vghc
07-03 11:59 AM
If you call it re-distribution of pain, I would call it sharing the pain. I think its high time ROW candidates felt the pain which we non-ROW have suffered for a long time. You are objecting just because you are on the better side and wish to continue with the better bargain. If you think about it as a EB group in general, then its absolutely ridiculous that there should be country limits for EB category GC when there is no limits on H1B which is the primary route for most EB category GC applications. I completely agree with you on the family quotient of your arguement, they should not get the GC numbers which is meant only for primary EB applicant. Not that I want families to suffer, but the family GC numbers for EB applicants should not count towards GC number cap.
Don't be ignorant, i am still bloody waiting for mine and counting!!!! :mad:
Problem is not country quota, its the ones with families!!! ><
Don't be ignorant, i am still bloody waiting for mine and counting!!!! :mad:
Problem is not country quota, its the ones with families!!! ><
wallpaper oy haircut
.soulty
02-15 09:21 PM
nice wip screens there guys, looking good :thumb:
thirdworldman thats looking amazing, you going to have that perspective view as your final frame or you going to check for another shot when you finished rendering?
great stuff.. ;)
thirdworldman thats looking amazing, you going to have that perspective view as your final frame or you going to check for another shot when you finished rendering?
great stuff.. ;)
starscream
09-10 09:25 PM
Can anyone plz updae what happened to HR 5882 - did the house judiciary commitee pass the bill
2011 hairstyle for teen oys.
hopefull
05-15 05:28 PM
dont do it ..on L1A under NIW he/she can get a GC without labour. Just file I140 and then 485 NIW ..that would be really stupid to move L1A to H1B
more...
NKR
09-19 04:06 PM
Why do you insist that I stop posting, since you don't like it. :confused:
Never insisted you stop posting, was only hoping that you will post some sensible stuff
If you don't want to hear the problems, you don't have to read these posts.
It�s my mistake, I always thought that Mr NoJoke will post something nice but you disappoint me all the time. Henceforth I will stick to your advice.
Since you think this is all my prediction - Today from washington post
I am sticking to your advice, I am not reading that boring news.
Never insisted you stop posting, was only hoping that you will post some sensible stuff
If you don't want to hear the problems, you don't have to read these posts.
It�s my mistake, I always thought that Mr NoJoke will post something nice but you disappoint me all the time. Henceforth I will stick to your advice.
Since you think this is all my prediction - Today from washington post
I am sticking to your advice, I am not reading that boring news.
kicca
08-29 02:11 PM
yes, it is the I485 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE...
more...
SunnySurya
07-28 12:18 PM
To all other readers,
Just to let every one know, I am a Hindu to the very root, but I am also the following:
a) A human, who would prefer peace over violence
b) An Indian, who loves the fact that it is country of Buddha and Gandhi
c) An immigrant, who associate with other immigrants on this forum to be treated in fairness.
d) A would be American, who would like provide the best values of this country to my kids.
I am all that.....And I am proud of them all..
Just to let every one know, I am a Hindu to the very root, but I am also the following:
a) A human, who would prefer peace over violence
b) An Indian, who loves the fact that it is country of Buddha and Gandhi
c) An immigrant, who associate with other immigrants on this forum to be treated in fairness.
d) A would be American, who would like provide the best values of this country to my kids.
I am all that.....And I am proud of them all..
2010 teen oy hairstyle.
grinch
03-12 07:23 PM
OMG these are all amazing! I can't imagine how much work went into these. I know nothing about 3d art/programs so I'm not sure what it takes to make curves and such. I loved Elisoe's for the openess and the pipes in the ceiling, BlueSun's for the tile work, and ThirdWorld's for the colors and curves. But I voted Grinch because the map on the wall is killer and looks very real. And plus I'm a cartographer so it just caught my eye. Makes me want to step in and take a closer look at it.
Great job everyone! This was a cool battle! :thumb:
Whoa... Awsome, I'm so suprised that I actually got votes, I'm a newbie, and it feels good to have votes for me! thanks!
Great job everyone! This was a cool battle! :thumb:
Whoa... Awsome, I'm so suprised that I actually got votes, I'm a newbie, and it feels good to have votes for me! thanks!
more...
gc28262
04-11 09:03 PM
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your question. Let me explain you in details.
I am not sure about Mexican illegals but I can tell about Indian.
