NNReddy
04-11 11:29 PM
Can someone on EAD start a S-Corp or LLC? IF SO WHICH ONE IS BETTER S-CORP OR LLC? PLEASE ADVISE
wallpaper Tags: galaxy s water live
newbee7
07-06 06:45 AM
Please digg
http://digg.com/politics/Suit_Planned_Over_Visas_for_the_Highly_Skilled
Also, please digg and add comments.
http://digg.com/politics/Suit_Planned_Over_Visas_for_the_Highly_Skilled
Also, please digg and add comments.
santa123
07-05 03:25 PM
mbawa2574 for IV president. Anyone?
Dude if you do not like something, why don't you start your own aggressive organization. You do not do squat on IV and only whined.
ganguteli for IV President and Public relations:D:D
Anyone? why not?
Dude if you do not like something, why don't you start your own aggressive organization. You do not do squat on IV and only whined.
ganguteli for IV President and Public relations:D:D
Anyone? why not?
2011 galaxy-wallpaper.jpg
reddog
03-12 03:09 PM
reddog, please explain how you have supported IV in the past in non-monetary ways. For lobbying, there is not much you can do other than support monetarily,or make trips to DC yourself.
I am sure IV core will at least consider such non-monetary support on case-by-case basis.
no, i am not going to switch to defensive mode. this is not about me.
I am sure IV core will at least consider such non-monetary support on case-by-case basis.
no, i am not going to switch to defensive mode. this is not about me.
more...
coopheal
03-09 10:06 PM
Of all the wrongs in April VB +ve thing is EB3-I moved. It moved to the extent it moved last year (http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/Past_Visa_Bulletin_Data).
So for EB3-Is take console on these
1) Horror of 245(i) (http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/245(I)) are over.
2) EB3-I may be over 2001 by start of next year.
So for EB3-Is take console on these
1) Horror of 245(i) (http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/245(I)) are over.
2) EB3-I may be over 2001 by start of next year.
willwin
06-10 10:30 AM
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4252.html
Much awaited bulletin which says no numbers for EB3 and that come Oct 2008 Eb3 I will go to Nov 2001 again. What a news!!!
enjoy!!!
"E. EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
There have been questions raised regarding the way numbers have been provided to the China and India in the Employment Second preference categories beginning in April. Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that if total demand for visas in an Employment preference category is insufficient to use all available visa numbers in that category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limit. (For example: If the second preference annual limit were 40,000, number use by “All Other Countries” were estimated to be only 25,000, and the China/India combined number use based on their per-country limits were 6,000, then there would be 9,000 numbers unused. Those 9,000 numbers could then be made available to China and India applicants without regard to their per-country limits.)
Based on the informaiton available, it was been determined that the demand from “All Other Countries” for Second preference numbers, plus the amount of numbers available under China and India Second preference per-country limit, would be insufficient to utilize all available numbers under the annual limit for this category. Therefore, pursuant to Section 202(a)(5) of the Act, the unused numbers have been made available to China and India Second preference applicants. Since Section 203(e)(1) of the Act requires that such unused numbers be made available strictly in priority date order, the China and India applicants have been subject to the identical cut-off date. As there are more Employment Second preference applicants from India and the Indian applicants may have earlier priority dates, it is likely that Indian applicants will receive a larger portion of the available numbers than Chinese applicants.
It should be noted that the Employment Second preference category is "Current" for all countries except China and India. If at any point it appears that demand from “All Other Countries” would utilize all available numbers, then an adjustment would be made to the China/India cut-off date. Therefore, providing the unused numbers to China and India in no way disadvantages applicants from any other country, and helps to insure that the worldwide annual limit can be reached.
F. EMPLOYMENT THIRD PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
Demand for numbers, primarily by USCIS for adjustment of status cases, will bring the entire Employment Third preference category to the annual numerical limit by the end of June. As a result, this category will become “unavailable” beginning in July and will remain so for the remainder of FY-2008. Such action will only be temporary, however, and Employment Third preference availability will return to the cut-off dates established for June in October, the first month of the new fiscal year."
