Roger Binny
09-01 02:14 AM
Very good one, thanks OP.
Some striking lines...
“I thought they would be so happy in this country — all the houses, the food, the cars,” said Najia Hamid, who founded the Afghan Elderly Association of the Bay Area, an outreach group for widows, with seed money from Fremont. “But I was met with crying.”
Young couples who need to work to support families have imported grandparents in part to baby-sit. There is a misguided assumption that baby-sitting is sustenance enough for the aging, said Moina Shaiq, founder of the Muslim Support Network, which brings seniors together. “We are all social beings. How much can you talk to your grandchildren?” Mrs. Shaiq said.
Some striking lines...
“I thought they would be so happy in this country — all the houses, the food, the cars,” said Najia Hamid, who founded the Afghan Elderly Association of the Bay Area, an outreach group for widows, with seed money from Fremont. “But I was met with crying.”
Young couples who need to work to support families have imported grandparents in part to baby-sit. There is a misguided assumption that baby-sitting is sustenance enough for the aging, said Moina Shaiq, founder of the Muslim Support Network, which brings seniors together. “We are all social beings. How much can you talk to your grandchildren?” Mrs. Shaiq said.
speddi
10-05 10:43 AM
Hi,
I am a July 2nd filer and I got my receipt notices, EADs and completed the FP too. I didnt get the AP yet but my wife's AP shows as approved. When I talked to an IO couple of days ago, she said my AP is approved but they didnt update the website. I called USCIS Customer Service today 3 to 4 (it seems they keep track of it) times and each gave me a different information. Sometimes they said they have Aug 17th as the receipt date but my receipt date is July 2nd(on the RN) and Aug 20th is the ND. So, I dont know what this Aug 17th date is and they say that is what they have in their systems as received date and I am still in the processing time. I am confused. According to my attorney, my wife's AP shudnt have been approved without my AP getting approved since I am the primary applicant.
Do I need to worry or just wait some more days? I am mainly worried that they have the wrong date as receipt date in their system and it might affect on future processing.
Thank you for any kind of input.
I am a July 2nd filer and I got my receipt notices, EADs and completed the FP too. I didnt get the AP yet but my wife's AP shows as approved. When I talked to an IO couple of days ago, she said my AP is approved but they didnt update the website. I called USCIS Customer Service today 3 to 4 (it seems they keep track of it) times and each gave me a different information. Sometimes they said they have Aug 17th as the receipt date but my receipt date is July 2nd(on the RN) and Aug 20th is the ND. So, I dont know what this Aug 17th date is and they say that is what they have in their systems as received date and I am still in the processing time. I am confused. According to my attorney, my wife's AP shudnt have been approved without my AP getting approved since I am the primary applicant.
Do I need to worry or just wait some more days? I am mainly worried that they have the wrong date as receipt date in their system and it might affect on future processing.
Thank you for any kind of input.
nozerd
09-07 09:54 AM
Yes ofcourse, if I was at the end of GC road I wouldnt go in the first place.
I was questioning this since I wanted to know if it was legaly allowed, since I wouldnt actually be working and earning in the US.
If this is truly allowed and my company lawyer agrees then it would truly make my life easier.
Thanks
I was questioning this since I wanted to know if it was legaly allowed, since I wouldnt actually be working and earning in the US.
If this is truly allowed and my company lawyer agrees then it would truly make my life easier.
Thanks
chi_shark
07-28 03:23 PM
is it in any shape size or form possible that you would put your I-140 employer into a bracket of potentially fraudulent companies? or did you have sub labor? anything you can think of that your employer may not have toed the line as far as the law is concerned? i am not suggesting that fraud investigation is the cause of these happenings... i am in fact wondering if that could be the case... if you think your employers were super lawful, then who knows what USCIS is doing!!
Same thing happened to me. I had posted it last week. My VSC approved 140 got transferred to TSC last week and today got email that the case is now pending. 485 was orignally filed at VSC that got transfered to TSC in March 2007.
Do you think something is cooking? ;)
Same thing happened to me. I had posted it last week. My VSC approved 140 got transferred to TSC last week and today got email that the case is now pending. 485 was orignally filed at VSC that got transfered to TSC in March 2007.
Do you think something is cooking? ;)
more...
cbpds
08-03 06:27 PM
you missed on one fav diet control idea ---drinking Green tea :)
delhirocks
07-08 04:28 PM
Good Job...
more...
gc28262
06-14 02:57 PM
Refer this:
Case Study: Upgrade from EB3 to EB2 (http://www.imminfo.com/News/Newsletter/2010-06/case_study_upgrade_from_eb3_to_eb2.html)
Case Study: Upgrade from EB3 to EB2 (http://www.imminfo.com/News/Newsletter/2010-06/case_study_upgrade_from_eb3_to_eb2.html)
eilsoe
10-03 01:25 PM
Allright....
