vinabath
07-20 03:02 PM
Best thing would be to apply for EAD/AP about 6 months from now because bulk of the new workload will be concentrated in June, July and August filings and it might take 5-6 months for all of them to get EADs. same thing when time comes for renewals.
If someone applies EAD/AP 6 months from now, chances are he/she will be able to avoid the crowd and get it in 3 months.
It''s like leaving at 5PM and spending 3 hours in traffic
OR
leaving at 8 and spending 30 minutes
makes sense?
It does not make any sense.Very bad analogy.
If someone applies EAD/AP 6 months from now, chances are he/she will be able to avoid the crowd and get it in 3 months.
It''s like leaving at 5PM and spending 3 hours in traffic
OR
leaving at 8 and spending 30 minutes
makes sense?
It does not make any sense.Very bad analogy.
wallpaper Vogue, Jennifer Aniston
ArkBird
09-01 03:27 PM
- Came to US in 1997.
- Had Labor + 140 approved in Dec, 99.
- tricked and lured by start-up in silicon valley. Abandoned everything and came to California in Jan, 2000 made the deadly mistake of not taking the copy of approved I-140 (I still slap myself every morning for that mistake ;) )
- Found out they have only one customer
- Founder wasted own 20 Million dollars but never increased the tally for the customer from 1
- "Startup" went under in 2002.
- Joined new company (the only customer of start-up) and filed labor in March, 2003 and enjoying every minute of it... :)
Cheers
ArkBird
- Had Labor + 140 approved in Dec, 99.
- tricked and lured by start-up in silicon valley. Abandoned everything and came to California in Jan, 2000 made the deadly mistake of not taking the copy of approved I-140 (I still slap myself every morning for that mistake ;) )
- Found out they have only one customer
- Founder wasted own 20 Million dollars but never increased the tally for the customer from 1
- "Startup" went under in 2002.
- Joined new company (the only customer of start-up) and filed labor in March, 2003 and enjoying every minute of it... :)
Cheers
ArkBird
payal_nag
11-15 12:29 PM
Live in Tustin Ranch and work in Irvine, Orange County.
2011 Jennifer Aniston, Vogue August
eagerr2i
12-01 02:02 PM
Hi Jimi,
I missed the call yesterday night. How did it go? It is a good idea to get together some time in the near future. I would like to poll where all of us are located in So Cal,so that we could have it at a central place.
I am in Pasadena. How about others?My email ID is ashish@immigrationvoice.org
I missed the call yesterday night. How did it go? It is a good idea to get together some time in the near future. I would like to poll where all of us are located in So Cal,so that we could have it at a central place.
I am in Pasadena. How about others?My email ID is ashish@immigrationvoice.org
more...
vayumahesh
12-02 10:38 AM
GeetaRam,
I would say to follow your attorney's advice though I don't think of any issues with going for premium processing as you are with the same employer. My friend has recently filed I-140 under regular processing and got approval within 2 1/2 months. Just make sure if your attorney submitted porting request while filing new I-140 under EB2. All the best.
I would say to follow your attorney's advice though I don't think of any issues with going for premium processing as you are with the same employer. My friend has recently filed I-140 under regular processing and got approval within 2 1/2 months. Just make sure if your attorney submitted porting request while filing new I-140 under EB2. All the best.
lonedesi
08-06 08:24 AM
Raydon, thanks for expressing your situation. But I still feel we are not requesting TSC to expedite our cases. All we are asking his, please do justice to us and follow the FIFO for the I-140 petitions. TSC has been consistently approving cases filed in recently and just continuing to ignore our cases. If you can explain your attorney, I am sure he will understand. Or atleast have him, fill out form 7001 on your behalf and send his own letter explaining the situation to Ombudsman's office.
I understand that I-140 is employer petition, but it ulitmately belongs to you. So you need to do whatever you can do some how convince your employer or attorney to assist you one time. I-485 is your petition, and you do not need any consent, if you need to send a letter to Ombudsman's office. So please try your best and see if you can mail the form & letter to Ombudsman's office.
lonedesi,
Much as I'd like to participate in this campaign, it's the employer's signature that I can't guarantee. My employer is a big and prestigious (supposedly) company and will not want to sign this petition or do anything against the counsel of the attorney. The attorney is not gaining anything by expedited processing of the I-140 and won't support this either. He's an AILA member too, if that's of any significance.
If this is worthless without the employer's signature, then I'm unable to participate in this campaign, though it is a worthy effort.I would urge all members who can get the employer's consent to definitely participate and wake up the USCIS from it's slumber.They need a big kick up their you-know-where, especially the TSC.
