hopelessGC
04-20 10:59 AM
Rather, an Indian dude, or for that matter dudes everywhere would worry the most about the to-be-bride.
Of course, he doesn't want her financial burdens spoil the honeymoon, jk :D
Depending on what the payoff amount is, you can try getting a personal loan from DCU or a similar credit union at a low rate and payoff the India loan. And yes, you should check whether 13.5% interest is worse than the 6-7% interest you will pay on a US loan; so crunch some numbers using that calculator that is biting dust.
One thought...why don't you just pay cash down?
Of course, he doesn't want her financial burdens spoil the honeymoon, jk :D
Depending on what the payoff amount is, you can try getting a personal loan from DCU or a similar credit union at a low rate and payoff the India loan. And yes, you should check whether 13.5% interest is worse than the 6-7% interest you will pay on a US loan; so crunch some numbers using that calculator that is biting dust.
One thought...why don't you just pay cash down?
wallpaper Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie
krish2005
11-09 05:47 PM
hmm.. are you saying that ancient indians specialized in stem cell research? :p
Dr. Balkrishna Matapurkar, a surgeon at New Delhi's Maulana Azad Medical College, has pioneered a stem cell based technique for the regeneration of tissues and organs. He already holds a patent for this innovative technique. Incidentally, he is of view that embryonic stem cell research is one of the lost sciences of ancient India.
But please note that I am not trying to propagate that indian culture is best or better etc. I just wanted to share that stem cell related view of mine.
A couple of the fellow members might be cursing me to have posted this in. I know its nowhere related to immigration, but just a thought share.
Dr. Balkrishna Matapurkar, a surgeon at New Delhi's Maulana Azad Medical College, has pioneered a stem cell based technique for the regeneration of tissues and organs. He already holds a patent for this innovative technique. Incidentally, he is of view that embryonic stem cell research is one of the lost sciences of ancient India.
But please note that I am not trying to propagate that indian culture is best or better etc. I just wanted to share that stem cell related view of mine.
A couple of the fellow members might be cursing me to have posted this in. I know its nowhere related to immigration, but just a thought share.
reddog
03-11 11:07 AM
This is illegal. Your not working at all for the employer who filed your Green Card is completely the wrong way to go.
2011 Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie
Ruth B
02-19 11:30 AM
I need your help. I am currently under "adjustment of status" through employment but I have not received my green card yet. I already received EAD and advance parole last December/07. I left my studies at the college since then. I am not in F1 status anymore.
I have D/S on my I-94. I am wondering, what would I need to do if my F1 visa stamp expired on July 13/2000? I am planning to travel to my native country for the first time since I got here in 1999. I have remained in legal status during all this time by taking classes at the college. Do I need to get a visa stamp at the embassy back home?
Can I travel while my green card is pending? I�m just trying to make sure I�m doing the right thing here. I don�t want to make a mistake that will affect the outcome of my green card, not to mention my safe return to the U.S. Thanks in advance for your help.
I have D/S on my I-94. I am wondering, what would I need to do if my F1 visa stamp expired on July 13/2000? I am planning to travel to my native country for the first time since I got here in 1999. I have remained in legal status during all this time by taking classes at the college. Do I need to get a visa stamp at the embassy back home?
Can I travel while my green card is pending? I�m just trying to make sure I�m doing the right thing here. I don�t want to make a mistake that will affect the outcome of my green card, not to mention my safe return to the U.S. Thanks in advance for your help.
more...
peer123
04-09 01:47 PM
I guess you won't find much love for labor transfer cases in these forums but AFAIK AC21 has nothing to do with whom the labor was filed for.
I appreciate your help, but just to justify you, I have been in this country for more than 8 years now and I have no clue what happened to my labor, I applied it way back in 2001 and one more 2004.
anyway, I think many have been helped. and I wish everyone the best...
I appreciate your help, but just to justify you, I have been in this country for more than 8 years now and I have no clue what happened to my labor, I applied it way back in 2001 and one more 2004.
anyway, I think many have been helped. and I wish everyone the best...
hopefulgc
08-07 09:18 AM
I have already filed on July 2nd.
i am sending my spouse's in the next few days.
