saileshdude
05-29 03:42 PM
I am not sure if I agree with doing two things at the same time. We can try to solve 12 things at the same time, but at the end are we effective? As an organization,If by focusing on eliminating EB1 fraud gives us significant advantage in short and long term then I am all for it. Numbers do not suggest that.However if we focus our energy on legislative fixes to eliminate the backlog, most of the categories will benefit.Question is do we suggest 20 things and dont complete anything or take one important initiative to the finish line. In my limited experience, I have seen second one works better.
Reporting to USCIS about possible L1/ EB1 fraud should not take too much efforts so as to impact the effectiveness. Its just about bringing to attention to the USCIS about the possible misuse of EB1 by these consulting firms. Ultimately its upto USCIS to make a judgement about a particular case but with our help of informing them this is happening will make the adjudicating process tough for these people.
Reporting to USCIS about possible L1/ EB1 fraud should not take too much efforts so as to impact the effectiveness. Its just about bringing to attention to the USCIS about the possible misuse of EB1 by these consulting firms. Ultimately its upto USCIS to make a judgement about a particular case but with our help of informing them this is happening will make the adjudicating process tough for these people.
wallpaper Beautiful Robert Pattinson
Munna Bhai
01-26 08:01 AM
Hello,
My I-140 is approved and I have a PD of Feb 2006.
One of my colleague whose job description is little different then mine has a PD of Sep 2003 and his Labour got approved but he left the company.
So is there anyway his approved labor is useful to me. What are the ifs,buts etc.
----------------
I changed your thread title. when you start a new thread make your thread title descriptive for all members to easily sift through threads- Admin
My I-140 is approved and I have a PD of Feb 2006.
One of my colleague whose job description is little different then mine has a PD of Sep 2003 and his Labour got approved but he left the company.
So is there anyway his approved labor is useful to me. What are the ifs,buts etc.
----------------
I changed your thread title. when you start a new thread make your thread title descriptive for all members to easily sift through threads- Admin
okuzmin
07-12 12:27 PM
lordoftherings, I doubt there is a country in the world that would fit all. I also doubt such a thing as "ideal immigration policy" exists. It is always good to have a job offer before you immigrate, but it's ultimately up to the immigrant to find out what it'll take to get on his/her feet in the new country.
After reading (and watching videos of) all those sob stories on notcanada.com and the like about doctors, nurses, engineers who can't get a job or have to study for years to get a Canadian license to practice, I wonder how much of a research those folks did prior to coming to Canada. If a medical occupation requires studying for additional time and taking exams, then you should have learned about it. If engineers of your specialty are not in high demand, you can figure it out by going through Canadian job postings and contacting employers. If you are not willing to look for a job elsewhere but Toronto, then it's your problem: perhaps in Calgary the opportunities are more readily available. I have a friend in Montreal who owns an IT recruitment company. He told me that they are sending IT folks from Ontario to Alberta, since Alberta unemployment rate for IT professionals is currently at 0.5%.
Bottom line is: research for yourself, ask different people, be flexible about where you want to live in the new country (hey, it's the country's demands you need to adjust to, not the other way around!) -- this will save you from many unpleasant surprises.
After reading (and watching videos of) all those sob stories on notcanada.com and the like about doctors, nurses, engineers who can't get a job or have to study for years to get a Canadian license to practice, I wonder how much of a research those folks did prior to coming to Canada. If a medical occupation requires studying for additional time and taking exams, then you should have learned about it. If engineers of your specialty are not in high demand, you can figure it out by going through Canadian job postings and contacting employers. If you are not willing to look for a job elsewhere but Toronto, then it's your problem: perhaps in Calgary the opportunities are more readily available. I have a friend in Montreal who owns an IT recruitment company. He told me that they are sending IT folks from Ontario to Alberta, since Alberta unemployment rate for IT professionals is currently at 0.5%.
Bottom line is: research for yourself, ask different people, be flexible about where you want to live in the new country (hey, it's the country's demands you need to adjust to, not the other way around!) -- this will save you from many unpleasant surprises.
2011 Robert Pattinson
unseenguy
06-12 10:06 PM
So you realized at the age of 35 that you needed MBA? Many smarter ones realized that at 25-30 age range. And they are the ones who will become future CEOs.
