rex
04-25 11:00 AM
hello folks,
I am switching jobs after an approved I140 and over 180 days from 485 receipt.
I am expecting no problems when leaving my current company. but just incase they decide to revoke my 140,
- is it ok to file AC21 after i receive the NOID if some thing happens or is it better to file AC21 now?
one other complication is i will be changing address too. how long does it take for USCIS to update my new address in their records? the reason i am asking is if they send me RFE or NOID, i will totally miss the boat if they send it to the wrong address. i am sure they will send a copy to my attorney, but he works form my current employer and I will assume he is less likely to help. Does it help if i file G28 with my own name and my new address?
I need to join my new job in 10 days and i hev give my crrent company a notice so it is a bit urgent. Please help.
Thank you
Rex
I am switching jobs after an approved I140 and over 180 days from 485 receipt.
I am expecting no problems when leaving my current company. but just incase they decide to revoke my 140,
- is it ok to file AC21 after i receive the NOID if some thing happens or is it better to file AC21 now?
one other complication is i will be changing address too. how long does it take for USCIS to update my new address in their records? the reason i am asking is if they send me RFE or NOID, i will totally miss the boat if they send it to the wrong address. i am sure they will send a copy to my attorney, but he works form my current employer and I will assume he is less likely to help. Does it help if i file G28 with my own name and my new address?
I need to join my new job in 10 days and i hev give my crrent company a notice so it is a bit urgent. Please help.
Thank you
Rex
wallpaper frances fisher pics. Frances Fisher Gallery; Frances Fisher Gallery
Brittanicus
04-22 08:38 PM
First and foremost we are a nation of laws, or as we are all anticipated? But years of previous administrations have neglected the illegal immigrant problem, to the detriment of American workers. Ever since the inception of the 1986 Immigration & Reform Act, signed into law by Ronald Reagan, the politicians have pushed for a new AMNESTY. In addition, anytime a new law has been drafted to combat the illegal immigrant occupation of our country, they have behind closed doors killed it or weakened it's enactment. The law of given instant citizenship to babies intentionally born here, is a complete misinterpretation of the 14th amendment, after the civil war that emancipated African slaves.
It was never meant for (Anchor Babies) to give pregnant illegal alien mothers the right to legal status? The law has been badly mauled because the children can then draw on US education, free medical care, free baby delivery and after care, low income housing and it is a route to many government handouts. The major problem now facing the Obama White House is are the children of illegal immigrants to blame for their parents breaking the law? Obviously the left-wingers are to blame for this conundrum, but both parties have added to neglect to the sovereign laws of our nation. I think we should follow other countries "Rule of Law" and cement in place that children who have proven themselves can go to a place of higher learning. We desperately need a wide scope of professionals in Engineering, Science and 21st Century technology. But also remember that our government settles the largest population of new immigrants on Earth. What we don't need is more poorly educated, non-English speaking, impoverished aliens, looking for handouts. Like other developed nations we must be very specific, who we pick and choose as new citizens. We must also restrain ourselves from chain migration, who are liable to become a public charges, because the family sponsors have decided the US taxpayer should carry the financial weight?
We can thank our corrupt liberal politicians, judges in the past as drafting a passive law, instead of entering America being a criminal offense. Now we have uncountable number of illegal aliens squatting here, because of the absolute intentional neglect of our lawmakers. Is there any other country in the world, that makes illegally crossing into their sovereign territory a Civil Crime--I really don't think so? Our laws deliberately drafted this way in favor of the open border, big Catholic church and special interest groups. To HXXX with the American people, who are forced to fight for their jobs?
But if American defeat the next Amnesty ready to pounce on the unsuspecting legal population, we must make an example in using the 1986 law. We as a people must build-on the E-Verify application, upgrade, modify to extract illegal job applicants from the workplace. Illegal immigrants who have overstayed visas, illegal crossed the border and children must be exempt from any pardon. All children of illegal parents that have committed crimes, been expelled or just deserted school should leave with parents in the usage of self-deportation. This is a compliance way to remove foreign nationals and any criminal businesses that employ them, must receive mandatory, fines, asset confiscation and prison terms. The use of a in-perpetuity E-Verify will be a ultimate deterrent and see movement of illegal labor and families packing and leaving under the term of "ATTRITION" We must force our reluctant politicians to be governed by--THE PEOPLE'S--WILL or face the dire consequences in the election process. This will surely happen when Sen. Reid, Speaker Pelosi and 48 other Senate lawmakers come up for re-election. They underfunded E-Verify, that obviously is working efficiently for them to kill it. Today I have heard Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano is approaching State governors to appeal the Real ID Act, that would add national standards for state-issued driver licenses and non-driver identification cards, Revising and tightening the laws on application for asylum and deportation of aliens for terrorist activity. That wouldWaiver laws that interfere with construction of physical barriers at the borders, to name a few statutes. So that means since the new Presidency, the Democratic run Congress are trying to revoke E-Verify and the Real ID act. My guess, is under this regime they will be rescinding the Federal program for State and local police called 247(g) that trains officers to arrest and detain illegal alien criminals.
