leo2606
10-25 09:56 PM
Are you serious lawyers suggesting to return GC?
wait, Franklin,
1. Did you get already your GC approved?
2. I think you DO need PD to be current for GC approval. In best case scenario, GC could be approved in matter of 10-15 days, so for July filers there were some GC numbers available, and few lucky ones got their approvals. This is how I see it... please correct me if I'm wrong.
3. It would be interesting if shimul99 would share with us as when exactly his status was adjudicated. I've read somewhere that there are cases, that people got their GCs approved by mistake and lawyers suggested to inform CIS and return the GC. These people were then having their statuses adjudicated when their PDs were becoming current.
wait, Franklin,
1. Did you get already your GC approved?
2. I think you DO need PD to be current for GC approval. In best case scenario, GC could be approved in matter of 10-15 days, so for July filers there were some GC numbers available, and few lucky ones got their approvals. This is how I see it... please correct me if I'm wrong.
3. It would be interesting if shimul99 would share with us as when exactly his status was adjudicated. I've read somewhere that there are cases, that people got their GCs approved by mistake and lawyers suggested to inform CIS and return the GC. These people were then having their statuses adjudicated when their PDs were becoming current.
wallpaper a importância da água,
aadimanav
01-23 12:06 AM
:confused: It must be typo.
arunmohan
01-21 05:56 PM
Like you I had been waiting since 2005 (when my labor and I 140 got approved) for my PD to be current. Now that its been current since October 1, 2008 and even had been current in few months in early 2008 I realize that its just one more wait.
Nothing is going top happen by increasing quota unless USCIS speeeds up processing and decised to process based on a documented criteia (right now its completely random as TSC and NSC are out of synch and neither seems to follow any sequence of PD, ND or RD).
Me and others like me have been waiting since 2001 and we are still stuck even though PD is current. We have a special thread for us who are pre OCt 2001 PD and are still waiting. So if anything focus on getting USCIS to process orderly and efficiently. If you increase quota but dont change USCIS behaviour you will be worse off.
Hello nozerd
Call your local congressman or Congresswoman and Senator. They will help your case. My friend was in same situation and they helped him. He got his GC in 2 months after calling his congressman.
Hello All:
This is a very sad for EB3, there is no movement since 2004 Dec except 2007 fiasco. Our best option is right now to send a letter to local congress member and Senator. Tell your story in the letter. When did you come, what is your investment, future investment, career stagnant and our life is hanging in the middle of no-where. I will suggest to everyone to send the same letter to Local news paper also. At least you will see some kind reponse from politician here. I have alwyas receive a response from house members and senators. I think we should send the same letter to Ombudsman too. This is my thoughts. If gorup have some other idea. Please let us know.
Nothing is going top happen by increasing quota unless USCIS speeeds up processing and decised to process based on a documented criteia (right now its completely random as TSC and NSC are out of synch and neither seems to follow any sequence of PD, ND or RD).
Me and others like me have been waiting since 2001 and we are still stuck even though PD is current. We have a special thread for us who are pre OCt 2001 PD and are still waiting. So if anything focus on getting USCIS to process orderly and efficiently. If you increase quota but dont change USCIS behaviour you will be worse off.
Hello nozerd
Call your local congressman or Congresswoman and Senator. They will help your case. My friend was in same situation and they helped him. He got his GC in 2 months after calling his congressman.
Hello All:
This is a very sad for EB3, there is no movement since 2004 Dec except 2007 fiasco. Our best option is right now to send a letter to local congress member and Senator. Tell your story in the letter. When did you come, what is your investment, future investment, career stagnant and our life is hanging in the middle of no-where. I will suggest to everyone to send the same letter to Local news paper also. At least you will see some kind reponse from politician here. I have alwyas receive a response from house members and senators. I think we should send the same letter to Ombudsman too. This is my thoughts. If gorup have some other idea. Please let us know.
2011 El agua
Goodintentions
04-11 07:57 AM
You can be paid hourly or weekly or monthly or by weekly, does not matter as long as your job is fulltime and in same or similar occupation. Hourly pay is a more convinient tool for employers to keep you as contigent worker at times it works both ways because you can get paid more if you work more hours (depends on the state I guess).
