diesel
05-25 08:51 AM
The immigration council said he will pass our concern to the senator.
lazycis
12-11 09:19 AM
6 months according to the USCIS website
bskrishna
04-12 07:50 PM
In other words we can go through CompeteAmerica, as this is the umbrella organization working in this area?
pappu
11-14 02:40 PM
Lawyer told me that I cannot contest. They screwed it up some thing
there is always some way...
pls quote the exact sentences of your rejection letter here. we need to know a reason for your rejection.
ask your lawyer or find out exactly what they screwed up.
also let us know
- is your lawyer a company lawyer or your lawyer
- what is the status of your company--- big/small/ many h1b/ what about others in your company on LC applications..etc
- did the comapny do ads? do you have the material or copy of everything that was sent?
- is your company making profits. how many employees?
- eb2 or eb3
- has anyone been rejected before in your company?
- how much time do you have on h1b
there is always some way...
pls quote the exact sentences of your rejection letter here. we need to know a reason for your rejection.
ask your lawyer or find out exactly what they screwed up.
also let us know
- is your lawyer a company lawyer or your lawyer
- what is the status of your company--- big/small/ many h1b/ what about others in your company on LC applications..etc
- did the comapny do ads? do you have the material or copy of everything that was sent?
- is your company making profits. how many employees?
- eb2 or eb3
- has anyone been rejected before in your company?
- how much time do you have on h1b
more...
manderson
03-17 11:02 AM
I think becoz of anti-immigrant trolls on this website such activities has been taken offline to State Chapters. If you really want to participate then it's best to join your State Chapter:
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72&Itemid=52
I checked the full text of this bill, it does not have anything else besides temporary quota increase for H-1B.
How can we actively participate in this process? How can we find out about such bills when they are still in the works and make suggestions to the lawmakers to include relief for EB issues?
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72&Itemid=52
I checked the full text of this bill, it does not have anything else besides temporary quota increase for H-1B.
How can we actively participate in this process? How can we find out about such bills when they are still in the works and make suggestions to the lawmakers to include relief for EB issues?
RandyK
01-03 04:12 PM
I am waiting to sign up for the monthly.
I don't think it is a good idea to restrict members by the amount they contribute. As we already know we only have around 200 members that actually contribute financially out of the 7K membership.
We are a grassroots organization we need all the foot solders we can get (remember how effective it was in December, when we mobilized together). Restricting users would turn members away and when we loose them, we loose them for good. There will not be any references from those who leave.
Remember Howard Dean's fund raising campaign mostly they collected $10 and $20 not just big amounts for his presidential campaign. We must take what we can and encourage members to participate. When members see what we do they will volunteer.
A first time visitor to our website is not going to trust us to give money with out knowing what we are all about. When we restrict them they will never know what we are doing.
Just think about it. Would you do it?
I don't think it is a good idea to restrict members by the amount they contribute. As we already know we only have around 200 members that actually contribute financially out of the 7K membership.
We are a grassroots organization we need all the foot solders we can get (remember how effective it was in December, when we mobilized together). Restricting users would turn members away and when we loose them, we loose them for good. There will not be any references from those who leave.
Remember Howard Dean's fund raising campaign mostly they collected $10 and $20 not just big amounts for his presidential campaign. We must take what we can and encourage members to participate. When members see what we do they will volunteer.
A first time visitor to our website is not going to trust us to give money with out knowing what we are all about. When we restrict them they will never know what we are doing.
Just think about it. Would you do it?
more...
nozerd
03-25 07:59 PM
Awesome airline. I would pay $ 100 premium over other airlines to travel via Emirates. Excellent food and service. Cool stewerdesses too.
mmanurker
12-31 04:36 PM
Is your PD is current ? Goodluck any how.
I have a loooonnnngg wait...my PD is Dec'2003 EB3-I. What is ur PD?