The open border, free traders, special interest groups will use any contradictions, epithets, racial slurs to annul any new law--which they have done successfully up to now. But American should realize strongly, that this has nothing to do with a persons color, religion or ethnic background--and EVERYTHING--to do with being--CARTE BLANCHE--for parasite employers, who pay nothing to illegal immigrant upkeep? It's left to Taxpayers? Its everything to do with billions of dollars spent, to pacify the big Catholic church, a portion of Liberal voters and others who see nothing wrong in loading citizens, residents down with sky high taxes. Supposedly the last White House promised no thoughts of a Path to Citizenship until the border was orderly and closed to undesirable With another drafted and secret Amnesty on the House and Senate table, like always--this is not the case. Drug smuggling and incessant illegal immigration is still very prevalent. The rumors from the new White House are clearly signaling another push for AMNESTY?
So go to these sites: VDARE, FAIRUS, JUDICIALWATCH, NUMBERSUSA, AMERICANPATROL, CAPSWEB & ALIPAC. The stakes are sky high because Amnesty means, thousands more will swamp the border looking for yet a 3rd---AMNESTY.
It was never meant for (Anchor Babies) to give pregnant illegal alien mothers the right to legal status? The law has been badly mauled because the children can then draw on US education, free medical care, free baby delivery and after care, low income housing and it is a route to many government handouts. The major problem now facing the Obama White House is are the children of illegal immigrants to blame for their parents breaking the law? Obviously the left-wingers are to blame for this conundrum, but both parties have added to neglect to the sovereign laws of our nation. I think we should follow other countries "Rule of Law" and cement in place that children who have proven themselves can go to a place of higher learning. We desperately need a wide scope of professionals in Engineering, Science and 21st Century technology. But also remember that our government settles the largest population of new immigrants on Earth. What we don't need is more poorly educated, non-English speaking, impoverished aliens, looking for handouts. Like other developed nations we must be very specific, who we pick and choose as new citizens. We must also restrain ourselves from chain migration, who are liable to become a public charges, because the family sponsors have decided the US taxpayer should carry the financial weight?
We can thank our corrupt liberal politicians, judges in the past as drafting a passive law, instead of entering America being a criminal offense. Now we have uncountable number of illegal aliens squatting here, because of the absolute intentional neglect of our lawmakers. Is there any other country in the world, that makes illegally crossing into their sovereign territory a Civil Crime--I really don't think so? Our laws deliberately drafted this way in favor of the open border, big Catholic church and special interest groups. To HXXX with the American people, who are forced to fight for their jobs?
But if American defeat the next Amnesty ready to pounce on the unsuspecting legal population, we must make an example in using the 1986 law. We as a people must build-on the E-Verify application, upgrade, modify to extract illegal job applicants from the workplace. Illegal immigrants who have overstayed visas, illegal crossed the border and children must be exempt from any pardon. All children of illegal parents that have committed crimes, been expelled or just deserted school should leave with parents in the usage of self-deportation. This is a compliance way to remove foreign nationals and any criminal businesses that employ them, must receive mandatory, fines, asset confiscation and prison terms. The use of a in-perpetuity E-Verify will be a ultimate deterrent and see movement of illegal labor and families packing and leaving under the term of "ATTRITION" We must force our reluctant politicians to be governed by--THE PEOPLE'S--WILL or face the dire consequences in the election process. This will surely happen when Sen. Reid, Speaker Pelosi and 48 other Senate lawmakers come up for re-election. They underfunded E-Verify, that obviously is working efficiently for them to kill it. Today I have heard Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano is approaching State governors to appeal the Real ID Act, that would add national standards for state-issued driver licenses and non-driver identification cards, Revising and tightening the laws on application for asylum and deportation of aliens for terrorist activity. That wouldWaiver laws that interfere with construction of physical barriers at the borders, to name a few statutes. So that means since the new Presidency, the Democratic run Congress are trying to revoke E-Verify and the Real ID act. My guess, is under this regime they will be rescinding the Federal program for State and local police called 247(g) that trains officers to arrest and detain illegal alien criminals.
