Ramba
07-14 06:52 PM
Suppose my employer had revoked the 140 application within 180 days. In that case should I receive a NOID instead of RFE now.
Yes. However, on the flip side, if the 140 withdrawel letter was dated within 180 days of 485 pending, your 485 will be denied no matter what RFE or NOID. Few good adjudicaters may send RFE in stead of NOID/direct denial.
Yes. However, on the flip side, if the 140 withdrawel letter was dated within 180 days of 485 pending, your 485 will be denied no matter what RFE or NOID. Few good adjudicaters may send RFE in stead of NOID/direct denial.
wallpaper Just a few days after RIHANNA
greatzolin
08-15 04:18 PM
They should have continued down to EB3 w/ those dates..!
same_old_guy
07-09 04:38 PM
newbee7 is right.
Either the security clearance/FBI name check was COMPLETE or NOT. There is nothing as "would-be-done-shortly-for-sure" !
Bottom-line, if it can be proved in a court of law that USCIS approved cases without security clearance, there is a solid ground for the suit. It's against the law and it undermines the national security concerns.
Second, USCIS working in bad faith when they rushed to allocate all the quota just to avoid new I-485 applications. It clearly has "intentional" written all over it.
Third, I saw somewhere an excerpt from INA law that there is a limit on how many visa number can be allocated in a month. As per that clause, USCIS broke the law.
Fourth, there is a solid ground to sue USCIS for the expense to say the least. People has to pay a whole lot of things including lawyer, medical, photo etc. Time and effort spent on that is no less.
Either the security clearance/FBI name check was COMPLETE or NOT. There is nothing as "would-be-done-shortly-for-sure" !
Bottom-line, if it can be proved in a court of law that USCIS approved cases without security clearance, there is a solid ground for the suit. It's against the law and it undermines the national security concerns.
Second, USCIS working in bad faith when they rushed to allocate all the quota just to avoid new I-485 applications. It clearly has "intentional" written all over it.
Third, I saw somewhere an excerpt from INA law that there is a limit on how many visa number can be allocated in a month. As per that clause, USCIS broke the law.
Fourth, there is a solid ground to sue USCIS for the expense to say the least. People has to pay a whole lot of things including lawyer, medical, photo etc. Time and effort spent on that is no less.
2011 on Rihanna#39;s clothing and
pointlesswait
02-04 10:31 AM
some jack left me a message calling me ignorant.
ppl here are discussing his topic to death.. abt changing the per country quota.
No one here wants to even ponder that.. immigration into US is a not a random act.
The policy makers and thinkers may have spent many sleepless nights to arrive at the thought of giving every global citizen an equal opportunity to migrate to this "land of opportunity".
So even an attempt to remove per country quota is absurd and retarded thought.
Be practical and make more realistic suggestions..
a.) IF someone has been inthis country for 10 years ..F1->H1, he shoudl qualify for EAD (no constrains) , until the visa number become avaliable.
b.) Allow for simultaneous 140-485 filing..
so if peeps here think that i am ignorant for saying that attempt to remove country quota is a non-starter.. think again.. DF's
ppl here are discussing his topic to death.. abt changing the per country quota.
No one here wants to even ponder that.. immigration into US is a not a random act.
The policy makers and thinkers may have spent many sleepless nights to arrive at the thought of giving every global citizen an equal opportunity to migrate to this "land of opportunity".
So even an attempt to remove per country quota is absurd and retarded thought.
Be practical and make more realistic suggestions..
a.) IF someone has been inthis country for 10 years ..F1->H1, he shoudl qualify for EAD (no constrains) , until the visa number become avaliable.
b.) Allow for simultaneous 140-485 filing..
so if peeps here think that i am ignorant for saying that attempt to remove country quota is a non-starter.. think again.. DF's
more...
gckp
08-14 10:04 PM
I guess nobody is waiting for it now....
jelo
04-09 11:11 AM
I spoke to the lawyer about IOs at POE calling the employers whether the H1bs can be replaced by citizens. His explanation made sense and this calling business looks suspicious.