You may verify the same with lawyers and gurus.
=================
Kindly read text below. Based on whatever is said here, an element of risk still exists if your ex-employer decides to harass you. As someone had pointed out in one of the threads, what is supported here is long term indentured labour keeping people like like us perpetually under the mercy of the greedy employers. Do we have really anything in our favour ??? :) :) :)
AC21 and I-140 Revocation : INS Inconsistent on I-485s
Posted Feb 07, 2003
The law and applications of the law are ever-changing. What seems to be firm ground one day turns to quicksand the next. And so it goes with AC21 and the impact of I-140 revocation.
For more than a year, top-level INS officials have stated in AILA meetings that an I-485 that has been pending for 180 days or more can gain approval under AC21, even if the employer revokes the I-140. That is, once the I-485 has been pending for 180 days, the employer's revocation of an I-140 is ineffective as far as causing a denial of the I-485 in the context of AC21. The INS elaborated on this to clarify that the date of revocation of the I-140 is the date the INS acts upon the revocation request, not the date the request is made. Therefore, an individual could benefit by the INS' delays in processing routine mail. Our June 28, 2002 MurthyBulletin article, I-485 Approval after I-140 Revocation, available on MurthyDotCom, covers a victory involving this precise issue. Unfortunately, the INS guidance has never been submitted in writing. This is currently causing problems in several cases that have come to our attention.
We have recently become aware of cases in which the INS has denied I-485s due to the revocation of the I-140 petition, even though the I-140 revocation occurred after the 180-day point. Motions to Reopen and Reconsider were filed asking that the cases be approved based upon the INS' stated policy. Both the California and Nebraska Service Centers issued denials of the Motions, essentially citing that there is no written policy. Accordingly, without a written policy, the INS cannot deviate from the general legal requirement that an I-485 application needs to be supported by an approved, un-revoked I-140 petition. We cannot be certain whether this is a change in policy or an issue requiring the training of examiners unaware of the policy.
The Law Office of Sheela Murthy recently contacted the INS Headquarters in Washington, D.C. to rectify this situation and urge that the INS follow their own guidance. INS policy personnel have reiterated that the I-485 application should not be denied if it has been pending for over 180 days based on a previously approved I-140 petition. INS Headquarters has informed our Office that they will contact the particular INS service centers to have them reconsider their earlier decisions, based on Headquarters' policy. However, INS has not yet addressed what happens to post-July 31, 2002, concurrently-filed cases in which the I-140 was never approved but the I-485 remains pending for over 180 days.
If AC21 is to have any meaning, the sponsoring employer must not retain control over the foreign national after the 180-day point. An individual's ability to obtain approval of an I-485 based on a job offer from a new employer should not rest upon the former employer's whim to revoke the I-140 petition or not. Fortunately, the majority of employers do not tend to revoke the I-140 petition. However, we have seen employers inadvertently revoke I-140s when the intent was to revoke the H1B petition, as is required under certain regulations. We have seen some employers attempt to retaliate against an ex-employee by revoking the I-140 petition after the 180-day point. We have seen employers revoke I-140s who simply do not want any extra papers bearing their names at INS. Employers hoping to hire more foreign nationals in the future may want to revoke the I-140 in order to use the labor certification and substitute another foreign national as the beneficiary. There are many reasons an employer may revoke an I-140. However, none of them is related to the spirit and intent of AC21 in allowing the beneficiary the freedom to move to another position and gain approval once the adjudication of the case has taken half a year or longer.
� The Law Office of Sheela Murthy, P.C.
==================
Best wishes!!!
You may verify the same with lawyers and gurus.
=================
Kindly read text below. Based on whatever is said here, an element of risk still exists if your ex-employer decides to harass you. As someone had pointed out in one of the threads, what is supported here is long term indentured labour keeping people like like us perpetually under the mercy of the greedy employers. Do we have really anything in our favour ??? :) :) :)
AC21 and I-140 Revocation : INS Inconsistent on I-485s
Posted Feb 07, 2003
The law and applications of the law are ever-changing. What seems to be firm ground one day turns to quicksand the next. And so it goes with AC21 and the impact of I-140 revocation.