The open border, free traders, special interest groups will use any contradictions, epithets, racial slurs to annul any new law--which they have done successfully up to now. But American should realize strongly, that this has nothing to do with a persons color, religion or ethnic background--and EVERYTHING--to do with being--CARTE BLANCHE--for parasite employers, who pay nothing to illegal immigrant upkeep? It's left to Taxpayers? Its everything to do with billions of dollars spent, to pacify the big Catholic church, a portion of Liberal voters and others who see nothing wrong in loading citizens, residents down with sky high taxes. Supposedly the last White House promised no thoughts of a Path to Citizenship until the border was orderly and closed to undesirable With another drafted and secret Amnesty on the House and Senate table, like always--this is not the case. Drug smuggling and incessant illegal immigration is still very prevalent. The rumors from the new White House are clearly signaling another push for AMNESTY?
So go to these sites: VDARE, FAIRUS, JUDICIALWATCH, NUMBERSUSA, AMERICANPATROL, CAPSWEB & ALIPAC. The stakes are sky high because Amnesty means, thousands more will swamp the border looking for yet a 3rd---AMNESTY.
waiting4ever
01-05 04:45 PM
This is a good effort towards solving the retrogression issue. Like many silent readers, I do have concern about contributing to a new organization.
Is there a way to know more details about this effort? Please send me a personal email so I can understand more and contribute with confidence.
Thanks!
Is there a way to know more details about this effort? Please send me a personal email so I can understand more and contribute with confidence.
Thanks!
2011 frances fisher pics. Frances Fisher; Frances Fisher. asif786
Googler
06-18 08:23 PM
Instead in CIR Section 531 (COMPLETION OF BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS) takes away the right for courts to rule on writs of mandamus filings:
"(k) Prohibition of Judicial Enforcement- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court may require any act described in subsection (i) or (j) to be completed by a certain time or award any relief for the failure to complete such acts."
please please stop reading the old bill
the new one is on the iv home page
or in thomas look at sa.1150 under the s.1358 bill
Thanks for pointing that out Paskal. I stand corrected.
S.A. 1150 Section 216 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:2:./temp/~r110MkRgxl:e138316:) says:
SEC. 216. STREAMLINED PROCESSING OF BACKGROUND CHECKS CONDUCTED FOR IMMIGRATION BENEFITS.
(a) INFORMATION SHARING; INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--Section 105 (8 U.S.C. 1105) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General shall establish an interagency task force to resolve cases in which an application or petition for an immigration benefit conferred under this Act has been delayed due to an outstanding background check investigation for more than 2 years after the date on which such application or petition was initially filed.
``(2) MEMBERSHIP.--The interagency task force established under paragraph (1) shall include representatives from Federal agencies with immigration, law enforcement, or national security responsibilities under this Act.''.
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation such sums as are necessary for each fiscal year, 2008 through 2012 for enhancements to existing systems for conducting background and security checks necessary to support immigration security and orderly processing of applications.
(c) REPORT ON BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the background and security checks conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on behalf of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(2) CONTENT.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) a description of the background and security check program;
(B) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays associated with different types of immigration applications;
(C) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays by applicant country of origin; and
(D) the steps that the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking to expedite background and security checks that have been pending for more than 180 days.
Doesn't promise any results and it is not clear if this extra appropriations will be used for the much ballyhooed transformation that Michael Cannon says might kick in in 2010, or for clearing the current backlog BUT is much better than trying to take away the right to file mandamus suits. Also leads us to believe that 180 days is the acceptable amount of time for a namecheck.
"(k) Prohibition of Judicial Enforcement- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court may require any act described in subsection (i) or (j) to be completed by a certain time or award any relief for the failure to complete such acts."
please please stop reading the old bill
the new one is on the iv home page
or in thomas look at sa.1150 under the s.1358 bill
Thanks for pointing that out Paskal. I stand corrected.