I understand that I-140 is employer petition, but it ulitmately belongs to you. So you need to do whatever you can do some how convince your employer or attorney to assist you one time. I-485 is your petition, and you do not need any consent, if you need to send a letter to Ombudsman's office. So please try your best and see if you can mail the form & letter to Ombudsman's office.
lonedesi,
Much as I'd like to participate in this campaign, it's the employer's signature that I can't guarantee. My employer is a big and prestigious (supposedly) company and will not want to sign this petition or do anything against the counsel of the attorney. The attorney is not gaining anything by expedited processing of the I-140 and won't support this either. He's an AILA member too, if that's of any significance.
If this is worthless without the employer's signature, then I'm unable to participate in this campaign, though it is a worthy effort.I would urge all members who can get the employer's consent to definitely participate and wake up the USCIS from it's slumber.They need a big kick up their you-know-where, especially the TSC.
more...
crazyghoda
12-15 12:04 PM
Sounds like a good idea. My doctor told me at my annual physical that I need to lose 10-20 lbs :D
Dear Friends,
What about if some of us will go for hunger strike in front of USCIC building? may be the will listen to us then.
please dont give reds if you dont like it, just ignore it. man I am very frustrated with the situation.
MC
Dear Friends,
What about if some of us will go for hunger strike in front of USCIC building? may be the will listen to us then.
please dont give reds if you dont like it, just ignore it. man I am very frustrated with the situation.
MC
2010 A yoga girl: Jennifer Aniston
satishku_2000
07-05 03:16 PM
I called my congressmans office and made them aware of the issue. He is Gary Miller 42nd district of CA.
more...
justAnotherFile
08-08 03:22 PM
good note.
I think a line or two on how the EB immigrant is hampered while waitng for those 5-10 years will be useful. (i.e limited by not being able to switch jobs or even roles within the same company because switching would mean restarting the GC all over from scratch, and spouses having to remain idle even if they are highly qualified on their own, and difficulty of investing in real-estate without any permanance)
I think a line or two on how the EB immigrant is hampered while waitng for those 5-10 years will be useful. (i.e limited by not being able to switch jobs or even roles within the same company because switching would mean restarting the GC all over from scratch, and spouses having to remain idle even if they are highly qualified on their own, and difficulty of investing in real-estate without any permanance)
hair jennifer aniston vogue.
gc_kaavaali
07-14 04:55 PM
Please contribute guys...just $5
more...
jonty_11
07-06 01:05 PM
He is a excellent lawyer it seems , may be i'll hire him ...
What is his name , is he/she a AILA member ?
Wahtever this may be..lets hope this is also not a rumor like the VB July Fiasco turned out not to be a rumor.
What is his name , is he/she a AILA member ?
Wahtever this may be..lets hope this is also not a rumor like the VB July Fiasco turned out not to be a rumor.
hot JENNIFER ANISTON VOGUE COVER:
Humhongekamyab
02-18 03:32 PM
Lets make the EB2 date to 28 Dec 05..tthat will cover my PD :D:D:D
I agree. Mine is December 15, 2005.
I agree. Mine is December 15, 2005.
more...
house Oh my Jennifer!
vayumahesh
11-09 08:50 AM
I need info from the experts here. I am thinking of going with interfiling process rather than wait for the USCIS system to identify the case as current. One issue with my case is I-140 attorney (company lawyer) is different from I-485 attorney (outside company). My company attorney has forwarded the copy of I-140 to my I-485 attorney. Is I-140 copy enough or must submit original with the interfiling process ?
The following thread in Immigrationvoice says, lawyer needs to send original I-140 with interfiling process.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum2-retrogression-priority-dates-and-visa-bulletins/17441-interfiling.html (response by sanbaj - The lawyer has to write a letter to USCIS along with the original approval notice of the newly approved but older PD I140. )
The following thread in Immigrationvoice says, lawyer needs to send original I-140 with interfiling process.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum2-retrogression-priority-dates-and-visa-bulletins/17441-interfiling.html (response by sanbaj - The lawyer has to write a letter to USCIS along with the original approval notice of the newly approved but older PD I140. )
tattoo jennifer aniston vogue pix
pointlesswait
07-15 11:24 PM
$10, via chase!
njoy!
njoy!
more...
pictures Jennifer Aniston - Vogue Cover
immi2006
08-18 10:45 AM
There are a few hundred cases of Eb2 and 3 getting approved in my American company.
People are jumping into conclusion with a few approvals from 2004/2005, but what you are not considering is the number of people with 2001/2002 priority dates who just applied for 485 in June. There might be a lot of them (I am one of those). If there are not too many of them, it is good for everyone, but its very tough to predict.