I have a loooonnnngg wait...my PD is Dec'2003 EB3-I. What is ur PD?
more...
ghost
08-21 03:09 PM
You are right and it is disastrous unless some law passes. More information can be found at: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1358
indianabacklog
07-27 09:32 AM
I don't think its required to work 100% while you an EAD, most of us apply EAD for spouses along with us, but how many are going to start work?
EAD is like a free pass to "living". You have the choice to work, not to work, work for yourself, change employer when you wish etc.
However, if you are the primary applicant if at all possible stay with your H1B employer and let your dependent have this luxury.
EAD is like a free pass to "living". You have the choice to work, not to work, work for yourself, change employer when you wish etc.
However, if you are the primary applicant if at all possible stay with your H1B employer and let your dependent have this luxury.
more...
pappu
04-10 02:21 PM
Active members are requested to urge others to update their profile details for the tracker. If you find someone's profile has fake details, please give them a red dot.
Admins go through users with most red dots occasionally
Admins go through users with most red dots occasionally
at0474
01-09 03:14 PM
I know at least 5 colleagues with early-mid 2001 PDs who applied 485 last year. They're still waiting. Admire their patience.
--I suppose this year's quota for EB3 India is not yet used (as small it may seem). My guess is, when EB3 processing begins, it should get your collegues out in 6 to 9 months from now.
--I suppose this year's quota for EB3 India is not yet used (as small it may seem). My guess is, when EB3 processing begins, it should get your collegues out in 6 to 9 months from now.
more...
LondonTown
03-08 03:38 PM
Londontown
sorry to hear about your denial.
Regarding my friend, His 140 was denied but he was already on EAD by then.His 485 was not denied ( maybe they were not processing his 485 at that point.He is a july 07 filer under EB3-I). The appeal for 140 denial was filed and it is still pending(8 months now). Meanwhile a 2 yr EAD has been approved.
I am not sure if this process is followed for everyone as each case has its variables.....
hope this helps...
Thank you for your reply.
If you can ask, what documents your friend submitted to renew the EADs-- Was it pending 485 receipts OR appeal receipt for I-140?
sorry to hear about your denial.
Regarding my friend, His 140 was denied but he was already on EAD by then.His 485 was not denied ( maybe they were not processing his 485 at that point.He is a july 07 filer under EB3-I). The appeal for 140 denial was filed and it is still pending(8 months now). Meanwhile a 2 yr EAD has been approved.
I am not sure if this process is followed for everyone as each case has its variables.....
hope this helps...
Thank you for your reply.
If you can ask, what documents your friend submitted to renew the EADs-- Was it pending 485 receipts OR appeal receipt for I-140?
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
more...
gc28262
04-01 10:54 PM
Regarding your H1B status, please read the following newsletter from murthy.com
Effect of Travel While in H1B / L-1 Status and Pending I-485 (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_efftrv.html)
Traveling on AP doesn't necessarily switch you out of H1B. If you are working for the same employer after entering on AP, you can still extend your H1 and continue to be on H1 status.
Based on my limited understanding, your lawyer is wrong when he says "3 year degree issue is mostly with PERM applications and not with others". 3 year degree issue comes up during I-140 stage. Nowadays USCIS has a strict requirement that the degree should be a "single source" 4 year degree for EB2 applications.
As for the successful outcome of trying to downgrade your application to EB3, your labor certification should be flexible enough to allow your application to be downgraded to EB3.
IMO it is better to get a second opinion/consultation with a reputed lawyer. If I were you I wouldn't trust your current lawyer.
Effect of Travel While in H1B / L-1 Status and Pending I-485 (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_efftrv.html)
Traveling on AP doesn't necessarily switch you out of H1B. If you are working for the same employer after entering on AP, you can still extend your H1 and continue to be on H1 status.
Based on my limited understanding, your lawyer is wrong when he says "3 year degree issue is mostly with PERM applications and not with others". 3 year degree issue comes up during I-140 stage. Nowadays USCIS has a strict requirement that the degree should be a "single source" 4 year degree for EB2 applications.
As for the successful outcome of trying to downgrade your application to EB3, your labor certification should be flexible enough to allow your application to be downgraded to EB3.
