bugmenot
12-11 11:30 PM
in one of the threads its said that all 90 senators had agreed to pass the SKIL as against one who did not (sen sessions) and since lame duck required unanimous voting it cud not, but when the demo's bring it up early next year, they would not need an unanimous vote on it but a majority vote? so statistically it sud get through? how far off am i on this?
wallpaper hat and the curly hair.
sss9i
11-21 07:18 PM
Please think workable plan
simple1
05-04 10:39 PM
22CFR 42.32 is not INA.
22CFR 42.32 is not the law.
INA is the law.
See the post of "vbkris77".
The specific law is at: 22CFR 42.32
(http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.32.pdf)
And it specifically states that the derivative is entitled to same "classification".
=======
(2) Entitlement to derivative status.
.......is entitled to a derivative status corresponding to the classification and priority date of the beneficiary of the petition.
=======
22CFR 42.32 is not the law.
INA is the law.
See the post of "vbkris77".
The specific law is at: 22CFR 42.32
(http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.32.pdf)
And it specifically states that the derivative is entitled to same "classification".
=======
(2) Entitlement to derivative status.
.......is entitled to a derivative status corresponding to the classification and priority date of the beneficiary of the petition.
=======
2011 Black Curly Hair +Headband
chakri_28
08-13 03:35 PM
I got all my receipt numbers from the cashed checks. Checks cashed on August 9th.
Filed applications at NSC.
Received @ NSC on July 2nd.
Filed applications at NSC.
Received @ NSC on July 2nd.
more...
gauravster
07-08 03:48 PM
I am bringing these out not because I am opposed to equal treatment of folks on H1/ EAD etc - but because there are legitimate arguments both ways and unless we can prove unequivocally that there is gross miscarriage of justice in denying us this right and on the other hand - there is no disadvantage caused to anybody else by granting us this right - this idea is unlikely to see the light of the day
while i am happy to be proven wrong - i do not see anyone in this forum having a stomach for a protracted legal battle starting with lower courts and going all the way to Supreme Court - going back to my previous point - we do not see this as a "larger than me" cause
Incorrect words used by me, I did not mean that supreme court gave authority, but that supreme court did not find that discrimination based on country of origin for immigrants violates the basic tenents of this countries constitution.
I am not saying that this is a case on employers. If at all it would be a case against the discriminatory laws of the congress which allow someone to stay indefinitely but, do not allow them to work.
If a case like this is filed, I do not think, I do not see it going to be a proteacted battle. If enough coverage is given, the lawmakers might sit down and fix the problem or atleast have a quick temporary fix. Maybe even lawmakers might not be needed, just the DOJ would might update the rules (which it is allowed in case it determines that the laws are conflicting). Most important of all, this will bring the issues on the front from being a laggard.
while i am happy to be proven wrong - i do not see anyone in this forum having a stomach for a protracted legal battle starting with lower courts and going all the way to Supreme Court - going back to my previous point - we do not see this as a "larger than me" cause
Incorrect words used by me, I did not mean that supreme court gave authority, but that supreme court did not find that discrimination based on country of origin for immigrants violates the basic tenents of this countries constitution.
I am not saying that this is a case on employers. If at all it would be a case against the discriminatory laws of the congress which allow someone to stay indefinitely but, do not allow them to work.
If a case like this is filed, I do not think, I do not see it going to be a proteacted battle. If enough coverage is given, the lawmakers might sit down and fix the problem or atleast have a quick temporary fix. Maybe even lawmakers might not be needed, just the DOJ would might update the rules (which it is allowed in case it determines that the laws are conflicting). Most important of all, this will bring the issues on the front from being a laggard.
snathan
02-09 03:20 PM
Please donate...
more...
ArkBird
03-25 05:35 PM
There is no base for it. It's all gut feeling as USCIS defies all the logic hence the title "Predictions"
2010 hairstyles flag curly hair
Sri_1975
08-08 04:53 PM
Enjoy Freedom..
more...
hpandey
07-20 05:13 PM
Correct me If I am wrong
out of 45K members let's assume 22.5 K are EB2 and 22.5 K are EB3.
Even If 11.25K (EB2)+11.25K (EB3) = 22.5 K (Total) contributes $25 Each Problems gets solved ... but the catch is ....
Even 11.25 K EB2 members are not contributing because they don't have to as their problem is solved
Even 11.25 K EB3 members are not contributing because they are not sure even with this contribution their problems gets solved.