As he said, we do not prove anywhere in H1b process that we are not going to replace citizens. we do prove that the job will be paid the prevailing wage at the location. So I dont know how the IO can call and ask that unless they have other strong reason to do so. I do here such news but not from any one I know and travelled.
As he said, we do not prove anywhere in H1b process that we are not going to replace citizens. we do prove that the job will be paid the prevailing wage at the location. So I dont know how the IO can call and ask that unless they have other strong reason to do so. I do here such news but not from any one I know and travelled.
more...
makemygc
07-05 10:56 AM
Core is putting their time and mmoney and doing this all for everybody
Pray please tell me what the core did for people stuck in BEC's.
Even these people contributed and once the dates were made current everybody and I'm sorry to say including the core forgot about them.
I know I'll be bashed for wrting this and pls dont get offended but I just had to ask.
Answer me this. God forbid but if you have a cancer and your brother has a malaria and you have just one doctor to treat. Would you ask doctor to treat you first since you have a bigger issue than your brother? No, right.
Dude, we all are brothers in this mess and everyone deserves to be treated fairly. I agree that core should work to eliminate BEC problem as well as any other opportunity to get any other immediate relief but core has limited resources, very limited funding plus and core needs to work on areas which fixes maximum number of lives here.
There are around 40000 people stuck in BEC and if 20% of those can join core and contribute, I'm sure that is enough number to allocate resources accordingly. But somehow people has got the wrong idea that IV is not for people stuck in BEC. I've seen similar posts in immigrationportal.com as well.
Now if IV will work for people who were eligible to file in July or even for people who just filed on Jul 2nd, i'm sure people will come and say that IV is for July 2nd people only. But that is not the case. Any issues/bill/ammendment which can bring some immediate relief should be worked along with our core issues which is retrogression. Once you are out of BEC (I hope you do asap as several of my friends stuck there), I'm sure your main issue will be retrogression and not BEC even if there are other people stuck there.
So lets not divide these communities any more, work together towards common cause that can bring some relief to our brother, sisters and ourselves. We all be benefitted if we all support each other.
Hope you understand.
Thanks
Pray please tell me what the core did for people stuck in BEC's.
Even these people contributed and once the dates were made current everybody and I'm sorry to say including the core forgot about them.
I know I'll be bashed for wrting this and pls dont get offended but I just had to ask.
Answer me this. God forbid but if you have a cancer and your brother has a malaria and you have just one doctor to treat. Would you ask doctor to treat you first since you have a bigger issue than your brother? No, right.
Dude, we all are brothers in this mess and everyone deserves to be treated fairly. I agree that core should work to eliminate BEC problem as well as any other opportunity to get any other immediate relief but core has limited resources, very limited funding plus and core needs to work on areas which fixes maximum number of lives here.
There are around 40000 people stuck in BEC and if 20% of those can join core and contribute, I'm sure that is enough number to allocate resources accordingly. But somehow people has got the wrong idea that IV is not for people stuck in BEC. I've seen similar posts in immigrationportal.com as well.
Now if IV will work for people who were eligible to file in July or even for people who just filed on Jul 2nd, i'm sure people will come and say that IV is for July 2nd people only. But that is not the case. Any issues/bill/ammendment which can bring some immediate relief should be worked along with our core issues which is retrogression. Once you are out of BEC (I hope you do asap as several of my friends stuck there), I'm sure your main issue will be retrogression and not BEC even if there are other people stuck there.
So lets not divide these communities any more, work together towards common cause that can bring some relief to our brother, sisters and ourselves. We all be benefitted if we all support each other.
Hope you understand.
Thanks
2010 RIHANNA loves nothing better
priderock
06-22 04:39 PM
And wait for RFE.
USCIS is asking for COLOR copies of DL and passport.
Can you please point me to a link where USCIS asking for a color copy of DL and Passport? My lawyer did not even ask for copy of the DL and B/W copy of the passport was good enough.