Much awaited bulletin which says no numbers for EB3 and that come Oct 2008 Eb3 I will go to Nov 2001 again. What a news!!!
enjoy!!!
"E. EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
There have been questions raised regarding the way numbers have been provided to the China and India in the Employment Second preference categories beginning in April. Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that if total demand for visas in an Employment preference category is insufficient to use all available visa numbers in that category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limit. (For example: If the second preference annual limit were 40,000, number use by “All Other Countries” were estimated to be only 25,000, and the China/India combined number use based on their per-country limits were 6,000, then there would be 9,000 numbers unused. Those 9,000 numbers could then be made available to China and India applicants without regard to their per-country limits.)
Based on the informaiton available, it was been determined that the demand from “All Other Countries” for Second preference numbers, plus the amount of numbers available under China and India Second preference per-country limit, would be insufficient to utilize all available numbers under the annual limit for this category. Therefore, pursuant to Section 202(a)(5) of the Act, the unused numbers have been made available to China and India Second preference applicants. Since Section 203(e)(1) of the Act requires that such unused numbers be made available strictly in priority date order, the China and India applicants have been subject to the identical cut-off date. As there are more Employment Second preference applicants from India and the Indian applicants may have earlier priority dates, it is likely that Indian applicants will receive a larger portion of the available numbers than Chinese applicants.
It should be noted that the Employment Second preference category is "Current" for all countries except China and India. If at any point it appears that demand from “All Other Countries” would utilize all available numbers, then an adjustment would be made to the China/India cut-off date. Therefore, providing the unused numbers to China and India in no way disadvantages applicants from any other country, and helps to insure that the worldwide annual limit can be reached.
F. EMPLOYMENT THIRD PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
Demand for numbers, primarily by USCIS for adjustment of status cases, will bring the entire Employment Third preference category to the annual numerical limit by the end of June. As a result, this category will become “unavailable” beginning in July and will remain so for the remainder of FY-2008. Such action will only be temporary, however, and Employment Third preference availability will return to the cut-off dates established for June in October, the first month of the new fiscal year."
more...
pandu_hawaldar
07-06 01:46 PM
http://infotech.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2180544.cms
2010 the wallpapers one by one.
gchope07
07-20 01:06 PM
Well even if the amendment would have passed the chances that Bush would not veto it are very less since it had to do with troop withdrawal.
more...
Lacris
08-17 09:07 PM
Hi,
Did anyone get a SSN with their passport expired?
My passport expired in April and the Romanian embassy doesn't renew passports for people who are not US permanent residents or citizens. What I could do was to make a letter of representation for someone in my country, get it certified at one of the Romanian consulates and send all the ORIGINAL documents thru mail in Romania. Since I'm a full time graduate student, even finding time to go to the nearest consulate was almost impossible. I was also worried that we might be asked to show up for an interview and would not have documents like passport or marriage certificate in hand. I talked to the lawyer and she said that if I don't plan to travel abroad, not having a valid passport is ok.
Yesterday I got the plastic card and today I went to apply for a SSN. The lady I talked to refused to take my application, saying that my Romanian passport is considered an "immigration document" and until I have an unexpired one, I should not try to get a SSN. Call me crazy, but since I am a permanent resident doesn't it mean I don't have to leave USA unless I want to???? And even more, how can a document issued by a foreign country be an immigration document, since I'm not applying for SSN based on a visa stamped in that passport.
If anyone went thru the same situation or has some advice for me, please answer.
Thank you
Did anyone get a SSN with their passport expired?
My passport expired in April and the Romanian embassy doesn't renew passports for people who are not US permanent residents or citizens. What I could do was to make a letter of representation for someone in my country, get it certified at one of the Romanian consulates and send all the ORIGINAL documents thru mail in Romania. Since I'm a full time graduate student, even finding time to go to the nearest consulate was almost impossible. I was also worried that we might be asked to show up for an interview and would not have documents like passport or marriage certificate in hand. I talked to the lawyer and she said that if I don't plan to travel abroad, not having a valid passport is ok.