IMO it is better to get a second opinion/consultation with a reputed lawyer. If I were you I wouldn't trust your current lawyer.
peer123
04-04 04:54 AM
,,,,, others please weigh in
more...
akred
07-07 12:57 PM
Rated 5 stars.
stirfries
12-01 08:02 PM
It sometimes take longer than few days. During my years of getting AP's every year there are times I had my AP in hand within 3 days to almost 20 days. I am confident you will get your AP document much before the end of the month. Good luck with your travel plans.
Thanks SS777 !!!
I am optimistic as well !!! I am just hoping that I receive the documents by end of this week !
But at the same time, I wouldn't want to sit idle, just hoping !!! :)
I am going to try whatever options that might be available, to speed up the document receipt, if it is possible !!!
Probably, I can set up an appointment with InfoPass, sometime next week, and see what they have to say about this...
The scary part is, I have read several posts by other users who had reported the loss of document once it has been mailed out by USCIS. I hope I do not fall into that category and I want to be aware of the next course of action, if indeed, I fall into that category.
Cancelling my Tickets is the last option that I have in my mind !!!
The things that we have to go through to get a GC !!!! :)
Thanks SS777 !!!
I am optimistic as well !!! I am just hoping that I receive the documents by end of this week !
But at the same time, I wouldn't want to sit idle, just hoping !!! :)
I am going to try whatever options that might be available, to speed up the document receipt, if it is possible !!!
Probably, I can set up an appointment with InfoPass, sometime next week, and see what they have to say about this...
The scary part is, I have read several posts by other users who had reported the loss of document once it has been mailed out by USCIS. I hope I do not fall into that category and I want to be aware of the next course of action, if indeed, I fall into that category.
Cancelling my Tickets is the last option that I have in my mind !!!
The things that we have to go through to get a GC !!!! :)
Kevin M
April 3rd, 2005, 04:58 PM
An alternative treatment would be to dual process (I am assuming it is a raw file). The one above looks about right for the sky area. Another conversion with + exposure compensation for the shadows and blend the two in your editing software.
Nice image of Half Dome.
Kevin
http://homepage.eircom.net/~bot/paint/photo.htm
Nice image of Half Dome.
Kevin
http://homepage.eircom.net/~bot/paint/photo.htm
babu123
08-20 03:41 PM
Call 1-800-375-5283
options 1 2 2 6 2 2 1
At level 1, tell you didnt received receipt nbr and check not encashed.
You will be transfered to level 2. The officer at level 2 has access to check the name status.
Myself and my wife got the information. But some of my friends are not receiving the information. Good luck
options 1 2 2 6 2 2 1
At level 1, tell you didnt received receipt nbr and check not encashed.
You will be transfered to level 2. The officer at level 2 has access to check the name status.
Myself and my wife got the information. But some of my friends are not receiving the information. Good luck
Bytes4Lunch
03-07 10:12 AM
"dingudi" , Throughout every immigration forums, everyone mentions the use of AP in such cases.
I consulted with 3 attorneys, 2 of them were attorneys for fortune 500 companies and they clearly suggested that its ok to come back on the AP. The only thing one of the attorneys had mentioned was that I could be in for questionning if my h1B visa application was pending due to security clearance, which I knew it was not after I spoke with the consulate. So I think I have to disagree with you on this one.
If I would have used AP very carefully like you mentioned I would have been stuck for weeks, possibly months and that was starting to affect my work with my employer. A week vacation in India became more than a month.
I consulted with 3 attorneys, 2 of them were attorneys for fortune 500 companies and they clearly suggested that its ok to come back on the AP. The only thing one of the attorneys had mentioned was that I could be in for questionning if my h1B visa application was pending due to security clearance, which I knew it was not after I spoke with the consulate. So I think I have to disagree with you on this one.
If I would have used AP very carefully like you mentioned I would have been stuck for weeks, possibly months and that was starting to affect my work with my employer. A week vacation in India became more than a month.