USCIS is asking for COLOR copies of DL and passport.
Can you please point me to a link where USCIS asking for a color copy of DL and Passport? My lawyer did not even ask for copy of the DL and B/W copy of the passport was good enough.
more...
zen
03-29 10:32 PM
Please pardon me for my ignorance but why is that every admin fix will work with money in this country?
Does this mean we have to pay money to fix something in the system that will be useful to this country (eg: Senetors take the money and introduce the bills. Do you guys think it is equvalent to Bribe in other countries?)
I could recall that July '07 fiasco has been fixed without we donate anything.
Yes, I know that nothing is free in this country however I am not sure why should we pay bribe (or whatever you call) to fix something in the system?
These senetrors should have minimum knowledge that if they give GCs to us then we will flourish the economy in return. That is my point...
very good point and I agree 100 percent ..sad part is that such a good post gets buried under 20 posts which ask for more donations.
as far as I know FOIA campaign was for 5000 dollars ..then it was increased to 10,000. will it increase again ?
Does this mean we have to pay money to fix something in the system that will be useful to this country (eg: Senetors take the money and introduce the bills. Do you guys think it is equvalent to Bribe in other countries?)
I could recall that July '07 fiasco has been fixed without we donate anything.
Yes, I know that nothing is free in this country however I am not sure why should we pay bribe (or whatever you call) to fix something in the system?
These senetrors should have minimum knowledge that if they give GCs to us then we will flourish the economy in return. That is my point...
very good point and I agree 100 percent ..sad part is that such a good post gets buried under 20 posts which ask for more donations.
as far as I know FOIA campaign was for 5000 dollars ..then it was increased to 10,000. will it increase again ?
hair Rihanna loves demonstrating
kondur_007
04-10 10:28 AM
Does anyone have numbers for spillover last year category wise? I mean, last year how many EB4, EB5 and EB1 left out visas got spilled over to EB2? Thanks...
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
more...
neoneo
09-26 09:31 PM
---
Hi,
Thanks for your feedback:
"I don't think CNN is to be faulted that much coz IV itself has lost its focus towards Employment Based Green Cards."
Your comment doesn't make sense to me. Please explain.
The point to be made is simple. Over last few months IV members, as an organization, with all it's diverse members and even more diverse immigration problems, in general have moved towards having an opinion and pushing an agenda in a direction which may affect H1-B, F1 visas and not directly EB Green cards.
It would be more prudent if the message sent across is simple-- rather than use the term generic term of legal immigrants - it should focus towards EB-Green cards, coz very few (other than the stuck )understand that H1-B is non-immigrant visa and try to club the whole GC + H1B issue together.
From CNN's point of view (and the whole world) the Legal immigrants are GC, H1, F1, B1, L1, etc .. the onus is on IV to clear that IV stands for EB based GCs. period. Use the term "Immigrant" wisely and sparsely.
Hi,
Thanks for your feedback:
"I don't think CNN is to be faulted that much coz IV itself has lost its focus towards Employment Based Green Cards."
Your comment doesn't make sense to me. Please explain.
The point to be made is simple. Over last few months IV members, as an organization, with all it's diverse members and even more diverse immigration problems, in general have moved towards having an opinion and pushing an agenda in a direction which may affect H1-B, F1 visas and not directly EB Green cards.
It would be more prudent if the message sent across is simple-- rather than use the term generic term of legal immigrants - it should focus towards EB-Green cards, coz very few (other than the stuck )understand that H1-B is non-immigrant visa and try to club the whole GC + H1B issue together.
From CNN's point of view (and the whole world) the Legal immigrants are GC, H1, F1, B1, L1, etc .. the onus is on IV to clear that IV stands for EB based GCs. period. Use the term "Immigrant" wisely and sparsely.
hot Rihanna#39;s Hair Colors
zuhail
03-10 11:54 PM
If we put the word H1B in the Visa Re-capturing bill, the bill would be doomed. As few have rightly pointed out, it would be taken out of context probably advertised and interpreted as increasing H1B visas.