Many people are saying that EB3 members are not contributing that's why you are lagging etc...
EB3 Members who contributed are feeling the pain because even after contribution they are not getting the results and EB2 members who didn't contributed are getting the results...
I think you hit the nail on the head.. EB2 folks don't contribute since their problem is over and EB3 folks don't contribute since they don't have any hope left.
out of 45K members let's assume 22.5 K are EB2 and 22.5 K are EB3.
Even If 11.25K (EB2)+11.25K (EB3) = 22.5 K (Total) contributes $25 Each Problems gets solved ... but the catch is ....
Even 11.25 K EB2 members are not contributing because they don't have to as their problem is solved
Even 11.25 K EB3 members are not contributing because they are not sure even with this contribution their problems gets solved.
Many people are saying that EB3 members are not contributing that's why you are lagging etc...
EB3 Members who contributed are feeling the pain because even after contribution they are not getting the results and EB2 members who didn't contributed are getting the results...
I think you hit the nail on the head.. EB2 folks don't contribute since their problem is over and EB3 folks don't contribute since they don't have any hope left.
hair girl with curly hair in fashionable clothes
Libra
08-26 07:50 AM
May be not true, my case assgined to officer on june 29th and no news yet. But I wish Ski_dude12 good luck.
in my case iwas exactly 3 weeks.
Someone else mentioned on this forum that the officer will clear all the cases assigned to him/her within 30 days.
in my case iwas exactly 3 weeks.
Someone else mentioned on this forum that the officer will clear all the cases assigned to him/her within 30 days.
more...
nixstor
06-22 01:45 PM
I think people are confused and think that pay stubs can be substituted for Employment letter. I don't see how that will be accepted. The 485 application ( See on page 4 1st para ) clearly states that they need a letter from employer stating that the job for which GC has been filed is still available and the salary will be paid as per the LC and 140. This is NOT current employment verification letter. Period. Its about future job. The job titles of H1B (current job) and GC (future job) can be different. Get out of the H1B transfer and extension mode.
If the letter from employer is part of initial evidence and you don't have it, your application might come back as per the memo release on Jun 16th.
If the letter from employer is part of initial evidence and you don't have it, your application might come back as per the memo release on Jun 16th.
hot Clothes,Curly Hair,Disney
n2b
08-13 11:18 AM
any LUD?
Nope, No LUD change on my I140
Nope, No LUD change on my I140
more...
house Light Brown Curly Hair And
subdhar
08-30 12:07 PM
Apporval from TSC or NSC??
tattoo Curly hair-
raju123
05-23 09:49 AM
I emailed all Senators using aila's web site
more...
pictures curly hair in the studio,
kshitijnt
07-09 02:24 PM
where is the attachment?
It was a long time dialogue from various websites / including my attorney , that you cannot work for your own company on AC21 basis.
http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/news/2005,0520-ac21.pdf
Here is the link. Your attorney is not the law. Some other attorney might say you can do it.
It was a long time dialogue from various websites / including my attorney , that you cannot work for your own company on AC21 basis.
http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/news/2005,0520-ac21.pdf
Here is the link. Your attorney is not the law. Some other attorney might say you can do it.
dresses Oh, and curly hair and no
delhiguy
07-08 05:57 PM
It is not the U.S constitution or the constitutional law that is in question here. The lawsuit is being filed to simply determine if the laws were broken when this visa bulletin fiasco happened. If so, the courts will give relief. The laws of the U.S extends to everybody (citizens, GC holders and non-immigrants) alike.
It is just like how if a non-immigrant breaks a law, he/she is arrested and taken to court. Even the terrorists who are held in Gitmo won a lawsuit that they have a fair share in the courts. There are numerous cases of potential immigrants who sued the U.S govt and got GCs (most recent being a worker who got his I-140 rejection based on labor cert overturned in Washington State by a Federal Court and finally got his GC).
But, as you mentioned, there are certain aspects of the Constitution that apply only to Citizens. I don't think the constitutional law applies here.
After reading your example about the GC i am very positive now, about the lawsuit
It is just like how if a non-immigrant breaks a law, he/she is arrested and taken to court. Even the terrorists who are held in Gitmo won a lawsuit that they have a fair share in the courts. There are numerous cases of potential immigrants who sued the U.S govt and got GCs (most recent being a worker who got his I-140 rejection based on labor cert overturned in Washington State by a Federal Court and finally got his GC).
