jsb
02-11 10:28 AM
i lostmy legal in 2002 (b2). during 2003 i won gc lottery . we did al paper work till last step.my lawyer toll me dont go couse deportation. In 2005 my employer apply gc for me (em3) In April 2006 I-140 aproved.now we waiting for priority date..
My question to you .. my lottery case priority date can be use for my eb3 case?
If you won a GC lottery, which many of us didn't, what is the problem. Didn't GC lottery supposed to get you a GC? Why did you need your employer to sponsor you again if you already won a GC lottery? We are puzzled.
My question to you .. my lottery case priority date can be use for my eb3 case?
If you won a GC lottery, which many of us didn't, what is the problem. Didn't GC lottery supposed to get you a GC? Why did you need your employer to sponsor you again if you already won a GC lottery? We are puzzled.
coopheal
07-31 02:01 PM
Six flags can make lot of money by basing a dangerous and wild ride based on VB dates Graph. :)
http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/Past_Visa_Bulletin_Data
They will have to put just one warning.
"Beware: Once you start the ride....
Only luckiest of you will be able to get out safely.
Most of you will be on this ride which has an endless loop.
Only real option for people who would like to end the ride would be to jump from the ride. We are certain there will damages but we are not responsible for them.
And yes we intentionally put this warning after the start of ride. Otherwise you wouldn't have decided to ride on it.
"
http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/Past_Visa_Bulletin_Data
They will have to put just one warning.
"Beware: Once you start the ride....
Only luckiest of you will be able to get out safely.
Most of you will be on this ride which has an endless loop.
Only real option for people who would like to end the ride would be to jump from the ride. We are certain there will damages but we are not responsible for them.
And yes we intentionally put this warning after the start of ride. Otherwise you wouldn't have decided to ride on it.
"
desi3933
06-25 10:14 AM
My Company is asking me to sign a new 2 year contract with them to get employment verification letter required for I-485. Is this legal?
It depends on the "Employment Agreement" and the state laws where your employer is based. Many times such agreement mention "damage amount" if the person leave before the expiry of such term.
IT may be good idea to consult a good lawyer.
Not a legal advice.
---------------------------
desi3933 at gmail.com
It depends on the "Employment Agreement" and the state laws where your employer is based. Many times such agreement mention "damage amount" if the person leave before the expiry of such term.
IT may be good idea to consult a good lawyer.
Not a legal advice.
---------------------------
desi3933 at gmail.com
CaliGC
06-15 02:49 PM
I am sorry I have no answer to your question but I would like to know how you found out the exact dates your names was cleared. This would be useful info for a lot of us here. Appreciate if you could share this with this forum
Well, I got to know in two ways.
1. My case was originally filed with vermont center and I had called and spoke to one of the immigration officer and I came to know it then (around year 2006).
2. Recently I moved my house and there was some correspondence that still went to the old address, I visited the Immigration office in San Jose, California to rectify the address and asked the immigration officer to check it for me.
Hope this helps.
Well, I got to know in two ways.
1. My case was originally filed with vermont center and I had called and spoke to one of the immigration officer and I came to know it then (around year 2006).
2. Recently I moved my house and there was some correspondence that still went to the old address, I visited the Immigration office in San Jose, California to rectify the address and asked the immigration officer to check it for me.
Hope this helps.
more...
mariner5555
07-17 08:25 PM
just wanted to confirm one thing again ..does this mean we should definitely be getting our EAD's ?? also I would urge all members to be active with IV ..till we get citizenships and even after that ..spread the word !! if we are united we can get things done ...
HereIComeGC
11-15 03:18 PM
Nope. Management activities fall into a different job code and you will be breaking AC21 rules by taking up this new role.
If your employer is cooperative and your lawyer is willing write the new job description to fall into the engineering category and not management, you may be OK. But if it is an "awesome" company as you put it, I doubt they will be willing to manipulate your job description.
Anyway, check with them and the lawyer before you give up.
Good luck
No Sir..Management is also included in 15-1031.00 - Computer Software Engineers, Applications. Here is quote from O*Net
"Supervise the work of programmers, technologists and technicians and other engineering and scientific personnel."
Link: http://online.onetcenter.org/link/summary/15-1031.00
If your employer is cooperative and your lawyer is willing write the new job description to fall into the engineering category and not management, you may be OK. But if it is an "awesome" company as you put it, I doubt they will be willing to manipulate your job description.
Anyway, check with them and the lawyer before you give up.
Good luck
No Sir..Management is also included in 15-1031.00 - Computer Software Engineers, Applications. Here is quote from O*Net
"Supervise the work of programmers, technologists and technicians and other engineering and scientific personnel."
Link: http://online.onetcenter.org/link/summary/15-1031.00
more...
champu
03-12 09:46 PM
Thank you all. I hope this year all of you would also sail through this tough journey.
paragpujara
04-05 08:11 AM
Guys,
Please reply. It's urgent. I have to accept or reject the full time offer in couple of days.
Your help will be really appreicated.
Please reply. It's urgent. I have to accept or reject the full time offer in couple of days.
Your help will be really appreicated.
more...
rskanth
08-08 06:19 PM
And you know this how?:confused:
k_sing
09-18 04:08 PM
This is H1B specifc though.. not taxation specifc for others
more...
pmb76
03-25 04:49 AM
This sustain act is total BS. They want to increase H1-B numbers without reforming the EB system. They do not want to increase EB numbers. They do not want to do away with country quotas. They don't have country quotas in H1-B. This just creates more and more backlogs for everyone. I HOPE THIS BILL DOESN'T PASS. The companies and lawmakers just want cheap labor without "paying" for it. Just a bunch of self-serving bigots !
adurthy
07-06 01:33 AM
I was in the same boat 2 years before , I opted for Kaiser and it costed about $200 per month.
more...
anai
06-04 10:36 AM
Thank you, guys! It is not clear whether Statistics is a STEM major, but I think it is reasonable that it is, since Statistics is a branh of Math. Some universities have Statistics departments and others have Statistics as a concentration in a Math graduate program.