From what I heard from my lawfirm, they expect the oct bulletin to go back to 2001 or early 2002. But with everyone filing 485, USCIS should be able to predict the number of applicants and move dates better compared to earlier when they were shooting in the dark and wasting visas.
Anyway, good luck to all
People are jumping into conclusion with a few approvals from 2004/2005, but what you are not considering is the number of people with 2001/2002 priority dates who just applied for 485 in June. There might be a lot of them (I am one of those). If there are not too many of them, it is good for everyone, but its very tough to predict.
From what I heard from my lawfirm, they expect the oct bulletin to go back to 2001 or early 2002. But with everyone filing 485, USCIS should be able to predict the number of applicants and move dates better compared to earlier when they were shooting in the dark and wasting visas.
Anyway, good luck to all
dresses Aniston interview in Vogue
here4gc
09-16 12:52 PM
Guys..I just recieved my I-140 approval..last week..shocked, surprised..but trust me..this works..hope some people remember about a similar campaign I had initiated a while back..I sent letters to Zoe Lofgren, Ombudsman, USCIS director and Ted Kennedy..apart from contacting my local congressman...
Goodluck guys!!! I sincerely wish everybody speedy approvals!!!!!!
Goodluck guys!!! I sincerely wish everybody speedy approvals!!!!!!
more...
makeup Jennifer Aniston Vogue US
arthsidhu
09-10 03:33 PM
and for those who can't donate few dollars for their own cause, I leave that that for your own imagination..
People who are working for this cause are not doing for just themselves. It can't be said enough about this rally, but again you have to have some conscious to donate to the rally.
$30,000 needed and we haven't reached halfway yet. Pity the GC seekers. They should be rather called GC whiners.
People who are working for this cause are not doing for just themselves. It can't be said enough about this rally, but again you have to have some conscious to donate to the rally.
$30,000 needed and we haven't reached halfway yet. Pity the GC seekers. They should be rather called GC whiners.
girlfriend jennifer aniston Vogue
ind_game
05-15 09:53 AM
Hi ind_game,
For me, 1. I-140 approval in September, 2007 (actually 09/04/2009 as I have the hard copy) has typo. I think your 09/04/2009 should be 2007.
Please correct.
My apologies........Can I correct the thread message now........it looks I cannot.......anyway here is the updated....thanks ak_2006
Here is the scoop.
from US Congresswoman's office, an immigration specialist spoke to their liaison at the Nebraska Service Center.
Liaison confirmed the following:
1. I-140 approval in September, 2007 (actually 09/04/2007 as I have the hard copy)
2. I-140 revocation in Feb, 2009 ( he has not provided the day of the month, but from LUD I have it strongly pointing to 02/03/2009)
I have not told the Congresswoman's office about the I-140 revocation. Just mentioned that it might have happened as I have left the company.
3. Liaison did confirm that even after the I-140 being withdrawn I am eligible for adjustment thru AC21.
4. Liaison did agree that if the I-140 was revoked within the stipulated time given in AC21, Nebraska�s decision to deny the I-485 may have been in error. (which in my case is true)
Immigration specialist at the Congresswoman's office is going to contact the Director of NSC to review this matter with a supervisor
Unanswered questions:
1. If the Liaison can see that my I-140 is approved on 09/04/2007, why is that the adjudicating officer is responding with a denial on 09/04/2007 and subsequent denial of I-485?
2. Are they both not looking at my information with same interface?
Conclusion:
Atleast in my case it looks deliberate and intentional.
For me, 1. I-140 approval in September, 2007 (actually 09/04/2009 as I have the hard copy) has typo. I think your 09/04/2009 should be 2007.
Please correct.
My apologies........Can I correct the thread message now........it looks I cannot.......anyway here is the updated....thanks ak_2006
Here is the scoop.
from US Congresswoman's office, an immigration specialist spoke to their liaison at the Nebraska Service Center.
Liaison confirmed the following:
1. I-140 approval in September, 2007 (actually 09/04/2007 as I have the hard copy)
2. I-140 revocation in Feb, 2009 ( he has not provided the day of the month, but from LUD I have it strongly pointing to 02/03/2009)
I have not told the Congresswoman's office about the I-140 revocation. Just mentioned that it might have happened as I have left the company.