S.A. 1150 Section 216 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:2:./temp/~r110MkRgxl:e138316:) says:
SEC. 216. STREAMLINED PROCESSING OF BACKGROUND CHECKS CONDUCTED FOR IMMIGRATION BENEFITS.
(a) INFORMATION SHARING; INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--Section 105 (8 U.S.C. 1105) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General shall establish an interagency task force to resolve cases in which an application or petition for an immigration benefit conferred under this Act has been delayed due to an outstanding background check investigation for more than 2 years after the date on which such application or petition was initially filed.
``(2) MEMBERSHIP.--The interagency task force established under paragraph (1) shall include representatives from Federal agencies with immigration, law enforcement, or national security responsibilities under this Act.''.
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation such sums as are necessary for each fiscal year, 2008 through 2012 for enhancements to existing systems for conducting background and security checks necessary to support immigration security and orderly processing of applications.
(c) REPORT ON BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the background and security checks conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on behalf of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(2) CONTENT.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) a description of the background and security check program;
(B) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays associated with different types of immigration applications;
(C) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays by applicant country of origin; and
(D) the steps that the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking to expedite background and security checks that have been pending for more than 180 days.
Doesn't promise any results and it is not clear if this extra appropriations will be used for the much ballyhooed transformation that Michael Cannon says might kick in in 2010, or for clearing the current backlog BUT is much better than trying to take away the right to file mandamus suits. Also leads us to believe that 180 days is the acceptable amount of time for a namecheck.
more...
thomachan72
01-19 03:43 PM
Let us start a thread to list of EB3 Immigrants that have done well in USA.
We always say Einstein or Noble prize winner names. But those people are EB2 or EB1. What about EB3 that is most backlogged. There will be lot of great people who came in this category. Let us find their names and list here.
I think this is indeed a great idea.... but it might be difficult to get this information. Let me start by giving one name...
1) waitingwating
Others pls add more if you know:D:D
We always say Einstein or Noble prize winner names. But those people are EB2 or EB1. What about EB3 that is most backlogged. There will be lot of great people who came in this category. Let us find their names and list here.
I think this is indeed a great idea.... but it might be difficult to get this information. Let me start by giving one name...
1) waitingwating
Others pls add more if you know:D:D
gg_ny
06-22 10:34 AM
It only makes sense to use RD when PD is current or has moved up. But the order of processing is not just RD but other factors like fingerprint, name check etc. as discussed in other mails.
Although I opened a new forum, I am posting my request here: please post your EB2 approvals, if any, with PD and RD and the country of origin.This would help to fine tune others' expectations of completion of their cases.
-g
I agree, but with a little change.
With PD retrogressed, I-485 can be processed, but can not be approved. For example, RFE can be issued, it can be denied for any I-485 for which PD is not current.
Please check and verify details with your attorney/lawyer. This is NOT a legal advice.
-------------------------------------
Permanent Resident since May 2002
Although I opened a new forum, I am posting my request here: please post your EB2 approvals, if any, with PD and RD and the country of origin.This would help to fine tune others' expectations of completion of their cases.
-g
I agree, but with a little change.
With PD retrogressed, I-485 can be processed, but can not be approved. For example, RFE can be issued, it can be denied for any I-485 for which PD is not current.
Please check and verify details with your attorney/lawyer. This is NOT a legal advice.
-------------------------------------
Permanent Resident since May 2002
more...
immilaw
12-08 08:48 AM
Called Senator Tom Price - 770-565-4990. Was asked the Bill #.
What's the Bill # and which house is it being introduced in?
Lets not start a seperate thread. We already have one http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2483 for these messages. Please post your messages there.
What's the Bill # and which house is it being introduced in?
Lets not start a seperate thread. We already have one http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2483 for these messages. Please post your messages there.
2010 frances fisher pics. Frances Fisher; Frances Fisher. Blue Velvet
gcseeker2002
02-20 04:21 PM
gcseeker2002,
Can you please provide the link.
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/CasePerm.aspx
You need to download the MDB files. In the pre-perm era files , the country of the alien was not listed which is new in the perm files.
Can you please provide the link.
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/CasePerm.aspx
You need to download the MDB files. In the pre-perm era files , the country of the alien was not listed which is new in the perm files.
more...
bergotti
08-23 05:27 PM
Is this category seen as one or is it split into many countries and if so how do you find out about a particular country within ROW?
