bigboy007
06-19 05:11 PM
its illegal to take color photocopies of driver licences, ONLY send b/w
wallpaper Flag Bikini, Green Flag Bikini
CSPAvictim
07-09 06:30 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Legal
07-04 09:17 PM
Another myth: USCIS processed 60,000 485 in June. It is wrong. They processed 60,000 485 over the period of 6 months to 5 years. And they just approved in June, based on earlier processing.
In their "normal" pace they would be giving finishing touches and slowly releasing them over the course of next 12 months! Do you agree?
But they worked overnight and weekend to finish up and deny benefits to the July filers? Therein lies the problem. what do you think?
In their "normal" pace they would be giving finishing touches and slowly releasing them over the course of next 12 months! Do you agree?
But they worked overnight and weekend to finish up and deny benefits to the July filers? Therein lies the problem. what do you think?
2011 boyshorts swimsuit Flag
dixie
08-03 01:25 PM
if there is diff emails with diff content it will be better. it will show diversity. even though we all will say the same thing.
on second thoughts i feel lou dobbs is unlikely to change his opinion even if 1K people send him mails. send it anyways to all other cnn anchors so that IV can get some coverage on cnn.
I feel sending anything to Lou Dobbs will only be counter-productive. We dont know for sure where he stands on EB visas, but the H1-B increase component in the SKIL bill is gauranteed to make him growl like a rabid dog. He is sure to paint it as an american-worker replacement bill.No coverage is better than coverage for numbersusa's point of view.
on second thoughts i feel lou dobbs is unlikely to change his opinion even if 1K people send him mails. send it anyways to all other cnn anchors so that IV can get some coverage on cnn.
I feel sending anything to Lou Dobbs will only be counter-productive. We dont know for sure where he stands on EB visas, but the H1-B increase component in the SKIL bill is gauranteed to make him growl like a rabid dog. He is sure to paint it as an american-worker replacement bill.No coverage is better than coverage for numbersusa's point of view.
more...
satishku_2000
04-10 05:51 PM
IEEE believes that ppl educated in the US should not be sent back and should actually stay here. I agree with that stance. After all, they want what is best for ppl born here and those who have been educated here. It is IEEE-USA :)
As far as I know most of the "US educated foreigners"come here just to pursue thier higher education and have no intention of working here. Do they show their immigrant intent while applying for VISA and still get their student VISAs
As far as I know most of the "US educated foreigners"come here just to pursue thier higher education and have no intention of working here. Do they show their immigrant intent while applying for VISA and still get their student VISAs
gc_chahiye
09-24 01:57 PM
Hi,
Appreciate ur quick response.
so i need to get the affidavit from notary signed that it is a true translation from telugu to english so this is a replacement of English DOB Certificate.
actually your friend who does the translation will sign the form in front of the notary. Your friend is saying that this is a true translation, and the Notary is simply attesting that he saw your friend sign and this was indeed signed by your friend (ie. you did not make this up). The notary does not need to know Telugu, so cant certify that the translation is accurate. Notaries will typically only attest to the fact that the signature on the form is by the right person, they dont carea bout the contents of the form. to summarize:
- friend translates and certifies the translation
- notary puts a stamp on that saying this was indeed signed by your friend.
of course if you find a notary who also does translations, then you could use that too.
Appreciate ur quick response.
so i need to get the affidavit from notary signed that it is a true translation from telugu to english so this is a replacement of English DOB Certificate.
actually your friend who does the translation will sign the form in front of the notary. Your friend is saying that this is a true translation, and the Notary is simply attesting that he saw your friend sign and this was indeed signed by your friend (ie. you did not make this up). The notary does not need to know Telugu, so cant certify that the translation is accurate. Notaries will typically only attest to the fact that the signature on the form is by the right person, they dont carea bout the contents of the form. to summarize:
- friend translates and certifies the translation
- notary puts a stamp on that saying this was indeed signed by your friend.
of course if you find a notary who also does translations, then you could use that too.
more...
tapukakababa
07-18 10:01 AM
can some one call 1-800-375-5283, with ext 1,2,3,6 and talk to a person at USCIS and see what they know about the applications on july 2nd. i am on the pacific coast and it is still not 8 here. seems like they only talk between 8 and 6
what should we ask them for if we call, 'coz they might not have entered our file in their system yet.
what should we ask them for if we call, 'coz they might not have entered our file in their system yet.