Another thing, I would question is your judgement to leave Microsoft. That was the best company in your days, although now its Google. I still think Microsoft is number 2 employer with the kind of benefits and stability they provide. Hello ...... they had first layoffs in 2009 and that too only 5000. My wife works there and I have told her to put in many years there even before she considers a change. Why did you leave them man? You asked for all your present day troubles due to this decision.
Now you are saying , L1s will dump low cost MBAs. Do you know the value of IIMA? First qualify for the college and get a admission and then say it is low cost education. You are not even trying for that college, coz you know you wont get in. Now you can get 1 yr PGPX MBA in IIM-A for 20 lakh Rs (USD 40K), but I bet the quality of graduates is better than your 100K MBA. Before dismissing them as low cost, do some introspection of talent.
My friend did MBA from IIM-B, he is a top performer, today he is a managing partner in Wipro consulting. No doubt he started like me at 60K salary in US, but look at his performance and rise. I respect him a lot. He doesnt have GC yet. I have tons of friends from Whartons, Kellogs, UChicago , IIM-A etc. The college I respect most is IIM-A.
So before dismissing them as low cost, first try to get in there, qualify, refuse admission and then dismiss them as low cost. You are paying 100K for MBA is because you did not qualify for low cost MBA.
Another thing, I would question is your judgement to leave Microsoft. That was the best company in your days, although now its Google. I still think Microsoft is number 2 employer with the kind of benefits and stability they provide. Hello ...... they had first layoffs in 2009 and that too only 5000. My wife works there and I have told her to put in many years there even before she considers a change. Why did you leave them man? You asked for all your present day troubles due to this decision.
Now you are saying , L1s will dump low cost MBAs. Do you know the value of IIMA? First qualify for the college and get a admission and then say it is low cost education. You are not even trying for that college, coz you know you wont get in. Now you can get 1 yr PGPX MBA in IIM-A for 20 lakh Rs (USD 40K), but I bet the quality of graduates is better than your 100K MBA. Before dismissing them as low cost, do some introspection of talent.
My friend did MBA from IIM-B, he is a top performer, today he is a managing partner in Wipro consulting. No doubt he started like me at 60K salary in US, but look at his performance and rise. I respect him a lot. He doesnt have GC yet. I have tons of friends from Whartons, Kellogs, UChicago , IIM-A etc. The college I respect most is IIM-A.
So before dismissing them as low cost, first try to get in there, qualify, refuse admission and then dismiss them as low cost. You are paying 100K for MBA is because you did not qualify for low cost MBA.
more...
katrina
02-01 02:34 PM
US news has covered a book by David Heenan -- "Flight Capital" that essentially deals with the fact that high powered immigrants are leaving this country -- for whatever reason -- and how its bad for America. BAD FOR AMERICA. forget about it being bad of GC aspirants. ITS BAD FOR AMERICA. And we have one of america's own high powered former CEO saying that
http://www.flight-capital.com/
This man has no vested interested in talking about this. Obviously he does not need a GC and he is not on H1. He makes our case. How anti-immigration congressional measure are hurting America as a nation as much as it hurts aspiring immigrants.
This is an independent non-partisan source who can be quoted in our cause.
http://www.greatandhra.com/business/greencard_usa.html
and there is another good article with the same topic.
Check out this article in the Wall Street Journal - by Gary Becker, a Nobel Price Winner..alas this administration in immune to such logic
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
By GARY S. BECKER
November 30, 2005; Page A18
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
* * *
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
* * *
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
http://www.flight-capital.com/
This man has no vested interested in talking about this. Obviously he does not need a GC and he is not on H1. He makes our case. How anti-immigration congressional measure are hurting America as a nation as much as it hurts aspiring immigrants.
This is an independent non-partisan source who can be quoted in our cause.
http://www.greatandhra.com/business/greencard_usa.html
and there is another good article with the same topic.
Check out this article in the Wall Street Journal - by Gary Becker, a Nobel Price Winner..alas this administration in immune to such logic
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
By GARY S. BECKER
November 30, 2005; Page A18
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
* * *
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
* * *
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
sledge_hammer
05-29 11:42 AM
3.2K visas for EB2I includes all applicants. So regardless of what type of processing, the last person to get his GC is 19 years from now, correct?