Thanks
Thanks
hair actress frances send to followget Idea frances fisher, biography,
jonty_11
06-16 02:04 PM
Thank you rsdang..
No reason to be shy IVians. The person at the other end of the line is human just like you and it is a part of their job to take our messages and convey them to the representatives.
Making phone calls is crucial to this process....just do your part...and leave the rest to IV.. They are forcefully pursuing our interests...Please call !!!!!!
No reason to be shy IVians. The person at the other end of the line is human just like you and it is a part of their job to take our messages and convey them to the representatives.
Making phone calls is crucial to this process....just do your part...and leave the rest to IV.. They are forcefully pursuing our interests...Please call !!!!!!
more...
javadeveloper
09-23 08:53 AM
Gurus,
Yesterday my lawyer received receipts for my spouse and kids (485/EAD/AP) but not for myself. Now my lawyer is insisting upon sending me the copies of the receipts and do not want to send me the originals. With respect to that I have following questions:
1) Is that o.k having copies only or we should have originals? If we do not
have originals what bad may happen?
2) Either my lawyer or I have not received any of my receipts but we
received all receipts of my family. Is this normal? How long should we wait
for my receipts before contacting USCIS? By the way USCIS already gave
me my all numbers for teh receipts and according to USCIS my receipts
already mailed on Sept 14th. What would be advisable action for me in
this case?
3) None of the receipts of my family contain Priority Date. PD field is blank on all receipts. Is this O.K.?
Thanks.
- BharatPremi
Man why you need reciepts?
Yesterday my lawyer received receipts for my spouse and kids (485/EAD/AP) but not for myself. Now my lawyer is insisting upon sending me the copies of the receipts and do not want to send me the originals. With respect to that I have following questions:
1) Is that o.k having copies only or we should have originals? If we do not
have originals what bad may happen?
2) Either my lawyer or I have not received any of my receipts but we
received all receipts of my family. Is this normal? How long should we wait
for my receipts before contacting USCIS? By the way USCIS already gave
me my all numbers for teh receipts and according to USCIS my receipts
already mailed on Sept 14th. What would be advisable action for me in
this case?
3) None of the receipts of my family contain Priority Date. PD field is blank on all receipts. Is this O.K.?
Thanks.
- BharatPremi
Man why you need reciepts?
hot But grew up in Search uvics the source for francesfrances fisher member
looneytunezez
04-08 04:17 PM
Employment-based: At this time the amount of demand being received in the Employment First preference is extremely low compared with that of recent years. Absent an immediate and dramatic increase in demand, this category will remain “Current” for all countries. It also appears unlikely that a Second preference cut-off date will be imposed for any countries other than China and India, where demand is extremely high. Based on current indications of demand, the best case scenarios for cut-off date movement each month during the coming months are as follows:
Employment Second: Demand by applicants who are “upgrading” their status from Employment Third to Employment Second preference is very high, but the exact amount is not known. Such “upgrades” are in addition to the known demand already reported, and make it very difficult to predict ultimate demand based on forward movement of the China and India cut-off dates. While thousands of “otherwise unused” numbers will be available for potential use without regard to the China and India Employment Second preference per-country annual limits, it is not known how the “upgrades” will ultimately impact the cut-offs for those two countries. (The allocation of “otherwise unused” numbers is discussed below.)
China: none to three weeks expected through July. No August or September estimate is possible at this time.
India: One or more weeks, possibly followed by additional movement if demand remains stable. No August or September estimate is possible at this time.
Employment Third:
Worldwide: three to six weeks
China: one to three weeks
India: none to two weeks
Mexico: although continued forward movement is expected, no specific projections are possible at this time.
Philippines: three to six weeks
Please be advised that the above ranges are estimates based upon the current demand patterns, and are subject to fluctuations during the coming months. The cut-off dates for upcoming months cannot be guaranteed, and no assumptions should be made until the formal dates are announced.