Yesterday I got the plastic card and today I went to apply for a SSN. The lady I talked to refused to take my application, saying that my Romanian passport is considered an "immigration document" and until I have an unexpired one, I should not try to get a SSN. Call me crazy, but since I am a permanent resident doesn't it mean I don't have to leave USA unless I want to???? And even more, how can a document issued by a foreign country be an immigration document, since I'm not applying for SSN based on a visa stamped in that passport.
If anyone went thru the same situation or has some advice for me, please answer.
Thank you
hair Galaxy S 4G Pictures
AllVNeedGcPc
01-30 10:01 AM
Hello VayuMahesh: Congratulations on getting greened.
My EB2 140 got approved more than 10 days ago, with old EB3 priority date on the approval letter (and my old A number), but still no LUD on my existing 485s.
Do I need to do anything to get it moving? How do I put a Service Request on 485? The online system to put an eRequest only lets you do it for N400 or I90.
Thanks in advance.
Lot of weird things. Still waiting for 485 approval even after sending interfiling request in mid-November. My attorney has sent an email reminder again 2 weeks back. Even for the I-140 which was approved in November 1st week, online status still says "Initial Review".
Opened a Service Request early this week and received a reply with the status as follows.
Thank you for contacting us about this case. According to our systems this petition was approved and it has been sent to production. Your case will be processed in order based on the approval date. If you do not receive the document within 30 days feel free to contact us again.
Online/Phone status is still processing .... I have to just wait and see I guess.
My EB2 140 got approved more than 10 days ago, with old EB3 priority date on the approval letter (and my old A number), but still no LUD on my existing 485s.
Do I need to do anything to get it moving? How do I put a Service Request on 485? The online system to put an eRequest only lets you do it for N400 or I90.
Thanks in advance.
Lot of weird things. Still waiting for 485 approval even after sending interfiling request in mid-November. My attorney has sent an email reminder again 2 weeks back. Even for the I-140 which was approved in November 1st week, online status still says "Initial Review".
Opened a Service Request early this week and received a reply with the status as follows.
Thank you for contacting us about this case. According to our systems this petition was approved and it has been sent to production. Your case will be processed in order based on the approval date. If you do not receive the document within 30 days feel free to contact us again.
Online/Phone status is still processing .... I have to just wait and see I guess.
more...
sandiboy
07-18 04:03 PM
Assuming that the PD cut off date for a specific stream is 2004 Aug and there are still visa nos available but there are not enough application (can this ever happen for real) what are they going to do? They move the PD further up and whenever the pool is depleting they move it back again?
Assuming they move back the PD to 2000 after they ran out of the nos they start accepting AOS apps for that PD but they donot look at them (for adjudication) until the queue before is cleared based on the receipt date.
In such a case the PD lost all it's significance once the adjustment of status if filed?
If receipt date is the only significant date after AOS is filed then retrogressing to a specified date does not make sense as there is no need to accept new applications if they are not going to work on them and particularly when they know the current size of the queue.
Or May be I am missing something......
Consider I-485 Processing as a 2 Door Room. Front Door is for people who's PD has been current for the given month and can apply & Back Door is for Adjudicating People who are already applied & still current for that month.
The size of the room depends on what date they retrogress it to. If Cutoff date is say 2002, there are few people in that room who would be ready for adjudication. Instead if cutoff date is say 2006, there will be a huge number of people in the room.
As long as you stay in that room for more month (be current), the more chance you have of getting adjudicated fast, but also depends on how many people are ahead of you per RD.
Assuming they move back the PD to 2000 after they ran out of the nos they start accepting AOS apps for that PD but they donot look at them (for adjudication) until the queue before is cleared based on the receipt date.
In such a case the PD lost all it's significance once the adjustment of status if filed?
If receipt date is the only significant date after AOS is filed then retrogressing to a specified date does not make sense as there is no need to accept new applications if they are not going to work on them and particularly when they know the current size of the queue.
Or May be I am missing something......
Consider I-485 Processing as a 2 Door Room. Front Door is for people who's PD has been current for the given month and can apply & Back Door is for Adjudicating People who are already applied & still current for that month.