If we put the words, eliminating per country limits, it would doomed. The CNN headlines would scream "Indians and Chinese are coming".
If we put any changes to the current requirements of I-485 filing, it would be interpreted as diluting the existing laws to import more cheap foreign workers faster. The anti-immigration forces would be all over it like a monkey on a cupcake.
If we keep it simple : Re-capturing unused visa numbers for Employment Based Categories for Foreign Born Professionals already employed in the US legally and in the queue for Permanent Residency, we have a high chance of success.
IV team please start the fund raising for re-capturing visa numbers. Thanks.
If we put the words, eliminating per country limits, it would doomed. The CNN headlines would scream "Indians and Chinese are coming".
If we put any changes to the current requirements of I-485 filing, it would be interpreted as diluting the existing laws to import more cheap foreign workers faster. The anti-immigration forces would be all over it like a monkey on a cupcake.
If we keep it simple : Re-capturing unused visa numbers for Employment Based Categories for Foreign Born Professionals already employed in the US legally and in the queue for Permanent Residency, we have a high chance of success.
IV team please start the fund raising for re-capturing visa numbers. Thanks.
more...
house Dark clothes, dark sunglasses
seahawks
09-10 02:10 PM
Guys, you have to move to Florida. When my wife and son were on H4 they were paying in-state tuition.
this is copied from the catalog of the school:
The following categories will be considered as Florida residents for tuition purposes:
Active duty members of the armed forces stationed in Florida, or whose home of record is in Florida, and their dependents.
Full-time instructional and administrative personnel employed by a public educational institution and their dependents
Qualified beneficiaries under the Florida Pre-Paid Postsecondary Expense Program.
In addition the following nonimmigrant categories are eligible to establish Florida residency: A, E, G, H-1, H-4, I, K, L, N, 0-1, O-3, R, and NATO I-7.
Others as permitted by state statute or rule
If only moves were so easy wouldn't all H1's be in Florida?
We have different laws for different states, we have states where driver license is only given for the period on your H1, we have states where SSN is required for a drivers license but your spouse cannot get a license. Please be aware of everyone's plight. We are trying to bring awareness by keeping the larger picture in mind.
this is copied from the catalog of the school:
The following categories will be considered as Florida residents for tuition purposes:
Active duty members of the armed forces stationed in Florida, or whose home of record is in Florida, and their dependents.
Full-time instructional and administrative personnel employed by a public educational institution and their dependents
Qualified beneficiaries under the Florida Pre-Paid Postsecondary Expense Program.
In addition the following nonimmigrant categories are eligible to establish Florida residency: A, E, G, H-1, H-4, I, K, L, N, 0-1, O-3, R, and NATO I-7.
Others as permitted by state statute or rule
If only moves were so easy wouldn't all H1's be in Florida?
We have different laws for different states, we have states where driver license is only given for the period on your H1, we have states where SSN is required for a drivers license but your spouse cannot get a license. Please be aware of everyone's plight. We are trying to bring awareness by keeping the larger picture in mind.
tattoo More Rihanna beating photos
silibili
06-10 04:40 PM
done
more...
pictures Rihanna DRESSED for
kavita
12-10 07:47 PM
don't you think that working towards removing unfair country quota in skilled category would be faster & easier than population control?
Now that you are enlighted about being one among too many, are you planning to go back, and reduce backlog for others?
Also, when talking about reducing indian population, I hope that you do not agree with what 10 pakistanis tried to do in mumbai few days back!!! That is one very bad way of reducing population! I would prefer load balancing i.e. moving some ppl to part of world where population is not so much.
Jokes apart, we need to seriously highlight the fact that as there is no country quota in H1B, since it is a skilled category visa, similarly there should be no country quota in skill based immigration too. It is nothing but simply 'DESCRIMINATION" based on country of birth. Do we have guts to fight that??? we can only talk about some stupid solutions but have no unity, no guts and no willingness to stand up for our community.