SPAM*MATH.ACOS(POW(INFINITY,INFINITY))/2*3+SIN(INFINITY+1)
::::eerie laughing is heard briefly, then a loud choking sound::::
::::mistyfying silence covers the land::::
SPAM*MATH.ACOS(POW(INFINITY,INFINITY))/2*3+SIN(INFINITY+1)
::::eerie laughing is heard briefly, then a loud choking sound::::
::::mistyfying silence covers the land::::
more...
pkd666
02-14 02:05 PM
Courts in NJ are not all that friendly to the employees in the case of a non-compete issue. I did some research in this regard when i was having trouble with my desi employer. If you were in California, you can just show him the finger, but NJ is different. If you did sign a non-compete agreement then i would suggest you try switching vendors and join the client after a while. but if you did not sign anything, then there is not much the employer can do.
shirish
10-03 02:33 PM
PD - sept 05 EB2 India
I140 - Approved Apr 2006
I-485,AP,EAD - reached NSC on July 27th 07
No - RN, NO EAD, NO AP, NO FP
I140 - Approved Apr 2006
I-485,AP,EAD - reached NSC on July 27th 07
No - RN, NO EAD, NO AP, NO FP
more...
harivenkat
05-11 03:21 PM
Sent a mail to Senator Leahy at : senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
Please send him emails.
Dear Senator Leahy,
This is regarding recent hearing from USCIS Director Mayorkas and his response
to issue of backlog.
The issue of immigration backlog is a ubiquitous one ranging from family to employment.
Employment being really the big issue with 1-2 million legally working applicants waiting
to get greencard.
It is surprising that Mayorkas is not aware of this Burning situation faced
by a million plus legal applicants and that he needs to consult the experts. I wonder
if senate is interested in doing anything better, other than settling in for such a
mediocre explanation from the Head of USCIS.
What Mr Mayorkas could have suggested to mitigate the backlog is : Visa Capture, I-485
Preregistration, senate passing bills to increase visa number and other strategies that will resolve the
backlog issue. May be he can refer to these forums which can give him some thoughts coming from people
who are suffering first hand as result of such services of provided by USCIS :
Analysis Discussion - Immigration Voice (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum108-anal)...
http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i...
USCIS has already shown us their (fiasco)effeciency during filings of 485 for 800000 applicants in
Jul 2007. They already are showing when it is coming to visa allocations every month. One wonders what
gives the confidence to Mr. Mayorkas to admit that USCIS can handle CIR ?
Mr. Senator, senate deserves a better explanation on strategy to reduce backlog while it owes a
greater responsibility of bringing relief to million plus tax paying, law abiding legal living applicants. I request you to set a follow up hearing to get to the root of the issue in resolving the backlog problem for EB category skilled worker applicants especially from India and China.
God bless you Senator !
Your's sincerely,
Please send him emails.
Dear Senator Leahy,
This is regarding recent hearing from USCIS Director Mayorkas and his response
to issue of backlog.
The issue of immigration backlog is a ubiquitous one ranging from family to employment.
Employment being really the big issue with 1-2 million legally working applicants waiting
to get greencard.
It is surprising that Mayorkas is not aware of this Burning situation faced
by a million plus legal applicants and that he needs to consult the experts. I wonder
if senate is interested in doing anything better, other than settling in for such a
mediocre explanation from the Head of USCIS.
What Mr Mayorkas could have suggested to mitigate the backlog is : Visa Capture, I-485
Preregistration, senate passing bills to increase visa number and other strategies that will resolve the
backlog issue. May be he can refer to these forums which can give him some thoughts coming from people
who are suffering first hand as result of such services of provided by USCIS :
Analysis Discussion - Immigration Voice (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum108-anal)...
http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i...
USCIS has already shown us their (fiasco)effeciency during filings of 485 for 800000 applicants in
Jul 2007. They already are showing when it is coming to visa allocations every month. One wonders what
gives the confidence to Mr. Mayorkas to admit that USCIS can handle CIR ?
Mr. Senator, senate deserves a better explanation on strategy to reduce backlog while it owes a
greater responsibility of bringing relief to million plus tax paying, law abiding legal living applicants. I request you to set a follow up hearing to get to the root of the issue in resolving the backlog problem for EB category skilled worker applicants especially from India and China.
God bless you Senator !
Your's sincerely,
mrajatish
05-21 12:34 PM
How about making sure individuals do not get the original PD when they use labor substitution. This will stop illegal labor trade and help a lot of us.
An USCIS memo in mid 1990's had this:
The memo (priority dates retrogression) of Mr. Rajiv S.Khanna states that beneficiary of substituted labor certificate would get the same priority date.
