immigrant2007
02-19 12:20 PM
in case someone has already raised tis point then please pardon my ignorance.
Not sure if anyone came across this in the same bill, for all those who will benefit by 5 year cluse they will be beneift but at the same time they will be excluded from the annual numerical limitation quota that means PD dates moving rapidly for as early as all who were here on 20-FEB-2004 (if the bill is passed today which we all know wont happen). So I guess not bad in giving it a shot for raising support for it
BTW did anyone also looked at the exact text
"It is 5 year of continuous physical presence"
My question and doubt is how different is it from "5 year of legal presence v/s physical presence". People who didnt go to homeland for vacation are less than 10%.
Not sure if anyone came across this in the same bill, for all those who will benefit by 5 year cluse they will be beneift but at the same time they will be excluded from the annual numerical limitation quota that means PD dates moving rapidly for as early as all who were here on 20-FEB-2004 (if the bill is passed today which we all know wont happen). So I guess not bad in giving it a shot for raising support for it
BTW did anyone also looked at the exact text
"It is 5 year of continuous physical presence"
My question and doubt is how different is it from "5 year of legal presence v/s physical presence". People who didnt go to homeland for vacation are less than 10%.
wallpaper eminem quotes from recovery. eminem quotes tattoos.
yabadaba
08-15 04:35 PM
Please link it.
read the bulletin!
read the bulletin!
ronhira
04-09 07:02 PM
- the problem is with the congress, not with cis
Congress did not ask USCIS/DOS to subtract dependent visa numbers from 140K. If USCIS/DOS excludes dependent numbers from 140k, congress cannot question that because law doesn't mandate to include the dependent numbers in 140K.
-y the hell do u blame cis...... r they not allocating 140K per year
If USCIS/DOS doesn't agree to change their administration policy to exclude dependent visas from 140K after seeing our backlog, then who else do we have to blame.
Yes they are allocating 140K per year. But to who? In my view to the same applicant; one for primary applicant, another for his spouse, another for his kid, ....
Most of us here are 'keyboard ninjas'. Only very few contribute in actions and that contribution is hidden under donor forums. Without awareness of the good things happening, these keyboard-ninjas are not going to contribute in actions.
We all understand that blaming is not going to help anyone. But what else to do.
u'r saying that all these years uscis & dos was misinterpreting the law for counting dependents in the 140K count..... well, what is the army of 10,000 impotent immigration lawyers doing for last 15 years..... i know they r all dumb & sleazy..... but if that were the case someone in that useless army of 10,000 would have cared to file a lawsuit or someone in congress would have questioned uscis/dos..... the fact that no one questioned or filed for a suit just proves that uscis is interpreting the law correctly..... as much as i would like...... i am actually not convinced that its uscis fault for counting depends.... again here its the fault of the congress for framing the law like the way it is....
there are sleazy immigration lawyers who throw out this bullshit material hoping that some of it will stick, & guys like will think they r the gods..... in that sense its our fault to play right into the hands of sleazy immigration lawyers.... here r some of the creepiest of things thrown by some of these scam artist lawyers -
- fix backlog without immigration bill
- vb dates all current in 2 months
- spillover crap (this one is my favorite)
all that i'm trying to say is that we can do lot of things.... and beating down on uscis/dos is the last thing we all want to do....... becoz otherwise we waste the energy from our frustration/anger @ the wrong target......
Congress did not ask USCIS/DOS to subtract dependent visa numbers from 140K. If USCIS/DOS excludes dependent numbers from 140k, congress cannot question that because law doesn't mandate to include the dependent numbers in 140K.
-y the hell do u blame cis...... r they not allocating 140K per year
If USCIS/DOS doesn't agree to change their administration policy to exclude dependent visas from 140K after seeing our backlog, then who else do we have to blame.
Yes they are allocating 140K per year. But to who? In my view to the same applicant; one for primary applicant, another for his spouse, another for his kid, ....
Most of us here are 'keyboard ninjas'. Only very few contribute in actions and that contribution is hidden under donor forums. Without awareness of the good things happening, these keyboard-ninjas are not going to contribute in actions.
We all understand that blaming is not going to help anyone. But what else to do.
u'r saying that all these years uscis & dos was misinterpreting the law for counting dependents in the 140K count..... well, what is the army of 10,000 impotent immigration lawyers doing for last 15 years..... i know they r all dumb & sleazy..... but if that were the case someone in that useless army of 10,000 would have cared to file a lawsuit or someone in congress would have questioned uscis/dos..... the fact that no one questioned or filed for a suit just proves that uscis is interpreting the law correctly..... as much as i would like...... i am actually not convinced that its uscis fault for counting depends.... again here its the fault of the congress for framing the law like the way it is....
there are sleazy immigration lawyers who throw out this bullshit material hoping that some of it will stick, & guys like will think they r the gods..... in that sense its our fault to play right into the hands of sleazy immigration lawyers.... here r some of the creepiest of things thrown by some of these scam artist lawyers -
- fix backlog without immigration bill
- vb dates all current in 2 months
- spillover crap (this one is my favorite)
all that i'm trying to say is that we can do lot of things.... and beating down on uscis/dos is the last thing we all want to do....... becoz otherwise we waste the energy from our frustration/anger @ the wrong target......
2011 eminem quotes tattoo.
krishmunn
05-23 09:11 PM
Why we dont like gultis ? - eCharcha.Com (http://www.echarcha.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18691)
This link might help you understand the different definitions.
No body ever said you are the only m**on :rolleyes:
Disclaimer : I am not from any South Indian state.
This link might help you understand the different definitions.
No body ever said you are the only m**on :rolleyes:
Disclaimer : I am not from any South Indian state.
more...
perm2gc
01-11 03:25 PM
http://www.laborlawtalk.com/showthread.php?p=850460#post850460
http://www.indiacause.com/services/advt/advt_lst_one.asp?srno=10394
http://www.indiacause.com/services/advt/advt_lst_one.asp?srno=10394
yabadaba
03-04 12:34 PM
Those were different times. Try taking mortgage now on your EAD.
Here are my particulars:
Family income: Almost 4-5 times per capital GDP
Job type: Stable
Credit score : Excellent
Highest education: MBA
Willing to put downpayment: Yes, required 20%
Mortgage application: Rejected as EAD is valid for only one year.
Now you tell me what should I do...
shop around...talk to different lenders....there are many of them that understand that the ead is renewable. its up to u as a consumer how to make ur case.
Here are my particulars:
Family income: Almost 4-5 times per capital GDP
Job type: Stable
Credit score : Excellent
Highest education: MBA
Willing to put downpayment: Yes, required 20%
Mortgage application: Rejected as EAD is valid for only one year.
Now you tell me what should I do...
shop around...talk to different lenders....there are many of them that understand that the ead is renewable. its up to u as a consumer how to make ur case.
more...
newbee7
07-09 04:23 PM
Whenever i say this "Such policies, unless backed by legal basis, are not enforceable" Everybody starts bashing me up...
So you be ready toooo.
I would be very happy , if all the H1B guys get EAD , but i cant just give a statement against DOS/USCIS till i am 100% sure.
Are we 100% SURE that this happened???
Is there any clause in the law, which lets them do this ,If FBI doesnt give any information for 6 months/1 Year... I dont know , so i will let the court decide.
In some cases, security clearances required by the F.B.I. were not entirely completed, immigration officials said. The agency approved some applications “when we were certain the process will be completed very shortly,” Mr. Aytes said.
"not entirely completed" = INCOMPLETE
I think this should count for 100%.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/us/06visa.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
So you be ready toooo.
I would be very happy , if all the H1B guys get EAD , but i cant just give a statement against DOS/USCIS till i am 100% sure.
Are we 100% SURE that this happened???
Is there any clause in the law, which lets them do this ,If FBI doesnt give any information for 6 months/1 Year... I dont know , so i will let the court decide.
In some cases, security clearances required by the F.B.I. were not entirely completed, immigration officials said. The agency approved some applications “when we were certain the process will be completed very shortly,” Mr. Aytes said.
"not entirely completed" = INCOMPLETE
I think this should count for 100%.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/us/06visa.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
2010 2010 eminem quotes pictures.
grinch
03-07 05:56 PM
alright eilsoe, good entry man, pissed that you couldnt get time, but heck, no one has time eh?
Its ok, good work!
Its ok, good work!
more...
manderson
12-11 02:42 PM
reply from a previous thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2424&highlight=file+current (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2424&highlight=file+current)
The core team has alrady addressed this issue before : try doing a search. The summary goes something like this - First, EAD cards cannot be given out arbitrarily. Apparently, the law mandates very specific circumstances for which an work authorization (EAD) can be given out : for example, a student on OPT. We wouldn't meet this criteria before a visa number is available for adjustment of status to permanent resident - not unless the law is changed by congress. Secondly, EAD, as it stands now, is meant to be a strictly interim permit. The USCIS ombudsman's report has already objected strongly to the phenomenon of people who are ultimately found ineligible for permanent residence enjoying the benefits of an EAD for extended periods due to processing delays. In such circumstances, it is not realistic to expect that USCIS, on its own accord, will start doling out EADs like seasons' greetings cards.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2424&highlight=file+current (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2424&highlight=file+current)
The core team has alrady addressed this issue before : try doing a search. The summary goes something like this - First, EAD cards cannot be given out arbitrarily. Apparently, the law mandates very specific circumstances for which an work authorization (EAD) can be given out : for example, a student on OPT. We wouldn't meet this criteria before a visa number is available for adjustment of status to permanent resident - not unless the law is changed by congress. Secondly, EAD, as it stands now, is meant to be a strictly interim permit. The USCIS ombudsman's report has already objected strongly to the phenomenon of people who are ultimately found ineligible for permanent residence enjoying the benefits of an EAD for extended periods due to processing delays. In such circumstances, it is not realistic to expect that USCIS, on its own accord, will start doling out EADs like seasons' greetings cards.
hair Eminem Song Lyrics Quotes
kicca
08-29 02:09 PM
found this old (aug 2002) but still interesting pdf that may help if nothing else to clarify some of the acronyms used in the I485 process:
www.ilw.com/seminars/august2002_citation2b.pdf
www.ilw.com/seminars/august2002_citation2b.pdf
more...
akred
01-28 11:23 AM
If the country cap was supposed to increase diversity, lets have a country cap based on the person's race. Or lets have a single country cap for the EU. The fact that political integration in Europe has lagged behind China and India is being used by the restrictionists to limit immigration from the 3rd world.
Anyway, point is the immigration system overall is broken. IV should seriously consider making common cause with the lobby for undocumented immigrants. The way I see it, my H4 wife is an illegal immigrant now since she volunteered at some place in exchange for reduced fees.
Anyway, point is the immigration system overall is broken. IV should seriously consider making common cause with the lobby for undocumented immigrants. The way I see it, my H4 wife is an illegal immigrant now since she volunteered at some place in exchange for reduced fees.
hot From: EMINEM#39;s Quotes
ashwin_27
07-01 03:47 PM
I think the new reference # for the Sanders Amendment is now
Senate Amendment 4439 to the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act (H.R. 5297).. Correct??
People will be sending emails to senators with reference to the wrong amendment if this text is not corrected!!
Senate Amendment 4439 to the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act (H.R. 5297).. Correct??
People will be sending emails to senators with reference to the wrong amendment if this text is not corrected!!
more...
house images Famous Eminem Quotes
amitga
03-11 11:36 PM
Real April fool
tattoo eminem quotes. eminem quotes
kaisersose
07-14 05:56 PM
Should I send a AC21 letter to USCIS along with my new employment letter?
Who is the best attorney for such cases?
Is it possible that my prevous employer hasn't revoked 140? How can I know that? I have received RFE after one year after filing the case. Is there any way I can know the date when my previous employer did revoke the 140 ( in case he did)?
Of course, you know your problems best, but it was obviously irresponsible of you to quit before letting 180 days pass after applying for 485.
Here is the problem. The letter of employment you send to CIS must have a start date which will expose your violation of the 180 day rule. So unless you lie here, you are likely in in trouble. Your best bet is to suck it up and return to your sponsoring employer. That will ensure your case 100%. Any other option is risky.
Go to a knowledged attorney. Khanna, Murthy, Gotcher etc., are the names I know.
Who is the best attorney for such cases?
Is it possible that my prevous employer hasn't revoked 140? How can I know that? I have received RFE after one year after filing the case. Is there any way I can know the date when my previous employer did revoke the 140 ( in case he did)?
Of course, you know your problems best, but it was obviously irresponsible of you to quit before letting 180 days pass after applying for 485.
Here is the problem. The letter of employment you send to CIS must have a start date which will expose your violation of the 180 day rule. So unless you lie here, you are likely in in trouble. Your best bet is to suck it up and return to your sponsoring employer. That will ensure your case 100%. Any other option is risky.
Go to a knowledged attorney. Khanna, Murthy, Gotcher etc., are the names I know.
more...
pictures eminem quote. eminem quotes
anilsal
12-13 01:22 PM
Having a FAQ with links to discussions held in the forums may be the answer.
dresses eminem quotes pictures. eminem quotes pictures. eminem quotes about life
ArunAntonio
08-17 05:33 PM
Please vote -- > http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12441
more...
makeup Jakeblu eminem quotes. eminem
delhiguy
07-09 03:43 PM
I was surprised to see that nowhere it was mentioned that USCIS processed 25k petitions over the weekend (or nearly 60k in 2 weeks) as reported by some USCIS officials last week and in many cases broke their own regulations by approving several cases with pending background/name checks. That definitely sounds to me like a conspiracy against July filers....In my view, that should have been one of the strongest points we can use against USCIS. I dont think we have a case against DOS as they had to revise the bulletin as USCIS requested more than available Visa numbers and exhausted the quota.....Even Dr. Rice made it clear in her NBC interview from the DOS perspective that revision of visa bulletin caused an "inconvenience" to the petitioners....
I dont think legally you can sue someone, because they have worked harder.
I posted this link , so that everybody may know the legal reasons, which we can be presented in a court of law.