I think you have not yet included those doing Consular Processing in your computation. CP accounts for about 20% of total usage.
I think you have not yet included those doing Consular Processing in your computation. CP accounts for about 20% of total usage.
more...
rajuram
02-14 11:51 PM
How would letting "people" know that there is a problem help? The only people that matter are politicians.
I tried to determine, on a separate thread, the wait times for EB-2 India, EB-3 ROW, and EB-3 India.
ANd I failed miserably. My models didn't make much sense. So I quit trying to come up with a reasonable, mathematical, estimate on the wait times.
The reason I was trying to determine wait times, was so that I could then convince people to join and contribute for IV. Basically, a media campaign, geared towards our base.
Anyway, the point of this post is this. I don't need reasonable, mathematical estimates. Maybe, all I need is a quote. A quote from someone knowledgeable, like Aman. Or some lawyers association. Some chimpanzee from USCIS. I don't know. Just something that says 'It will take 10-15 years for EB-3 India to get their greencards.' Or something like that for EB-3 ROW/EB-2 India.
That could be used to let people know that there IS a problem. Trust me. A huge majority doesn't even know that there is a problem.
I tried to determine, on a separate thread, the wait times for EB-2 India, EB-3 ROW, and EB-3 India.
ANd I failed miserably. My models didn't make much sense. So I quit trying to come up with a reasonable, mathematical, estimate on the wait times.
The reason I was trying to determine wait times, was so that I could then convince people to join and contribute for IV. Basically, a media campaign, geared towards our base.
Anyway, the point of this post is this. I don't need reasonable, mathematical estimates. Maybe, all I need is a quote. A quote from someone knowledgeable, like Aman. Or some lawyers association. Some chimpanzee from USCIS. I don't know. Just something that says 'It will take 10-15 years for EB-3 India to get their greencards.' Or something like that for EB-3 ROW/EB-2 India.
That could be used to let people know that there IS a problem. Trust me. A huge majority doesn't even know that there is a problem.
2010 Robert Pattinson
ganguteli
06-24 02:49 PM
..I am waiting for the punch line. What's the point of this? We all know it...
Same wine in a new marketing bottle by another lawyer.
Tell us something we do not already know.
Same wine in a new marketing bottle by another lawyer.
Tell us something we do not already know.
more...
software7
05-31 07:06 PM
this pending I485 applications include dependents
hair Photo: Robert Pattinson New
ItIsNotFunny
04-01 02:19 PM
I think Azhar is the best candidate. He has a long experience of bribing, corruption, managing team of corrups and deceiving the country :).
Nice one!
Nice one!
more...
dilipcr
06-12 03:05 AM
He has not learnt his lesson. Let him figure out why he was laid off thrice.
So you guys are saying that I was laid off thrice in 1 year because I was the rotten apple ? If this is how you guys are going to present arguments, I think I am wasting my time here.
I am not saying ALL companies are misusing are L1s/H1bs or all L1s/H1Bs are bad. All I am saying is that the outsourcing companies have no legality in using L1 visas for bringing in low wage programmers. I am only saying that ban the outsourcing companies from flooding this country with low wage workers. If you did not know, L1 was primarily meant for intra company transfer of high skilled managers and higher level executives.
<< Originally Posted by bubba
If you have seen any companies misuse the H1 and L1 visa, you can complain about them. Dont go screaming around that the whole H1 and L1 program is bad.
As I said, I am not saying that the entire H1/L1 is bad. It is just the select set of companies misusing the program that are causing a bad name.
Its because of people like you that a whole group gets a bad name due to some rotten apples. Btw, all your arguments dont seem to help the IV community.
If IV community is a community that is organized to work for the betterment of the best and brightest of the H1B, then I would hope that my arguments hold water. if IV community is working for all immigrants, including those who are here knowingly or unknowingly based on perpetual fraud then I am at the wrong place. If this is the case, I am fairly confident that it would be tough to gain the support of the GC holders and the naturalized citizens for the initiatives encompassing this entire gamut of visa holders.
