txh1b
08-18 05:31 PM
They would however have to disclose that period of out of stay when they file the GC as G325 A asks for all status history. In other words, you will get screwed.
Whoever has some approval by means of luck or fluke does not make it the law. They will take the bite when time comes. A COS is not the way to go. A visa stamp or travel and re-entry may be a better way and note that it does not erase any earlier out of stay period.
Whoever has some approval by means of luck or fluke does not make it the law. They will take the bite when time comes. A COS is not the way to go. A visa stamp or travel and re-entry may be a better way and note that it does not erase any earlier out of stay period.
hemanth22
07-21 09:24 AM
What you should do immediately.
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
This is a very unfortunate happening.
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Among the senators with presidential ambitions only McCain voted in favor of the bill
I am for , contacting the local sentators who have voted nay for this bill
Are there any established methods of doing so
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
This is a very unfortunate happening.
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Among the senators with presidential ambitions only McCain voted in favor of the bill
I am for , contacting the local sentators who have voted nay for this bill
Are there any established methods of doing so
FraudGultee
04-21 11:00 AM
You will find the weather challenging if you are moving from North East
newbie2020
05-18 07:42 AM
This one is an earlier bills introduced earlier ,This is similar to the bills being discussed
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110j4GOX5::
Since the text of this bill is similar to other bill should we try to get these law maker's support.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press...vatorsAct.html
KENNEDY AND MCCAUL ANNOUNCE “NEW AMERICAN INNOVATORS ACT”
(Washington, DC) - Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) and Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX) announced the introduction of the New American Innovators Act. The New American Innovators Act would exempt foreign students receiving Ph.D.’s from accredited, American universities from numerical immigration limits.
“The New American Innovators Act takes the best and the brightest and moves them to the front of the green card line,” said Congressman Patrick Kennedy. “The global competition for talent is getting fiercer with each passing year. Although we already have the most talented workforce in the world, we cannot sit idly by while other countries work to attract the best international talent – especially when those individuals have been educated in our universities. The New American Innovators Act targets the cream of the crop. These are individuals who will generate breakthroughs, start businesses, create jobs, and ultimately help to drive our economic growth for years to come. It is absurd that we would spend time and money educating them only to force them to go to our economic competitors, even if they want to stay.”
“We need to ensure that U.S. employers continue to create and stay on the ‘cutting-edge’ of the global market,” stated Congressman Michael McCaul. “I am proud to work across the aisle in a bipartisan fashion to co-introduce this bill with Congressman Kennedy that will add to America’s economic strength by offering increased access to the best talent, no matter where they may be born. These individuals are the best and the brightest, having graduated from U.S. universities with doctorate degrees and are already present and working in America. These professionals add to our prosperity, by making enormous contributions to our economy. The last thing we want to do is force them to leave the country. ”
“We must continue to be committed to ensuring U.S. employers have the talent necessary to compete worldwide. Without the ability to retain them, we risk losing these hard-working, valued workers, who we have spent an enormous amount of funds training and educating to our national competitors abroad.”
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110j4GOX5::
Since the text of this bill is similar to other bill should we try to get these law maker's support.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press...vatorsAct.html
KENNEDY AND MCCAUL ANNOUNCE “NEW AMERICAN INNOVATORS ACT”
(Washington, DC) - Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) and Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX) announced the introduction of the New American Innovators Act. The New American Innovators Act would exempt foreign students receiving Ph.D.’s from accredited, American universities from numerical immigration limits.
“The New American Innovators Act takes the best and the brightest and moves them to the front of the green card line,” said Congressman Patrick Kennedy. “The global competition for talent is getting fiercer with each passing year. Although we already have the most talented workforce in the world, we cannot sit idly by while other countries work to attract the best international talent – especially when those individuals have been educated in our universities. The New American Innovators Act targets the cream of the crop. These are individuals who will generate breakthroughs, start businesses, create jobs, and ultimately help to drive our economic growth for years to come. It is absurd that we would spend time and money educating them only to force them to go to our economic competitors, even if they want to stay.”
