pdakwala
04-29 11:26 AM
I would like to send emails to my friends about IV and the cause IV stands for. I know a lot of people who are stuck by retrogession. Is there a standard template to invite friends to join, volunteer and contribute that we can include as a link in this website please?
vj
SEAHAWKS,
You can visit the resource section. You will find the email template. You can use that. Feel free to edit it if you want to make it personallise.
http://www.immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=36
vj
SEAHAWKS,
You can visit the resource section. You will find the email template. You can use that. Feel free to edit it if you want to make it personallise.
http://www.immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=36
redelite
08-20 03:11 PM
Allllllllllrighty... here's my attempt at the O RLY owl..
http://www.kirupa.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=47605&stc=1&d=1219259362
Edit: Man, a second look at it and I think it might be too light...
http://www.kirupa.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=47605&stc=1&d=1219259362
Edit: Man, a second look at it and I think it might be too light...
vallabhu
01-14 12:22 PM
The source is Immigration-law.com
This bill was introduced by Rep. Shela Jackson-Lee of Texas. Here is the full-text of the bill. It is a shocker, highly prejudiced against the employment-based immigration. Another shocker is a proposal to increaase Diversity Visa from 55,000 to 110,000 when the general opinion in the Congress was even to eliminate the DV program.
SEC. 701. UNFAIR IMMIGRATION-RELATED EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES.
Section 274B (8 U.S.C. 1324b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(5)--
(A) by amending the paragraph heading to read `Prohibition of Intimidation, Retaliation, or Unlawful Discrimination in Employment';
(B) by moving the text down and to the right 2 ems;
(C) by inserting before such text the following: `(A) IN GENERAL- '; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
`(B) FEDERAL LABOR OR EMPLOYMENT LAWS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer to directly or indirectly threaten any individual with removal or any other adverse consequences pertaining to that individual's immigration status or employment benefits for the purpose of intimidating, pressuring, or coercing any such individual not to exercise any right protected by State or Federal labor or employment law (including section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 157)), or for the purpose of retaliating against any such individual for having exercised or having stated an intention to exercise any such right.
`(C) DISCRIMINATION BASED ON IMMIGRATION STATUS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer, except to the extent specifically authorized or required by law, to discriminate in any term or condition of employment against any individual employed by such employer on the basis of such individual's immigration status.'; and
(2) in subsection (c)(2), by adding at the end the following: `The Special Counsel shall not disclose to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, and shall not cause to be published in a manner that discloses to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, any information obtained by the Special Counsel in any manner concerning the immigration status of any individual who has filed a charge under this section, or the identity of any individual or entity that is a party or witness to a proceedings brought pursuant to such charge. The Secretary of Homeland Security may not rely, in whole or in part, in any enforcement action or removal proceeding, upon any information obtained as a result of the filing or prosecution of an unfair immigration-related employment practice charge. For purposes of this paragraph, the term `Special Counsel' includes individuals formerly appointed to the position of Special Counsel and any current or former employee of the office of the Special Counsel. Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits information to be used in violation of this paragraph shall be fined not more than $10,000.'.
SEC. 702. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TASK FORCE.
The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall conduct a national study of American workplaces to determine the causes, extent, circumstances, and consequences, of exploitation of undocumented alien workers by their employers. As part of this study, the Secretary of Labor shall create a plan for targeted review of Federal labor law enforcement in industries with a substantial immigrant workforce, for the purpose of identifying, monitoring, and deterring frequent or egregious violators of wage and hour, antidiscrimination, National Labor Relations Act, and workplace safety and health requirements. Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall submit to the Congress a report describing the results of the study and the Secretary's recommendations based on the study.
SEC. 703. RECRUITMENT OF AMERICAN WORKERS.