Why are you even here on IV if your idealogy is not aligned with IV ? If you cant support us we dont need suggestions from a traitor like you
If your responses are going to be solely based on personal attacks and name calling, I dont think your arguments would hold strength. Trust me, I am one of the regional coordinators of Kiva.org, a microfinance organization for the poor, for southern India.In addition, I have been sponsoring 7 kids' tuitions at Udavum karangal in India. I have undertaken to sponsor their education till college. Currently they are in grade six. I am a self made man and wasnt born with a silver spoon. I was badly affected by the reservation policy, read 69% reservation, in Tamil Nadu. And you guys think I am traitor. What can I say ?
>>
So you guys are saying that I was laid off thrice in 1 year because I was the rotten apple ? If this is how you guys are going to present arguments, I think I am wasting my time here.
I am not saying ALL companies are misusing are L1s/H1bs or all L1s/H1Bs are bad. All I am saying is that the outsourcing companies have no legality in using L1 visas for bringing in low wage programmers. I am only saying that ban the outsourcing companies from flooding this country with low wage workers. If you did not know, L1 was primarily meant for intra company transfer of high skilled managers and higher level executives.
<< Originally Posted by bubba
If you have seen any companies misuse the H1 and L1 visa, you can complain about them. Dont go screaming around that the whole H1 and L1 program is bad.
As I said, I am not saying that the entire H1/L1 is bad. It is just the select set of companies misusing the program that are causing a bad name.
Its because of people like you that a whole group gets a bad name due to some rotten apples. Btw, all your arguments dont seem to help the IV community.
If IV community is a community that is organized to work for the betterment of the best and brightest of the H1B, then I would hope that my arguments hold water. if IV community is working for all immigrants, including those who are here knowingly or unknowingly based on perpetual fraud then I am at the wrong place. If this is the case, I am fairly confident that it would be tough to gain the support of the GC holders and the naturalized citizens for the initiatives encompassing this entire gamut of visa holders.
Why are you even here on IV if your idealogy is not aligned with IV ? If you cant support us we dont need suggestions from a traitor like you
If your responses are going to be solely based on personal attacks and name calling, I dont think your arguments would hold strength. Trust me, I am one of the regional coordinators of Kiva.org, a microfinance organization for the poor, for southern India.In addition, I have been sponsoring 7 kids' tuitions at Udavum karangal in India. I have undertaken to sponsor their education till college. Currently they are in grade six. I am a self made man and wasnt born with a silver spoon. I was badly affected by the reservation policy, read 69% reservation, in Tamil Nadu. And you guys think I am traitor. What can I say ?
>>
hot Robert Pattinson
m306m
02-14 01:48 PM
lazycis/hopefulgc I am willing to send $10 as a token of support for your initiative. I am impressed by your confidence and conviction. Let us form a new group and we will definitely get moral support from all good IV members. Personally I dont want to be plaintiff as I have too much to loose. But I support your group. Waiting for your direction.
I am willing to contribute $10 to get solid legal advice on this and I am willing to contribute a lot more in a lawsuit IF and ONLY IF there is a strong legal basis for it. I have voted NO on the poll, I would prefer we take a more conciliatory approach to USCIS. As the saying goes "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." Having said that, if IV were to go ahead with the lawsuit, I could be counted on to contribute financially.
I appreciate IV for its efforts. Happy V'Day.
I am willing to contribute $10 to get solid legal advice on this and I am willing to contribute a lot more in a lawsuit IF and ONLY IF there is a strong legal basis for it. I have voted NO on the poll, I would prefer we take a more conciliatory approach to USCIS. As the saying goes "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." Having said that, if IV were to go ahead with the lawsuit, I could be counted on to contribute financially.
I appreciate IV for its efforts. Happy V'Day.
more...
house wallpaper rad paisley
logiclife
06-26 01:17 PM
Thanks for making me look like an idiot in front of my lawyer and HR, everyone.
Based on RUMORs, I asked my lawyer this question:
I have a question about July Visa bulletin. If the August bulletin is retrogressed when announced in mid-July, can the USCIS change rules and stop accepting new Adjustment of status petitions in mid-July ? I know that it sounds illogical and that July bulletin's current dates would apply thru July 31st but I am hearing from my professional colleagues that USCIS could change rules and stop accepting new AOS petitions in middle of the month.