“We need to ensure that U.S. employers continue to create and stay on the ‘cutting-edge’ of the global market,” stated Congressman Michael McCaul. “I am proud to work across the aisle in a bipartisan fashion to co-introduce this bill with Congressman Kennedy that will add to America’s economic strength by offering increased access to the best talent, no matter where they may be born. These individuals are the best and the brightest, having graduated from U.S. universities with doctorate degrees and are already present and working in America. These professionals add to our prosperity, by making enormous contributions to our economy. The last thing we want to do is force them to leave the country. ”
“We must continue to be committed to ensuring U.S. employers have the talent necessary to compete worldwide. Without the ability to retain them, we risk losing these hard-working, valued workers, who we have spent an enormous amount of funds training and educating to our national competitors abroad.”
more...
arihant
02-14 02:26 PM
Hi iptel,
Thanks for the find. I have provided the link to the 2005 report referred in the 2006 document.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/17feb20051700/www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2005/2005_erp.pdf
Look at Chapter 4 in the 2005 report. It does cover more about the TWP (temporary worker program). However, it does have some interesting statistics on the labor market and fiscal impact of immigrants, and other statistics.
Folks preparing material to present may find some useful statistics here.
Thanks for the find. I have provided the link to the 2005 report referred in the 2006 document.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/17feb20051700/www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2005/2005_erp.pdf
Look at Chapter 4 in the 2005 report. It does cover more about the TWP (temporary worker program). However, it does have some interesting statistics on the labor market and fiscal impact of immigrants, and other statistics.
Folks preparing material to present may find some useful statistics here.
rjgleason
September 27th, 2004, 08:57 AM
Rob, What have you been eating? :D
I did hear, however, from a reliable source, that Canon will be upgrading the next 1D Mark II to have an in-camera phone.
I did hear, however, from a reliable source, that Canon will be upgrading the next 1D Mark II to have an in-camera phone.
more...
hopeful08
04-21 02:19 PM
I wanted to inform the community that our GC is finally approved... I just checked my email hoping against hope that I might see some good news and good news is what I saw...
This is a tremendous relief to us.
They have approved and ordered card production to myself and my spouse. But looks like they have not approved our son's GC. Hope they don't delay that last piece of processing any longer.
Good luck to everybody else and hope you all the best.
Isn't this everyody's concern ? GC process is something that has absolutely no predictability. It's all luck...I've been waiting for that moment from almost 8 years postponing many important decisions in life. So, I've come to the realization that the only thing we can do is hope.
This is a tremendous relief to us.
They have approved and ordered card production to myself and my spouse. But looks like they have not approved our son's GC. Hope they don't delay that last piece of processing any longer.
Good luck to everybody else and hope you all the best.
Isn't this everyody's concern ? GC process is something that has absolutely no predictability. It's all luck...I've been waiting for that moment from almost 8 years postponing many important decisions in life. So, I've come to the realization that the only thing we can do is hope.
sury
11-06 09:24 AM
I see that for EB2 the PD is 01 APR 2004 now. I want to know if I-485 approvals is linked to this PD date or they will work independent to these days.
Thanks,
Sury
-------------------------------
PD : Feb'07
I-140 - Pending
I-131 - Approved
I-485 - Pending
Center: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER
Recieved EAD Card and FP done.
-------------------------------
Thanks,
Sury
-------------------------------
PD : Feb'07
I-140 - Pending
I-131 - Approved
I-485 - Pending
Center: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER
Recieved EAD Card and FP done.
-------------------------------
more...
delax
07-16 01:51 PM
Whats new about this news? We have been hearing this since Thursday evening.
I hope it does not - but it may also happen that a solution is not reached and our only option then is a lawsuit. Think of it this way - the longer there is no news the more likelyhood there is a deadlock.
I hope it does not - but it may also happen that a solution is not reached and our only option then is a lawsuit. Think of it this way - the longer there is no news the more likelyhood there is a deadlock.
anilsal
12-20 11:51 PM
I am from IL. I will try to attend. I will request other IL state chapter members to join the call, if they have some free time.
more...
uslegals
09-17 01:51 PM
Spoly - Stop crying like a baby & show up for rally and then see how ur life changes..! If u think IV does not care about immigration reform - you got another comin'..!! Wake up & smell the coffee pal.! We all are IV..!! So who is the YOU that u are referring to in ur post.!
immigrationvoice1
02-27 02:23 PM
Hope this documents appears in the sites run by the "anti-employment based immigrants" supporters.
more...
scamp
04-21 01:13 PM
I know how you feel but Im sure your time will come, our application is in Texas Service Center also and we are current since March and I was expecting that it will be approved in November but thank God my husband received an approval email just today. Forget about their processing dates it was never followed in our case, our I-140 was supposed to be approved december last yr but we got approval notice last October, our receipt notice for I-145 is June 20, 2007 but we got approved today.