As a statistician, can you not live with something like "There's an 80% chance that statistics is considered part of the "M" in STEM"?
(Couldn't resist. Just trying to find something humorous in our common misery.)
As a statistician, can you not live with something like "There's an 80% chance that statistics is considered part of the "M" in STEM"?
(Couldn't resist. Just trying to find something humorous in our common misery.)
Ryall
09-05 02:23 AM
hye I dunno what all of your opinions are, but I think that pixel stretching and similar effects that are so popular now - can more easily take away from a picture then add to it.... just MHO - seems like people use it 'cuz it is "in"
Peace
Peace
more...
admin
02-17 12:45 PM
Cataphract,
Great effort and thanks for taking the initiative. Given your proximity to Capitol Hill, it is very important to drum up support in your area. Also please encourage the people in the area to attend the rally. More info here http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=143
Great effort and thanks for taking the initiative. Given your proximity to Capitol Hill, it is very important to drum up support in your area. Also please encourage the people in the area to attend the rally. More info here http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=143
suratvoice
12-17 11:06 AM
Have you checked the job codes for the two jobs ? Just given this information, the new role does look similar. However, I would run this by an attorney just to be safe.
Where can I find these job codes, I can lookup the old job code because I have the 750, but for the new one, where can i find that, I just have the company's job posting...
Where can I find these job codes, I can lookup the old job code because I have the 750, but for the new one, where can i find that, I just have the company's job posting...
more...
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
dilipb
04-21 03:20 PM
This query is for a friend of mine.
His labor and 140 was pre-approved.
In jun 2007 he applied for 485 / EAD and AP.
He got EAD, is working on it.
He also used AP to go to india and back.
His H1 is already expired this month.
All he has is a new AP based new i94 which expires on the day his EAD expires.
Now his drivers license is expiring.
Does anyone know the documents he will be required to submit to DL center to get DL extended.
Also the most important thing is, can the DL somehow be extended for more than 1 year. Because doing this every year is a pain.
Thanks in advance.
His labor and 140 was pre-approved.
In jun 2007 he applied for 485 / EAD and AP.
He got EAD, is working on it.
He also used AP to go to india and back.
His H1 is already expired this month.
All he has is a new AP based new i94 which expires on the day his EAD expires.
Now his drivers license is expiring.
Does anyone know the documents he will be required to submit to DL center to get DL extended.
Also the most important thing is, can the DL somehow be extended for more than 1 year. Because doing this every year is a pain.
Thanks in advance.
extra_mint
11-29 05:32 PM
Did you try to appeal the denial ??
Mine was denied for the same reasons (denied no rfe) and my lawyer appealed and it worked and I-140 approved.
Try to see if you can appeal. If I am not wrong you can appeal within 30 days of denial.
Guys,
I want to know what are the chances of getting I-140 approve if we file a new petition and current I-140 appeal process is pending with USCIS. My I-140 was denied on education basis. In denial notice USCIS wrote that we did not prove that my 3+3 (Diploma + Engg degree from India) degree is not equivalent to B.S in Computer science from Labor certification.
Guys please share your experience with me since its important for me to get I-140 approve for future growth.
Thanks
Mine was denied for the same reasons (denied no rfe) and my lawyer appealed and it worked and I-140 approved.
Try to see if you can appeal. If I am not wrong you can appeal within 30 days of denial.
Guys,
I want to know what are the chances of getting I-140 approve if we file a new petition and current I-140 appeal process is pending with USCIS. My I-140 was denied on education basis. In denial notice USCIS wrote that we did not prove that my 3+3 (Diploma + Engg degree from India) degree is not equivalent to B.S in Computer science from Labor certification.
Guys please share your experience with me since its important for me to get I-140 approve for future growth.
Thanks
fromnaija
12-09 04:09 PM
According to my attorney, you can re-apply for AP from outside of the U.S. and have it delivered to a local consulate.
I will not argue with what your lawyer tells you.
However, because Form I-131 is used for multiple purposes, some of the instructions are applicable to one condition and not to the other. So read the instruction again and you will see that some of the references to sending the document to overseas consulate refers to when it's used as a Reentry Permit, Refuge Travel Document, or as Advanced Parole for humanitarian reasons. For someone who applied for AOS, sorry no such luck.
I will not argue with what your lawyer tells you.
However, because Form I-131 is used for multiple purposes, some of the instructions are applicable to one condition and not to the other. So read the instruction again and you will see that some of the references to sending the document to overseas consulate refers to when it's used as a Reentry Permit, Refuge Travel Document, or as Advanced Parole for humanitarian reasons. For someone who applied for AOS, sorry no such luck.
DesBhakt
03-09 06:03 PM
:D Fun post psaxena
Nice dream but come to reality, dont even dream of GC till year 2019...... (if it goes in current pace).
Since OP is talking about GC at retirement his dream is about the year 2019 or beyond.
Nice dream but come to reality, dont even dream of GC till year 2019...... (if it goes in current pace).
Since OP is talking about GC at retirement his dream is about the year 2019 or beyond.
Did you know that that you can make money by locking selected areas of your blog or website?
ReplyDeleteSimply open an account on AdscendMedia and embed their content locking widget.