And I got this reply :
Yes, what you raise is quite illogical. The visa bulletin controls which AOS can be filed during the calendar month for which it is published, there is no way for USCIS to stop receiving an AOS application received say on July 16th. AOS is not like an H1B filing, where there is a finite # that must be received by a date certain and then allocated.
See, hear that ? "NO WAY FOR USCIS". Now, I dont know why some lawyers are spreading this nonsense that "BEWARE, USCIS will stop accepting new petitions if they receive 'too many petitions'. What is 'too many ??? Who defines 'too many'? Is 'too many' defined as the time when the mail room clerk gets back pain from lifting boxes of petitions ? Or the guy printing 485 receipt notices gets carpel tunnel syndrome ?
PLEASE PUT THIS IDEA TO REST. USCIS WILL ACCEPT PETITIONS THRU JULY 31, NO MATTER HOW TIRED THEY ARE AND NO MATTER HOW SICK THEY GET OF SEEING 485 FEDEXes COMING IN DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY. GOT IT ????
Based on RUMORs, I asked my lawyer this question:
I have a question about July Visa bulletin. If the August bulletin is retrogressed when announced in mid-July, can the USCIS change rules and stop accepting new Adjustment of status petitions in mid-July ? I know that it sounds illogical and that July bulletin's current dates would apply thru July 31st but I am hearing from my professional colleagues that USCIS could change rules and stop accepting new AOS petitions in middle of the month.
And I got this reply :
Yes, what you raise is quite illogical. The visa bulletin controls which AOS can be filed during the calendar month for which it is published, there is no way for USCIS to stop receiving an AOS application received say on July 16th. AOS is not like an H1B filing, where there is a finite # that must be received by a date certain and then allocated.
See, hear that ? "NO WAY FOR USCIS". Now, I dont know why some lawyers are spreading this nonsense that "BEWARE, USCIS will stop accepting new petitions if they receive 'too many petitions'. What is 'too many ??? Who defines 'too many'? Is 'too many' defined as the time when the mail room clerk gets back pain from lifting boxes of petitions ? Or the guy printing 485 receipt notices gets carpel tunnel syndrome ?
PLEASE PUT THIS IDEA TO REST. USCIS WILL ACCEPT PETITIONS THRU JULY 31, NO MATTER HOW TIRED THEY ARE AND NO MATTER HOW SICK THEY GET OF SEEING 485 FEDEXes COMING IN DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY. GOT IT ????
tattoo khalil Wallpaperlazzara
smuggymba
01-15 03:24 PM
I trust the talent of desi dallas, they will come up with a way to circumvent this:D
Their other talent includes asking some part of money from the employee from their salary every month so that they can give them money when they are on bench. They are genius. They come up with some serious fun stuff:eek:
I thought the same way as you did too. I am no fan of these job shop companies but remember some one will pay the price and face hardships I hope its just those companies not the employees. But the way things are if this gets effective employees can also get into a limbo - which I dont like - like say someone has gone for visa stamping and that gets denied or worst his/her family is still in the US - or something like that. Its true that the employee should try and look for a new job opportunity meeting new regulations but its not easy as it sounds.
More important point to consider is that new rules/regulations the way I understand it were suddenly implemented mid-stream - you cant do that. What if in after some time they apply same regulations to say people on EAD and using AC21 (i am still not clear whether it already applies to EAD we will have to wait for legal experts to comment) ? Or worse yet they come up with new regulations for people who already have their GC's approved ?
cinqsit
Their other talent includes asking some part of money from the employee from their salary every month so that they can give them money when they are on bench. They are genius. They come up with some serious fun stuff:eek:
I thought the same way as you did too. I am no fan of these job shop companies but remember some one will pay the price and face hardships I hope its just those companies not the employees. But the way things are if this gets effective employees can also get into a limbo - which I dont like - like say someone has gone for visa stamping and that gets denied or worst his/her family is still in the US - or something like that. Its true that the employee should try and look for a new job opportunity meeting new regulations but its not easy as it sounds.