I am doing:
i-485 - $ 325 + $70
i-131 - $170
i-765 - $180
using FEDEX delivery
to the following address:
Texas Service Center
4141 North St. Augustine Road
Dallas, TX 75227
If anyone think that I am wrong, please correct me.
i am sending my spouse's in the next few days.
I am doing:
i-485 - $ 325 + $70
i-131 - $170
i-765 - $180
using FEDEX delivery
to the following address:
Texas Service Center
4141 North St. Augustine Road
Dallas, TX 75227
If anyone think that I am wrong, please correct me.
more...
rimzhim
02-09 04:02 PM
Please keep this thread alive ...
sledge hammer:
can you explain if the new labors being cleared in the BEC centers (approximately 150K are still pending) are from 2001-2003?
In 2003, there should be a demand of 23% of 300K (couting spouses)=69K. Total visas are about 140K per annum. So there should be some movement. i dont understand why there will be no movement.
sledge hammer:
can you explain if the new labors being cleared in the BEC centers (approximately 150K are still pending) are from 2001-2003?
In 2003, there should be a demand of 23% of 300K (couting spouses)=69K. Total visas are about 140K per annum. So there should be some movement. i dont understand why there will be no movement.
2010 Brad Pitt and Angelina
Blog Feeds
01-27 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
Abhinaym
08-13 02:49 PM
who is vld rao?
It's actually VDLRao, as far as I know...
It's actually VDLRao, as far as I know...
hair angelina jolie And Brad Pitt
chi_shark
03-30 09:34 AM
yawn!
Ok sorry if I post this in the wrong place. So I married my wife in 2004 and we began the immigration fillings right away. so you know I was turned away at the border in 2000 because I was going to stay with my wife and her family for 3 months.
When they asked why they would put me up for that long, I told them they were like my adopted family. they still turned me away saying that the money I had at the time $300 was not enough to support my self for that time. this was summer break from school. So that is from my record and the officer who interviewed me wrote in his report that I intended to be adopted for immigration purposes. I think he just mis understood me. ok so that is in the noid. when we went to the first interview the woman was hostile towards my wife and I asking about our age and how we met we are 22 years apart in age. we provided her with documents some bills, photos and joint bank account statement. this is all we had in the first 4 months of out marriage. she asked repeatedly why we had not made any major joint purchases Why we didn't have joint health care. both because I had just started working and had not saved money yet.
We had a second interview to which we took the same documents and more. This interview was short. The interviewer was professional and asked alot of yes and yes questions and would stop us from going on more then that. he said that he had to talk with his supervisor and we would hear from him with in six months. So nothing from them from them for 4 years I called the help line once a year and kept up my EAD and worked full time. Then 2 guys showed up and asked to be showed around the house. we let them in and they interviewed us they took some photos and said have a good day.
Then 6 months later we received our first NOID. Stating that I had been turned away the one time and that I had said I was to be adopted. That I was in a relationship with a person that does not exists. They pointed out that there were photos of my wife with her ex-husband on the walls.
So we go see some lawyers talk to like 6 of them and picked the one who seemed best. talked to people in out community friends who had immigrated. ects. so his plan was to withdraw and file anew to get a fresh first interview. So we refiled with a stack of documents 4 inches thick. insurance, all of our bill, tax returns, car payments. anything we could think of.
So we get anther interview dude takes us back to his office. asked me the basic security questions. and sent me away. Then told my wife and lawyer that the first filing was denied and letters sent. and that they never received our letter withdrawing the first filing. we never received their denial letter. He said he would review out case and the new documents. he sent a NOID for the second filing like 4 months later. So we responded to the noid with a letter from my wife and I refuting the noid line by line. And with letters from friends PHD professors at the local collages. about 10 - 15 all in all and we have not had a reply from them. So the layer said that we had to wait on the USCIS to make the next move. is this so is there anything we can do to move this along? should we switch lawyers? we really like the man we have but I dont know its been over a year now.
sorry for the poor grammar its really late here. thanks for your health.