I was just searching uscis.gov and I found this very interesting !
Now the question is: Who is wright?
Check this out!
d) Priority date. * * * If the United States employer substitutes another alien on a labor certification, the priority date shall be the date the employer requests the substitution.
" The Service has concluded that it is unfair to other aliens who seek to immigrate to the United States on employment-based petitions if the substituted alien gains the priority date of the original alien beneficiary, since those aliens would receive a later priority date than a substituted alien. Currently, in certain employment-based immigrant categories, such as the third preference "other worker" category, an alien who benefits from a labor certification substitution can immigrate ahead of another alien who has been waiting for an immigrant visa for several years. Not only would allowing substituted aliens to receive the earlier priority date be unfair to other intending immigrants, it would also be contrary to the Service's policy of assigning a priority date to the alien rather than to the employer (see 8 CFR 204.5(e)).
Providing a priority date based on an employer's substitution of a labor certification beneficiary also carries the potential for fraud and abuse. Continuing this practice may encourage the creation of a market for labor certifications, particularly in categories in which there is a lengthy wait to receive an immigrant visa. For instance, it is conceivable that the original alien beneficiary might be induced to engage in the fraudulent practice of selling his or her status as a labor certification beneficiary to a substituted alien.
The Service, therefore, proposes to set the priority date for an alien who has been substituted for another alien on a labor certification as the date the employer requested the substitution. This proposed rule will be fair to other aliens who apply under employment-based immigrant categories, and would be consistent with the Service's policy of according a priority date to the alien rather than to the employer, thereby eliminating an inducement to commit fraud.
An USCIS memo in mid 1990's had this:
The memo (priority dates retrogression) of Mr. Rajiv S.Khanna states that beneficiary of substituted labor certificate would get the same priority date.
I was just searching uscis.gov and I found this very interesting !
Now the question is: Who is wright?
Check this out!
d) Priority date. * * * If the United States employer substitutes another alien on a labor certification, the priority date shall be the date the employer requests the substitution.
" The Service has concluded that it is unfair to other aliens who seek to immigrate to the United States on employment-based petitions if the substituted alien gains the priority date of the original alien beneficiary, since those aliens would receive a later priority date than a substituted alien. Currently, in certain employment-based immigrant categories, such as the third preference "other worker" category, an alien who benefits from a labor certification substitution can immigrate ahead of another alien who has been waiting for an immigrant visa for several years. Not only would allowing substituted aliens to receive the earlier priority date be unfair to other intending immigrants, it would also be contrary to the Service's policy of assigning a priority date to the alien rather than to the employer (see 8 CFR 204.5(e)).
Providing a priority date based on an employer's substitution of a labor certification beneficiary also carries the potential for fraud and abuse. Continuing this practice may encourage the creation of a market for labor certifications, particularly in categories in which there is a lengthy wait to receive an immigrant visa. For instance, it is conceivable that the original alien beneficiary might be induced to engage in the fraudulent practice of selling his or her status as a labor certification beneficiary to a substituted alien.
The Service, therefore, proposes to set the priority date for an alien who has been substituted for another alien on a labor certification as the date the employer requested the substitution. This proposed rule will be fair to other aliens who apply under employment-based immigrant categories, and would be consistent with the Service's policy of according a priority date to the alien rather than to the employer, thereby eliminating an inducement to commit fraud.
more...
Norristown
11-14 04:27 PM
Currently job market is little bit tight. Employers are asking for GC or citizenship.
By the time we seek perm job, EAD shows only remaining 6 months validity. That might scare some employers. Employers pay more for contractors than employees. So I see you mau get small hike in salary...
By the time we seek perm job, EAD shows only remaining 6 months validity. That might scare some employers. Employers pay more for contractors than employees. So I see you mau get small hike in salary...
northstar
11-25 05:56 PM
You should be ok, just send them the papers again
more...
Winner
04-09 02:36 PM
Guys and Gals,
I heard this from immigrant coworkers in my company (Consulting company with 1000+ consultants in USA, 15000+ all over the world), I�m hearing that employees are forced to us EAD instead of renewing H1B visa. Funny part here is, they did not pay for filing I485, all expenses including medical were paid by the employee.
Now they say that they will reimburse EAD filing expense and trying to force employees to use EAD once H1B expires.
Questions:
Is this legal?
Is it a common practice?
Assuming it�s legal and employees have no other choice other than using EAD, I�ve couple more questions.
If for some reason, I485 is denied and you challenge the decision using MTR, will you still be legal status if the MTR process takes several months?
Is there a limit on how many times you can challenge USCIS decision? If they reject your application 10 times and you know the reason they rejected each time is incorrect, do you get to challenge them if you have enough evidence that your application was rejected incorrectly?
Thanks for your time.