More important point to consider is that new rules/regulations the way I understand it were suddenly implemented mid-stream - you cant do that. What if in after some time they apply same regulations to say people on EAD and using AC21 (i am still not clear whether it already applies to EAD we will have to wait for legal experts to comment) ? Or worse yet they come up with new regulations for people who already have their GC's approved ?
cinqsit
more...
pictures robert pattinson shirtless.
mirage
03-31 09:22 PM
You don't want to give any credit to 'Modi' than by your logic, Chandrababu Naidu shouldn't be give credit of 'Andhra' turnaround, Vajpayee shouldn't be given credit for Infrastructure turnaround...In India Politics & Politicians are so important, until they are pro-work, nothing works. UPA govt's attitude was sit & watch for Orders from 10 Janpath, so all of us know how they performed..A person who assists in the murder of people whom he has taken an oath to protect, cannot be really thinking about the country or for its development. By saying that HE is responsible for the development is clearly under estimating the capabilities of the gujrati people. The gujratis and rajasthanis are leaders in creating wealth and they did that for thousands of years successfully with world's envy before this ugly Indian came into picture. With your logic fodder eating Lalu is the smartest politician ever born....remember his $20Billion revenue he is bringing in from railways....never heard of from any sector...leave alone the ever losing railways...the only thing lalu can be given credit for is...not stopping the elite civil services managing directors and the academia (IIM, ISB) from doing their work...which they have been trying to for several decades....so I dont think the theory is right that one person (call him black spot of India) had done something....when each individual in the state is born with the blood which carries enterpreneurship.....kudos to all gujaratis....
dresses ian somerhalder shirtless
unitednations
02-14 12:02 AM
Another thing that is hard to understand is that if EB3 ROW is getting all the unused visas, how did EB2 move forward two years in 2006? It was moving 6 months at a time till May-06. Did USCIS change the way they interpret the law in May-06? That would be weird, they should have done it when they declared in Nov-05 bulletin that AC21 provisions are not expected to apply.
It is possible that USCIS is allocating unused EB2 visas to EB2 India and China after all, and it is not moving forward only because of backlogged EB2 Labors getting approved. We will know for sure in a few months. There are still several 2001 EB2 Non-RIR cases in the backlog as per
http://www..com/usa-immigration-trackers/dallas-backlog-tracker/
One of the other lawyers had reported I think it was in July 2006 that Chinese as a whole were on pace to get approved just less then 7% of the total quota. That is the only statistic available. EB3 row had significant movement in the last quarter because that is when the unused visas from eb1 and eb2 got released to eb3.
India went all the way back to 1998 because they were only eligible to get 250 greencards per month. There are substitute labors from that far back which people were using. I wasn't surpirsed when it went that far back becuase I knew a number of people who got these labors.
If the overflow from eb1 or eb2 were going to eb2 india/china then eb3 row would never have moved past 2001. A lot of the 245i candidates are from ROW. (russian, pakistan, brazil, south korean, etc.).
It is possible that USCIS is allocating unused EB2 visas to EB2 India and China after all, and it is not moving forward only because of backlogged EB2 Labors getting approved. We will know for sure in a few months. There are still several 2001 EB2 Non-RIR cases in the backlog as per
http://www..com/usa-immigration-trackers/dallas-backlog-tracker/
One of the other lawyers had reported I think it was in July 2006 that Chinese as a whole were on pace to get approved just less then 7% of the total quota. That is the only statistic available. EB3 row had significant movement in the last quarter because that is when the unused visas from eb1 and eb2 got released to eb3.
India went all the way back to 1998 because they were only eligible to get 250 greencards per month. There are substitute labors from that far back which people were using. I wasn't surpirsed when it went that far back becuase I knew a number of people who got these labors.
If the overflow from eb1 or eb2 were going to eb2 india/china then eb3 row would never have moved past 2001. A lot of the 245i candidates are from ROW. (russian, pakistan, brazil, south korean, etc.).
more...
makeup Antoniobanderas Shirtless
gc_chahiye
06-28 05:08 PM
Still, just because DOS told USCIS "Visas are exhausted" doesnt mean they should stop ACCEPTING new petitions. They can stop APPROVING new ones, but why stop ACCEPTING new petitions. Visa bulletins guide the filing as well as approval of petitions. If visa bulletins is current, then they can both accept and approve petitions.
right, and the worry (as is also noted in the AILA complaint that someone posted earlier) is that USCIS can consider the update from DOS to be the 'updated' Visa Bulletin.