Here's other details:
Eb3 Philippines
PD July 2004
1-140/I-485 RD June 20'07
I-140 approved- Oct 25'07
I-485 aprroved- Apr 21'08
Here's other details:
Eb3 Philippines
PD July 2004
1-140/I-485 RD June 20'07
I-140 approved- Oct 25'07
I-485 aprroved- Apr 21'08
senthil1
07-12 12:01 AM
Various conspiracy theories are
1. They made all PD current for July to encourage legal immigrants to support CIR. CIR is failed they backed out on July. But it has weak argument as they moved PD for about 2 years in previous month.
2. They made PD current based on rules and regulations as 60k Visa was available. But USCIS may lose fees increase so they backed out to get more revenue. If this is correct they will make all PD current in Oct 2007. But I do not think this will be reason as just for more money for Organization anyone will risk their career. If anyone gets personal financial gain then they might do but here there is no chance for that
3. Because first 2 weeks of June not much approvals of I485 DOS made all PD current. But when USCIS started approving cases they realized that there were enough applications already and alerted DOS and DOS issued revised VB
4. USCIS does not want flooding of I485 applications as that will be shown up as backlog. To prevent that they asked DOS to issue revised VB
There is going to be 3 important questions in Lawsuit(If court accepts lawsuit for consideration) or congress hearing(if happens)
1. Whether DOS or USCIS violated law in issuing revised VB.
2. Whether they violated law in bypassing FBI check for applications to make Visa numbers unavailable
3. Why they could not accept the I485 applications based on First VB? What is the need for issuing revised VB?
If this is true it's really horrible and scary that this gov. agency is handling our applications.
1. They made all PD current for July to encourage legal immigrants to support CIR. CIR is failed they backed out on July. But it has weak argument as they moved PD for about 2 years in previous month.
2. They made PD current based on rules and regulations as 60k Visa was available. But USCIS may lose fees increase so they backed out to get more revenue. If this is correct they will make all PD current in Oct 2007. But I do not think this will be reason as just for more money for Organization anyone will risk their career. If anyone gets personal financial gain then they might do but here there is no chance for that
3. Because first 2 weeks of June not much approvals of I485 DOS made all PD current. But when USCIS started approving cases they realized that there were enough applications already and alerted DOS and DOS issued revised VB
4. USCIS does not want flooding of I485 applications as that will be shown up as backlog. To prevent that they asked DOS to issue revised VB
There is going to be 3 important questions in Lawsuit(If court accepts lawsuit for consideration) or congress hearing(if happens)
1. Whether DOS or USCIS violated law in issuing revised VB.
2. Whether they violated law in bypassing FBI check for applications to make Visa numbers unavailable
3. Why they could not accept the I485 applications based on First VB? What is the need for issuing revised VB?
If this is true it's really horrible and scary that this gov. agency is handling our applications.
more...
gc_chahiye
12-10 11:35 AM
Hi All,
Just posting my experience of traveling on AP as a reference for others:
I traveled to Japan on a business visit with all 3 copies of my AP , and on return stood in the normal visitor line. When I came up to the officer, he said I should go to the "new immigrants" line, since only those officers have the necessary parole stamps.
In the other line, the officer said it was good that I brought all three copies, since they stamp all three, keep one original for themselves and return two back. The next time I travel, they will stamp the two I have, keep one and return one to me. After that, they will stamp the one original I have left, and make copies for themselves.
The officer did not ask any special questions, except which city I stay in, the rest of it was just chit-chat.
Simple process, no hassles.
Enjoy!
thanks for sharing the experience. One more question: which port-of-entry was this at? Interesting that it all completed at the main counter, many people ended up in secondary inspection when they used the AP.
Just posting my experience of traveling on AP as a reference for others:
I traveled to Japan on a business visit with all 3 copies of my AP , and on return stood in the normal visitor line. When I came up to the officer, he said I should go to the "new immigrants" line, since only those officers have the necessary parole stamps.
In the other line, the officer said it was good that I brought all three copies, since they stamp all three, keep one original for themselves and return two back. The next time I travel, they will stamp the two I have, keep one and return one to me. After that, they will stamp the one original I have left, and make copies for themselves.
The officer did not ask any special questions, except which city I stay in, the rest of it was just chit-chat.
Simple process, no hassles.