The size of the room depends on what date they retrogress it to. If Cutoff date is say 2002, there are few people in that room who would be ready for adjudication. Instead if cutoff date is say 2006, there will be a huge number of people in the room.
As long as you stay in that room for more month (be current), the more chance you have of getting adjudicated fast, but also depends on how many people are ahead of you per RD.
hot wallpaper from Galaxy S II
Jitamitra
09-09 03:54 PM
My contribution of $100.
Order Details - Sep 9, 2007 16:17 GMT-04:00
Google Order #505491856061236
Order Details - Sep 9, 2007 16:17 GMT-04:00
Google Order #505491856061236
more...
house Samsung Galaxy S Vibrant
santb1975
05-24 11:02 PM
Every time we work on a bill we move a step forward. We have come a long way in the past 2 years. Some bills came and went and did not bring us any relief but that should not stop us from working hard when we see the next window of opportunity.
Thanks for the information. Bills come and go every year, hard to count how many we have seen go up in the air in the last 3 years.
Thanks for the information. Bills come and go every year, hard to count how many we have seen go up in the air in the last 3 years.
tattoo Samsung Galaxy S Live
piperwarrior
07-23 04:16 PM
I got the e-mail today as well. My PD is Sep 2005 and my I-485 receipt date was Sep 30, 2005.
They indeed are clearing up the pipes, so the situation is not as horrible as it seems to be. A pd of 2004 is considered "old" so as soon as visa nos become available in october, they would be the first ones to get approved.
They indeed are clearing up the pipes, so the situation is not as horrible as it seems to be. A pd of 2004 is considered "old" so as soon as visa nos become available in october, they would be the first ones to get approved.
more...
pictures wallpapers for Galaxy S
rcahk
04-11 08:12 PM
I forgot to mention that mine is an RIR. I guess that makes all the difference. Hang in there, nothing lasts for ever !!!
dresses Samsung Galaxy S. so the
Ramba
10-21 06:18 PM
Thanks Ramba for your insights.
Whatever the reasons - its apparent USCIS is not following the AC21 regulations and it is not fair. I believe, AC21 regulations are made with an objective of improving immigration rules for 21st century (and thus the name American Competetiveness for 21st century) and provide some mobility for the applicants while their GC applications are pending. The delay in application processing is still relevant (actually its more severe) - irrespective of whether its caused by processing or because of lack of visa numbers. AC21 regulations never mentioned about the origin of delay or the longivity of applicant with original company. Changing interpretation of a rule they made, that too without notice is unfair and maybe even unlawful.
So far I was thinking that its a case of misinformed IO rejecting I485 once they see a I140 revocation. But rejecting MTR on the grounds that employee has left the company on his/her own and so does not have intent of continuing in the job is just plain twisting of their own rules. And we need a much bigger effort - if its a case of a few misinformed USCIS employees incorrectly rejecting I485 - then it could have been fixed with a low key effort that we are doing. We are seeing more rejections based on unknown "interpretations" - and even MTR getting rejected - it kind of gives a feeling that they have a bigger agenda here and we need to fight on a bigger scale.
If a guy lawfully changed the job after 180 days of 485 filing, it is remain valid even if employer revokes already approved 140. Only solution to overcome this MTR, is taking this to court. In the case of dispute between employee and employer regarding "intent", the employee will have more leverage if he had a considerable period of employment relationship sponsor.
Whatever the reasons - its apparent USCIS is not following the AC21 regulations and it is not fair. I believe, AC21 regulations are made with an objective of improving immigration rules for 21st century (and thus the name American Competetiveness for 21st century) and provide some mobility for the applicants while their GC applications are pending. The delay in application processing is still relevant (actually its more severe) - irrespective of whether its caused by processing or because of lack of visa numbers. AC21 regulations never mentioned about the origin of delay or the longivity of applicant with original company. Changing interpretation of a rule they made, that too without notice is unfair and maybe even unlawful.