There is nothing that prevents DOS from issuing a visa bulletin at any time and making it effective then-and-there. AILA has raised concerns with this, that it is a problematic thing to do, but it seems to be well within the law. I dont think there is a chance of a lawsuit here.
right, and the worry (as is also noted in the AILA complaint that someone posted earlier) is that USCIS can consider the update from DOS to be the 'updated' Visa Bulletin.
There is nothing that prevents DOS from issuing a visa bulletin at any time and making it effective then-and-there. AILA has raised concerns with this, that it is a problematic thing to do, but it seems to be well within the law. I dont think there is a chance of a lawsuit here.
girlfriend Remember when Robert Pattinson
lordoftherings
07-11 06:16 PM
Guys.. can one of you please suggest a good Canadian PR processing company? I keep getting mails from cr@protechimmigration.com. Is Protech good?
Would really appreciate a reply.
Maple International is very good if you are in the west
Would really appreciate a reply.
Maple International is very good if you are in the west
hairstyles Robert Pattinson and Sam
arunmurthy
09-17 03:23 PM
I wish the statement is true.
I think your friends cousin got the card by mistake, that does not mean that it will see a significant moment for EB3 I. The only possibility is if USICIS wants to recapture the unused visa numbers over a period of time, then EB2 I, EB3 I all move together.
I think you are correct. Lets see how the next bulletin turns out to be.
I just pray EB3I moves to June 05.
I think your friends cousin got the card by mistake, that does not mean that it will see a significant moment for EB3 I. The only possibility is if USICIS wants to recapture the unused visa numbers over a period of time, then EB2 I, EB3 I all move together.
I think you are correct. Lets see how the next bulletin turns out to be.
I just pray EB3I moves to June 05.
bitu72
10-04 12:04 AM
thanks amisha..any idea about the identity card number is it the ssn number we have in US. i can fill in that number and make a copy and get it notarized.
kuhelica2000
02-13 02:01 PM
Grupak, I am not suggesting any single country is monopolizing the foreign worker pool. Employment laws in the US are fairly non-discriminatory except the diversity in workplace or "Affarmative Action" component which prefers a minority when two candidates possess the same skills.
My comment was on someone suggesting moving ahead without the ROW participation since they only comprise 20% of the membership pool.
I don't understand this logic. We are talking about employment based GC.
Lets be clear that we are talking about people who are employed in the US and their employers have sponsored their green cards (except the EB2-NIW, EB1_EA). These people are employed because of their skill at jobs not their national origin.
Are you suggesting that somehow people of some countries have monopolized the foreign worker pool by born in the same country and NOT because of their skill.
Since we are talking about a privilege and benefit that comes from being employed in the US, you are actually suggesting that US employers should consider country of birth and not just skill in the employment.
Tell me how did the Chinese, Indian, Mexican and Filipino workers unfairly monopolized the foreign worker pool. As far as I am aware, these countries have large populations and a lot of Science and Engineering graduates happen to be from these countries.
The country cap makes sense in family based immigration system when extended beyond the immediate family members. IV is not for FB GC issues.
Again, employment in the US is based on skill not country of birth. The foreign workers are here because they are needed, and US will benefit by keeping these skilled workers long term. What IV is doing benefits all employment based GC.
My comment was on someone suggesting moving ahead without the ROW participation since they only comprise 20% of the membership pool.
I don't understand this logic. We are talking about employment based GC.
Lets be clear that we are talking about people who are employed in the US and their employers have sponsored their green cards (except the EB2-NIW, EB1_EA). These people are employed because of their skill at jobs not their national origin.
Are you suggesting that somehow people of some countries have monopolized the foreign worker pool by born in the same country and NOT because of their skill.
Since we are talking about a privilege and benefit that comes from being employed in the US, you are actually suggesting that US employers should consider country of birth and not just skill in the employment.
Tell me how did the Chinese, Indian, Mexican and Filipino workers unfairly monopolized the foreign worker pool. As far as I am aware, these countries have large populations and a lot of Science and Engineering graduates happen to be from these countries.
The country cap makes sense in family based immigration system when extended beyond the immediate family members. IV is not for FB GC issues.
Again, employment in the US is based on skill not country of birth. The foreign workers are here because they are needed, and US will benefit by keeping these skilled workers long term. What IV is doing benefits all employment based GC.