For more than a year, top-level INS officials have stated in AILA meetings that an I-485 that has been pending for 180 days or more can gain approval under AC21, even if the employer revokes the I-140. That is, once the I-485 has been pending for 180 days, the employer's revocation of an I-140 is ineffective as far as causing a denial of the I-485 in the context of AC21. The INS elaborated on this to clarify that the date of revocation of the I-140 is the date the INS acts upon the revocation request, not the date the request is made. Therefore, an individual could benefit by the INS' delays in processing routine mail. Our June 28, 2002 MurthyBulletin article, I-485 Approval after I-140 Revocation, available on MurthyDotCom, covers a victory involving this precise issue. Unfortunately, the INS guidance has never been submitted in writing. This is currently causing problems in several cases that have come to our attention.
We have recently become aware of cases in which the INS has denied I-485s due to the revocation of the I-140 petition, even though the I-140 revocation occurred after the 180-day point. Motions to Reopen and Reconsider were filed asking that the cases be approved based upon the INS' stated policy. Both the California and Nebraska Service Centers issued denials of the Motions, essentially citing that there is no written policy. Accordingly, without a written policy, the INS cannot deviate from the general legal requirement that an I-485 application needs to be supported by an approved, un-revoked I-140 petition. We cannot be certain whether this is a change in policy or an issue requiring the training of examiners unaware of the policy.
The Law Office of Sheela Murthy recently contacted the INS Headquarters in Washington, D.C. to rectify this situation and urge that the INS follow their own guidance. INS policy personnel have reiterated that the I-485 application should not be denied if it has been pending for over 180 days based on a previously approved I-140 petition. INS Headquarters has informed our Office that they will contact the particular INS service centers to have them reconsider their earlier decisions, based on Headquarters' policy. However, INS has not yet addressed what happens to post-July 31, 2002, concurrently-filed cases in which the I-140 was never approved but the I-485 remains pending for over 180 days.
If AC21 is to have any meaning, the sponsoring employer must not retain control over the foreign national after the 180-day point. An individual's ability to obtain approval of an I-485 based on a job offer from a new employer should not rest upon the former employer's whim to revoke the I-140 petition or not. Fortunately, the majority of employers do not tend to revoke the I-140 petition. However, we have seen employers inadvertently revoke I-140s when the intent was to revoke the H1B petition, as is required under certain regulations. We have seen some employers attempt to retaliate against an ex-employee by revoking the I-140 petition after the 180-day point. We have seen employers revoke I-140s who simply do not want any extra papers bearing their names at INS. Employers hoping to hire more foreign nationals in the future may want to revoke the I-140 in order to use the labor certification and substitute another foreign national as the beneficiary. There are many reasons an employer may revoke an I-140. However, none of them is related to the spirit and intent of AC21 in allowing the beneficiary the freedom to move to another position and gain approval once the adjudication of the case has taken half a year or longer.
� The Law Office of Sheela Murthy, P.C.
==================
Best wishes!!!
more...
GCplease
01-22 10:30 AM
This Tracker facility we have in IV is good. Kudos to the Admin team who implemented this thing.
These are my observations. I could be grossly mistaken. Pardon me if I am wrong.
There are approximately 26,000 people who have put in their priority dates and other such data in the tracker. When I compared similar cases, I got some 265 who were EB3 India with a priority date in 2002. That is approximately 1 %, give or take.
Here I have ignored EB3 India 2001 guys. But that number would be very less I believe.
1% of 400k is 4000 which is what USCIS issues GC for EB3 India in a year.
Does that mean I could get my GC this year.
Hope these numbers are right.
These are my observations. I could be grossly mistaken. Pardon me if I am wrong.
There are approximately 26,000 people who have put in their priority dates and other such data in the tracker. When I compared similar cases, I got some 265 who were EB3 India with a priority date in 2002. That is approximately 1 %, give or take.
Here I have ignored EB3 India 2001 guys. But that number would be very less I believe.
1% of 400k is 4000 which is what USCIS issues GC for EB3 India in a year.
Does that mean I could get my GC this year.