I absolutely agree with you. I can't imagine how a person of Indian or Chinese origin can blame themselves of this retrogression. To me, it is a reflection of poor self esteem.
The bottomline is that we are here because we are needed here. We have the privilege to apply for green card in return for the work we do. Country quota does not make sense in employment based immigration. It is an unfair practice which has to stop someday.
Now that you are enlighted about being one among too many, are you planning to go back, and reduce backlog for others?
Also, when talking about reducing indian population, I hope that you do not agree with what 10 pakistanis tried to do in mumbai few days back!!! That is one very bad way of reducing population! I would prefer load balancing i.e. moving some ppl to part of world where population is not so much.
Jokes apart, we need to seriously highlight the fact that as there is no country quota in H1B, since it is a skilled category visa, similarly there should be no country quota in skill based immigration too. It is nothing but simply 'DESCRIMINATION" based on country of birth. Do we have guts to fight that??? we can only talk about some stupid solutions but have no unity, no guts and no willingness to stand up for our community.
I absolutely agree with you. I can't imagine how a person of Indian or Chinese origin can blame themselves of this retrogression. To me, it is a reflection of poor self esteem.
The bottomline is that we are here because we are needed here. We have the privilege to apply for green card in return for the work we do. Country quota does not make sense in employment based immigration. It is an unfair practice which has to stop someday.
dresses very cute outfits 2011
andy garcia
09-27 12:33 PM
You don't have to struggle in home country. You were born and raised there and I do not see a need to struggle.
And you are not struggling here also, you have come to pursue your dream, everyone here have jobs, we are just trying to fix a broken system here.
I have 2 European co-workers. They both told me, "The only way we will go back to Europe is when we die".
And you are not struggling here also, you have come to pursue your dream, everyone here have jobs, we are just trying to fix a broken system here.
I have 2 European co-workers. They both told me, "The only way we will go back to Europe is when we die".
more...
makeup Posted on February 14, 2011 by
mjdup
01-17 03:49 PM
$50/mo..
---------------------------------------------
Subscription Payment Sent (ID #96M81233JP7721621)
In reference to:S-54A18250GT703020K
Original Transaction
Date Type Status Details Amount
Jan. 17, 2007 Payment To Immigration Voice Completed ... -$50.00 USD
---------------------------------------------
Subscription Payment Sent (ID #96M81233JP7721621)
In reference to:S-54A18250GT703020K
Original Transaction
Date Type Status Details Amount
Jan. 17, 2007 Payment To Immigration Voice Completed ... -$50.00 USD
girlfriend Rihanna dresses as Playboy
Humhongekamyab
03-09 02:13 PM
lol..dont say 2019..my PD is almost same as yours and I aint hanging around till 2019..by that time I will be old and no idea what will I do with..GC..probaly hope for citizenship and apply for retirement benefits :confused::confused::confused:
Edit: Never mind..yours is EB3..so may be mine will come in 2015
If your kids were born in the US then maybe they will be able to file for you by then and that will be definitely faster than EB-3. :D
Edit: Never mind..yours is EB3..so may be mine will come in 2015
If your kids were born in the US then maybe they will be able to file for you by then and that will be definitely faster than EB-3. :D
hairstyles Rihanna Hairstyle 2011,Rihanna
masouds
02-16 12:38 PM
Yes you have in your posts supported what IV stands against. You have appreciated policies of US government not letting Indians and Chinese here.So I am not sure what you stand for. IV has opposing country caps on agenda from last three years and suddenly you are telling folks that there are too many Indians and Chinese here and you support caps and less Indians and Chinese here. Yes you are minority and you can say your voice but cannot be racist and cannot offend the majority.