Section 214 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (m) (as added by section 105 of Public Law 106-313), (n) (as added by section 107(e) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1513(c) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1102(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act), and (p) (as added by section 1503(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act) as subsections (n), (o), (p), (q), and (r), respectively; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(s)(1) No petition to accord employment status under the nonimmigrant classifications described in sections 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) and (H) shall be granted in the absence of an affidavit from the petitioner describing the efforts that were made to recruit an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence or a citizen of the United States before resorting to a petition to obtain a foreign employee. The recruitment efforts must have included substantial attempts to find employees in minority communities. Recruitment efforts in minority communities should include at least one of the following, if appropriate for the employment being advertised:
`(A) Advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker in local newspapers in the labor market that is likely to be patronized by a potential worker for at least 5 consecutive days.
`(B) Undertake efforts to advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker through advertisements in public transportation systems.
`(C) To the extent permitted by local laws and regulations, engage in recruitment activities in secondary schools, recreation centers, community centers, and other places throughout the communities within 50 miles of the job site that serve minorities.
`(2)(A) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a 10 percent surcharge on all fees collected for petitions to accord employment status and shall use these funds to establish an employment training program which will include unemployed workers in the United States who need to be trained or retrained. The purpose of this program shall be to increase the number of lawful permanent residents and citizens of the United States who are available for employment in the occupations that are the subjects of such petitions. At least 50 percent of the funds generated by this provision must be used to train American workers in rural and inner-city areas.
`(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall reserve and make available to the Secretary of Labor a portion of the funds collected under this paragraph. Such funds shall be used by the Secretary of Labor to establish an `Office to Preserve American Jobs' within the Department of Labor. The purpose of this office shall be to establish policies intended to ensure that employers in the United States will hire available workers in the United States before resorting to foreign labor, giving substantial emphasis to hiring minority workers in the United States.'.
This bill was introduced by Rep. Shela Jackson-Lee of Texas. Here is the full-text of the bill. It is a shocker, highly prejudiced against the employment-based immigration. Another shocker is a proposal to increaase Diversity Visa from 55,000 to 110,000 when the general opinion in the Congress was even to eliminate the DV program.
SEC. 701. UNFAIR IMMIGRATION-RELATED EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES.
Section 274B (8 U.S.C. 1324b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(5)--
(A) by amending the paragraph heading to read `Prohibition of Intimidation, Retaliation, or Unlawful Discrimination in Employment';
(B) by moving the text down and to the right 2 ems;
(C) by inserting before such text the following: `(A) IN GENERAL- '; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
`(B) FEDERAL LABOR OR EMPLOYMENT LAWS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer to directly or indirectly threaten any individual with removal or any other adverse consequences pertaining to that individual's immigration status or employment benefits for the purpose of intimidating, pressuring, or coercing any such individual not to exercise any right protected by State or Federal labor or employment law (including section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 157)), or for the purpose of retaliating against any such individual for having exercised or having stated an intention to exercise any such right.
`(C) DISCRIMINATION BASED ON IMMIGRATION STATUS- It is an unfair employment practice for any employer, except to the extent specifically authorized or required by law, to discriminate in any term or condition of employment against any individual employed by such employer on the basis of such individual's immigration status.'; and
(2) in subsection (c)(2), by adding at the end the following: `The Special Counsel shall not disclose to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, and shall not cause to be published in a manner that discloses to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency or employee, any information obtained by the Special Counsel in any manner concerning the immigration status of any individual who has filed a charge under this section, or the identity of any individual or entity that is a party or witness to a proceedings brought pursuant to such charge. The Secretary of Homeland Security may not rely, in whole or in part, in any enforcement action or removal proceeding, upon any information obtained as a result of the filing or prosecution of an unfair immigration-related employment practice charge. For purposes of this paragraph, the term `Special Counsel' includes individuals formerly appointed to the position of Special Counsel and any current or former employee of the office of the Special Counsel. Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits information to be used in violation of this paragraph shall be fined not more than $10,000.'.
SEC. 702. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TASK FORCE.
The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall conduct a national study of American workplaces to determine the causes, extent, circumstances, and consequences, of exploitation of undocumented alien workers by their employers. As part of this study, the Secretary of Labor shall create a plan for targeted review of Federal labor law enforcement in industries with a substantial immigrant workforce, for the purpose of identifying, monitoring, and deterring frequent or egregious violators of wage and hour, antidiscrimination, National Labor Relations Act, and workplace safety and health requirements. Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall submit to the Congress a report describing the results of the study and the Secretary's recommendations based on the study.