Normally person come here illegally alone. Very few people are coming here with spouse. it is absolutely sure that their kids are at backhome with other family members. Many illegal people have used 245(i) and all have priority date before April 2001 as before 2001 they should have to file labor. Fraudulent practice was prevailed in the small business community. They used to file labor certificate in dummy name and once it approve, they are selling to others (labor substitution was legal at that time). Most of 245(i) cases have purchased labor with big $$$. All the 245(i) were approved from 2002 to now. Their case is counting in EB3 category. Once persons case is approved, he will file I 824 (Follow to join family members) for wife and/or kids who are waiting in India. Once I 824 approve, case is transferred to respective CP at back home. It is slow process and take any where from 1 year to 4 to 5 years in some cases. This cases are consuming EB3 quota. We don't know how many cases are in pipeline. But I know few people whose GC was approved under 245(i) and their kids are waiting at Back home. This is the reason why EB3 India is struck around 2001 for many years. If still lot of 245(i) derivative cases are in pipeline, it can retrogress back to April 2001.
I am highlighting truth so that we should not make any mistake in next CIR (same channel and resources for EB legals and 13 millions illegal). if history repeat for CIR, it may not hurt all legal EB community who are reading this post today but future generation EB legal have big blow.
My dear friend Ron Hira is calling me racist !! I always laughing for his immaturity (In fact, I ignore his post). Insisting for following rule is racist. Opposing people who kept EB legal provisions hostages since 2005 is racist??? people in this forum are much smart who is talking what !!!
I remember Mahatma Ganghi's quotes:
" I can wait 100 years for freedom but don't want it through violent route"
khodalmd,
Thanks for the clarification. I think you are right in terms of "follow to join" 245(i) cases. EB3-I may not be out of 245(i) bump yet.
Here is a USCIS memo regarding 245(i)
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/245i.pdf
Relevant portion:
"Many aliens with pending, grandfathered petitions or labor certification applications will marry or have children after the qualifying petition or application was filed but before adjustment of status. These "after-acquired" children and spouses are allowed to adjust under 245(i) as long as they acquire the status of a spouse or child before the principal alien ultimately adjusts status."
On another note, wouldn't the spouses/children of 245(i) applicants be eligible for "follow to join" applications when the primary applicant's application is still pending ? Why would they wait till the approval of primary's AOS application ?
I am not sure about Mexican illegals but I can tell about Indian.
Normally person come here illegally alone. Very few people are coming here with spouse. it is absolutely sure that their kids are at backhome with other family members. Many illegal people have used 245(i) and all have priority date before April 2001 as before 2001 they should have to file labor. Fraudulent practice was prevailed in the small business community. They used to file labor certificate in dummy name and once it approve, they are selling to others (labor substitution was legal at that time). Most of 245(i) cases have purchased labor with big $$$. All the 245(i) were approved from 2002 to now. Their case is counting in EB3 category. Once persons case is approved, he will file I 824 (Follow to join family members) for wife and/or kids who are waiting in India. Once I 824 approve, case is transferred to respective CP at back home. It is slow process and take any where from 1 year to 4 to 5 years in some cases. This cases are consuming EB3 quota. We don't know how many cases are in pipeline. But I know few people whose GC was approved under 245(i) and their kids are waiting at Back home. This is the reason why EB3 India is struck around 2001 for many years. If still lot of 245(i) derivative cases are in pipeline, it can retrogress back to April 2001.
I am highlighting truth so that we should not make any mistake in next CIR (same channel and resources for EB legals and 13 millions illegal). if history repeat for CIR, it may not hurt all legal EB community who are reading this post today but future generation EB legal have big blow.
My dear friend Ron Hira is calling me racist !! I always laughing for his immaturity (In fact, I ignore his post). Insisting for following rule is racist. Opposing people who kept EB legal provisions hostages since 2005 is racist??? people in this forum are much smart who is talking what !!!
I remember Mahatma Ganghi's quotes:
" I can wait 100 years for freedom but don't want it through violent route"
khodalmd,
Thanks for the clarification. I think you are right in terms of "follow to join" 245(i) cases. EB3-I may not be out of 245(i) bump yet.
Here is a USCIS memo regarding 245(i)
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/245i.pdf
Relevant portion:
"Many aliens with pending, grandfathered petitions or labor certification applications will marry or have children after the qualifying petition or application was filed but before adjustment of status. These "after-acquired" children and spouses are allowed to adjust under 245(i) as long as they acquire the status of a spouse or child before the principal alien ultimately adjusts status."
On another note, wouldn't the spouses/children of 245(i) applicants be eligible for "follow to join" applications when the primary applicant's application is still pending ? Why would they wait till the approval of primary's AOS application ?
hair oys haircuts 2008
jonty_11
07-09 06:36 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.
text in bold has a GREY area....'plus remaining balance from previous months.'
They can always say the additional approvals were left over from previous months...
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.
text in bold has a GREY area....'plus remaining balance from previous months.'
They can always say the additional approvals were left over from previous months...
more...
jsb
01-22 11:47 AM
Nice definition for happiness for American, Japenese , So what about definition of happiness for Indian , Is it GC ? :):)
No, people with all personalities exist every where. I just took two typical cases. Does Warren Buffet care about car or home he has? His happiness lies in multiplying his wealth (bank account), not in expensive cars/homes. Wealth, big homes, GC, etc. have nothing to do with peace of mind. The moment we get our GC, our happiness level will go up momentarily, and then after a while we'll find things to be unhappy again.
Case in question above, where a GC seeker gets up at 5am in a nicely furnished home, and gets to work, is entirely his choosing for happiness with material things. He knowingly choose to sacrifice his peace of mind for more material wealth.
We always pay in some form for any happiness we seek.
No, people with all personalities exist every where. I just took two typical cases. Does Warren Buffet care about car or home he has? His happiness lies in multiplying his wealth (bank account), not in expensive cars/homes. Wealth, big homes, GC, etc. have nothing to do with peace of mind. The moment we get our GC, our happiness level will go up momentarily, and then after a while we'll find things to be unhappy again.
Case in question above, where a GC seeker gets up at 5am in a nicely furnished home, and gets to work, is entirely his choosing for happiness with material things. He knowingly choose to sacrifice his peace of mind for more material wealth.
We always pay in some form for any happiness we seek.
hot japanese oys hairstyle.
dohko
04-04 08:03 AM
I hope not. If they ban bodyshops the cap will never run out.
And people in Real companies will be able to get the visas.
And people in Real companies will be able to get the visas.
more...
house Best for guys
logiclife
12-20 07:55 PM
<If anything like out of status or unauthorized employed happened before your last legal entry into USA (whether is more than 180 days or less than 180 days) IT DOES NOT MATTER and you can adjust status. You are fine. What's important is that "out of status" and "unauthorized stay" periods must not happen after you last entered USA and after you filed your 485 - and if it does happen, then it should be less than 180 days.>
So, logiclife, going with your above statement, I don't have any problem with my adustment of status? My last legal entry to the U.S was Mar, 2006. I applied for AOS in July, 2007. Can you point to any USCIS memo/documents stating the above facts? I was out of status in the year 2001 (more than 180 days).
This is not based on any memo. Its in the immigration and nationality act. That is even better because it wont change without an act of congress. Its rock solid. Memos and field manual can be changed by USCIS and they dont need change in laws. To change or edit 245(k), you need change in laws, which needs an act of congress. So the whole thing is on rock solid grounds.
The section is 8 USC � 1255 (k). Also known as 245(k).
Here is how to find the text of 245(k) on USCIS website:
1. Go to USCIS.gov
2. Go to "Laws and Regulations" menu item on top menu.
3. Click on "Immigration and Nationality Act" on the left menu.
4. Click on the link that says "Immigration and Nationality Act" below the 2 paragraph lecture.
5. Scroll down to Chapter 5 and go to "Act 245". DONT GO to "Act 245A".
6. Under Act 245, go to section (k), the lowercase k.
You will read this :
(k) 7/ An alien who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) (or, in the case of an alien who is an immigrant described in section 101(a)(27)(C) , under section 203(b)(4) ) may adjust status pursuant to subsection (a) and notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8), 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.
Another link is here http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
Go to (k) -lowercase k.
So, logiclife, going with your above statement, I don't have any problem with my adustment of status? My last legal entry to the U.S was Mar, 2006. I applied for AOS in July, 2007. Can you point to any USCIS memo/documents stating the above facts? I was out of status in the year 2001 (more than 180 days).
This is not based on any memo. Its in the immigration and nationality act. That is even better because it wont change without an act of congress. Its rock solid. Memos and field manual can be changed by USCIS and they dont need change in laws. To change or edit 245(k), you need change in laws, which needs an act of congress. So the whole thing is on rock solid grounds.
The section is 8 USC � 1255 (k). Also known as 245(k).
Here is how to find the text of 245(k) on USCIS website:
1. Go to USCIS.gov
2. Go to "Laws and Regulations" menu item on top menu.
3. Click on "Immigration and Nationality Act" on the left menu.
4. Click on the link that says "Immigration and Nationality Act" below the 2 paragraph lecture.
5. Scroll down to Chapter 5 and go to "Act 245". DONT GO to "Act 245A".
6. Under Act 245, go to section (k), the lowercase k.
You will read this :
(k) 7/ An alien who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) (or, in the case of an alien who is an immigrant described in section 101(a)(27)(C) , under section 203(b)(4) ) may adjust status pursuant to subsection (a) and notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8), 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.
Another link is here http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
Go to (k) -lowercase k.
tattoo Easy Hairstyles For
nandakumar
11-21 02:30 AM
I also got a letter with same information.
Today I got the second letter from USCIS regarding this request. The letter says they accepted the request and put in the pending que.
Also the letter says, "your request is deemed to constitute an agreement to pay any fees that may be chargeable up to $25.00" and continues and finally it says "most requests do not require any fees and if fees in excess of $25.00 are required, we will notify you beforehand"
Jusy wondering any one got this reply..
Today I got the second letter from USCIS regarding this request. The letter says they accepted the request and put in the pending que.
Also the letter says, "your request is deemed to constitute an agreement to pay any fees that may be chargeable up to $25.00" and continues and finally it says "most requests do not require any fees and if fees in excess of $25.00 are required, we will notify you beforehand"
Jusy wondering any one got this reply..
more...
pictures Boy hairstyles for long
neelu
12-12 10:48 AM
We have asked an immigration lawyer this question. Someone even quoted all the sections of INA and CFR(code of federal regulations) to make the point -- that you can have regulation changed to file 485.
The lawyer was of the opinion that you need change in INA to be able to file 485 when dates are not current. It cannot be done with administrative changes.
Hi Logiclife,
If an attorney says that it cannot be done with administrative changes, then I guess, we dont have much to argue.
But I cannot understand the logic behind why it cant be done. I mean, disallowing concurrent processing is possible by an administrative change, why is the reverse (or something similar like allowing 485 filing without pd being current), not possible?
I am sorry for not being to let go of this, but I thought, logic-life can see some logic in this!!! :)
Thank you.
The lawyer was of the opinion that you need change in INA to be able to file 485 when dates are not current. It cannot be done with administrative changes.
Hi Logiclife,
If an attorney says that it cannot be done with administrative changes, then I guess, we dont have much to argue.
But I cannot understand the logic behind why it cant be done. I mean, disallowing concurrent processing is possible by an administrative change, why is the reverse (or something similar like allowing 485 filing without pd being current), not possible?
I am sorry for not being to let go of this, but I thought, logic-life can see some logic in this!!! :)
Thank you.
dresses photo a oy with Emo oy hair
spicy_guy
08-11 11:44 AM
I may be wrong on my thinking, but I do hope you take a suggestion - when reading the INS law, understand it independently first. Then go back to see, if it can be applied on your interpretation. Do not start out with it, everything looks red when wearing red tinted glasses.......
After the advocacy days in DC, I am sold on what IV is offering and its commitment to the EB community. I am EB3 too and I am pretty much in the same boat as many of you here.
You put it out well from your side.
BTW, are you really 2007 EB3 I? Do you have a guesstimate on when you would get GC?:rolleyes:
After the advocacy days in DC, I am sold on what IV is offering and its commitment to the EB community. I am EB3 too and I am pretty much in the same boat as many of you here.
You put it out well from your side.
BTW, are you really 2007 EB3 I? Do you have a guesstimate on when you would get GC?:rolleyes:
more...
makeup punk hairstyles boys.
hpandey
04-24 10:57 AM
Wish you best of luck !!
girlfriend oys short hairstyles.
onemorecame
11-08 09:59 AM
Did you receive physical card?
yes i got my physical card, what about you bro? did you got approval?
yes i got my physical card, what about you bro? did you got approval?
hairstyles little oy hairstyle. little
waitin_toolong
10-03 01:52 PM
that is the only ption to continue L status..but remember u can not use h1b ..and u have to apply again for h1b in next year quota....
wrong there, once counted against cap she is exempt for 6 years. she can use this approval if working for same employe get it stamped and enter on H1 any time. Or apply for COS with any other employer sponsoring H1.
To answer the original questions only two options.
1) depart and reeneter using L1
2) apply for COS (but a long process)
wrong there, once counted against cap she is exempt for 6 years. she can use this approval if working for same employe get it stamped and enter on H1 any time. Or apply for COS with any other employer sponsoring H1.
To answer the original questions only two options.
1) depart and reeneter using L1
2) apply for COS (but a long process)
unseenguy
05-26 11:05 PM
Just carry a copy of I-94 or EAD with you all the time. Just keep it stapled to your insurance or in your wallet and forget about it.
breddy2000
06-13 12:37 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/06/13/MNG88QE8HV1.DTL&type=politics