If this lawsuit is accepted by the court , then the USCIS lawyers would tell what exactly happened.
I till now personally believe , that the USCIS/DOS hasnt broken any law.
They may have however changed a pettern,process , but no law has been broken.
I dont think legally you can sue someone, because they have worked harder.
I posted this link , so that everybody may know the legal reasons, which we can be presented in a court of law.
If this lawsuit is accepted by the court , then the USCIS lawyers would tell what exactly happened.
I till now personally believe , that the USCIS/DOS hasnt broken any law.
They may have however changed a pettern,process , but no law has been broken.
girlfriend eminem quotes pictures. eminem quotes. eminem quotes
logiclife
08-03 02:30 PM
Copying from the reply I posted here:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=133404#post133404
I consulted a high profile ($200 per 15 minutes) lawyer to discuss this issue. 1) He told me that he would re-submit the AOS. The comparison to the medical clearance requirement, according to him, was pointless, as they are two different things. If USCIS issues a statement they will not reject solely based on the EVL, then we can assume that is the truth. Their statement on Medical clearance cannot be interpreted to say they won't reject on the basis of another missing requirement, say the EVL.
2) Filing two AOS packets can indeed also cause confusion, but it is a smaller risk according to him, and should be mitigated by a covering letter that says you are re-submitting to provide the XYZ document that was missed from the first packet.
Based on this info, I have asked my lawyer to get a confirmation from the USCIS on the document that he missed in my case-- the EVL. If USCIS okays that, we do not resubmit. If they don't do that within a week, I will try to re-submit... not going to be easy considering my lawyer may not be in agreement... but that is what would be the correct way out of this, according to the second opinion I got today.
Thanks
If you are resubmmitting or planning to resubmit, one tip...you need medical originals again, so call your doctor and ask him to create new sealed envelopes with original I-693...do this ahead of time coz this is only thing not in your control when filing a second 485. I am sure you might have thought about this, but just in case if you havent, then remember you will need I-693 original with your and doctor's signature with other stuff in sealed envelopes again.
Wish you all the luck Abhijit.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=133404#post133404
I consulted a high profile ($200 per 15 minutes) lawyer to discuss this issue. 1) He told me that he would re-submit the AOS. The comparison to the medical clearance requirement, according to him, was pointless, as they are two different things. If USCIS issues a statement they will not reject solely based on the EVL, then we can assume that is the truth. Their statement on Medical clearance cannot be interpreted to say they won't reject on the basis of another missing requirement, say the EVL.
2) Filing two AOS packets can indeed also cause confusion, but it is a smaller risk according to him, and should be mitigated by a covering letter that says you are re-submitting to provide the XYZ document that was missed from the first packet.
Based on this info, I have asked my lawyer to get a confirmation from the USCIS on the document that he missed in my case-- the EVL. If USCIS okays that, we do not resubmit. If they don't do that within a week, I will try to re-submit... not going to be easy considering my lawyer may not be in agreement... but that is what would be the correct way out of this, according to the second opinion I got today.
Thanks
If you are resubmmitting or planning to resubmit, one tip...you need medical originals again, so call your doctor and ask him to create new sealed envelopes with original I-693...do this ahead of time coz this is only thing not in your control when filing a second 485. I am sure you might have thought about this, but just in case if you havent, then remember you will need I-693 original with your and doctor's signature with other stuff in sealed envelopes again.
Wish you all the luck Abhijit.
hairstyles eminem quotes from songs.
needhelp!
11-14 01:34 PM
Couple of days back I got the receipt. I'll post the number soon.
Number of members participating in this is too few. We can rest assured there will be no "updates" from IV core if we don't act.
Only few members have posted about getting the receipt:
NRC2008063282
Nrc2008063641
Nrc2008063622
Nrc2008063600
NRC 2008 063585
Openarms
nc14
nirenjoshi
Nrc2008064184
Nrc2008064195
Nrc2008063524
NRC2008064127
shankar_thanu
Madhuri
Nrc2008064584
Number of members participating in this is too few. We can rest assured there will be no "updates" from IV core if we don't act.
Only few members have posted about getting the receipt:
NRC2008063282
Nrc2008063641
Nrc2008063622
Nrc2008063600
NRC 2008 063585
Openarms
nc14
nirenjoshi
Nrc2008064184
Nrc2008064195
Nrc2008063524
NRC2008064127
shankar_thanu
Madhuri
Nrc2008064584
reachinus
02-07 09:01 AM
I can donate 16000 US Airways miles from 2 accounts. Please let me know the process.
Administrator2
04-20 07:38 PM
Thank you for offering to volunteer for calling members in CA. Now we need 2 more volunteers to give 30-45 minutes to make the phone calls. This is a very important initiative. Kindly send me a private message if you would like to volunteer.
No comments:
Post a Comment