Hope these numbers are right.
vparam
09-20 06:11 PM
Not able to find how to start a new thread... so I start my prediction here :-)
Category ROW China India Mexico Philipines
EB2 C 01MAR06 01June04 C C
3rd 01AUG03 01SEP01 22APR02 22APR02 01AUG03
Category ROW China India Mexico Philipines
EB2 C 01MAR06 01June04 C C
3rd 01AUG03 01SEP01 22APR02 22APR02 01AUG03
more...
chi_shark
09-26 03:42 PM
Why is llc less risk? i know that the legal paper trail requirements are lower... but i dont know of any other major benefit than ability to share profit and loss disproportionate to ownership stake... which could be a double edged sword too... what risk is covered in llc that is not covered in corp?
in fact i chose corp because it was cheaper.... thats it.
I started an LLC earlier this year. Much easier and less risk with an LLC. It is still early to say whether the company will make it to higher grounds or not. But I sure am trying. I have me and my wife as manager members. No employees at the moment.
Best of luck to you all. GC or no GC, we can still make the entrepreneur dream happen.
in fact i chose corp because it was cheaper.... thats it.
I started an LLC earlier this year. Much easier and less risk with an LLC. It is still early to say whether the company will make it to higher grounds or not. But I sure am trying. I have me and my wife as manager members. No employees at the moment.
Best of luck to you all. GC or no GC, we can still make the entrepreneur dream happen.
2010 La importancia del agua
gcisadawg
02-23 02:56 PM
And who is complaining about all of this?
It is gcisaDAWG :D
That is a good one! :D
But read my post right after that!
It is gcisaDAWG :D
That is a good one! :D
But read my post right after that!
more...
pointlesswait
12-30 09:38 AM
nut job...
that dude must have had some cheap vodka...when he wrote that article.
Please ignore if it has already been posted. This article looks interesting considering the current economic and immigration situation
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html
that dude must have had some cheap vodka...when he wrote that article.
Please ignore if it has already been posted. This article looks interesting considering the current economic and immigration situation
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html
hair la importancia del agua
n_2006
02-20 09:01 AM
I took from AAA for 250K. Monthly premium is $20. Initially they said it will be around $13. But after medical test they raised to $20. They asked me whether I applied for my GC.
more...
Sree Swathi
04-21 02:46 PM
well said!!
GC people is closer to citizenship and closer to get this permission.
Visa is not permanent.
GC people is closer to citizenship and closer to get this permission.
Visa is not permanent.
hot La importancia de ahorrar Agua
kittu1991
07-30 07:22 PM
From now onwards visa dates will be stable. I mean little or big but most of time forward jump .. Not a big swing that we saw for couple of years.
How can this be true with all the line jumpers EB3 to EB2, EB2 to EB1, EB1 to EBMillionaire.:p
How can this be true with all the line jumpers EB3 to EB2, EB2 to EB1, EB1 to EBMillionaire.:p
more...
house La importancia del agua
redcard
02-19 03:13 PM
RedCard,
Have you ever checked your balance? . Please go through insurance documents you would discover the truth. let me know after checking your balance how much you have in account/how much you paid.
Thx,
21stIcon
I am not sure what you mean by this... I have a schedule which lays out the exact amount which is payable in case you terminate the policy before the end of the level term period... which is about $1K in the first five years and hardly anything in the initial years but increases at the end of the term period..that apart you can either pay lump sum premium annually or you can pay monthly�.
Let me know if this helps� or be more specific so that I can check..
Have you ever checked your balance? . Please go through insurance documents you would discover the truth. let me know after checking your balance how much you have in account/how much you paid.
Thx,
21stIcon
I am not sure what you mean by this... I have a schedule which lays out the exact amount which is payable in case you terminate the policy before the end of the level term period... which is about $1K in the first five years and hardly anything in the initial years but increases at the end of the term period..that apart you can either pay lump sum premium annually or you can pay monthly�.
Let me know if this helps� or be more specific so that I can check..
tattoo la importancia del agua en
dummgelauft
03-17 11:39 AM
I have an Idea, instead of all of us spending time in making useless predictions, why not engage an astrologer from India, pay him a few hundred dollars, create him an account and have him run the "Bulletin Patra" (Like Janam Patra) every month?
more...
pictures Importancia del agua
saturnring11
08-10 11:01 PM
This looks pretty authentic. It wouldn't make any sense for a lawyer to fake this unless someone hacked their website. There is a good possibility that the date is May 08, 2006 for EB2 I / C
dresses LA IMPORTANCIA DEL AGUA PARA
bkr
08-26 02:07 PM
Thank you, I will try this approach.
Go to the Trenton DMV . Take your ORIGINAL receipt and a letter from your employer . They will give you extension for 240 days . I got it done in May 2007.The draft of the employer's letter is as follows
To,
The Motor Vehicle Commission
I hereby certify that ________________ is currently employed by ____________ and has been employed since ______________.
I certify that, on ______________, I filed an H1B petition extension and application for extension of stay on behalf of this individual (see attached receipt notice from the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)).
Pursuant to 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(20), this individual is authorized to continue employment with ____________ for a period not to exceed 240 days beginning on the date of the expiration of the authorized period of stay (as indicated on the immigration documentation).
I further certify that if I receive that the USCIS had denied the application prior to the 240 day period and if <name, Driver license number>, ceases to be employed by ________________ during the 240 day period, I will notify the Motor Vehicle Commission (MVC), in writing as soon as practicable. I will send such notice to:
Legal & Regulatory Affairs Unit
Motor Vehicle Commission
PO Box 162
Trenton, NJ 08666-0162
Sincerely,
Signature of
individual certifying
the information
Print Name & Title
Go to the Trenton DMV . Take your ORIGINAL receipt and a letter from your employer . They will give you extension for 240 days . I got it done in May 2007.The draft of the employer's letter is as follows
To,
The Motor Vehicle Commission
I hereby certify that ________________ is currently employed by ____________ and has been employed since ______________.
I certify that, on ______________, I filed an H1B petition extension and application for extension of stay on behalf of this individual (see attached receipt notice from the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)).
Pursuant to 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(20), this individual is authorized to continue employment with ____________ for a period not to exceed 240 days beginning on the date of the expiration of the authorized period of stay (as indicated on the immigration documentation).
I further certify that if I receive that the USCIS had denied the application prior to the 240 day period and if <name, Driver license number>, ceases to be employed by ________________ during the 240 day period, I will notify the Motor Vehicle Commission (MVC), in writing as soon as practicable. I will send such notice to:
Legal & Regulatory Affairs Unit
Motor Vehicle Commission
PO Box 162
Trenton, NJ 08666-0162
Sincerely,
Signature of
individual certifying
the information
Print Name & Title
more...
makeup la importancia del agua en
seeker
05-24 10:31 AM
Status quo is far far much better that passing this bill which has articulately been designed to screw us completely.
girlfriend Mais: Importância da água
garybanz
11-29 05:11 PM
No need to fill another form.
Thank you!
Thank you!
hairstyles 1 revision, 41 KB
nixstor
07-13 03:16 PM
Thanks for the clarification
ssinha63
06-13 11:50 PM
My son was on H4 and joined undergraduate course in Canada last year. He is Canadian permanent resident too. As per July VB, I can file for I-485. My question is:
1. Can I and my wife file I-485 as AOS and file I-824 to change AOS to CP for my son, so that he may file I-485 as CP from US Consulate, Montreal, Canada?
2. If not, what are the options?
Thanks!
ssinha63
PD Apr'04
I-140 approved
1. Can I and my wife file I-485 as AOS and file I-824 to change AOS to CP for my son, so that he may file I-485 as CP from US Consulate, Montreal, Canada?
2. If not, what are the options?
Thanks!
ssinha63
PD Apr'04
I-140 approved
h1vegas
06-23 07:21 PM
While I Wrote The Check For Ead Renewal
I Wrote It To Department Of Homeland Security And Not
Us Deparment Of Homeland Security
Is It A Big Problem
I Wrote It To Department Of Homeland Security And Not
Us Deparment Of Homeland Security
Is It A Big Problem
No comments:
Post a Comment