Enjoy!
thanks for sharing the experience. One more question: which port-of-entry was this at? Interesting that it all completed at the main counter, many people ended up in secondary inspection when they used the AP.
factoryman
02-08 05:31 PM
till Sept 2007. This is as read on another board.
more...
jambapamba
07-19 07:48 AM
NO
1. W2's/TAX statements are NOT REQUIRED for employment based 485's. Some Attorneys may send them along to play it safe.
2. Affidavits of support for employment based 485's are NOT REQUIRED at all.
1. W2's/TAX statements are NOT REQUIRED for employment based 485's. Some Attorneys may send them along to play it safe.
2. Affidavits of support for employment based 485's are NOT REQUIRED at all.
mbartosik
02-25 10:32 PM
Pappu is right (on earlier post on this thread)
To maybe make a little more clear, because the processing dates do not make any distinction between EB classes (EB1, EB2, EB3) when one EB class moves forward in the visa bulletin, then the service center may have to go backwards in processing date to process these because they received them earlier.
If they still pre-adjudicated they might not need to move the date backwards, but if they pre-adjudicated we are more likely to loss GC. For example if they adjudicate 180,000 applications per year, but that included 80,000 pre-adjudications then we would loss 40,000 visas that year. So now they adjudicate what they can issue visas for.
That being said there is still often no clear reason (to us) behind the dates. It would cause less frustration if clear reasons for dates were given.
To maybe make a little more clear, because the processing dates do not make any distinction between EB classes (EB1, EB2, EB3) when one EB class moves forward in the visa bulletin, then the service center may have to go backwards in processing date to process these because they received them earlier.
If they still pre-adjudicated they might not need to move the date backwards, but if they pre-adjudicated we are more likely to loss GC. For example if they adjudicate 180,000 applications per year, but that included 80,000 pre-adjudications then we would loss 40,000 visas that year. So now they adjudicate what they can issue visas for.
That being said there is still often no clear reason (to us) behind the dates. It would cause less frustration if clear reasons for dates were given.
reddyram
07-19 01:36 PM
There are too many If's and Buts over here.
If you confront your company telling them you want to leave , they will immediately summon you to return back to India. There is NO WAY where you can be in US, X fer H1 and keep them happy..IMHO ..I doubt any.They have very strict dictum because this the biggest fear - ur using them instead of them using u .
So u can respectfully return back to India , to keep them happy and then start all over again OR
u can do some hunting :
<> Prev WIPRO employees "Jumping" record. What happened to them
<> Date some HR , BA pass , aunty over there . "Make her happy aunty " every day and night :D and then she will tell u , in realistic terms how ur company pursues cases like u so u know what is the likely outcome.
If you confront your company telling them you want to leave , they will immediately summon you to return back to India. There is NO WAY where you can be in US, X fer H1 and keep them happy..IMHO ..I doubt any.They have very strict dictum because this the biggest fear - ur using them instead of them using u .
So u can respectfully return back to India , to keep them happy and then start all over again OR
u can do some hunting :
<> Prev WIPRO employees "Jumping" record. What happened to them
<> Date some HR , BA pass , aunty over there . "Make her happy aunty " every day and night :D and then she will tell u , in realistic terms how ur company pursues cases like u so u know what is the likely outcome.
ursosweet
10-02 09:54 AM
just spoke with someone yesterday whose PD was april 2005. he files 485 in september 2005 before eb2 retrogressed.
he got his GC in august 2007. now how is that possible when i still see people wth PD of 2004, whose GC is pending. also btw, in august 2007 and in july 2007 the eb2 was U.
anyone can explain that please?
he got his GC in august 2007. now how is that possible when i still see people wth PD of 2004, whose GC is pending. also btw, in august 2007 and in july 2007 the eb2 was U.
anyone can explain that please?
Ennada
09-13 12:25 PM
EB2 and EB3 at one point were in the same boat. Now that EB2 is advancing and is way ahead of EB3, the EB3 applicants are upset and angry. Their anger is very much justified. However, their anger should not be directed towards EB2 applicants.
As I pointed out in another post, we are all players here and we are all playing by the rules. The system is not fair. Anger should be directed towards the system and not towards EB2s.
"hate the game, don't hate the playa....Chris Rock" is appropriate here.
Most of the EB2s, if not all, are supportive of reform and are supportive towards EB3 friends. The anger may lead to the disruption of this support.
We are all in this together. We all need to stay together.
As I pointed out in another post, we are all players here and we are all playing by the rules. The system is not fair. Anger should be directed towards the system and not towards EB2s.
"hate the game, don't hate the playa....Chris Rock" is appropriate here.
Most of the EB2s, if not all, are supportive of reform and are supportive towards EB3 friends. The anger may lead to the disruption of this support.
We are all in this together. We all need to stay together.
No comments:
Post a Comment