So far I was thinking that its a case of misinformed IO rejecting I485 once they see a I140 revocation. But rejecting MTR on the grounds that employee has left the company on his/her own and so does not have intent of continuing in the job is just plain twisting of their own rules. And we need a much bigger effort - if its a case of a few misinformed USCIS employees incorrectly rejecting I485 - then it could have been fixed with a low key effort that we are doing. We are seeing more rejections based on unknown "interpretations" - and even MTR getting rejected - it kind of gives a feeling that they have a bigger agenda here and we need to fight on a bigger scale.
If a guy lawfully changed the job after 180 days of 485 filing, it is remain valid even if employer revokes already approved 140. Only solution to overcome this MTR, is taking this to court. In the case of dispute between employee and employer regarding "intent", the employee will have more leverage if he had a considerable period of employment relationship sponsor.
more...
makeup Samsung Galaxy S etc.
nursekm
10-03 11:47 PM
Jun - r u from PIC country??
I do not believe the 800,000 figure for I-485 alone. It could be a misquote from Aytes. The 800,000 is possibly combination of all immigration related applications such as I-140, 485, 131, 765, etc.
Even during last year when EBs are current, it didn't reach that many applications. I believe Matthew OH is more accurate in saying there's a total of 320,000 I-485 applications.
With that figure, average 2.5 years waiting is in order. But that should not be distributed equally among all countries due to per country limit. I would guess, for India and China, it would be 3 years wait, and for the rest, 2 years.
I do not believe the 800,000 figure for I-485 alone. It could be a misquote from Aytes. The 800,000 is possibly combination of all immigration related applications such as I-140, 485, 131, 765, etc.
Even during last year when EBs are current, it didn't reach that many applications. I believe Matthew OH is more accurate in saying there's a total of 320,000 I-485 applications.
With that figure, average 2.5 years waiting is in order. But that should not be distributed equally among all countries due to per country limit. I would guess, for India and China, it would be 3 years wait, and for the rest, 2 years.
girlfriend samsung galaxy s i9000
qasleuth
05-14 01:38 PM
Mandamus is a case where plaintiff is trying to force a government official to perform his/her duty. It's being used when a case is delayed beyond reasonable time frame. See more details here:
http://www.ailf.org/lac/pa/lac_pa_081505.pdf
Wrongful denial is disputed based on the Administrative Procedures Act (�the APA�)
The APA allows reversal of agency action that is �arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.� 5 U.S.C. � 706(2)(A).
Generally, you cannod dispute I-485 denial unless denial was based on wrong intepretation of applicant's eligibility for AOS. See, e.g. Sepulveda v. Gonzales, 407 F.3d 59, 62-63 (2d Cir. 2005)
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/76407587-1ac2-4692-9a3e-f644d7d5045b/13/doc/03-40643_opn.pdf
Immigration litigation attorney should be able to help, but it's fairly simple to do on your own as well.
this is extremely useful information. Can you please update IV Wiki, when you get a chance ? www.immigrationvoice.com/wiki
http://www.ailf.org/lac/pa/lac_pa_081505.pdf
Wrongful denial is disputed based on the Administrative Procedures Act (�the APA�)
The APA allows reversal of agency action that is �arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.� 5 U.S.C. � 706(2)(A).
Generally, you cannod dispute I-485 denial unless denial was based on wrong intepretation of applicant's eligibility for AOS. See, e.g. Sepulveda v. Gonzales, 407 F.3d 59, 62-63 (2d Cir. 2005)
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/76407587-1ac2-4692-9a3e-f644d7d5045b/13/doc/03-40643_opn.pdf
Immigration litigation attorney should be able to help, but it's fairly simple to do on your own as well.
this is extremely useful information. Can you please update IV Wiki, when you get a chance ? www.immigrationvoice.com/wiki
hairstyles galaxy wallpapers. galaxy
mirage
08-18 02:52 PM
Please don't wait to reach a consenus on the content, take a cue from this letter and modify it to put your own experience..bottomline is to get the word out to Senator Cornyn & Rep. Lofgren. I am sure they will do something if we can get them this info...
Please continue to post your comments on the letter - the sooner we can all agree upon the content, the sooner we can start sending these out.
Also, is there a possibility of having a common meeting (all retrogressed EB3 candidates) with Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren expressing our situation - just a thought.