Allocation of “otherwise unused” numbers in accordance with Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 202(a)(5)
INA Section 202(a)(5) provides that if total demand in a calendar quarter will be insufficient to use all available numbers in an Employment preference, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. Based on current levels of demand, there will be otherwise unused numbers in the Employment First and Second preferences. Such numbers may be allocated without regard to per-country limits, once a country has reached its preference annual limit. Since under INA Section 203(e) such numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability, greater number use by one country would indicate greater demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates. Based on amount and priority dates of pending demand and year-to-date number use, a different cut-off date could be applied to each oversubscribed country, for the purpose of assuring that the maximum amount of available numbers will be used. Note that a cut-off date imposed to control the use of “otherwise unused” numbers could be earlier than the cut-off date established to control number use under a quarterly or per-country annual limit. For example, at present the India Employment Second preference cut-off date governs the use of numbers under Section 202(a)(5), India having reached its Employment Second annual limit; the China Employment Second preference cut-off date governs number use under the quarterly limit, since China has not yet reached its Employment Second annual limit.
The rate of number use under Section 202(a)(5) is continually monitored to determine whether subsequent adjustments are needed in visa availability for the oversubscribed countries. This helps assure that all available Employment preference numbers will be used, while insuring that numbers also remain available for applicants from all other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit.
As mentioned earlier, the number of applicants who may be “upgrading” their status from Employment Third to Employment Second preference is unknown. As a result, the cut-off date which governs use of Section 202(a)(5) numbers has been advanced more rapidly than normal, in an attempt to ascertain the amount of “upgrade” demand in the pipeline while at the same time administering use of the available numbers. This action risks a surge in demand that could adversely impact the cut-off date later in the fiscal year. However, it also limits the possibility that potential demand would not materialize and the annual limit would not be reached due to lack of cut-off date movement.
Employment Second: Demand by applicants who are “upgrading” their status from Employment Third to Employment Second preference is very high, but the exact amount is not known. Such “upgrades” are in addition to the known demand already reported, and make it very difficult to predict ultimate demand based on forward movement of the China and India cut-off dates. While thousands of “otherwise unused” numbers will be available for potential use without regard to the China and India Employment Second preference per-country annual limits, it is not known how the “upgrades” will ultimately impact the cut-offs for those two countries. (The allocation of “otherwise unused” numbers is discussed below.)
China: none to three weeks expected through July. No August or September estimate is possible at this time.
India: One or more weeks, possibly followed by additional movement if demand remains stable. No August or September estimate is possible at this time.
Employment Third:
Worldwide: three to six weeks
China: one to three weeks
India: none to two weeks
Mexico: although continued forward movement is expected, no specific projections are possible at this time.
Philippines: three to six weeks
Please be advised that the above ranges are estimates based upon the current demand patterns, and are subject to fluctuations during the coming months. The cut-off dates for upcoming months cannot be guaranteed, and no assumptions should be made until the formal dates are announced.
Allocation of “otherwise unused” numbers in accordance with Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 202(a)(5)
INA Section 202(a)(5) provides that if total demand in a calendar quarter will be insufficient to use all available numbers in an Employment preference, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. Based on current levels of demand, there will be otherwise unused numbers in the Employment First and Second preferences. Such numbers may be allocated without regard to per-country limits, once a country has reached its preference annual limit. Since under INA Section 203(e) such numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability, greater number use by one country would indicate greater demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates. Based on amount and priority dates of pending demand and year-to-date number use, a different cut-off date could be applied to each oversubscribed country, for the purpose of assuring that the maximum amount of available numbers will be used. Note that a cut-off date imposed to control the use of “otherwise unused” numbers could be earlier than the cut-off date established to control number use under a quarterly or per-country annual limit. For example, at present the India Employment Second preference cut-off date governs the use of numbers under Section 202(a)(5), India having reached its Employment Second annual limit; the China Employment Second preference cut-off date governs number use under the quarterly limit, since China has not yet reached its Employment Second annual limit.
The rate of number use under Section 202(a)(5) is continually monitored to determine whether subsequent adjustments are needed in visa availability for the oversubscribed countries. This helps assure that all available Employment preference numbers will be used, while insuring that numbers also remain available for applicants from all other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit.
As mentioned earlier, the number of applicants who may be “upgrading” their status from Employment Third to Employment Second preference is unknown. As a result, the cut-off date which governs use of Section 202(a)(5) numbers has been advanced more rapidly than normal, in an attempt to ascertain the amount of “upgrade” demand in the pipeline while at the same time administering use of the available numbers. This action risks a surge in demand that could adversely impact the cut-off date later in the fiscal year. However, it also limits the possibility that potential demand would not materialize and the annual limit would not be reached due to lack of cut-off date movement.
more...
house house Frances Fisher as Eva Frances Fisher Bio. se carrie frances fisher
rayen
02-05 03:47 PM
Chris,
Thanks a lot I will try to reach them now.
Thanks, again.
Cris,
I just called teh number and was able to talk to the officer.. he said the case under review.. means.. Any idea.
Thanks again.
Thanks a lot I will try to reach them now.
Thanks, again.
Cris,
I just called teh number and was able to talk to the officer.. he said the case under review.. means.. Any idea.
Thanks again.
tattoo frances fisher imdb. frances
logiclife
08-01 01:57 PM
Here is my prediction.
With July Fiasco INS has learnt their lessons.
They have potential to process and approve 40K cases in one month.
Once all receipting is done by Sept 17th for all late Aug 17th filers, they will immediately start processing all oct 08 current cases.
I think they might even issue again 40K cases in october ?
Why not ?
So it is important to quickly do the FP and after FP within 3 weeks the name check gets cleared.
So anyone who does FP in Sept and who is current in oct , be ready to get your GC soon.
I would say dont be surprised if it takes just one month to approve ?????
Finger-printing and namecheck are not connected. Namecheck is triggered as soon as receipt is generated. Fingerprinting is separete. The two are not going to affect each other. The only thing is fingerprinting results are out in about a minute or two, namecheck can take anywhere from 2 minutes to 20 years.
you can expect faster processing times for those categories who tend to be current for most bulletins. Which is EB1 and ROW EB2. Everyone else who is current every once in blue moon is not going to get processed quickly.
The only guarantee is that they wont waste the visa numbers this year or next year, coz they did that last year and wasted 10,000 visa numbers and got unpleasant treatment for that.
With July Fiasco INS has learnt their lessons.
They have potential to process and approve 40K cases in one month.
Once all receipting is done by Sept 17th for all late Aug 17th filers, they will immediately start processing all oct 08 current cases.
I think they might even issue again 40K cases in october ?
Why not ?
So it is important to quickly do the FP and after FP within 3 weeks the name check gets cleared.
So anyone who does FP in Sept and who is current in oct , be ready to get your GC soon.
I would say dont be surprised if it takes just one month to approve ?????
Finger-printing and namecheck are not connected. Namecheck is triggered as soon as receipt is generated. Fingerprinting is separete. The two are not going to affect each other. The only thing is fingerprinting results are out in about a minute or two, namecheck can take anywhere from 2 minutes to 20 years.
you can expect faster processing times for those categories who tend to be current for most bulletins. Which is EB1 and ROW EB2. Everyone else who is current every once in blue moon is not going to get processed quickly.
The only guarantee is that they wont waste the visa numbers this year or next year, coz they did that last year and wasted 10,000 visa numbers and got unpleasant treatment for that.
more...
pictures frances fisher pics. Frances Fisher Los Angeles
Dalai Lama
02-23 02:07 PM
What kind of RFE? what they can ask.
dresses Frances+fisher+actress
NKR
05-14 11:38 AM
Morning is over. We all are in mourning since the bulletin went out...
more...
makeup frances fisher young.
snathan
08-18 05:08 PM
No, not correct. Since she got a new I-94 her status changed to H1 w.e.f October 1, 2008.
However, because she did not work she is currently out of status. She will have to change her status back to H4 either by going out of country and re-entering with H4 visa or filing I-539.
She can correct the status by going out of the country. But any time USCIS can ask for the pay stub for that period during the GC process. If you are not able to provide the Paystub, your GC will be in soup. So the best would be to ge the pay stub.
Thanks.
However, because she did not work she is currently out of status. She will have to change her status back to H4 either by going out of country and re-entering with H4 visa or filing I-539.
She can correct the status by going out of the country. But any time USCIS can ask for the pay stub for that period during the GC process. If you are not able to provide the Paystub, your GC will be in soup. So the best would be to ge the pay stub.
Thanks.
girlfriend Frances+fisher+actress
aa_ke_phas_gaya
06-24 06:02 PM
Remember you are bonded labor if you are on H1B or Work Permit. They will use you & your illegal brothers every election year and this is one of those years ..... everything is chatter until something heppens.
Don't get your hopes high.... just get your head down and work for them.
Don't get your hopes high.... just get your head down and work for them.
hairstyles frances fisher imdb. frances
knowDOL
05-19 10:26 AM
One more thing, never disclose anything with company's attorney, they will be loyal to your employer and not you. Look for soem other attorney.
starving_dog
11-03 07:34 PM
Talk to a lawyer. We repeat, talk to a lawyer. Good luck.
meridiani.planum
04-06 02:34 AM
inline...
I got an offer from employer B for a consulting GIG. I would like to invoke AC-21.
>> Personal choice here. However, it proves that your intent was not correct. If you think you would be stuck for many years, may be you should - you know it better, because the hassle and risk is not worth the little extra money.
-- there is no issue with intent. He has stayed for 6 months with current employer. After 6 months the law itself allows him to change sponsoring employer, so where is the question of intent?
2) Should I let USCIS know that I am changing my employment?
>> You better do inform the USCIS of your intentions (including AC21) if you want to keep the H1 visa status active. Because if you had registered all your cases (present or old past receipt notices too) at USCIS website, you would have noticed that there are recent LUDs on the first H1/? that you entered the US. Had you known this you would not have asked this question ;-)
--what are you talking about? A LUD could mean anything from a system update to your previous employer finally cancelling your H1. What recent-LUDs-on-first-H1 are you talking about?
>> (Also remember that when you use EAD : presently it means loosing H1 permanently unless you have some time left from the 6 year limit),
--Why? If you have an approved I-140 you can file an H1 extension even if yuou are on EAD. It does require you to leave the US and return to 'activate' the H1 though.
4) I am not sure how big employer B is (not sure how many employees work for them)....does it matter? Should I be concerned if employer B is a small employer?
>> It should be good to check the employee base and financial position of the new employer. The USCIS may deny your H1 transfer and leave you in a tough spot. It may also affect the 485 decision as success of AC21 is also dependent upon this.
-- USCIS has clarified that abiity-to-pay has to only be proven by original sponsoror. Where does it say that financial position of new employer is important for success of AC-21?
Here's a link to, and info from the USCIS memo:
http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/news/2005,0520-ac21.pdf
Question 7. Should service centers or district offices request proof of �ability to pay� from successor employers in I-140 portability cases, in other
words, from the new company/employer to which someone has
ported?
Answer: No. The relevant inquiry is whether the new position is in the same or similar occupational classification as the alien�s I-140 employment.
agree with the rest of your post.
I got an offer from employer B for a consulting GIG. I would like to invoke AC-21.
>> Personal choice here. However, it proves that your intent was not correct. If you think you would be stuck for many years, may be you should - you know it better, because the hassle and risk is not worth the little extra money.
-- there is no issue with intent. He has stayed for 6 months with current employer. After 6 months the law itself allows him to change sponsoring employer, so where is the question of intent?
2) Should I let USCIS know that I am changing my employment?
>> You better do inform the USCIS of your intentions (including AC21) if you want to keep the H1 visa status active. Because if you had registered all your cases (present or old past receipt notices too) at USCIS website, you would have noticed that there are recent LUDs on the first H1/? that you entered the US. Had you known this you would not have asked this question ;-)
--what are you talking about? A LUD could mean anything from a system update to your previous employer finally cancelling your H1. What recent-LUDs-on-first-H1 are you talking about?
>> (Also remember that when you use EAD : presently it means loosing H1 permanently unless you have some time left from the 6 year limit),
--Why? If you have an approved I-140 you can file an H1 extension even if yuou are on EAD. It does require you to leave the US and return to 'activate' the H1 though.
4) I am not sure how big employer B is (not sure how many employees work for them)....does it matter? Should I be concerned if employer B is a small employer?
>> It should be good to check the employee base and financial position of the new employer. The USCIS may deny your H1 transfer and leave you in a tough spot. It may also affect the 485 decision as success of AC21 is also dependent upon this.
-- USCIS has clarified that abiity-to-pay has to only be proven by original sponsoror. Where does it say that financial position of new employer is important for success of AC-21?
Here's a link to, and info from the USCIS memo:
http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/news/2005,0520-ac21.pdf
Question 7. Should service centers or district offices request proof of �ability to pay� from successor employers in I-140 portability cases, in other
words, from the new company/employer to which someone has
ported?
Answer: No. The relevant inquiry is whether the new position is in the same or similar occupational classification as the alien�s I-140 employment.
agree with the rest of your post.
No comments:
Post a Comment