But, as you mentioned, there are certain aspects of the Constitution that apply only to Citizens. I don't think the constitutional law applies here.
After reading your example about the GC i am very positive now, about the lawsuit
more...
makeup short haircuts for curly hair
rsayed
08-26 06:32 PM
Finally -
Received CPO mail today, for both myself and my spouse - Aug 26th @ 4:30pm. Here are the details -
EB2-I
EAD Renewal - Receipt Date - Jul 8th, 2008
Notice Date - Jul 9th, 2008
CPO E-mail - Aug 26th, 2008
Total processing time - 49 days
Don't know if it's one or two years validity. Will post once I receive the physical cards.
Received CPO mail today, for both myself and my spouse - Aug 26th @ 4:30pm. Here are the details -
EB2-I
EAD Renewal - Receipt Date - Jul 8th, 2008
Notice Date - Jul 9th, 2008
CPO E-mail - Aug 26th, 2008
Total processing time - 49 days
Don't know if it's one or two years validity. Will post once I receive the physical cards.
girlfriend 40 Hottest Outfits Ever
LCtank
06-28 04:25 PM
I used to frequently get newsletter from Dr. Woo of 80-20 initiative, please check it out to see if they would help IV. Thanks.
Hello arnet,
That is an excellent idea. We are already working closely with USINPAC. Here is some of info about this.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=576
USINPAC has been very helpful and has played a key role in guiding and helping us. We should all be Thankful to USINPAC for significant help that they have provided us.
AAPI is another group that has been instrumental in getting our provisions in the bill.
We have received positive results from many other groups. But no other group has been able to help us as USINPAC and AAPI.
If anybody has any such suggestion or could provide a lead to any other organization or personality, please let us know. This would help us all.
WaldenPond
Hello arnet,
That is an excellent idea. We are already working closely with USINPAC. Here is some of info about this.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=576
USINPAC has been very helpful and has played a key role in guiding and helping us. We should all be Thankful to USINPAC for significant help that they have provided us.
AAPI is another group that has been instrumental in getting our provisions in the bill.
We have received positive results from many other groups. But no other group has been able to help us as USINPAC and AAPI.
If anybody has any such suggestion or could provide a lead to any other organization or personality, please let us know. This would help us all.
WaldenPond
hairstyles Curly hair (hair n°4)
desi3933
07-08 10:45 AM
The entire process of immigrating to US via a employment based system is so loosely organized and puts people in unfair situations.
I agree. Since Employment based immigration is driven by Employer needs, employer has the bigger say.
It is just not desi employers or consulting companies, in general, but any employer can have an upper hand on you when you are at their mercy.
Since the process is driven by Employer needs, whole immigration process depends on it. Is it fair from employee point of view? Most likely, not. But, thats how current laws are in place. Changing these laws are not easy, to say the least.
People say big companies have policies and they abide. I agree, but it is not always the case. If someone is in business - they do things in their business interest - if dealing with USCIS is getting difficult - they may say "enough of it - no more responding to RFEs".
One person contacted me - he is having a fulltime job and filed for AC21. he got RFE for EVL 2 times. The first time his HR gave EVL without any hasstles, the second time she was pissed, said "We do not want to deal with this - I have contacted legal and they recommend not to issue such letters".
Now such a situation puts this person in a tough spot -the issue is not because of his employer because his employer did give a proper letter but USCIS asked it again.
Just imagine what is this person's situation for no fault of his?
This is really a very unfortunate situation.
The big difference between EAD (for AC-21) and GC is that AC-21 employer has to provide supporting EVL document to continue pending I-485. Now, it is upto the applicant how he/she passes this information to the employer when he/she joins that AC-21 job.
Now, many would pass clear info to AC21 employer that they would EVL to support their GC process (I-485) and no other sponsorship is required. Now, its upto their mutual agreement on EVL. Employer is, within his rights, not to support or issue AC-21 EVL letter.
On the practical side, vast majority of employer have no issues with such EVL letters.
Big companies, of course, go with their legal team recommendation as their main purpose to run their business with least legal hassels.
We can always argue that "If you are worth and if company wants to retain you then they will not have any issues" - which once again may not always be true because we all know how relationships work out at companies - with ass kissing, nepotism, situations, financial etc......
It is two-way street. If employer is really good, employee will make extra effort on his job. IF employee is valuable (from employer's point of view), most employer will go extra mile to retain him/her. I have seen many such incidents in 12+ years of professional career.
There is, of course, work politics involved too. Bitching about co-worker, a$$ kissing, nepotism is part of it.
