to proceed ?
Thanks in advance !
Pagal
07-19 09:37 AM
Hello,
Even as per Indian courts, the contract is valid only if mutually enforceable, which means that the company also needs to give you a two month's notice in case of termination.
Though there is very little risk, why burn the bridges? Be nice and negotiate a mutually agreed exit ... put in some extra hours if needed to transfer the knowledge or to answer any questions to your current job later on. I doubt if your current manager will turn down such an arrangement whereby you help him/her out when needed over a course of next two months...
For your career, the network is more important than the immediate monetary benefits, just my two cents... :)
Even as per Indian courts, the contract is valid only if mutually enforceable, which means that the company also needs to give you a two month's notice in case of termination.
Though there is very little risk, why burn the bridges? Be nice and negotiate a mutually agreed exit ... put in some extra hours if needed to transfer the knowledge or to answer any questions to your current job later on. I doubt if your current manager will turn down such an arrangement whereby you help him/her out when needed over a course of next two months...
For your career, the network is more important than the immediate monetary benefits, just my two cents... :)
qualified_trash
09-21 11:01 AM
joozz.......
do not worry about where the lawyer is located. immigration law is under federal jurisdiction.
pick a good lawyer (www.murthy.com, www.shahandkishore.com, www.immigration.com) and go with them
do not worry about where the lawyer is located. immigration law is under federal jurisdiction.
pick a good lawyer (www.murthy.com, www.shahandkishore.com, www.immigration.com) and go with them
No comments:
Post a Comment