Ok sorry if I post this in the wrong place. So I married my wife in 2004 and we began the immigration fillings right away. so you know I was turned away at the border in 2000 because I was going to stay with my wife and her family for 3 months.
When they asked why they would put me up for that long, I told them they were like my adopted family. they still turned me away saying that the money I had at the time $300 was not enough to support my self for that time. this was summer break from school. So that is from my record and the officer who interviewed me wrote in his report that I intended to be adopted for immigration purposes. I think he just mis understood me. ok so that is in the noid. when we went to the first interview the woman was hostile towards my wife and I asking about our age and how we met we are 22 years apart in age. we provided her with documents some bills, photos and joint bank account statement. this is all we had in the first 4 months of out marriage. she asked repeatedly why we had not made any major joint purchases Why we didn't have joint health care. both because I had just started working and had not saved money yet.
We had a second interview to which we took the same documents and more. This interview was short. The interviewer was professional and asked alot of yes and yes questions and would stop us from going on more then that. he said that he had to talk with his supervisor and we would hear from him with in six months. So nothing from them from them for 4 years I called the help line once a year and kept up my EAD and worked full time. Then 2 guys showed up and asked to be showed around the house. we let them in and they interviewed us they took some photos and said have a good day.
Then 6 months later we received our first NOID. Stating that I had been turned away the one time and that I had said I was to be adopted. That I was in a relationship with a person that does not exists. They pointed out that there were photos of my wife with her ex-husband on the walls.
So we go see some lawyers talk to like 6 of them and picked the one who seemed best. talked to people in out community friends who had immigrated. ects. so his plan was to withdraw and file anew to get a fresh first interview. So we refiled with a stack of documents 4 inches thick. insurance, all of our bill, tax returns, car payments. anything we could think of.
So we get anther interview dude takes us back to his office. asked me the basic security questions. and sent me away. Then told my wife and lawyer that the first filing was denied and letters sent. and that they never received our letter withdrawing the first filing. we never received their denial letter. He said he would review out case and the new documents. he sent a NOID for the second filing like 4 months later. So we responded to the noid with a letter from my wife and I refuting the noid line by line. And with letters from friends PHD professors at the local collages. about 10 - 15 all in all and we have not had a reply from them. So the layer said that we had to wait on the USCIS to make the next move. is this so is there anything we can do to move this along? should we switch lawyers? we really like the man we have but I dont know its been over a year now.
sorry for the poor grammar its really late here. thanks for your health.
more...
vxg
01-03 03:59 PM
Namecheck is done on everyone applying for any US visa at consulate. There is a database which i think called a lookout system and if you get a hit than you will go through further checks. It happened in 2004 and she has to pay $85 fee give full fingerprints at Delhi consulate and took about 6 weeks to get cleared.
vxg,
How come they are doing namechecks on women? That is supposed to only for male from 17-45 years of age? Can you please clarify? what is namecheck or TechnologyAlertList (this is the only check they can likely do on women as per my understaning).
What that namecheck on YOU or on your wife?
Thanks.
vxg,
How come they are doing namechecks on women? That is supposed to only for male from 17-45 years of age? Can you please clarify? what is namecheck or TechnologyAlertList (this is the only check they can likely do on women as per my understaning).
What that namecheck on YOU or on your wife?
Thanks.
hot Brad Pitt#39;s latest film,
vik352
12-08 03:19 PM
Thanks ashkam. I am still on H1, this is exactly what I needed to hear. I will confirm this with my attorney too. Thanks again!
According to my attorney, if you are in valid H1 status, your wife can get her H4 stamped, reenter on an H4 and still maintain her GC application. Once she comes back, she can go back to work on her EAD and transition into I-485 pending status.
According to my attorney, if you are in valid H1 status, your wife can get her H4 stamped, reenter on an H4 and still maintain her GC application. Once she comes back, she can go back to work on her EAD and transition into I-485 pending status.
more...
house Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie
alterego
03-24 07:53 PM
Well done Mark, I think you presented our case very well.
There are a lot of stereotypes and misunderstandings of the facts around this issue.
It makes me realise just what a disservice those like Lou Dobbs and his ilk do to both the debate over this issue as well at to the future of this country that those like us can only benefit.
Ron Hira though he is wrong on his position can atleast acknowledge the need for more green cards. The extreme right is just fundamentally messed up in their head, and would gladly go back to becoming Hamish in the city!
There are a lot of stereotypes and misunderstandings of the facts around this issue.
It makes me realise just what a disservice those like Lou Dobbs and his ilk do to both the debate over this issue as well at to the future of this country that those like us can only benefit.
Ron Hira though he is wrong on his position can atleast acknowledge the need for more green cards. The extreme right is just fundamentally messed up in their head, and would gladly go back to becoming Hamish in the city!
tattoo angelina jolie and brad pitt
GumI485
05-14 07:34 PM
We will keep working on this Retrogression issue...
We will fully support IV Core Group in their efforts
Congratulations! to all those who are eligible to apply I-485, but please keep supporting IV's main agenda.
We will fully support IV Core Group in their efforts
Congratulations! to all those who are eligible to apply I-485, but please keep supporting IV's main agenda.
more...
pictures angelina jolie and brad pitt
gc_kaavaali
12-08 01:33 PM
Hi guys,
IV need contributions to invest in the omnibus bill Lobbying efforts.. for more details look at below thread...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15905
IV need contributions to invest in the omnibus bill Lobbying efforts.. for more details look at below thread...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15905
dresses Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt
javadeveloper
12-02 01:29 PM
Hello Guys, I am in dilemma about applying for my greencard. I cam to U.S in 1999 ON F-1 and later converted to H1B after working on CPT and OPT. My 6th year is going to end Spet 30th 2009. I have never been too inclined about settling over in U.S and I didn't care to apply for my Greencard. I am in the process of completing my part-time M.B.A and would like to extend my stay by another year or 2 (that is end of 2010 or 2011).
My question is: I have all my papers ready to be submitted to my lawyer to apply for labor certification. But considering that it will take 3-4 months for advertisement and other stuff and probably another 3 months or more for getting labor cleared, I am wondering if I will be able to apply for I-140 and therby H1B 7th year extension. Have I runt out of time? Should I even apply for my labor or just convert to F-1 and wrap up my studies before returning back? I will greatly appreciate your suggestions.
One of my friends is a client of Murthy , as per my friend 1 year extensions are possible after 6 years.I am not sure how far this is true.Better to check with some attorney.Let us know if you have some info
My question is: I have all my papers ready to be submitted to my lawyer to apply for labor certification. But considering that it will take 3-4 months for advertisement and other stuff and probably another 3 months or more for getting labor cleared, I am wondering if I will be able to apply for I-140 and therby H1B 7th year extension. Have I runt out of time? Should I even apply for my labor or just convert to F-1 and wrap up my studies before returning back? I will greatly appreciate your suggestions.
One of my friends is a client of Murthy , as per my friend 1 year extensions are possible after 6 years.I am not sure how far this is true.Better to check with some attorney.Let us know if you have some info
more...
makeup Brad Pitt And Angelina Jolie#39;s
aj_jadeja
09-13 11:26 PM
now days there is a SEPRATE quota for RETURNING WORKERS in Us consulte for renewing stamp. I used it 6 months ago. I Went to VFS on 23rd Nov 2005 and got appt for 30th Nov for stamping @ mumbai consultate. Got stamped and collected passport same evening in person.
hope this helps .
hope this helps .
girlfriend Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt
BharatPremi
03-17 10:26 AM
Substitute labors for EB2 should not IMPACT the delay more than 3 to 6 months. The reason is total EB2 labor india cases approved with PD in 2004 itself is 3500(Straight out of DOL database, published on this forum last year). Some of these cases may have been substituted, worst case, lets say 100% of them applied to I-485. Now the number is 3 times that of 3500. that is 10500(including spouse and 1 child on average).
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
That should reduce the number to half., 5500(including dependent cases). This is my educated guess, Please dont pick on me. It wont help anybody.
Below are 3 categories left in 2004 as per my analysis....
1) the applications filed in or after july 2007 OR
2) applications had a PD after sept 2004
3) Namecheck delayed cases.