2010 Brazilian Bikini Waxing
pappu
01-16 09:44 AM
Thank you Anurakt and others that have signed up. Anurakt I am sure this time our members will take up your challange and make you pay $500
more...
snathan
08-21 08:20 PM
Thank you to those of you who were kind enough to respond with helpful information and some understanding for my situation. I do appreciate that much.
And for those of you who were sarcastic and rude and accusing me of being illegal, if that was the case, then why has USCIS not stated that one time in all the correspondence I have had from them and why are they willing to give me a chance to file the required forms at this time?
They know where I live, who I live with and anything else they need to know. Illegal immigrants don't make themselves known to anybody that could/would report them. If I had something to hide, I would do so, but I have no secrets from them whatsoever. I have done all I have been asked to do and have the paperwork to prove it. I have not gotten a job anywhere outside of the home I live in and they are well aware of what I do here, I have not committed any crimes, my biometrics have come back clear, therefore I have no criminal record in my home country, so therefore I am not a threat whatsoever to anyone in the US.
No one at USCIS has ever stated by phone or mail that I am here illegally and if that was the case, I would think they would have been quick to deport me since they knew everything they needed to know in order to find me and still do. I have nothing to hide.
I am not sure what you are trying to achive here by trying to prove your legality. Normally the USCIS wont come after you immidiately. But once you are not able to provide what they ask, they might deny your I-485 and ICE will be at your door step. So try to fix the problem before its too late rather than wasting your time here.
And for those of you who were sarcastic and rude and accusing me of being illegal, if that was the case, then why has USCIS not stated that one time in all the correspondence I have had from them and why are they willing to give me a chance to file the required forms at this time?
They know where I live, who I live with and anything else they need to know. Illegal immigrants don't make themselves known to anybody that could/would report them. If I had something to hide, I would do so, but I have no secrets from them whatsoever. I have done all I have been asked to do and have the paperwork to prove it. I have not gotten a job anywhere outside of the home I live in and they are well aware of what I do here, I have not committed any crimes, my biometrics have come back clear, therefore I have no criminal record in my home country, so therefore I am not a threat whatsoever to anyone in the US.
No one at USCIS has ever stated by phone or mail that I am here illegally and if that was the case, I would think they would have been quick to deport me since they knew everything they needed to know in order to find me and still do. I have nothing to hide.
I am not sure what you are trying to achive here by trying to prove your legality. Normally the USCIS wont come after you immidiately. But once you are not able to provide what they ask, they might deny your I-485 and ICE will be at your door step. So try to fix the problem before its too late rather than wasting your time here.
hair RALPH LAUREN Bikini Set
vbkris77
04-10 12:28 PM
What you said is absolutely true. EB1 Last year and the year before saw lot more approvals than usual. My reasoning is that even though EB1 was current for all along, they never really approved I140s to give them GC. So In the overall clearing of I140s, CIS cleared lot more EB1 cases and became approved during last 2 years. If you look at the I140 completion in the dash board, it will be very much clear that the completions came down to 4 digits for each month from 5 digits. Receipts continued to be less than 5K per month.
This year, we may see a big dip in EB1 cases and larger EB2 spillover. EB4 spillover is ruled out after this bulletin.
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.
This year, we may see a big dip in EB1 cases and larger EB2 spillover. EB4 spillover is ruled out after this bulletin.
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...
kaella
07-13 10:03 AM
I think it was referenced some where else in this thread , anyways here you go
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/Immigrant%20Visa%20Control%20System_operation%20of .pdf
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are entitled to allotment of a visa
number. The cut-off dates are the 1st, 8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand
for numbers under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a month are grouped
under the 1st, the eighth through the fourteenth under the 8th, etc.)
Source please... or are you just kidding ?
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/Immigrant%20Visa%20Control%20System_operation%20of .pdf
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are entitled to allotment of a visa
number. The cut-off dates are the 1st, 8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand
for numbers under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a month are grouped
under the 1st, the eighth through the fourteenth under the 8th, etc.)
Source please... or are you just kidding ?
hot could be the razil flag,
greyhair
02-11 04:10 PM
I have asked to Vin13 if he/she can get source of information from Ron. If you have good contact with him can you ask for source of info ? Any link to USED vs waste number. Or even any link that made definition of USED visas and waste visas and their number for last year ? I am serious to get this fix this time , if I get a link to some document that clarify. I think that will help so many. Please get some links to information and we should build a team to fight for this.
I'm sorry to say this but this will probably the last you hear from . I've tried my best to find a credible source but it never goes anywhere. People just want to talk in terms of random numbers without any concrete substance. Please count on me to work on this issue if you are able to find anything. But in the absence of credible information I refuse to fall in the trap of immigration body shops.
I'm sorry to say this but this will probably the last you hear from . I've tried my best to find a credible source but it never goes anywhere. People just want to talk in terms of random numbers without any concrete substance. Please count on me to work on this issue if you are able to find anything. But in the absence of credible information I refuse to fall in the trap of immigration body shops.
more...
house Re: Beautifull Bikini Girls
pappu
02-03 10:52 PM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=23488
This is our immediate need. Could you pls help.
This is our immediate need. Could you pls help.
tattoo with Canadian flag bikini.
spicy_guy
07-12 05:56 PM
:)Anything can be done without an attorney....the issue arises if USCIS or DOl comes back with a question. Best thing is to put in some money, pay an attorney and let them handle it.
Most of the immigration stuff is simple if everything is clean....but you never know.
Why pay for an attorney unless your case is complicated?
Its straightforward and you can do it on your own.
Again, if your case is a bit different and needs a lot of documentation, you would need an attorney.
Most of the immigration stuff is simple if everything is clean....but you never know.
Why pay for an attorney unless your case is complicated?
Its straightforward and you can do it on your own.
Again, if your case is a bit different and needs a lot of documentation, you would need an attorney.
more...
pictures Luxurious Brazilian bikinis
indianindian2006
07-14 05:35 PM
I filed for 485 during July 2007. My 140 was already approved. Due to some problems I quit my employer in August 2007. My previous employer was a desi blood sucker. I was fed up & decided to quit after working for him for 3 years. I applied for H1 transfer with a new employer based on approved 140. I got H1 approval for another 3 years. Currently I am working for the new H1 sponsoring employer. I also received an EAD card based on pending 485 for one year. I didnt notify USICS of job change in July.
I applied for EAD extension this year. The application for EAD extension is pending. I got a following RFE on my 485:
Please state whether or not you are currently working for your I-140 petitioner.
You must submit a currently dated letter from you permanent employer, describing your present job duties & position in the organization, your proferred position (if different from your current one), the date you began employement & the offered salary & wage. The letter must also indicate whether the terms & conditions of your employement based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
I am not in good terms with my previous employer so I cant ask him for a letter. I can ask my new employer for such a letter.
Will USCIS come to know I quite Employer A before completing 180 days?
Also is it possible that 140 was revoked by my previous employer?
What document should I send to USCIS now?
Could you inform us what your Eb category is and what is your priority dates.
TIA
I applied for EAD extension this year. The application for EAD extension is pending. I got a following RFE on my 485:
Please state whether or not you are currently working for your I-140 petitioner.
You must submit a currently dated letter from you permanent employer, describing your present job duties & position in the organization, your proferred position (if different from your current one), the date you began employement & the offered salary & wage. The letter must also indicate whether the terms & conditions of your employement based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
I am not in good terms with my previous employer so I cant ask him for a letter. I can ask my new employer for such a letter.
Will USCIS come to know I quite Employer A before completing 180 days?
Also is it possible that 140 was revoked by my previous employer?
What document should I send to USCIS now?
Could you inform us what your Eb category is and what is your priority dates.
TIA
dresses Micro Bikinis amp; Brazilian
sanju
02-13 09:51 PM
Dude you pay taxes for all the facilities that you are enjoying in this country.... nothing is free here.
Dude, did YOU and 99% of "ALL AMERICAN" FAMILIES not enjoy all the SAME facilities that I enjoy in this country. Why do I pay more than 99% of "ALL AMERICAN" FAMILIES, whatever that means? That's creates entitlement for me. That creates entitlement for EVERYONE in EB category.
.
Dude, did YOU and 99% of "ALL AMERICAN" FAMILIES not enjoy all the SAME facilities that I enjoy in this country. Why do I pay more than 99% of "ALL AMERICAN" FAMILIES, whatever that means? That's creates entitlement for me. That creates entitlement for EVERYONE in EB category.
.
more...
makeup 2010 Brazilian Bikini Waxing
puddonhead
08-10 02:25 PM
I think it will be a lot easier to focus out energies to port ourselves to EB2/EB1.
Most of us would have bachelors + 5 years. So EB2 shouldn't be any problem as long as you are willing to change jobs and the employer is willing to file for GC.
Personally, the next time I'm in a position to drive a hard bergain for a job negotiation (still difficult in the current economic environment) - I will try to shoot for a 1 year foreign assignment -> EB1 route. I still curse myself for letting go of one such opportunity in 2006 becuase I did not want to go to London.
So if anybody knows companies that have started filing for GCs again after the freeze of last year - please let us know.
I think that discussion will be far more productive than any wishful reinterpretation of the law.
Most of us would have bachelors + 5 years. So EB2 shouldn't be any problem as long as you are willing to change jobs and the employer is willing to file for GC.
Personally, the next time I'm in a position to drive a hard bergain for a job negotiation (still difficult in the current economic environment) - I will try to shoot for a 1 year foreign assignment -> EB1 route. I still curse myself for letting go of one such opportunity in 2006 becuase I did not want to go to London.
So if anybody knows companies that have started filing for GCs again after the freeze of last year - please let us know.
I think that discussion will be far more productive than any wishful reinterpretation of the law.
girlfriend BRAZIL FLAG Yellow Brazilian String BIKINI SWIMSUIT | eBay
abd
09-14 03:02 PM
Here is detail. i changed job based on AC21 portability. Did not file papers.
Please note that it is imprevative that timely response is necessary to ensure continued processing as visa is currently available for your case.
A review of service record indicate that a form I-129 peition was filed on your behalf by "Previous Employer COmpany Name" was revioked on September X, 2009 . Therefore it appears you are no longer empployed by intended employer according to form I-140 immigration visa petition filed on your behalf.
Please submit a list describing your employment history since your last lawful admission to US. This list should include name and location of each employer, job title, and duties, educational /training requirements, dates you held each position and salary/wage paid. The list should be supported by documenary evidence which establishes your employment history.
Additionaly,you must submit a currently dated letter from your intended permanent employer,describing your present job duties and positioin on origanization, your proffered position(if different from current) , the date you beagn employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter should be in original and signed by an executive or office of the organized who is authorized to make an offer for employment.The letter should indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment-based visa petition (or labor petition) continues to exist.
Important: if you will no longer be employed by the original form I-140 petitioner, you may still be eligible to adjust the status under the visa portabilit provisions of section 106(c) of the Americal Competitiveness in the 21st Century act(AC21). Public Law 106-313. This legislatin permits certain adjustment applicamts to chnage employers without filing a new immigrant visa petition, provided they are
The beneficiary of an immigrant petition approved under section 204(a)(1)(F) of the Act (previously 204(a((1)(D)) and
The application for adjustment has been pending for more thna 180 days and
the new permanent position is in same or similar occupational classification as original employment.
If you cliam such eligibilty, submit a letter frm new permanent employer, describing your present job duties and postion in organizatiom your proffered position(if different from current) , the date you beagn employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter should be in original and signed by an executive or office of the organized who is authorized to make an offer for employment.The letter should indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment-based visa petition (or labor petition) continues to exist.
:) Working with attorneys to get the papers ready....
Please note that it is imprevative that timely response is necessary to ensure continued processing as visa is currently available for your case.
A review of service record indicate that a form I-129 peition was filed on your behalf by "Previous Employer COmpany Name" was revioked on September X, 2009 . Therefore it appears you are no longer empployed by intended employer according to form I-140 immigration visa petition filed on your behalf.
Please submit a list describing your employment history since your last lawful admission to US. This list should include name and location of each employer, job title, and duties, educational /training requirements, dates you held each position and salary/wage paid. The list should be supported by documenary evidence which establishes your employment history.
Additionaly,you must submit a currently dated letter from your intended permanent employer,describing your present job duties and positioin on origanization, your proffered position(if different from current) , the date you beagn employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter should be in original and signed by an executive or office of the organized who is authorized to make an offer for employment.The letter should indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment-based visa petition (or labor petition) continues to exist.
Important: if you will no longer be employed by the original form I-140 petitioner, you may still be eligible to adjust the status under the visa portabilit provisions of section 106(c) of the Americal Competitiveness in the 21st Century act(AC21). Public Law 106-313. This legislatin permits certain adjustment applicamts to chnage employers without filing a new immigrant visa petition, provided they are
The beneficiary of an immigrant petition approved under section 204(a)(1)(F) of the Act (previously 204(a((1)(D)) and
The application for adjustment has been pending for more thna 180 days and
the new permanent position is in same or similar occupational classification as original employment.
If you cliam such eligibilty, submit a letter frm new permanent employer, describing your present job duties and postion in organizatiom your proffered position(if different from current) , the date you beagn employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter should be in original and signed by an executive or office of the organized who is authorized to make an offer for employment.The letter should indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment-based visa petition (or labor petition) continues to exist.
:) Working with attorneys to get the papers ready....
hairstyles wore a U.S. flag bikini
sunny1000
04-09 06:31 PM
I completely agree with you . For five years EB3 is stuck in 2001 that means people who came here 10 years back are still waiting. Something needs to be done by someone somewhere but I guess no one has any idea who can ( except the congress ) .
All of my friends about 10-15 of them who came with me in 2000-2001 timeframe got their GC's and their citizenships in EB3 ( none in EB2 ) and I am still hanging .
I wonder what was that which made their application go by light speed and my application go into a blackhole :)
Probably, their labor got approved before the FY2006 when the retrogression started. All the categories were current until then due to the recapture done by AC21. I am stuck in this mess because my labor took 5 years to get approved.
All of my friends about 10-15 of them who came with me in 2000-2001 timeframe got their GC's and their citizenships in EB3 ( none in EB2 ) and I am still hanging .
I wonder what was that which made their application go by light speed and my application go into a blackhole :)
Probably, their labor got approved before the FY2006 when the retrogression started. All the categories were current until then due to the recapture done by AC21. I am stuck in this mess because my labor took 5 years to get approved.
gauravster
02-18 06:08 PM
I am not sure if I am missing something, but going through the document, it looks like the bill is for legals and illegals alike. It does not mention that you have to be illegal to qualify for permanent residence, just that you should have been in the US for 5 years. This allows for casual/innocent absence, not sure what that means though.
The only loophole I see in the statment is that it says that DHS may change status to legal resident, meaning that it could be restricted by the DHS in any way they like.
The only loophole I see in the statment is that it says that DHS may change status to legal resident, meaning that it could be restricted by the DHS in any way they like.
sivakumar
02-22 01:48 PM
thanks GCwaitforever I just wish that after april you change your name to GCRecivedFinally :->
No comments:
Post a Comment