whoever
02-12 05:19 PM
maybe tomorrow, and if not then maybe friday the 16th. anyway, if you are eb3 india, it wont move. maybe eb3 india and of course others will move in april 07 bulletin.
wallpaper General Grievous by
pd052009
04-04 08:29 PM
Bump
annsheila79
04-19 09:52 AM
i think you should be ok
2011 Wallpapers Movies General-
alisa
02-11 03:56 PM
By doing what you are suggesting
a) you take numbers away from EB-3 ROW and hurt them
b) you don't do any benefit whatsoever to EB-3 India/China
c) you only benefit EB-2 India/China (at the expense of EB-3 ROW)
So, you make no difference whatsoever to huge number of EB-applicants (b), and you benefit (c) at the expense of (a).
I hope you see that this is not a good solution for the majority of EB-applicants. With this kind of cannibalization, the only people who have any incentive to stay with IV would be EB-2 India/China.
We have to work to increase the size of the pie here, and not engage in a zero sum game.
It says "not required by other classes". In this case it is required but could not be applied to EB2 due to per country numerical limits. Therefore it should go to unused pool of visas followed by AC21. Also why will USCIS prefer EB3 instead of EB2 people? It does not make sense.
As far as suing the govt is concerned we all know what happened to doctors in the UK.. so this is will be a futile exercise.
a) you take numbers away from EB-3 ROW and hurt them
b) you don't do any benefit whatsoever to EB-3 India/China
c) you only benefit EB-2 India/China (at the expense of EB-3 ROW)
So, you make no difference whatsoever to huge number of EB-applicants (b), and you benefit (c) at the expense of (a).
I hope you see that this is not a good solution for the majority of EB-applicants. With this kind of cannibalization, the only people who have any incentive to stay with IV would be EB-2 India/China.
We have to work to increase the size of the pie here, and not engage in a zero sum game.
It says "not required by other classes". In this case it is required but could not be applied to EB2 due to per country numerical limits. Therefore it should go to unused pool of visas followed by AC21. Also why will USCIS prefer EB3 instead of EB2 people? It does not make sense.
As far as suing the govt is concerned we all know what happened to doctors in the UK.. so this is will be a futile exercise.
more...
k_usa
07-18 12:29 PM
Reached USCIS - 7/02
Service Center- NSC
rejected/accepted - Do not know
EB2 -
PD -01/2006
140 AD - 10/2006
Service Center- NSC
rejected/accepted - Do not know
EB2 -
PD -01/2006
140 AD - 10/2006
ashatara78
03-10 07:40 PM
The next step should be to reply to the senator mentioning that the data is ambiguous and asking for a more clear response. Is it I-140 or I-485, does it include families etc. etc.
Also explain to them that based on these numbers, it will take X years for a person to get a GC and that the system needs reform.
I have worked with a senator's office for a completely different matter and they are very responsive - since you have caught their attention and already have a file open, it will be helpful to respond with a concise letter so that you can get more accurate information.
Also explain to them that based on these numbers, it will take X years for a person to get a GC and that the system needs reform.
I have worked with a senator's office for a completely different matter and they are very responsive - since you have caught their attention and already have a file open, it will be helpful to respond with a concise letter so that you can get more accurate information.
more...
va_217
01-31 09:33 AM
Just voted its Q. 16
2010 Wallpapers Movies General
bharani
11-03 02:04 PM
caliguy,
I sent you PM. When you get a chance, please respond to it.
Thanks.
I sent you PM. When you get a chance, please respond to it.
Thanks.
more...
PresidentO
05-14 10:07 AM
Are u a crazy ??? He is not teaching you (Looks like you need some teaching anyway)
Just a question , how are you fighting the immigration war.. (You fight a war , and solve a problem)
Anyone has the right to express his opinion. You start calling people coward..
If you have nothing in India to cherish for, Doesn't mean that other people dont have it either?
sidbee,
I am afraid you are being naive here. What the OP is saying is
(1) We should all go back to our home land, because he has some opinions and positions on what is considered turning back to home land. You might not see it but he is trying to shape opinion of others very intelligently. Who says this? Some one who does not want competition here. Well, if this was coming from some one who is in India I will give him props. He is in US for 10 years and he is saying US GC system sucks and I will go to canada in 2 years. Damn it! I am better than him because I will go to India and not canada. I will stop short of saying that every one should go back to India or his/her homeland.
(2) We all have no right to talk because this is not our country. or We are not in our country and we should not talk. Who says this? Again folks who dont want people here.