I have seen cases, where one team member is making 115k and another team member, at same role, is making just 85k. This may be unfair, but legal.
---------------
Life is not fair; get used to it. - Bill Gates
Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can't lose. - Bill Gates
.
I agree. Since Employment based immigration is driven by Employer needs, employer has the bigger say.
It is just not desi employers or consulting companies, in general, but any employer can have an upper hand on you when you are at their mercy.
Since the process is driven by Employer needs, whole immigration process depends on it. Is it fair from employee point of view? Most likely, not. But, thats how current laws are in place. Changing these laws are not easy, to say the least.
People say big companies have policies and they abide. I agree, but it is not always the case. If someone is in business - they do things in their business interest - if dealing with USCIS is getting difficult - they may say "enough of it - no more responding to RFEs".
One person contacted me - he is having a fulltime job and filed for AC21. he got RFE for EVL 2 times. The first time his HR gave EVL without any hasstles, the second time she was pissed, said "We do not want to deal with this - I have contacted legal and they recommend not to issue such letters".
Now such a situation puts this person in a tough spot -the issue is not because of his employer because his employer did give a proper letter but USCIS asked it again.
Just imagine what is this person's situation for no fault of his?
This is really a very unfortunate situation.
The big difference between EAD (for AC-21) and GC is that AC-21 employer has to provide supporting EVL document to continue pending I-485. Now, it is upto the applicant how he/she passes this information to the employer when he/she joins that AC-21 job.
Now, many would pass clear info to AC21 employer that they would EVL to support their GC process (I-485) and no other sponsorship is required. Now, its upto their mutual agreement on EVL. Employer is, within his rights, not to support or issue AC-21 EVL letter.
On the practical side, vast majority of employer have no issues with such EVL letters.
Big companies, of course, go with their legal team recommendation as their main purpose to run their business with least legal hassels.
We can always argue that "If you are worth and if company wants to retain you then they will not have any issues" - which once again may not always be true because we all know how relationships work out at companies - with ass kissing, nepotism, situations, financial etc......
It is two-way street. If employer is really good, employee will make extra effort on his job. IF employee is valuable (from employer's point of view), most employer will go extra mile to retain him/her. I have seen many such incidents in 12+ years of professional career.
There is, of course, work politics involved too. Bitching about co-worker, a$$ kissing, nepotism is part of it.
I have seen cases, where one team member is making 115k and another team member, at same role, is making just 85k. This may be unfair, but legal.
---------------
Life is not fair; get used to it. - Bill Gates
Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can't lose. - Bill Gates
.
cram
06-12 11:00 AM
Originally Posted by cram
Fortunately, my PD became current on May 1
Did you get your receipt?
No, I didn't get my receipt yet. I called my lawyer and she said that the checks haven't cleared yet. It's taking toooo long. I don't know what's going on. Anybody in the same situation?
Fortunately, my PD became current on May 1
Did you get your receipt?
No, I didn't get my receipt yet. I called my lawyer and she said that the checks haven't cleared yet. It's taking toooo long. I don't know what's going on. Anybody in the same situation?
EB3_SEP04
08-20 02:56 PM
All,
Sorry if I am posting on wrong thread. I am in the process of sending my documents for EAD renewal and had few questions
Do we need to include a cover letter ?
Also I am sending the following documents.
1) copy I-485 receipt notice
2) copy of EAD (front and back)
3) two color photos
4) Filing fee check $340
5) Mailer stub received from previous EAD.
Am I missing anything else?
A cover letter even though not required, is always a good idea. Do mention in bold that you want the new EAD to start from mm/dd/yy which is when your current one expires, otherwise it could start from the approval date and you could lose 2-3 months. I'd keep the cover letter short, just 2-3 lines plus doc list.
Good luck.
Sorry if I am posting on wrong thread. I am in the process of sending my documents for EAD renewal and had few questions
Do we need to include a cover letter ?
Also I am sending the following documents.
1) copy I-485 receipt notice
2) copy of EAD (front and back)
3) two color photos
4) Filing fee check $340
5) Mailer stub received from previous EAD.
Am I missing anything else?
A cover letter even though not required, is always a good idea. Do mention in bold that you want the new EAD to start from mm/dd/yy which is when your current one expires, otherwise it could start from the approval date and you could lose 2-3 months. I'd keep the cover letter short, just 2-3 lines plus doc list.
Good luck.
No comments:
Post a Comment