I am sorry if I offended anyone. I don't recall how.
and by the way, my friend, you really really need a life :-) That's the last thing you'll hear from me on this subject.
peace out
I am sorry if I offended anyone. I don't recall how.
and by the way, my friend, you really really need a life :-) That's the last thing you'll hear from me on this subject.
peace out
Ramba
07-14 10:02 PM
--
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
Have you read the USCIS question? If not, read few times to understand how your interpretation is wrong.
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.
The bottom line is if his approved 140 is not revoked with in 180 days of filing the 485, his 485 is still valid even if ported the job with in a month after filing 485.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as you say the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
Have you read the USCIS question? If not, read few times to understand how your interpretation is wrong.
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.
The bottom line is if his approved 140 is not revoked with in 180 days of filing the 485, his 485 is still valid even if ported the job with in a month after filing 485.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as you say the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
singhsa3
03-05 03:41 PM
Personally, I think you are not thinking clearly. If I really wanted a mortgage do you think I would have been writting on immigrationvoice.org
My motive is simple and straightforward. I am looking for points that I can use to convince lawmakers and media that American will gain AND not loose by supporting our cause.
I also plan to use the poll results during our upcoming meeting with lawmakers. If you have some better idea , which will enable me to use during such meetings, I am all ears.
I have sympathy for your position, I feel blessed that my situation and timing were more favorable.
The poll we are voting on was when did we plan to make a property purchase, my view and my opinion was that to me holding the green card wasn't the deciding factor.
I agree there is risk in property values and the ability to liquidate.
I acknowledge that your position is because of market conditions in the lending economy that have changed, in 1999 I got a mortgage after 3 months on H1b, and I know times have changed.
But obviously you attempted to consider buying property before your GC approval, because of your mortgage rejection...which is due to lender policy.
I thought the purpose of the poll was to measure the forums "plan and intention": when do you plan to buy a house?
Are you waiting for green card approval or are you buying before?
Perhaps it's an unfair question, because most people don't have the cash to just buy out right and are forced to borrow, at the lenders conditions.
The other economic question is about property values and real estate cycles. The two rules of real estate are "location, location, location" and "timing".
Then factor the security of your position.
At the end of the day as I see it we have to choices, we either rent accomodation or we buy.
It's up to all of us to make our own decision as to which route we wish to take and whether the cost of renting is the opportunity cost of buying.
So here's my question to you...if you could secure funding, would you buy or would you wait for GC approval?
Are you experiencing difficulty in securing a mortgage because you are not a green card holder? is a different question.
my best wishes and good luck to all
My motive is simple and straightforward. I am looking for points that I can use to convince lawmakers and media that American will gain AND not loose by supporting our cause.
I also plan to use the poll results during our upcoming meeting with lawmakers. If you have some better idea , which will enable me to use during such meetings, I am all ears.
I have sympathy for your position, I feel blessed that my situation and timing were more favorable.
The poll we are voting on was when did we plan to make a property purchase, my view and my opinion was that to me holding the green card wasn't the deciding factor.
I agree there is risk in property values and the ability to liquidate.
I acknowledge that your position is because of market conditions in the lending economy that have changed, in 1999 I got a mortgage after 3 months on H1b, and I know times have changed.
But obviously you attempted to consider buying property before your GC approval, because of your mortgage rejection...which is due to lender policy.
I thought the purpose of the poll was to measure the forums "plan and intention": when do you plan to buy a house?
Are you waiting for green card approval or are you buying before?
Perhaps it's an unfair question, because most people don't have the cash to just buy out right and are forced to borrow, at the lenders conditions.
The other economic question is about property values and real estate cycles. The two rules of real estate are "location, location, location" and "timing".
Then factor the security of your position.
At the end of the day as I see it we have to choices, we either rent accomodation or we buy.
It's up to all of us to make our own decision as to which route we wish to take and whether the cost of renting is the opportunity cost of buying.
So here's my question to you...if you could secure funding, would you buy or would you wait for GC approval?
Are you experiencing difficulty in securing a mortgage because you are not a green card holder? is a different question.
my best wishes and good luck to all
0 comments:
Post a Comment