Your flow of logic is correct but you ar ebuilding this palace on soft land...:). Your "numbers" base is way way small... There are thousands of EB2 switch over occured and there are thousands and thousands of applications are waiting in EB2. If you add up thosands and thousands then you can reach million speedly.. right? Only July 2007 filing was around 500000. You just apply crude maths: 500000/3 (Categories) = So EB2 numbers are = 1,66,667.
Now divide 1,66,667/5 ( IN,CHina,MX, Philipines,ROW, assuming equal number of each country category applied during july though in reality max. applicants should have been from China and India) = 33333. That is just for July 2007. Now to scare you more let me tell you that there was number around during July 2007 in all immigration boards that around 500000 applications are stuck in the process including Name Check (No claim on accuracy of that number but pretty much bignames were talking about that number so generally you would trust that number.) So now start applying your logic andyou would realize the seriousness of the problem.
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
That should reduce the number to half., 5500(including dependent cases). This is my educated guess, Please dont pick on me. It wont help anybody.
Below are 3 categories left in 2004 as per my analysis....
1) the applications filed in or after july 2007 OR
2) applications had a PD after sept 2004
3) Namecheck delayed cases.
Your flow of logic is correct but you ar ebuilding this palace on soft land...:). Your "numbers" base is way way small... There are thousands of EB2 switch over occured and there are thousands and thousands of applications are waiting in EB2. If you add up thosands and thousands then you can reach million speedly.. right? Only July 2007 filing was around 500000. You just apply crude maths: 500000/3 (Categories) = So EB2 numbers are = 1,66,667.
Now divide 1,66,667/5 ( IN,CHina,MX, Philipines,ROW, assuming equal number of each country category applied during july though in reality max. applicants should have been from China and India) = 33333. That is just for July 2007. Now to scare you more let me tell you that there was number around during July 2007 in all immigration boards that around 500000 applications are stuck in the process including Name Check (No claim on accuracy of that number but pretty much bignames were talking about that number so generally you would trust that number.) So now start applying your logic andyou would realize the seriousness of the problem.
hairstyles Jolie and Brad Pitt
ch102
04-04 03:09 PM
I found this in another website:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=685c8d8b3b760210VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
"Since the beginning of this fiscal year (October 2008), USCIS has adjudicated over 75,000 employer petitions, reducing the pending caseload of petitions to under 55,000.USCIS� goal is to have adjudicated all the older employer petitions, and to be processing newer petitions within 4 months, by the end of September 2009"
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=685c8d8b3b760210VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
"Since the beginning of this fiscal year (October 2008), USCIS has adjudicated over 75,000 employer petitions, reducing the pending caseload of petitions to under 55,000.USCIS� goal is to have adjudicated all the older employer petitions, and to be processing newer petitions within 4 months, by the end of September 2009"
waitnwatch
04-06 10:41 PM
the bill looks as good as dead unless there is a miracle overnight
http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-04-07T031746Z_01_N06381163_RTRIDST_0_USA-IMMIGRATION-UPDATE-4.XML
http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-04-07T031746Z_01_N06381163_RTRIDST_0_USA-IMMIGRATION-UPDATE-4.XML
ssdtm
02-08 08:11 PM
NCR Region
Sr Developer / Lead Developer (7-15yrs exp) - 8 - 15 lakhs
Project Manager (10-15yrs exp) - 10-20 lakhs
Above this level, the jobs are far and few, but some are
Principal Consultant / Program Manager (in cos like Wipro, Infy, HP) (12- 18 yrs exp) - 18-28 lakhs
Also note, just because someone has worked in US for a few years does not get any advantage above Project Manager level.
Information based on many well placed contacts at these levels.
Sr Developer / Lead Developer (7-15yrs exp) - 8 - 15 lakhs
Project Manager (10-15yrs exp) - 10-20 lakhs
Above this level, the jobs are far and few, but some are
Principal Consultant / Program Manager (in cos like Wipro, Infy, HP) (12- 18 yrs exp) - 18-28 lakhs
Also note, just because someone has worked in US for a few years does not get any advantage above Project Manager level.
Information based on many well placed contacts at these levels.
No comments:
Post a Comment