theperm
03-15 11:46 PM
instead write long letters to USCIS like IV suggested ! thats the place to vent.
wallpaper ASHTON KUTCHER BOUNDED
gc_rip
09-10 12:01 PM
Hi IV team, and all,
Can we come up with certain organized campaign, just like the flower campaign back in Aug 07? I am sure if we have such campaign, the participation would definitely be more.
Ofcourse we need to choose a right time and right message to put through.
Please share your ideas.
Thanks!
Can we come up with certain organized campaign, just like the flower campaign back in Aug 07? I am sure if we have such campaign, the participation would definitely be more.
Ofcourse we need to choose a right time and right message to put through.
Please share your ideas.
Thanks!
logiclife
12-20 04:54 PM
Please lookup 245(k).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
(k) Inapplicability of certain provisions for certain employment-based immigrants
An alien who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) of this title (or, in the case of an alien who is an immigrant described in section 1101 (a)(27)(C) of this title, under section 1153 (b)(4) of this title) may adjust status pursuant to subsection (a) of this section and notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8) of this section, if—
(1) the alien, on the date of filing an application for adjustment of status, is present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission;
(2) the alien, subsequent to such lawful admission has not, for an aggregate period exceeding 180 days—
(A) failed to maintain, continuously, a lawful status;
(B) engaged in unauthorized employment; or
(C) otherwise violated the terms and conditions of the alien’s admission.
So basically if you are applying for employment based immigration adjustment of status(meaning I-485) under EB1 EB2 or EB3, (that's what they mean by paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) in the above text), and if you have not voilated status for over 180 days after your last legal entry into USA, and if you were in legal status at the time of applying for 485, then you may adjust status.
Now, a really good idea would be that you disclose this whole thing at the time of filing 485 and also claim the benefit under section 245(k). Since its apparent that you have not done it, I would advise to leave it alone and dont dig up old graves.
Consult an attorney for further advise, but dont go overboard in being Raja Harishchandra (the chronic truth teller) because frankly USCIS may not care about this and you can always claim the benefit under section 245(k).
However, if USCIS finds out about this (which is very very unlikely) and if the officer is a very strict person, then they may create a case of wilful misrepresentation. That's because on form I-485, it says that "have you ever been out of status or illegal and if so, provide details". In that question, if you didnt disclose your past history of being out of status ( I am assuming you were out of status and not illegal) then basically, in theory, they can say that you wilfully misrepresented (basically lied to them) by hiding this.
One option is to file an amendment to your I-485 and disclose this fact. That way, atleast they cannot make a case of wilfull misrepresentation. Nonetheless, remember, for them to find this out (about you not working and sitting at home) is difficult. Unless they somehow ask for your W-2 and paystubs for past 6-7 years and in that case it will be very easy for them to see that you were not working for 1 year.
Consult an attorney and tell the attorney all the details. I am not a lawyer and you should always ask a lawyer for legal advise.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
(k) Inapplicability of certain provisions for certain employment-based immigrants
An alien who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) of this title (or, in the case of an alien who is an immigrant described in section 1101 (a)(27)(C) of this title, under section 1153 (b)(4) of this title) may adjust status pursuant to subsection (a) of this section and notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8) of this section, if—
(1) the alien, on the date of filing an application for adjustment of status, is present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission;
(2) the alien, subsequent to such lawful admission has not, for an aggregate period exceeding 180 days—
(A) failed to maintain, continuously, a lawful status;
(B) engaged in unauthorized employment; or
(C) otherwise violated the terms and conditions of the alien’s admission.
So basically if you are applying for employment based immigration adjustment of status(meaning I-485) under EB1 EB2 or EB3, (that's what they mean by paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) in the above text), and if you have not voilated status for over 180 days after your last legal entry into USA, and if you were in legal status at the time of applying for 485, then you may adjust status.
Now, a really good idea would be that you disclose this whole thing at the time of filing 485 and also claim the benefit under section 245(k). Since its apparent that you have not done it, I would advise to leave it alone and dont dig up old graves.
Consult an attorney for further advise, but dont go overboard in being Raja Harishchandra (the chronic truth teller) because frankly USCIS may not care about this and you can always claim the benefit under section 245(k).
However, if USCIS finds out about this (which is very very unlikely) and if the officer is a very strict person, then they may create a case of wilful misrepresentation. That's because on form I-485, it says that "have you ever been out of status or illegal and if so, provide details". In that question, if you didnt disclose your past history of being out of status ( I am assuming you were out of status and not illegal) then basically, in theory, they can say that you wilfully misrepresented (basically lied to them) by hiding this.
One option is to file an amendment to your I-485 and disclose this fact. That way, atleast they cannot make a case of wilfull misrepresentation. Nonetheless, remember, for them to find this out (about you not working and sitting at home) is difficult. Unless they somehow ask for your W-2 and paystubs for past 6-7 years and in that case it will be very easy for them to see that you were not working for 1 year.
Consult an attorney and tell the attorney all the details. I am not a lawyer and you should always ask a lawyer for legal advise.
2011 ashton kutcher american actor
vine93
03-18 02:14 PM
I booked for myself . Need sufficient miles for one person .He has participated last year too.
more...
Jaime
09-28 06:11 PM
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070926/eu_immigration.html?.v=1
WeldonSprings
10-15 02:12 PM
Can someone please direct me to the sample letter.
Thanks.
Thanks.
more...
24fps
02-04 02:41 PM
For people who don't know, Country Cap goes by Country of Birth , not country of citizenship...So if you are born in India but now you are canadian Citizen, you will still be counted as Indian for EB based Green Card allocation, isn't this a blatent racist agenda. I have a letter from Congresswoman Zoe Logfren's office, which clearly says 'I will work on removing arbitrary country quota on employement based Green Cards', we just need to pursue her...
its not racism its just an old rule
u can be indian but born in a different country and you could avail of ROW benefits, my friend is indian but was born in europe as his father was workin there at that time and then moved back to india and now he got his GC in under 2 years in EB2
racism is purely based on your ethnicity
its not racism its just an old rule
u can be indian but born in a different country and you could avail of ROW benefits, my friend is indian but was born in europe as his father was workin there at that time and then moved back to india and now he got his GC in under 2 years in EB2
racism is purely based on your ethnicity
2010 Did you know Ashton Kutcher
looivy
01-24 03:34 PM
IV members,
We need to come up with some great ideas like "flower campaign". Something that will mobilize IV members.
Let us not be pessimistic. There are thousand of reasons that one can think of why the new administration may not act soon. But that should not stop us from making our cause being heard. The new adminsitration has been taking many decisions that are not economy related. Economy is their #1 priority but it is not their only priority.
The visa recapture issue has been pending for a long time now (atleast 3 years). Either we continue to wait and suffer and remain frustrated or we take some action. Choice is ours.
PS: Let us be civil. I second using non-accusatory language on this forum.
We need to come up with some great ideas like "flower campaign". Something that will mobilize IV members.
Let us not be pessimistic. There are thousand of reasons that one can think of why the new administration may not act soon. But that should not stop us from making our cause being heard. The new adminsitration has been taking many decisions that are not economy related. Economy is their #1 priority but it is not their only priority.
The visa recapture issue has been pending for a long time now (atleast 3 years). Either we continue to wait and suffer and remain frustrated or we take some action. Choice is ours.
PS: Let us be civil. I second using non-accusatory language on this forum.
more...
nixstor
04-23 04:57 PM
Read my message - I am *NOT* an IV member and nor did I represent myself as one - like many people I just subscribed to public portal - if you want to limit it to IV members, you must consider doing that .
As far as talking in the meeting was considered, it was not an IV meeting and open to the public and I have all the right to say what I want to - whether it is inline with what you want to hear or not is not my problem.
Tone yourself down before you point fingers elsewhere. GC is not your birth right.
Bud,
Its quite contradictory that you say that you are not an IV member and dont intend to be one, but you would like to particiapte freely and throw your opinion and get info about events with out aligning to the common goal of the organization. Now dont tell me that you got info about the event some where else. If every one of us try to get our own issue or a group of 15-20 people's issue solved we wont get any thing. This is common sense. What you said about making it paid site/open for certain members sounds bland to me. I am appalled that your thought process is not at all in sync with your accomplishments. If you think you can sell your group story and bring GC to the massess dream on. IV sure has lot of compelling stories that are sold already, but politics is bigger than you,me and our stories. If you are working only for people who are sought after by the stanford's and harvard's, move on.
It's so unfortunate that we fight on issues like this. On your next conf call with Rajiv, bring up the same Q and seek his advice. Let us know what he thinks about your sales pitch and getting GC's only for the most sought. I am not mocking you or slinging mud at you. Its blatant that you are not understanding the political scenario. GC is not any one's birth right but that is what actuallly holding you up.
As far as talking in the meeting was considered, it was not an IV meeting and open to the public and I have all the right to say what I want to - whether it is inline with what you want to hear or not is not my problem.
Tone yourself down before you point fingers elsewhere. GC is not your birth right.
Bud,
Its quite contradictory that you say that you are not an IV member and dont intend to be one, but you would like to particiapte freely and throw your opinion and get info about events with out aligning to the common goal of the organization. Now dont tell me that you got info about the event some where else. If every one of us try to get our own issue or a group of 15-20 people's issue solved we wont get any thing. This is common sense. What you said about making it paid site/open for certain members sounds bland to me. I am appalled that your thought process is not at all in sync with your accomplishments. If you think you can sell your group story and bring GC to the massess dream on. IV sure has lot of compelling stories that are sold already, but politics is bigger than you,me and our stories. If you are working only for people who are sought after by the stanford's and harvard's, move on.
It's so unfortunate that we fight on issues like this. On your next conf call with Rajiv, bring up the same Q and seek his advice. Let us know what he thinks about your sales pitch and getting GC's only for the most sought. I am not mocking you or slinging mud at you. Its blatant that you are not understanding the political scenario. GC is not any one's birth right but that is what actuallly holding you up.
hair hair Ashton Kutcher #39
downthedrain
02-03 08:46 PM
Guru's please check if this employment letter is enough for the above mentioned RFE....
Dear Sir/Madam
Re: Employment of Mr. John Doe
This is to confirm that Mr. John Doe is currently employed in our organization as a Senior Software Engineer at the annual salary of $ x per year.
Mr. Doe’s compensation package includes medical, dental benefits, sick leave and paid holidays.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
Dear Sir/Madam
Re: Employment of Mr. John Doe
This is to confirm that Mr. John Doe is currently employed in our organization as a Senior Software Engineer at the annual salary of $ x per year.
Mr. Doe’s compensation package includes medical, dental benefits, sick leave and paid holidays.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
more...
eb3retro
08-16 03:39 PM
Because you guys are not as clever as EB2s.
easy there pray...people can get offended by your statement. Not a good statement for your first post.
easy there pray...people can get offended by your statement. Not a good statement for your first post.
hot ASHTON KUTCHER NEEDS TOILET
ItIsNotFunny
10-15 02:28 PM
I have a doubt about what can be accomplished by the flower campaign. I am totally for it if it would help but just think - it is not in USCIS hands to assign more visas to EB3 or EB2. The number of visas is limited and the number of people waiting for the visas is huge. That is the whole cause of retrogression . If there were as many visas as the people everything would be current.
This is a simple matter of demand and supply . The thing that can help is visa recapture but that again USCIS can't do and only the Congress . What we need to do is point our efforts in the right direction .
Think how the supply is controlled?
Just as a hypothetical example, if USCIS makes a spill over policy that ROW can not lead any other country by more than 3 years.
If we try we can achieve something, atleast we can see some avenues. If we sit silent - Nope, then we are loosers not fighters.
This is a simple matter of demand and supply . The thing that can help is visa recapture but that again USCIS can't do and only the Congress . What we need to do is point our efforts in the right direction .
Think how the supply is controlled?
Just as a hypothetical example, if USCIS makes a spill over policy that ROW can not lead any other country by more than 3 years.
If we try we can achieve something, atleast we can see some avenues. If we sit silent - Nope, then we are loosers not fighters.
more...
house Christopher Ashton Kutcher
jerez_z
03-12 08:41 PM
It was a hard choice between Thirdworldman and Eilsoe... I had to go with Third cause his lighting was cool, and the setup was nice.
tattoo Ashton Kutcher on model
DDD
03-14 12:06 AM
If ya'll do like a character model contest next time, I think I will be in. But we will need like a 4 week due date...lol. Good job all.
more...
pictures ashton kutcher modelling.
GreenLantern
02-21 05:09 PM
What is all this about LW. Everybody seems to think it's the bomb. Why? Maybe this needs to be it's own thread?
dresses Did you know Ashton Kutcher
minimalist
09-10 12:29 PM
girijas, your comment is both funny and sad... we are behind horses.. :(
The picture is not pretty.
The picture is not pretty.
more...
makeup Actor Ashton Kutcher, 33,
natrajs
08-16 03:38 PM
Participate in the Rally
Make sure our voices are heard
Support IV
Make sure our voices are heard
Support IV
girlfriend Ashton Kutcher with straight
Ramba
07-09 07:44 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.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
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.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
hairstyles Ashton Kutcher is shocked that
coopheal
04-10 04:56 AM
Visa Bulletin for May 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4805.html)
The biggest surprise is EB3 Mexico. It just turned to U. How is that possible??
Can this happen to EB3-I India as well??
The biggest surprise is EB3 Mexico. It just turned to U. How is that possible??
Can this happen to EB3-I India as well??
GreenLantern
03-07 07:28 AM
Wow, that is nice grinch. It's pretty detailed. I like the map on the wall.
:thumb:
:thumb:
harish
04-23 08:06 PM
Congratulations Googler!
Hopefully we can still look forward to receiving updates from you in the future! :)
Hopefully we can still look forward to receiving updates from you in the future! :)
No comments:
Post a Comment