(3) Even if I give him the benefit of doubt on other issues, he thinks country caps are OK. Any one who argues for country caps in EB GC with out asking for a country caps in F1/H1B which server as conduit to H1B actually wants the disadvantage to lot of people to his advantage.
Just dont read the words as it is. try to infer some thing. These days trolls have got too much brains.
Just a question , how are you fighting the immigration war.. (You fight a war , and solve a problem)
Anyone has the right to express his opinion. You start calling people coward..
If you have nothing in India to cherish for, Doesn't mean that other people dont have it either?
sidbee,
I am afraid you are being naive here. What the OP is saying is
(1) We should all go back to our home land, because he has some opinions and positions on what is considered turning back to home land. You might not see it but he is trying to shape opinion of others very intelligently. Who says this? Some one who does not want competition here. Well, if this was coming from some one who is in India I will give him props. He is in US for 10 years and he is saying US GC system sucks and I will go to canada in 2 years. Damn it! I am better than him because I will go to India and not canada. I will stop short of saying that every one should go back to India or his/her homeland.
(2) We all have no right to talk because this is not our country. or We are not in our country and we should not talk. Who says this? Again folks who dont want people here.
(3) Even if I give him the benefit of doubt on other issues, he thinks country caps are OK. Any one who argues for country caps in EB GC with out asking for a country caps in F1/H1B which server as conduit to H1B actually wants the disadvantage to lot of people to his advantage.
Just dont read the words as it is. try to infer some thing. These days trolls have got too much brains.
hair General Grievous,
unitednations
03-31 11:51 AM
I (and I�m sure others too) would like to know how the following works,
Employer X filed labor, 140 for their employee. Both were approved (assumption - no RFEs, etc. until now), 485 was filed for in July 2007, and remains pending.
The employee was employed with Employer X from before the labor was applied and until ~360 days after the 485 was filed, and was always paid more than the LC prevailing wage/offered salary.
In July 2008, the employee leaves employer X and joins employer Y under AC21 provisions. An AC21 letter, G-28N are submitted.
140 never gets revoked by employer X.
In Jan 2009, employer X receives an Ability to Pay RFE for another pending 140 of theirs.
At this point, employer X has 16 140s that are open (pending OR approved with 485 pending to be filed/filed and pending). Out of those 16 140s, one was for the employee that left under AC21.
When they respond to that RFE, I do understand that they could be asked to show ability to pay for all 16 140s, even for the one that doesn�t work for them anymore, because of the fact that it was never revoked.
In this case, is the employee (that left) covered or at risk? I ask this question because the employee that left submitted AC21 documentation immediately upon leaving, thus notifying the USCIS that the �ability to pay� responsibility for his case, if any at all, now lies with the new future employer. There probably isn�t any clear definition of such a situation in the law, but can such an argument ever hold up in court, and protect the employee�s AOS application from getting affected due to any ability to pay issues the old employer (X) has had AFTER the employee left them.
The only person on here that I expect to be able to give a non-speculative answer to this is UN, unless someone else has personally gone through something similar.
Long post, I know, and I hope it does get read.
Thank you.
I worked on a very big case back in 2006.
Company had 20 pending 140's which were filed in 2005
Company had 42 approved 140's
in Janaury 2006 they sent RFE on one of the cases and asked for ability to pay. Before response was sent; second rfe is received on another pending casestating ability to pay and that uscis has noted company has filed many 140's; then third rfe is received on another case asking ability to pay on all pending cases (note this was in vermont service center and at this time the whole cybersoftech issue was going on; so there was a heightened alert from vermont service center).
In preparing for the response to the 20 pending cases; we had to analyze the 42 approved cases to ensure that just in case USCIS went after those cases together with the 20 then we should be ready in this particular response to justify the 42 approved cases.
In the response we only showed the 20 pending cases and that we had ability to pay for them.
Within three weeks; USCIS sent notice of intent to revoke the approved 140's. In the notice of intent to revoke; they stated that their records showed 20 pending; 42 approved cases and 205 h-1b's filed. USCIS went through their calculations and stated that if the average salary was xxx on all these petitions then the company would have to have paid close to $15 million in salaries which was (at that time the 2004 tax returns) more then five times the revenue. USCIS also went on to state they thought the company was involved in fraudulently obtaining h-1b's and 140's.
Now; company guy talks to Shusterman and he wants $2k per case and he can only handle the immigration component and that he neeed a CPA (which was me) and the company guy should also get a criminal attorney.
Well anyways; because in the first 20 cases we thought uscis may go after the approved 140's; the financials looked the right way to support all the cases.
The response was very scientific; hire dates; priority dates; amounts people got paid before priority date; amounts paid after; dates people left the company, etc.
In the various calculations; we proved out that even with people leaving who used ac21; we still had ability to pay for them (ie., even though they were no longer there we still had the financials to pay them). Then we gave another scenario that ability to pay clock should stop once person used ac21. We then did recalculation under this scenario.
In every scenario we showed we had ability to pay. Now; we never requested USCIS to revoke the approved 140's for people who had left; in one of the scenarios we adjusted the calculation to stop showing ability to pay once a person left.
USCIS re-approved all the cases. However; they sent notice of intent to deny for pepole who left using ac21. those candidates then gave updated letters and they all eventually got the greencards approved.
Now;this particular case is a little different because even though people left; the company still had ability to pay for them. Therefore, it is difficult to draw conclusion from this for other peoples particular cases. In this case; the fair value of the work I did for them would have cost them about $100K (i actually did audited financial statements for them; they are the only company I did audited financial statements for becuase the stakes were very very high for everyone concerned).
I can tell you that when a company does get this type of RFE; it is very difficult to substantiate everyone together and the calculations and supporting documentation is very complex AND companies have very little desire to help those who have already left. In these types of queries; the company/lawyer doesn't even bother to justify those who have already left; they just ask for revoation and they prove ability to pay for those who are still left with the company. Therefore; USCIS could just make the determination that those revoked cases were approved in error.
The main law for ability to pay is that company has to prove it from priority date until person obtains lawful permanent residency; law was never changed/modified to accomodate ability to pay for a company whose candidates have left using ac21.
Note: This is all pure speculation of what is going on in these cases. I am just writing out loud of why/if there is a shift within uscis.
Employer X filed labor, 140 for their employee. Both were approved (assumption - no RFEs, etc. until now), 485 was filed for in July 2007, and remains pending.
The employee was employed with Employer X from before the labor was applied and until ~360 days after the 485 was filed, and was always paid more than the LC prevailing wage/offered salary.
In July 2008, the employee leaves employer X and joins employer Y under AC21 provisions. An AC21 letter, G-28N are submitted.
140 never gets revoked by employer X.
In Jan 2009, employer X receives an Ability to Pay RFE for another pending 140 of theirs.
At this point, employer X has 16 140s that are open (pending OR approved with 485 pending to be filed/filed and pending). Out of those 16 140s, one was for the employee that left under AC21.
When they respond to that RFE, I do understand that they could be asked to show ability to pay for all 16 140s, even for the one that doesn�t work for them anymore, because of the fact that it was never revoked.
In this case, is the employee (that left) covered or at risk? I ask this question because the employee that left submitted AC21 documentation immediately upon leaving, thus notifying the USCIS that the �ability to pay� responsibility for his case, if any at all, now lies with the new future employer. There probably isn�t any clear definition of such a situation in the law, but can such an argument ever hold up in court, and protect the employee�s AOS application from getting affected due to any ability to pay issues the old employer (X) has had AFTER the employee left them.
The only person on here that I expect to be able to give a non-speculative answer to this is UN, unless someone else has personally gone through something similar.
Long post, I know, and I hope it does get read.
Thank you.
I worked on a very big case back in 2006.
Company had 20 pending 140's which were filed in 2005
Company had 42 approved 140's
in Janaury 2006 they sent RFE on one of the cases and asked for ability to pay. Before response was sent; second rfe is received on another pending casestating ability to pay and that uscis has noted company has filed many 140's; then third rfe is received on another case asking ability to pay on all pending cases (note this was in vermont service center and at this time the whole cybersoftech issue was going on; so there was a heightened alert from vermont service center).
In preparing for the response to the 20 pending cases; we had to analyze the 42 approved cases to ensure that just in case USCIS went after those cases together with the 20 then we should be ready in this particular response to justify the 42 approved cases.
In the response we only showed the 20 pending cases and that we had ability to pay for them.
Within three weeks; USCIS sent notice of intent to revoke the approved 140's. In the notice of intent to revoke; they stated that their records showed 20 pending; 42 approved cases and 205 h-1b's filed. USCIS went through their calculations and stated that if the average salary was xxx on all these petitions then the company would have to have paid close to $15 million in salaries which was (at that time the 2004 tax returns) more then five times the revenue. USCIS also went on to state they thought the company was involved in fraudulently obtaining h-1b's and 140's.
Now; company guy talks to Shusterman and he wants $2k per case and he can only handle the immigration component and that he neeed a CPA (which was me) and the company guy should also get a criminal attorney.
Well anyways; because in the first 20 cases we thought uscis may go after the approved 140's; the financials looked the right way to support all the cases.
The response was very scientific; hire dates; priority dates; amounts people got paid before priority date; amounts paid after; dates people left the company, etc.
In the various calculations; we proved out that even with people leaving who used ac21; we still had ability to pay for them (ie., even though they were no longer there we still had the financials to pay them). Then we gave another scenario that ability to pay clock should stop once person used ac21. We then did recalculation under this scenario.
In every scenario we showed we had ability to pay. Now; we never requested USCIS to revoke the approved 140's for people who had left; in one of the scenarios we adjusted the calculation to stop showing ability to pay once a person left.
USCIS re-approved all the cases. However; they sent notice of intent to deny for pepole who left using ac21. those candidates then gave updated letters and they all eventually got the greencards approved.
Now;this particular case is a little different because even though people left; the company still had ability to pay for them. Therefore, it is difficult to draw conclusion from this for other peoples particular cases. In this case; the fair value of the work I did for them would have cost them about $100K (i actually did audited financial statements for them; they are the only company I did audited financial statements for becuase the stakes were very very high for everyone concerned).
I can tell you that when a company does get this type of RFE; it is very difficult to substantiate everyone together and the calculations and supporting documentation is very complex AND companies have very little desire to help those who have already left. In these types of queries; the company/lawyer doesn't even bother to justify those who have already left; they just ask for revoation and they prove ability to pay for those who are still left with the company. Therefore; USCIS could just make the determination that those revoked cases were approved in error.
The main law for ability to pay is that company has to prove it from priority date until person obtains lawful permanent residency; law was never changed/modified to accomodate ability to pay for a company whose candidates have left using ac21.
Note: This is all pure speculation of what is going on in these cases. I am just writing out loud of why/if there is a shift within uscis.
more...
ashkam
06-11 08:58 AM
Whatever you do, don't flee the country. You might never be able to reenter again. And I don't know what kind of extradition treaty the US has with India so I don't know if fleeing will even help. I would say defend yourself and cross other bridges as they arrive.
hot 10186 lego general grievous 2
ilikekilo
04-02 08:37 PM
Did anyone who applied with TSC see LUD? I am asking this because it seems, TSC online system is not working.
fyi, I had a soft LUD today on my 485..
fyi, I had a soft LUD today on my 485..
more...
house General Grievous by
Subsonic
04-07 02:08 PM
I am never happy spending money..this makes me jump around! Sent my $100 thru Paypal, Confirmation number 6H78079329445613H.
Excellent suggestions to raise money. I can do a strip show if someone has the stomach for it and big heart to pay for it.:cool:
Excellent suggestions to raise money. I can do a strip show if someone has the stomach for it and big heart to pay for it.:cool:
tattoo for General Grievous?
tnite
10-24 01:39 PM
I'm just keen to find out what's going on, and to get input on whether the I-129 being revoked is anything that can affect the I-140/I-485. I doubt it but would like to be sure. And to share what's going on in my case with others where it may have more of an impact if their H-1B ends up being revoked.
Anyway, I doubt if it's anything that can't be fixed; my company is very reputable and our attorneys are already engaged.
You had mentioned in your previous post that your EB2 green card was approved in June 2007or did you mean EAD?
Am I missing something?
Anyway, I doubt if it's anything that can't be fixed; my company is very reputable and our attorneys are already engaged.
You had mentioned in your previous post that your EB2 green card was approved in June 2007or did you mean EAD?
Am I missing something?
more...
pictures General Grievous 02
The Director
06-14 05:39 PM
Here I give you The Coffee Pod...Hope you like it! and please comment.
dresses Includes General Grievous
prashantc
01-31 07:46 AM
Hello I got a yellow form 221(g) during my interview. Got my passport and approval back during the interview.
Are other people in PIMS getting this yellow form/ 221(g) stating that "when administrative processing is completed in your case we will contact you"?
This will allow me to decide if I am stuck in PIMS or something else.
**** 28 days since interview, visa approved today****
Dear Vamsi, SVK, NK, Shahuja, Abuddyz, lost_in_gc, and all eligible visa aspirants:
I just got an email from the Chennai consulate, 29th day from the interview, stating the visa was stamped today:
"Thank you for your e-mail.
Our records show that your visa was issued today, January 31. You
should be receiving your passport/visa soon.
Visa Information Unit
American Consulate General
Chennai 600006, India
Telephone: 91 44 2857 4242
Fax: 91 44 2811 2027
Website: http://chennai.usconsulate.gov"
This means there is light at the end of the tunnel. Please have faith in your abilities, and in your God. You will hear back soon.
Moral of the story: "Never use a Consulate in India for visa re-validation again."
Please learn from this story, and never again trust Consulates in India for extension purposes.
God bless you all.
Are other people in PIMS getting this yellow form/ 221(g) stating that "when administrative processing is completed in your case we will contact you"?
This will allow me to decide if I am stuck in PIMS or something else.
**** 28 days since interview, visa approved today****
Dear Vamsi, SVK, NK, Shahuja, Abuddyz, lost_in_gc, and all eligible visa aspirants:
I just got an email from the Chennai consulate, 29th day from the interview, stating the visa was stamped today:
"Thank you for your e-mail.
Our records show that your visa was issued today, January 31. You
should be receiving your passport/visa soon.
Visa Information Unit
American Consulate General
Chennai 600006, India
Telephone: 91 44 2857 4242
Fax: 91 44 2811 2027
Website: http://chennai.usconsulate.gov"
This means there is light at the end of the tunnel. Please have faith in your abilities, and in your God. You will hear back soon.
Moral of the story: "Never use a Consulate in India for visa re-validation again."
Please learn from this story, and never again trust Consulates in India for extension purposes.
God bless you all.
more...
makeup General Grievous iPhone
annsheila79
04-21 12:54 PM
Sent you a PM. please check :p.
Sent another one and its about that Moron snathan
:p
Sent another one and its about that Moron snathan
:p
girlfriend Star Wars Wallpaper General Grievous. Star Wars Auctions; Star Wars Auctions
rbalaji5
01-30 04:36 PM
I am done..
hairstyles general grievous mask by
mirage
03-11 11:40 AM
The best thing you can do to me is 'Ignore me', I promise you I will ignore you. I have never ever insulted or used bad words for anybody ever on a Cyber forum, may be just b'cause I've never encountered a person like you.
But if you insist on insulting somebody you are going to get it back....Green.Tech,
I understand where you are coming from. And I am sorry that some of my recent posts were irresponsible.
Frankly, after mumbai attack I have been a different person. I come to this forum to learn and provide any information I can provide. But it bothers me to see few jerks like mirage who don't have any clue of how things work, and they just start posting on the forum "remove country limits, remove country limits, remove country limits, remove country limits, remove country limits, remove country limits, remove country limits" 30 times a day, as if that will be sufficient to remove country limits. And in more ways this uneducated style bothers me. I will try to ignore it and go my way.
I am right now going to speed dial that other side of me, good and informative side.
.
But if you insist on insulting somebody you are going to get it back....Green.Tech,
I understand where you are coming from. And I am sorry that some of my recent posts were irresponsible.
Frankly, after mumbai attack I have been a different person. I come to this forum to learn and provide any information I can provide. But it bothers me to see few jerks like mirage who don't have any clue of how things work, and they just start posting on the forum "remove country limits, remove country limits, remove country limits, remove country limits, remove country limits, remove country limits, remove country limits" 30 times a day, as if that will be sufficient to remove country limits. And in more ways this uneducated style bothers me. I will try to ignore it and go my way.
I am right now going to speed dial that other side of me, good and informative side.
.
sri1309
12-22 08:04 AM
Minimal response so far. Please have this as an action item and please remove all the old links that are less valid now. If we can have some fresh links and those which can blink , it may attract attention. I know the other way will be when the situation changes like a job loss or out of status.. but I think we dont need to wait too long..
beppenyc
11-13 03:35 PM
I don`t think, that beside a miracle, the CIR will pass before the end of the year.
I am little bit more positive about the future, why:
- Immigration is the only point where you can find an agreement btwn Bush and the Dems, so to honor this new clime about bipartisan, immigration will be the only point to do it.
-There was an article in the Business week where they are already discussing about the sign ceremony
-Latino voters: not so important NOW, but they growing and 70% voted Blue.
- Watch out the senator of California, Fiengsten, she will fight any skill bill.
- Be positive, Hastert and Sensebrener has gone, they were the worse!
I am little bit more positive about the future, why:
- Immigration is the only point where you can find an agreement btwn Bush and the Dems, so to honor this new clime about bipartisan, immigration will be the only point to do it.
-There was an article in the Business week where they are already discussing about the sign ceremony
-Latino voters: not so important NOW, but they growing and 70% voted Blue.
- Watch out the senator of California, Fiengsten, she will fight any skill bill.
- Be positive, Hastert and Sensebrener has gone, they were the worse!
No comments:
Post a Comment