3. Liaison did confirm that even after the I-140 being withdrawn I am eligible for adjustment thru AC21.
4. Liaison did agree that if the I-140 was revoked within the stipulated time given in AC21, Nebraska�s decision to deny the I-485 may have been in error. (which in my case is true)
Immigration specialist at the Congresswoman's office is going to contact the Director of NSC to review this matter with a supervisor
Unanswered questions:
1. If the Liaison can see that my I-140 is approved on 09/04/2007, why is that the adjudicating officer is responding with a denial on 09/04/2007 and subsequent denial of I-485?
2. Are they both not looking at my information with same interface?
Conclusion:
Atleast in my case it looks deliberate and intentional.
hairstyles jennifer aniston in vogue
susie
07-15 11:19 AM
APPENDIX: REFORM SOLUTIONS
The Need for a Compassionate Visa
Solutions
Subsection (3) should be reworded to clarify its application to derivative beneficiaries as follows
�(3) RETENTION OF PRIORITY DATE- If the age of an alien is determined under paragraph (1) to be 21 years of age or older,
(A) for the purposes of subsections (a)(4), the alien's petition shall automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition, and
(B) for the purposes of subsections (d), the petition on which the alien was a derivative beneficiary shall automatically be converted to a new petition with the appropriate category once their Parent has permanent resident status and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the alien parent�s original petition. This is without prejudice to a Parent�s right to object to such converted petition. �
This new division into (A) and (B) makes a more appropriate distinction between principal beneficiaries and derivative beneficiaries. (B) also clarifies a Parent who does not want to petition their over 21 unmarried son or daughter, is permitted to oppose the automatic conversion of the application.
In addition, after four and half years since its enactment, the USCIS has still failed to issue implementing rules and a private bill should be introduced requiring the USCIS to perform its statutory duty to provide rules.
If the new points system is implemented, INA, section 203(h), becomes redundant in relation to future applicants. In this case a new provision should be added permitting all derivative beneficiaries to be considered as a child regardless of when they age out and when the petition becomes current. This would be a temporary relief measure for any derivative beneficiary currently subject to the family-based petitions so they do not age out while the remaining petitions are being cleared.
Removal of Child Status Protection Act of 2002 (CSPA), section 8
Section 8 of the CSPA provides provisions preventing the retroactive application of the legislation. As a result many beneficiaries have to wait in excess of 30 years for an immigrant visa. Derivative beneficiaries that were subject to wait times and aged out cannot apply the benefits of the CSPA if their parent�s petition was processed before August 2002. This means they are forced to back of the line; after already having waited up to 20 years, they are forced to wait for another lengthy period up to 20 years in the F2B category.
Therefore, section 8 has to be repealed to enable retroactive applicability. It cannot be right that if these same people had not abided with US immigration laws and entered illegally, they would be able to get status to remain and work in the USA under the proposed Z visa. However, by abiding by the law, they are instead forced to wait outside the USA for over 30 years in total since the start of the original immigrant visa application because they were ejected out of one line due to aging out as a result of the prolonged wait times, only to be forced to the back of a new immigrant visa line.
Dream Act
This is currently incorporated within the STRIVE Act (sections 621 et seq.) and presumably will be brought forward in the upcoming Bill subject to final agreement by the Senators. However, there is ambiguity as to whether children in the USA who enter legally benefit from its provisions. This has to be clarified to ensure it applies not only to children who entered the USA illegally, but also to those who entered legally, such as in derivative status on an E2 visa of their Parent. The ambiguity is made worse because the STRIVE Bill includes the Dream Act in subtitle B of Title VI Legalization of Undocumented Individuals. It is an absurd situation if legal nonimmigrant children are not given at least the same equal treatment as illegal children. The future Bill should incorporate the DREAM Act into a separate Title so does not give the appearance it applies to illegal migrant children only.
E2 Investors and Rep. Heather Wilson�s Proposed E2 Nonimmigrant Investor Adjustment Act of 2007
We strongly reiterate our support for this proposed legislation and urge you to do same. However, we urge you to go further by removing the proposed 3,000 cap or, at the very least, increase the proposed 3,000 annual cap to a more reasonable number such as 20,000 and/or provide annual increases to meet market demand to avoid backlogs and to avoid having to revisit the issue in future. Aside from our own members, E2 investors provide billions of dollars of investment in the US economy and much needed employment. They should be provided with a pathway to permanent residency and citizenship for their dedication and commitment to this country. It is undoubtedly very odd that illegal immigrants are receiving a pathway to permanent residency whereas E2 investors are not. It sends a clear message that entering the USA illegally is preferable because it provides a path to citizenship, whereas entering legally and working hard, investing substantial amounts of capital and employing US citizens for the benefit of the US economy does not (unless you are the extremely rare exception that qualifies under the EB5 investment visa).