I heard this from immigrant coworkers in my company (Consulting company with 1000+ consultants in USA, 15000+ all over the world), I�m hearing that employees are forced to us EAD instead of renewing H1B visa. Funny part here is, they did not pay for filing I485, all expenses including medical were paid by the employee.
Now they say that they will reimburse EAD filing expense and trying to force employees to use EAD once H1B expires.
Questions:
Is this legal?
Is it a common practice?
Assuming it�s legal and employees have no other choice other than using EAD, I�ve couple more questions.
If for some reason, I485 is denied and you challenge the decision using MTR, will you still be legal status if the MTR process takes several months?
Is there a limit on how many times you can challenge USCIS decision? If they reject your application 10 times and you know the reason they rejected each time is incorrect, do you get to challenge them if you have enough evidence that your application was rejected incorrectly?
Thanks for your time.
somegchuh
06-10 06:45 PM
I was wondering if anyone here who had a canadian PR (i.e. did a landing), got GC later has travelled again to Canada again?
We got canadian PR in 2005 and did a landing while we were waiting for our GC. We got a our GC last year and are planning to visit canada using our GC. Are there going to be any issue in entering canada?
Also, we travelled to India last year and received new I-94 when we got back into US using AP. Very soon (days) we received our GC's. I am not sure what do with these I-94's when we leave US. Do we still need to surrender these as in the past?
We got canadian PR in 2005 and did a landing while we were waiting for our GC. We got a our GC last year and are planning to visit canada using our GC. Are there going to be any issue in entering canada?
Also, we travelled to India last year and received new I-94 when we got back into US using AP. Very soon (days) we received our GC's. I am not sure what do with these I-94's when we leave US. Do we still need to surrender these as in the past?
more...
AttelsActuasy
02-27 11:53 AM
pozycjonowanie (http://www.clpik-studio.com)
amitpan007
06-29 03:21 PM
Paying little extra for few months is better than remaining uninsured. Check with your employer and health insurance if there is a pre-existing condition clause for maternity. Usually, there is none and in that case you can take a cheaper individual plan for now to cover for office visits (and pay discounted rates for those as most of them will count against deductible in any decently priced plan you choose) and later shift to employer plan as delivery time gets closer. But one thing to keep in mind is that usually depending on employer size and health insurance company you choose, declaring current status as pregnant may add more premium later.
cagedcactus
05-03 06:54 AM
thanks a lot friends, I appreciate your inputs.......:)
I had couple of companies contact me, so will look for a solid new start.
4 years of wait down the drain......:mad:
I had couple of companies contact me, so will look for a solid new start.
4 years of wait down the drain......:mad:
kishdam
03-17 10:18 AM
I was reading at immigration-law.com that a new bill SUSTAIN act is introduced by Lamar Smith in the house and is referred to the judiciary committee. This bill seems proposing the increase of H1B numbers from 65k to 195k. Does this bill have any EB related measures? This bill may be unlikely to get voted anytime soon but if it has some EB measures at least we get some exposure.
Ramba
04-22 02:19 PM
My lawyer got the RFE notice yesterday....
My LC / I-140 stated that I am an "Electrical Engineering Technician" due to PW concerns at the time of application but my H1-B application said "Applications Engineer (Chemicals Group)". But the job duties were exactly the same word for word. I'm not sure if that is causing the problem. I am being paid significantly more than the LC / 1-140 wage currently. So, lack of ability to pay is not an issue. I have also been continuously employed by the same organization. I have not sought a different employer ever since I applied for my GC.
Please reply with your thoughts.
Though, it appears as regular employment verification letter, there may be catch in it due to what you explained above. Though you were an "engineer" in H1B, your employer applied as a "technician" in green card application (LC/140) to overcome pre-wailing wage issue. This is not good one if they found out, as the technicians can not be in H1B visa. You can not argue I will be technician after getting GC. Also, you can not use AC21 as "engineers" and "technicians" are not similar occupations.
My LC / I-140 stated that I am an "Electrical Engineering Technician" due to PW concerns at the time of application but my H1-B application said "Applications Engineer (Chemicals Group)". But the job duties were exactly the same word for word. I'm not sure if that is causing the problem. I am being paid significantly more than the LC / 1-140 wage currently. So, lack of ability to pay is not an issue. I have also been continuously employed by the same organization. I have not sought a different employer ever since I applied for my GC.
Please reply with your thoughts.
Though, it appears as regular employment verification letter, there may be catch in it due to what you explained above. Though you were an "engineer" in H1B, your employer applied as a "technician" in green card application (LC/140) to overcome pre-wailing wage issue. This is not good one if they found out, as the technicians can not be in H1B visa. You can not argue I will be technician after getting GC. Also, you can not use AC21 as "engineers" and "technicians" are not similar occupations.
0 comments:
Post a Comment