SEC. 703. RECRUITMENT OF AMERICAN WORKERS.
Section 214 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (m) (as added by section 105 of Public Law 106-313), (n) (as added by section 107(e) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1513(c) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1102(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act), and (p) (as added by section 1503(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act) as subsections (n), (o), (p), (q), and (r), respectively; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(s)(1) No petition to accord employment status under the nonimmigrant classifications described in sections 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) and (H) shall be granted in the absence of an affidavit from the petitioner describing the efforts that were made to recruit an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence or a citizen of the United States before resorting to a petition to obtain a foreign employee. The recruitment efforts must have included substantial attempts to find employees in minority communities. Recruitment efforts in minority communities should include at least one of the following, if appropriate for the employment being advertised:
`(A) Advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker in local newspapers in the labor market that is likely to be patronized by a potential worker for at least 5 consecutive days.
`(B) Undertake efforts to advertise the availability of the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker through advertisements in public transportation systems.
`(C) To the extent permitted by local laws and regulations, engage in recruitment activities in secondary schools, recreation centers, community centers, and other places throughout the communities within 50 miles of the job site that serve minorities.
`(2)(A) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a 10 percent surcharge on all fees collected for petitions to accord employment status and shall use these funds to establish an employment training program which will include unemployed workers in the United States who need to be trained or retrained. The purpose of this program shall be to increase the number of lawful permanent residents and citizens of the United States who are available for employment in the occupations that are the subjects of such petitions. At least 50 percent of the funds generated by this provision must be used to train American workers in rural and inner-city areas.
`(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall reserve and make available to the Secretary of Labor a portion of the funds collected under this paragraph. Such funds shall be used by the Secretary of Labor to establish an `Office to Preserve American Jobs' within the Department of Labor. The purpose of this office shall be to establish policies intended to ensure that employers in the United States will hire available workers in the United States before resorting to foreign labor, giving substantial emphasis to hiring minority workers in the United States.'.
RandyK
02-16 11:46 AM
Am I understanding this right ?
FOR H1/L1 They do a FBI background check
FOR I-485/CP They do a Name Check
Please someone clarify, I do have a loooong name just wanted to know what I am getting into here.
FOR H1/L1 They do a FBI background check
FOR I-485/CP They do a Name Check
Please someone clarify, I do have a loooong name just wanted to know what I am getting into here.
more...
MartinR
February 16th, 2005, 03:14 AM
I have found a site that calculates the focal length:
http://www.jvcpro.co.uk/solu/networks/calcfocal
I have just checked the focal length at the wide angle end of the scale using a tape measure and got surprisingly close (7.02mm) agreement with the manufacturer's figure (7mm). With that, I can now find where on the scale the standard (50mm) length would be - just for interest's sake.
Many thanks to everyone for their help.
Martin
http://www.jvcpro.co.uk/solu/networks/calcfocal
I have just checked the focal length at the wide angle end of the scale using a tape measure and got surprisingly close (7.02mm) agreement with the manufacturer's figure (7mm). With that, I can now find where on the scale the standard (50mm) length would be - just for interest's sake.
Many thanks to everyone for their help.
Martin
sudiptasarkar
09-14 02:51 PM
I am trying to apply my AP (I-131) renewal. My current AP will expire on Oct 17 2009.
I had few questions about the form. Can someone please answer my queries?
Part 1
Q#3. Class of Admission: I used my AP to enter the country on Sep 7th 2009. I am currently working on EAD. What should I enter for this field?
Part 3
Q1. Date of Intended Departure: I do not have any trip planned right now. What should I enter for this question.
Q2. Expected Length of Trip: What should I enter for this question?
On Part 7 it says that
"On a separate sheet of paper explain how you qualify for an advance parole document, and what circumstances warrant issuance of advance parole."
Thanks
Sudipta
I had few questions about the form. Can someone please answer my queries?
Part 1
Q#3. Class of Admission: I used my AP to enter the country on Sep 7th 2009. I am currently working on EAD. What should I enter for this field?
Part 3
Q1. Date of Intended Departure: I do not have any trip planned right now. What should I enter for this question.
Q2. Expected Length of Trip: What should I enter for this question?
On Part 7 it says that
"On a separate sheet of paper explain how you qualify for an advance parole document, and what circumstances warrant issuance of advance parole."
Thanks
Sudipta
more...
willigetgc?
01-03 11:53 AM
There have been new enforcement policies at the federal and state level, mostly targeted at known criminals who are also in violation of immigration laws, but while the huffing and puffing over immigration in Congress and on Beacon Hill has been fierce, no legislation has resulted.
The closest Congress came to action was the Dream Act, which would establish a path to citizenship for the most sympathetic class of undocumented immigrants: those brought to the U.S. as children, have stayed out of trouble, completed high school and committed to college or service in the U.S. military.
The Dream Act won passage in the House, and 53 votes in the Senate - but not enough to break a Republican-led filibuster.
Dream Act supporters should try again in the new Congress, but this time they should take a page from the tax compromise forged in the lame-duck session. That deal combined something Democrats wanted - an extension of unemployment benefits - with something Republicans wanted - an extension of tax cuts for high earning individuals.
Some leading conservatives have proposed loosening immigration rules for another worthy group: highly-educated foreigners capable of creating the new ideas, inventions and enterprises so important to America's economy. The brightest minds from around the world come to leading American universities, only to take their knowledge and talents back home because they can't legally stay here.
Conservative think tanks and commentators - and some elected officials - have suggested every foreign student who receives a post-graduate degree be automatically granted a green card. Some will still go home, but those who choose to stay can supply the brains and ambition that immigrants have been bringing to America's economy for hundreds of years.
Our first choice would be for Congress to enact the kind of comprehensive immigration reform proposed in recent years by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, former President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama. If that's not in the cards, we suggest pairing the Dream Act with a bill offering legal residency to the most highly educated foreign students.
What ties these proposals together is the assumption, shared by leaders of most political stripes, that legal immigration is good and necessary. America's population is aging and America's economic competitors are gaining ground in innovative technologies. We need immigrants, especially those who already consider themselves Americans - like the ones welcomed by the Dream Act - and those whose education and skills can contribute to economic growth.
The best compromises are those which incorporate the ideas and priorities of both sides. Such a compromise on immigration policy is long overdue.
Editorial: Immigration in 2011 - Framingham, MA - The MetroWest Daily News (http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/editorials/x338106193/Editorial-Immigration-in-2011)
The closest Congress came to action was the Dream Act, which would establish a path to citizenship for the most sympathetic class of undocumented immigrants: those brought to the U.S. as children, have stayed out of trouble, completed high school and committed to college or service in the U.S. military.
The Dream Act won passage in the House, and 53 votes in the Senate - but not enough to break a Republican-led filibuster.
Dream Act supporters should try again in the new Congress, but this time they should take a page from the tax compromise forged in the lame-duck session. That deal combined something Democrats wanted - an extension of unemployment benefits - with something Republicans wanted - an extension of tax cuts for high earning individuals.
Some leading conservatives have proposed loosening immigration rules for another worthy group: highly-educated foreigners capable of creating the new ideas, inventions and enterprises so important to America's economy. The brightest minds from around the world come to leading American universities, only to take their knowledge and talents back home because they can't legally stay here.
Conservative think tanks and commentators - and some elected officials - have suggested every foreign student who receives a post-graduate degree be automatically granted a green card. Some will still go home, but those who choose to stay can supply the brains and ambition that immigrants have been bringing to America's economy for hundreds of years.
Our first choice would be for Congress to enact the kind of comprehensive immigration reform proposed in recent years by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, former President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama. If that's not in the cards, we suggest pairing the Dream Act with a bill offering legal residency to the most highly educated foreign students.
What ties these proposals together is the assumption, shared by leaders of most political stripes, that legal immigration is good and necessary. America's population is aging and America's economic competitors are gaining ground in innovative technologies. We need immigrants, especially those who already consider themselves Americans - like the ones welcomed by the Dream Act - and those whose education and skills can contribute to economic growth.
The best compromises are those which incorporate the ideas and priorities of both sides. Such a compromise on immigration policy is long overdue.
Editorial: Immigration in 2011 - Framingham, MA - The MetroWest Daily News (http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/editorials/x338106193/Editorial-Immigration-in-2011)
raamskl
08-15 09:32 PM
Travel on AP and work on H1B? Have applied for 485, AP and EAD. By the way, what is the advantage of doing so?
Assuming you have valid I797 (h1), the advantage of using an AP is to reenter the country without worrying about getting a visa stamping in the passport. But if you already have a valid stamping then it does not matter whether you use ur h1 or AP to reenter the country.
But an EAD/AP is always good to have along with your H1 as that gives you another option of switching jobs after 180 days of filing 485, when the new employer is not willing to file a transfer of H1.
Cheers.
Assuming you have valid I797 (h1), the advantage of using an AP is to reenter the country without worrying about getting a visa stamping in the passport. But if you already have a valid stamping then it does not matter whether you use ur h1 or AP to reenter the country.
But an EAD/AP is always good to have along with your H1 as that gives you another option of switching jobs after 180 days of filing 485, when the new employer is not willing to file a transfer of H1.
Cheers.
more...
Redeye
04-21 03:32 PM
You aint getting any information or clarification on this buddy. Everyone says it is a gray area. I am getting gray hair trying to get clarification for this gray area :)
Something so simple cannot be clarified, this is pathetic state of our being. Cant get a head start on business or even think about doing anything out of the box. Depressing!!!
Something so simple cannot be clarified, this is pathetic state of our being. Cant get a head start on business or even think about doing anything out of the box. Depressing!!!
praveen2008
02-13 11:39 AM
Hello All,
I am on a 6th year on H1-B with my 140 approved. I am due for renewal on June 2010 with my employer who is a desi consulting company.. My employer has around 100+ employees.
I am recently moving over to a new consulting opportunity which my employer has showed me which is corp � corp with prime vendor in between�
I also have another Full time offer pending with a Big 5 consulting company who promised me to sponsor my H1 and re start my GC process since my 485 is not approved� I need couple of suggestions if somebody could advice
� Is it better to stay with my desi consulting company because my GC is in process with them? I am little afraid with respect to this new USCIS Memo( Employee � employer relationship in terms of H1 processing and travelling to india
OR
� Is it better to move on with the full time offer with top 5 consulting company . This from my career perspective would be growth but only disadvantage is that I need to re start my GC process . Hopefully I should be able to port my PD date�..
I am little torn up on what to choose ( full time or stay on corp to corp ). Can anybody advise if its better to compromise on GC and take the Full time offer because of all this scrutiny that USCIS is doing with ..
Thanks,
I am on a 6th year on H1-B with my 140 approved. I am due for renewal on June 2010 with my employer who is a desi consulting company.. My employer has around 100+ employees.
I am recently moving over to a new consulting opportunity which my employer has showed me which is corp � corp with prime vendor in between�
I also have another Full time offer pending with a Big 5 consulting company who promised me to sponsor my H1 and re start my GC process since my 485 is not approved� I need couple of suggestions if somebody could advice
� Is it better to stay with my desi consulting company because my GC is in process with them? I am little afraid with respect to this new USCIS Memo( Employee � employer relationship in terms of H1 processing and travelling to india
OR
� Is it better to move on with the full time offer with top 5 consulting company . This from my career perspective would be growth but only disadvantage is that I need to re start my GC process . Hopefully I should be able to port my PD date�..
I am little torn up on what to choose ( full time or stay on corp to corp ). Can anybody advise if its better to compromise on GC and take the Full time offer because of all this scrutiny that USCIS is doing with ..
Thanks,
more...
Hassan11
04-14 03:08 PM
what is the fee for I-131 is it $305 or $385? do I need to pay for the biometric fee? I already have my FP done when I applied for I-485. I sent my I-485 before the fee increase so I have to pay each time I renew EAD or apply for Travel document. Please advise. Thanks
gimme Green!!
01-02 12:12 PM
I have got extension on my H1 after completing 6 years.
My wife has been on H4 till now.
Is she eligible to get a new H1?
Hi,
I just got my 2nd 3 year extension (Nov 2006 to Nov 2009) on my H1B after completing six years.
My PD is June 2005 and I-140 approved on July 2006. I am thinking of
changing my job. I am puzzling about the following questions:
1. Can I change the job and use my 3 year extension for the next job?
2. Can I keep my PD of June 2005 if my current employer doesn't revoke
my I-140 ?
3. If I apply for GC again with new employer and get my I-140 approved , can
I keep getting 3 year extensions on that job ?
PLEASE HELP!.
Thank you,
My wife has been on H4 till now.
Is she eligible to get a new H1?
Hi,
I just got my 2nd 3 year extension (Nov 2006 to Nov 2009) on my H1B after completing six years.
My PD is June 2005 and I-140 approved on July 2006. I am thinking of
changing my job. I am puzzling about the following questions:
1. Can I change the job and use my 3 year extension for the next job?
2. Can I keep my PD of June 2005 if my current employer doesn't revoke
my I-140 ?
3. If I apply for GC again with new employer and get my I-140 approved , can
I keep getting 3 year extensions on that job ?
PLEASE HELP!.
Thank you,
more...
Rb_newsletter
01-07 04:19 PM
Try changing thread topic. That would attract people to read your posting.
logiclife
05-30 03:04 PM
As of May 30, 2006, our total contributions stand at $ 137,616.10.
IV team would like to thank all the contributors who have shown a great deal of passion and commitment to this cause and helped us achieve the goal of reaching 130K by Memorial Day.
We are extremely pleased with the enthusiasm of our membership. Almost 30% of our members have contributed funds at some point.
Our contributions not only help us fund the public advocacy and professional help we receive from Quinn-Gillespie, it also represents the strength and commitment of the people who constitute this organization. The amount of funds we get is also a measure of the amount of frustration faced by nearly half a million legal high-skills immigrants who are victims of a broken system. It is also a measure of the strength and resolve of people who want to stand up to an unfair system and fight it.
We thank all our contributors for showing a firm resolve and participating in this effort.
"Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any one thing."
Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865)
http://www.rowleycorvette.com/cards/misc0011.jpg
IV team would like to thank all the contributors who have shown a great deal of passion and commitment to this cause and helped us achieve the goal of reaching 130K by Memorial Day.
We are extremely pleased with the enthusiasm of our membership. Almost 30% of our members have contributed funds at some point.
Our contributions not only help us fund the public advocacy and professional help we receive from Quinn-Gillespie, it also represents the strength and commitment of the people who constitute this organization. The amount of funds we get is also a measure of the amount of frustration faced by nearly half a million legal high-skills immigrants who are victims of a broken system. It is also a measure of the strength and resolve of people who want to stand up to an unfair system and fight it.
We thank all our contributors for showing a firm resolve and participating in this effort.
"Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any one thing."
Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865)
http://www.rowleycorvette.com/cards/misc0011.jpg
more...
sparky_jones
03-15 03:29 PM
Hi attorneys/seniors,
Getting confused about the online status.
Today morning my employer got mail from VSC saying that their received date is 03/12/2010
Status check online by 10:30 AM(03/15/2010)
Status:Initial Review
Date received shown:03/12/2010
Status check online by 1:00 PM(03/15/2010)
Status:Acceptance
Date received shown:03/15/2010
Status went back from Inital review to Acceptance and date also changed from 03/12/2010 to 03/15/2010.
Got confused.
How it works normally?
Online case status can be confusing and sometimes incorrect. Your employer has paid for premium processing, which entitles them to contact USCIS through dedicated premium processing channels. They respond very quickly on these channels. Urge your employer to contact them, if there are any doubts about the status.
Getting confused about the online status.
Today morning my employer got mail from VSC saying that their received date is 03/12/2010
Status check online by 10:30 AM(03/15/2010)
Status:Initial Review
Date received shown:03/12/2010
Status check online by 1:00 PM(03/15/2010)
Status:Acceptance
Date received shown:03/15/2010
Status went back from Inital review to Acceptance and date also changed from 03/12/2010 to 03/15/2010.
Got confused.
How it works normally?
Online case status can be confusing and sometimes incorrect. Your employer has paid for premium processing, which entitles them to contact USCIS through dedicated premium processing channels. They respond very quickly on these channels. Urge your employer to contact them, if there are any doubts about the status.
ragz4u
03-28 09:23 AM
Fellow IV members,
How come the "Hard Limit" is not talked about / mentioned in any of the big websites? Shusterman.com / Aila.org et all. Is it possible to get an immigration attorney to explain this crucial issue of "Hard Limit" to IV core team ?
The research for this was conducted by the content team of IV. And as regards the big websites, Rajeev Khanna, Bender's online Matthew Oh all have provided references to IV's doc. So no need for any attorney to explain to the IV core team about this, since most of them have agreed and appreciated our efforts!
How come the "Hard Limit" is not talked about / mentioned in any of the big websites? Shusterman.com / Aila.org et all. Is it possible to get an immigration attorney to explain this crucial issue of "Hard Limit" to IV core team ?
The research for this was conducted by the content team of IV. And as regards the big websites, Rajeev Khanna, Bender's online Matthew Oh all have provided references to IV's doc. So no need for any attorney to explain to the IV core team about this, since most of them have agreed and appreciated our efforts!
more...
Anders �stberg
May 31st, 2004, 04:10 PM
Hmm, I'm a Sci-Fi and Fantasy fan, but haven't read the Discworld books. Maybe I should give them a try... but isn't there something like a gazillion books in the series?
inskrish
01-30 09:33 AM
I checked online for my daughter's 485 and it shows approved and document(possibly GC):eek: mailed on 12 Jan. But my status shows RFE stage. Another interesting thing is my daughter got fingerprinting for Jan 15. She has already done fingerprinting with us in Dec 07. Even if it was to be approved for my daughter how it can happen that she goes for FP on 15 Jan and they mailed document. I dont know what is going on. Any suggestions?
Hello,
What is your daughter's online case status for I-485?
Hello,
What is your daughter's online case status for I-485?
kevinkris
05-19 06:04 PM
Hi kumhyd2,
I am in same boat. What i am thinking is, just work for that employer
for say 1 year or so and then invoke AC21. Then you should have any issues.
My 2 cents.
Thanks,
kris
I 140 : approved last month
I 485 : July 07 filer passed 180 days
GC Process : Substition Labor / Future employment
The future employer is threatening to withdraw the I 140 if I dont comply with his financial terms.
I heard that if I 140 is approved and 485 is pending for 180 days, even if the employer withdraws I140 , there isn't much we need to worry. Is this true. currently on h1 which is expiring next month 6th. To convert to EAD do I need to do anything specific and send an update to USCIS?
I am in same boat. What i am thinking is, just work for that employer
for say 1 year or so and then invoke AC21. Then you should have any issues.
My 2 cents.
Thanks,
kris
I 140 : approved last month
I 485 : July 07 filer passed 180 days
GC Process : Substition Labor / Future employment
The future employer is threatening to withdraw the I 140 if I dont comply with his financial terms.
I heard that if I 140 is approved and 485 is pending for 180 days, even if the employer withdraws I140 , there isn't much we need to worry. Is this true. currently on h1 which is expiring next month 6th. To convert to EAD do I need to do anything specific and send an update to USCIS?
TomPlate
07-11 02:09 PM
Guys you should see this
www.midnightmasala.com from SUNTV
www.midnightmasala.com from SUNTV
logiclife
06-20 04:40 PM
You are right, jaggu. The 485 form does list the letter from employer on employer's letterhead as initial evidence.
Probably in the old days, they would have sent an RFE for that document. But now, as per Yates memo, they will reject it instead of sending an RFE.
I sincerely apologize for this information. Sorry about that. I am going to close this thread.
Probably in the old days, they would have sent an RFE for that document. But now, as per Yates memo, they will reject it instead of sending an RFE.
I sincerely apologize for this information. Sorry about that. I am going to close this thread.
No comments:
Post a Comment