The Need for a Compassionate Visa
Solutions
Subsection (3) should be reworded to clarify its application to derivative beneficiaries as follows
�(3) RETENTION OF PRIORITY DATE- If the age of an alien is determined under paragraph (1) to be 21 years of age or older,
(A) for the purposes of subsections (a)(4), the alien's petition shall automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition, and
(B) for the purposes of subsections (d), the petition on which the alien was a derivative beneficiary shall automatically be converted to a new petition with the appropriate category once their Parent has permanent resident status and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the alien parent�s original petition. This is without prejudice to a Parent�s right to object to such converted petition. �
This new division into (A) and (B) makes a more appropriate distinction between principal beneficiaries and derivative beneficiaries. (B) also clarifies a Parent who does not want to petition their over 21 unmarried son or daughter, is permitted to oppose the automatic conversion of the application.
In addition, after four and half years since its enactment, the USCIS has still failed to issue implementing rules and a private bill should be introduced requiring the USCIS to perform its statutory duty to provide rules.
If the new points system is implemented, INA, section 203(h), becomes redundant in relation to future applicants. In this case a new provision should be added permitting all derivative beneficiaries to be considered as a child regardless of when they age out and when the petition becomes current. This would be a temporary relief measure for any derivative beneficiary currently subject to the family-based petitions so they do not age out while the remaining petitions are being cleared.
Removal of Child Status Protection Act of 2002 (CSPA), section 8
Section 8 of the CSPA provides provisions preventing the retroactive application of the legislation. As a result many beneficiaries have to wait in excess of 30 years for an immigrant visa. Derivative beneficiaries that were subject to wait times and aged out cannot apply the benefits of the CSPA if their parent�s petition was processed before August 2002. This means they are forced to back of the line; after already having waited up to 20 years, they are forced to wait for another lengthy period up to 20 years in the F2B category.
Therefore, section 8 has to be repealed to enable retroactive applicability. It cannot be right that if these same people had not abided with US immigration laws and entered illegally, they would be able to get status to remain and work in the USA under the proposed Z visa. However, by abiding by the law, they are instead forced to wait outside the USA for over 30 years in total since the start of the original immigrant visa application because they were ejected out of one line due to aging out as a result of the prolonged wait times, only to be forced to the back of a new immigrant visa line.
Dream Act
This is currently incorporated within the STRIVE Act (sections 621 et seq.) and presumably will be brought forward in the upcoming Bill subject to final agreement by the Senators. However, there is ambiguity as to whether children in the USA who enter legally benefit from its provisions. This has to be clarified to ensure it applies not only to children who entered the USA illegally, but also to those who entered legally, such as in derivative status on an E2 visa of their Parent. The ambiguity is made worse because the STRIVE Bill includes the Dream Act in subtitle B of Title VI Legalization of Undocumented Individuals. It is an absurd situation if legal nonimmigrant children are not given at least the same equal treatment as illegal children. The future Bill should incorporate the DREAM Act into a separate Title so does not give the appearance it applies to illegal migrant children only.
E2 Investors and Rep. Heather Wilson�s Proposed E2 Nonimmigrant Investor Adjustment Act of 2007
We strongly reiterate our support for this proposed legislation and urge you to do same. However, we urge you to go further by removing the proposed 3,000 cap or, at the very least, increase the proposed 3,000 annual cap to a more reasonable number such as 20,000 and/or provide annual increases to meet market demand to avoid backlogs and to avoid having to revisit the issue in future. Aside from our own members, E2 investors provide billions of dollars of investment in the US economy and much needed employment. They should be provided with a pathway to permanent residency and citizenship for their dedication and commitment to this country. It is undoubtedly very odd that illegal immigrants are receiving a pathway to permanent residency whereas E2 investors are not. It sends a clear message that entering the USA illegally is preferable because it provides a path to citizenship, whereas entering legally and working hard, investing substantial amounts of capital and employing US citizens for the benefit of the US economy does not (unless you are the extremely rare exception that qualifies under the EB5 investment visa).
gc_dedo
09-09 07:33 PM
I read so many posts regarding india facing something similar to sub prime mortgage.
US is a very stabilized in terms of homes.
Consider India's growing high earning population.
They will need home to live as cities expand and people will be there to still buy.
US is a very stabilized in terms of homes.
Consider India's growing high earning population.
They will need home to live as cities expand and people will be there to still buy.
hopefullegalimmigrant
01-20 10:40 PM
Hello All - Got AP on Friday. What a delay. Hope everyone else gets the documents in time.
No comments:
Post a Comment