Please continue to post your comments on the letter - the sooner we can all agree upon the content, the sooner we can start sending these out.
Also, is there a possibility of having a common meeting (all retrogressed EB3 candidates) with Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren expressing our situation - just a thought.
eb3_nepa
03-13 01:24 PM
Looking through the ammendments, one that stuck out was about the drunk driving conviction. The ammendment makes it a deportable crime. Well, not that we would ever be stupid enough to drink and drive. But, if you do, and you get caught, be aware of the serious implications it may have.
Arihant, i thought that was only for illegals. Somehow i dont think that Drunk driving is one of our major problems ;-)
Arihant, i thought that was only for illegals. Somehow i dont think that Drunk driving is one of our major problems ;-)
PD_Dec2002
03-18 07:17 AM
Having said that, since we are non-resident aliens (i.e the ones without green card or US citizenship) will not get a stimulus package?
An overwhelming chunk of all of us are considered resident aliens from IRS's perpective so you are eligible. In fact, I would think every single one of us on this forum is a resident alien since we all fit IRS's definition of a "resident alien" as per their "substantial preference test". The following is copy-paste from IRS:
Topic 851 - Resident and Non–Resident Aliens
You are considered a resident alien if you met one of two tests for the calendar year.
The first test is the "green card test." If at any time during the calendar year you were a lawful permanent resident of the United States according to the immigration laws, and this status has not been rescinded or administratively or judicially determined to have been abandoned, you are considered to have met the green card test.
The second test is the "substantial presence test". For the purposes of this test, the term United Stated includes the following areas:
All 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The territorial waters of the United States.
The seabed and subsoil of those submarine areas that are adjacent to U.S. territorial waters and over which the United States has exclusive rights under international law to explore and exploit natural resources. The term does not include U.S. possessions and territories or U.S. airspace.
To meet the substantial presence test, you must have been physically present in the United States on at least 31 days during the current year, and 183 days during the 3 year period that includes the current year and the 2 years immediately before. To satisfy the 183 days requirement, count all of the days you were present in the current year, and one–third of the days you were present in the first year before the current year, and one–sixth of the days you were present in the second year before the current year. Do not count any day you were present in the United States as an "exempt individual" or commute from Canada or Mexico to work in the United States on more than 75% of the workdays during your working period.
For more information, see the IRS guidance: http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851.html
Regards,
Jayant
P.S.: Since taxes are inevitable, here's hoping we soon pass the first "green card test" as well. :)
An overwhelming chunk of all of us are considered resident aliens from IRS's perpective so you are eligible. In fact, I would think every single one of us on this forum is a resident alien since we all fit IRS's definition of a "resident alien" as per their "substantial preference test". The following is copy-paste from IRS:
Topic 851 - Resident and Non–Resident Aliens
You are considered a resident alien if you met one of two tests for the calendar year.
The first test is the "green card test." If at any time during the calendar year you were a lawful permanent resident of the United States according to the immigration laws, and this status has not been rescinded or administratively or judicially determined to have been abandoned, you are considered to have met the green card test.
The second test is the "substantial presence test". For the purposes of this test, the term United Stated includes the following areas:
All 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The territorial waters of the United States.
The seabed and subsoil of those submarine areas that are adjacent to U.S. territorial waters and over which the United States has exclusive rights under international law to explore and exploit natural resources. The term does not include U.S. possessions and territories or U.S. airspace.
To meet the substantial presence test, you must have been physically present in the United States on at least 31 days during the current year, and 183 days during the 3 year period that includes the current year and the 2 years immediately before. To satisfy the 183 days requirement, count all of the days you were present in the current year, and one–third of the days you were present in the first year before the current year, and one–sixth of the days you were present in the second year before the current year. Do not count any day you were present in the United States as an "exempt individual" or commute from Canada or Mexico to work in the United States on more than 75% of the workdays during your working period.
For more information, see the IRS guidance: http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851.html
Regards,
Jayant
P.S.: Since taxes are inevitable, here's hoping we soon pass the first "green card test" as well. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment