mariner5555
01-25 04:23 PM
I recently had to apply for a UK transit visa and the process went smooth as ever. I had to answer a lot of questions for both my wife and myself but after I have done that the process was easy. We just had to show up for finger printing just like for our 485s, send all the necessary documents to the correct address by (reliable) mail and just got emails that our visas have been approved. I have flown with BA before and their service is far better than any other airlines I have flown with before.
I have flown lot of airlines ..I was in merchant navy before. all airlines suck or are o.k (depends on yr view) i.e. they give you standard service.
the fact that you need a transit visa is stupid. they want to make money and in my view who ever pays for a visa for transit is a sucker.all the european airports who need TV control their airports ..not even a fly can go out unless they pass immigration customs etc - so why do they need visa !!. service in an airline depends on the mood of attendants ..so just based on one flight experience - dont say that BA is better than others.
I have flown lot of airlines ..I was in merchant navy before. all airlines suck or are o.k (depends on yr view) i.e. they give you standard service.
the fact that you need a transit visa is stupid. they want to make money and in my view who ever pays for a visa for transit is a sucker.all the european airports who need TV control their airports ..not even a fly can go out unless they pass immigration customs etc - so why do they need visa !!. service in an airline depends on the mood of attendants ..so just based on one flight experience - dont say that BA is better than others.
wallpaper Mel Gibson
kshitijnt
05-10 02:26 AM
Hunter, this is the first sensible post from you. Now you agree that abusers of this H1 visa system are corporations not the immigrants on their own. So far you were busy bashing immigrants.
Also if US is a free market and capitalist society, why should corporates employ "whoever" is locally available. Its a private money afterall. Shouldent it be upto them to decide how to spend? Also most US corps, have local presence and as for taking a tax break, I hope companies did not promise to create "ALL" jobs in US. Majority of local jobs go to US citizens. They still create thousands of local jobs and pay H1 visa fees part of which goes to train american workforce. If the wages were equal, its more expensive for a company to hire H1 worker.
Also if US is a free market and capitalist society, why should corporates employ "whoever" is locally available. Its a private money afterall. Shouldent it be upto them to decide how to spend? Also most US corps, have local presence and as for taking a tax break, I hope companies did not promise to create "ALL" jobs in US. Majority of local jobs go to US citizens. They still create thousands of local jobs and pay H1 visa fees part of which goes to train american workforce. If the wages were equal, its more expensive for a company to hire H1 worker.
vdlrao
04-02 05:27 AM
Do you have any idea, how many cases get approved per month.
Don't know.
Don't know.
2011 Mel Gibson, Braveheart
.jpg "wallpaper Mel Gibson#39;s")
OLDMONK
07-09 07:18 PM
Here is a Screen Shot of USCIS statement for Flower Campaign. For Archival Purposes.
or for people who missed or non believers.
or for people who missed or non believers.
more...
trueguy
08-21 12:22 PM
The law unambiguously states that for employment based categories - EB1 spillover should first go to EB2 and whatever is not required by both EB1 and EB2 will spillover to EB3. If the USCIS has been doing something different previously they were actually not following the letter of the law.
Here are the relevant sections of the INA which unambiguosly states the above.
Here is what Section 203 of the Immigration and Nationality Act states -
EB1 -
(1) Priority workers. - Visas shall first be made available in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (4) and (5),...............
EB2 -
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraph (1) ...............
EB3 -
(3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers.-
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), .........
Yes, the same law can be interpreted like this:
EB1-ROW unused visa will go to EB2-ROW
EB2-ROW unused visa will go to EB3-ROW
Same for each country.
But its not happening. What actually is happening that they are giving unused visa from EB1-ROW to EB2-ROW to EB2-I/C. WHY?
So EB3-ROW is retrogressed bcoz it doesn't get any spillover and hence it affect EB3-I.
So where is the correct interpretation? Does any body know?
Don't take me wrong here. I don't favor EB3-ROW or any particular category. I am EB3-I with PD Nov 2002.
Here are the relevant sections of the INA which unambiguosly states the above.
Here is what Section 203 of the Immigration and Nationality Act states -
EB1 -
(1) Priority workers. - Visas shall first be made available in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (4) and (5),...............
EB2 -
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraph (1) ...............
EB3 -
(3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers.-
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), .........
Yes, the same law can be interpreted like this:
EB1-ROW unused visa will go to EB2-ROW
EB2-ROW unused visa will go to EB3-ROW
Same for each country.
But its not happening. What actually is happening that they are giving unused visa from EB1-ROW to EB2-ROW to EB2-I/C. WHY?
So EB3-ROW is retrogressed bcoz it doesn't get any spillover and hence it affect EB3-I.
So where is the correct interpretation? Does any body know?
Don't take me wrong here. I don't favor EB3-ROW or any particular category. I am EB3-I with PD Nov 2002.
omved
07-09 06:34 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f4b3076eb0f93110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1958b0aaa86fa010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
more...
shx
06-16 03:24 AM
I am not supporting any fraud, but what I said is, if you find workplace discrimination and contact a career guide, they ask you to find another job. Most sincere career guides will not support lawsuits or retaliation against employer unless you are not in a position to find other work. Even read career sites for women and advice, even in cases of sexual harrassment, they ask the victim to move on as a sensible thing to do, because in the end the company will somehow make the victim lose her job. There have been 1000s of USC Vs USC cases. I am not supporting any fraud but what I am saying is retaliation leaves bad taste in the mouth and world is a small place. For larger good of your rest of career best thing to do is move on.
Only some crooked lawyer who wants money will tell you, you are doing the right thing.
Your arguments seem almost convincing. I will have to agree with you that it might be best for the OP's career to just move on to another job and ignore all the gross violations at his work place. Wouldn't that be selfish though? Who is going to set things right, if everyone cares about his/her own career advancement?
I think you should advise half of the people to move on to other jobs and the other half to fight the violations. Fair?
Only some crooked lawyer who wants money will tell you, you are doing the right thing.
Your arguments seem almost convincing. I will have to agree with you that it might be best for the OP's career to just move on to another job and ignore all the gross violations at his work place. Wouldn't that be selfish though? Who is going to set things right, if everyone cares about his/her own career advancement?
I think you should advise half of the people to move on to other jobs and the other half to fight the violations. Fair?
2010 Mel Gibson
drirshad
02-17 10:21 AM
There was supposed to be some big news coming from IV did not hear anything yet ..............
more...
ajay
11-09 01:03 PM
I mailed those letters physically by mail. No replies yet though!!!
hair wallpaper Mel Gibson#39;s
drirshad
06-29 05:15 PM
This is not the end of the world, enjoy ur weekend ........
USCIS will be in big trouble if they do what the rumors say ...
Just be ready to file and v ll c what happens .....
I m 99.5% sure that its a rumor ....
USCIS will be in big trouble if they do what the rumors say ...
Just be ready to file and v ll c what happens .....
I m 99.5% sure that its a rumor ....
more...
whitecollarslave
04-17 06:26 PM
8 USC 1324b
(a)(1) General rule
It is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to discriminate against any individual (other than an unauthorized alien, as defined in section 1324a (h)(3) of this title) with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment—
(A) because of such individual’s national origin, or
(B) in the case of a protected individual (as defined in paragraph (3)), because of such individual’s citizenship status.
(3) “Protected individual” defined
As used in paragraph (1), the term “protected individual” means an individual who—
(A) is a citizen or national of the United States, or
(B) is an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence, is granted the status of an alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence under section 1160 (a) or 1255a (a)(1) of this title, is admitted as a refugee under section 1157 of this title, or is granted asylum under section 1158 of this title;
(4) Additional exception providing right to prefer equally qualified citizens
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, it is not an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to prefer to hire, recruit, or refer an individual who is a citizen or national of the United States over another individual who is an alien if the two individuals are equally qualified.
So EAD folks are excluded from "protected individuals" and employer has a right to prefer US citizens according to this.
I disagree with your conclusion. The employer has the right to prefer US Citizens over another individual only if the two individuals are equally qualified. For the cases mentioned in this thread, employers have flatly refused to consider anybody on EAD. So the clause of preference to US citizens does not apply. The you posted is the original text and does not include amendments or changes.
If you read up on section 1160 (a) or 1255a (a)(1) you will find that it includes people who have filed for AOS. It is my understanding that an EB immigrant with AOS pending is included in the "alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence under section 1160 (a) or 1255a (a)(1)" category. I am not a lawyer and could be wrong but this is my interpretation. If you are on H-1B, this does not apply. But if you have EAD and AOS pending this should apply. There is no way for an employer to distinguish between an EB immigrant with EAD and AOS pending v/s a FB immigrant with EAD and AOS pending.
(a)(1) General rule
It is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to discriminate against any individual (other than an unauthorized alien, as defined in section 1324a (h)(3) of this title) with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment—
(A) because of such individual’s national origin, or
(B) in the case of a protected individual (as defined in paragraph (3)), because of such individual’s citizenship status.
(3) “Protected individual” defined
As used in paragraph (1), the term “protected individual” means an individual who—
(A) is a citizen or national of the United States, or
(B) is an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence, is granted the status of an alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence under section 1160 (a) or 1255a (a)(1) of this title, is admitted as a refugee under section 1157 of this title, or is granted asylum under section 1158 of this title;
(4) Additional exception providing right to prefer equally qualified citizens
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, it is not an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to prefer to hire, recruit, or refer an individual who is a citizen or national of the United States over another individual who is an alien if the two individuals are equally qualified.
So EAD folks are excluded from "protected individuals" and employer has a right to prefer US citizens according to this.
I disagree with your conclusion. The employer has the right to prefer US Citizens over another individual only if the two individuals are equally qualified. For the cases mentioned in this thread, employers have flatly refused to consider anybody on EAD. So the clause of preference to US citizens does not apply. The you posted is the original text and does not include amendments or changes.
If you read up on section 1160 (a) or 1255a (a)(1) you will find that it includes people who have filed for AOS. It is my understanding that an EB immigrant with AOS pending is included in the "alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence under section 1160 (a) or 1255a (a)(1)" category. I am not a lawyer and could be wrong but this is my interpretation. If you are on H-1B, this does not apply. But if you have EAD and AOS pending this should apply. There is no way for an employer to distinguish between an EB immigrant with EAD and AOS pending v/s a FB immigrant with EAD and AOS pending.
hot wallpaper Mel Gibson
abhis0
09-14 08:50 AM
Wait...wait ....wait.....but how long?
guy next door is jumping when received his EAD....I am still waiting for Texas to issue me reciept........
July 2 Filer
guy next door is jumping when received his EAD....I am still waiting for Texas to issue me reciept........
July 2 Filer
more...
house wallpaper Mel Gibson
meridiani.planum
03-05 11:08 AM
Hi guys,
I am about to leave my employer and I want to withdraw my set (with wife derivative). Can you please help me with the procedure? And is it safe to leave the employer without effecting the other set where my wife is primary applicant and me as derivative.
Thanks in advance.
are you sure you want to withdraw? All that you need to do i ssend a letter to USCIS indicating your receipt number. Make it clear to them that you want to keep the other one still going (mention its receipt numbers).
I would personally not withdraw simply because if they screw up and withdraw BOTH petitions, I can forget about filing another AOS for another decade...
I am about to leave my employer and I want to withdraw my set (with wife derivative). Can you please help me with the procedure? And is it safe to leave the employer without effecting the other set where my wife is primary applicant and me as derivative.
Thanks in advance.
are you sure you want to withdraw? All that you need to do i ssend a letter to USCIS indicating your receipt number. Make it clear to them that you want to keep the other one still going (mention its receipt numbers).
I would personally not withdraw simply because if they screw up and withdraw BOTH petitions, I can forget about filing another AOS for another decade...
tattoo mel gibson braveheart
rodnyb
04-01 01:00 PM
OK, DOS buffer issue.
A. LAW. If there is no inventory in EB2 I/C (meaning demand). Theoretically DOS should make EB2 I/C CURRENT. DOS/CIS are not that dumb, or at least as dumb as before. I would say, they are very competent now and we should appreciate their work, pre-adjudicate, publish demand data (DOS), inventory data (CIS) processing time (DOS). THEY know, from PERM, I-140, there are at least 2K demand permonth from EB2 I/C. SO they will just safely move a couple of month of PD to make sure there is demand >2800 for India/China, so they don't have to make it CURRENT (per law)
B. LOGISTICS. There could be denials, RFEs, although most (I believe almost all 100% pre-07/2007 EB2 I/C) should be pre-adjudicated now (THANK DOS CIS specifically did this so no processing time, and no waster numbers hopefully). That is why DOS has to consider that in their demand, and CIS has to consider that in inventory numbers
C TIMING. Charles is shooting a moving target as well (his job is not easy as he cannot predicate future 100% and has to follow law, and use all visa numbers, we should appreciate that). Charles has no control on CIS number accuracy (I am sure CIS is trying hard as well), how fast EB1/EB2ROW/EB2I-c pre-072007 could come in, hey even some CIS employees need vacation in summer. So he has to make sure things can be done before August, so August could be only a month for fine tuning, not massive approvals, new applications (CIS wont look at them any way but takes man power), to use up all numbers and have some new applicants to keep the inventory (demand) at decent level.
I am July 2007 PD, and we all have hopes, dreams, life, etc, can can distort our judgement. We can discuss, but may to suppoert each other, and those warriors in DC. But hey, things could happen against our best intentions, wishes, anything can happen. SO life it short, live once, enjoy the ride, love people, appreciate love, and HAVE a great weekend, have fun.
I too had similar thoughts.. why would CIS/DOS stop keeping buffers? Is there any particular reason? Once they complete all 7/2007 applications I think it makes sense to move the date for a few months so they can accept applications. Also, remember there will be new monthly quota getting allocated to all categories. So to use those numbers should they not be progressing dates?
[QUOTE=cbpds;2494204]Rodnyb,
The below number is depressing, however dont you think DOS/USCIS always believe in keeping buffer and they may push the dates somewhere into 2009 just to accept 485 filings?
Why do think they will stop keeping any buffer?
A. LAW. If there is no inventory in EB2 I/C (meaning demand). Theoretically DOS should make EB2 I/C CURRENT. DOS/CIS are not that dumb, or at least as dumb as before. I would say, they are very competent now and we should appreciate their work, pre-adjudicate, publish demand data (DOS), inventory data (CIS) processing time (DOS). THEY know, from PERM, I-140, there are at least 2K demand permonth from EB2 I/C. SO they will just safely move a couple of month of PD to make sure there is demand >2800 for India/China, so they don't have to make it CURRENT (per law)
B. LOGISTICS. There could be denials, RFEs, although most (I believe almost all 100% pre-07/2007 EB2 I/C) should be pre-adjudicated now (THANK DOS CIS specifically did this so no processing time, and no waster numbers hopefully). That is why DOS has to consider that in their demand, and CIS has to consider that in inventory numbers
C TIMING. Charles is shooting a moving target as well (his job is not easy as he cannot predicate future 100% and has to follow law, and use all visa numbers, we should appreciate that). Charles has no control on CIS number accuracy (I am sure CIS is trying hard as well), how fast EB1/EB2ROW/EB2I-c pre-072007 could come in, hey even some CIS employees need vacation in summer. So he has to make sure things can be done before August, so August could be only a month for fine tuning, not massive approvals, new applications (CIS wont look at them any way but takes man power), to use up all numbers and have some new applicants to keep the inventory (demand) at decent level.
I am July 2007 PD, and we all have hopes, dreams, life, etc, can can distort our judgement. We can discuss, but may to suppoert each other, and those warriors in DC. But hey, things could happen against our best intentions, wishes, anything can happen. SO life it short, live once, enjoy the ride, love people, appreciate love, and HAVE a great weekend, have fun.
I too had similar thoughts.. why would CIS/DOS stop keeping buffers? Is there any particular reason? Once they complete all 7/2007 applications I think it makes sense to move the date for a few months so they can accept applications. Also, remember there will be new monthly quota getting allocated to all categories. So to use those numbers should they not be progressing dates?
[QUOTE=cbpds;2494204]Rodnyb,
The below number is depressing, however dont you think DOS/USCIS always believe in keeping buffer and they may push the dates somewhere into 2009 just to accept 485 filings?
Why do think they will stop keeping any buffer?
more...
pictures hairstyles mel gibson
gcgreen
08-07 02:50 PM
See, that's the reason I think the lawsuit idea has issues. I suspect the lawsuit may end up making life difficult for a lot of genuine cases without actually achieving what you set out to achieve.
But I have no data one way or the other.
The question is how would you identify which jobs are genuine and which are not. In addition, the question the porting comes at I-485 stage.
So in other words there could very well be job out there and you won't know till its I-140 is approved if it is for porting reasons.
Also, a good/established company may most likely will not file a new labor and I-140 for a person because it an unncessary expenditure for them.
So guess who are the people who are most benefitted by this...
But I have no data one way or the other.
The question is how would you identify which jobs are genuine and which are not. In addition, the question the porting comes at I-485 stage.
So in other words there could very well be job out there and you won't know till its I-140 is approved if it is for porting reasons.
Also, a good/established company may most likely will not file a new labor and I-140 for a person because it an unncessary expenditure for them.
So guess who are the people who are most benefitted by this...
dresses images mel gibson braveheart
poorslumdog
05-10 10:36 PM
Then why do you bother to desparately stay in US? Vote with your feet.
How do you care. If you are trying to convince us to leave the country...its not going to happen. Why do you waste your time. Get beer and chill out. Dont waste your as well as our time.
How do you care. If you are trying to convince us to leave the country...its not going to happen. Why do you waste your time. Get beer and chill out. Dont waste your as well as our time.
more...
makeup mel gibson braveheart
logiclife
07-09 06:45 PM
Call the place where you've ordered flowers and ask for a refund if flowers are delivered elsewhere. It should be up to USCIS to recieve and then ship those flowers to the hospitals.
DONT DO THAT.
Let the flowers go to USCIS and let them do whatever they want with the flowers. Kindly dont jinx this campaign by cancelling your orders and asking for refunds.
DONT DO THAT.
Let the flowers go to USCIS and let them do whatever they want with the flowers. Kindly dont jinx this campaign by cancelling your orders and asking for refunds.
girlfriend wallpaper Mel Gibson.
justin150377
07-09 08:48 PM
Imagine how insulted the soldiers will feel when they read the cards/notes with the flowers...they won't be pleased they were caught in the middle of a controversy. They have enough to deal with already. This will make the government look even worse.
hairstyles Mel Gibson dans Braveheart
aruny5
09-09 01:49 PM
called...
Elton Gallegly (R-CA) 202-225-5811
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) 202-225-5431
Dan Lungren (R-CA) 202-225-5716
J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) 202-225-6365
Louie Gohmert (R-TX) 202-225-3035
called these 5 representative during lunch time. Operator who picks the phone is taking messages by him / her self. I think they are getting lots of calls (most probably from NumbersUSA). These operators won't let you speak for more than 1 min.
Elton Gallegly (R-CA) 202-225-5811
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) 202-225-5431
Dan Lungren (R-CA) 202-225-5716
J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) 202-225-6365
Louie Gohmert (R-TX) 202-225-3035
called these 5 representative during lunch time. Operator who picks the phone is taking messages by him / her self. I think they are getting lots of calls (most probably from NumbersUSA). These operators won't let you speak for more than 1 min.
prasadn
09-23 05:23 PM
they are RD's not PD's
IF they were PD's we shouldnot be seeing anything after Jul 2007 [as those were the farthest PD's ever reached].
Seems logical, but on the other hand if that were to be the case, then why isn't there a spike in June-July '07 to reflect the deluge of 485 filings?
IF they were PD's we shouldnot be seeing anything after Jul 2007 [as those were the farthest PD's ever reached].
Seems logical, but on the other hand if that were to be the case, then why isn't there a spike in June-July '07 to reflect the deluge of 485 filings?
shahuja
02-11 12:46 PM
hello all..
desi_doc..i got the washington approval on jan 25th and still waiting !
nkalpana, you still waiting here on IV or gone ??
rest..just fyi..i will be finishing my one month wait tomorrow :-( and wait continues......................................... ..
desi_doc..i got the washington approval on jan 25th and still waiting !
nkalpana, you still waiting here on IV or gone ??
rest..just fyi..i will be finishing my one month wait tomorrow :-( and wait continues......................................... ..
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar