sweet_jungle
02-20 12:59 AM
How come these people do not get caught during H-1 approval process or during visa stamping at consulate or maybe later during GC process?
[QUOTE=chanduv23]Thats a new trend. They go to colleges and meet a group of Indian students who are about to graduate and take them out of drinks and dinner and give a presentation about their company. Then when these students come into OPT status, they are all given food + guest house accomodation. Then they are put under intense training for 2 to 3 months and made to do some mockup projects. Then their resumes are massaged with 4 to 5 years of experience ie experience from date they graduated in the under graduation and their MS education is stripped off on their resumes.
[QUOTE=chanduv23]Thats a new trend. They go to colleges and meet a group of Indian students who are about to graduate and take them out of drinks and dinner and give a presentation about their company. Then when these students come into OPT status, they are all given food + guest house accomodation. Then they are put under intense training for 2 to 3 months and made to do some mockup projects. Then their resumes are massaged with 4 to 5 years of experience ie experience from date they graduated in the under graduation and their MS education is stripped off on their resumes.
wallpaper Tweet. wallpaper, quote
vavs16
12-28 07:18 PM
Hi guys
If anyone here is enrolling at ONLINE program in U of South Dakota,please let me know
I am enrolling in there soon - it is accredited :)
Thanks a ton
If anyone here is enrolling at ONLINE program in U of South Dakota,please let me know
I am enrolling in there soon - it is accredited :)
Thanks a ton
ozone123
07-16 09:25 PM
Just posted this reply at http://www.numbersusa.com/helpform
Hello,
I happened to come across your fax initiative "Ask your Members of Congress to oppose the SKIL Act H-1B increases".
Seems like you have got many facts wrong.
I'm surprised that an advocacy group as yours would try to make statements that would dilute your own credibility.
Below are some corrections,
"(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies."
The above statement is a matter of perspective. People can still come on visitor visas and have babies here.In any case, I personally do know of people who have gone back to their own countries to have their babies.
"(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers."
The above statement in COMPLETELY incorrect.
Everyone on H1-B is required to pay federal, state, medicaid, Social Security and other taxes that any other native employee would pay.
On the other hand, H1-B employees dont stand to gain from the Social Security when they relocate back to their country after 6 years.
(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.
This is incorrect too.H1-B requires labor clearance and specific skills, even for h1-b transfers.
(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.
You got to be kidding.There is no such thing.
I would appreciate it if you can quote any official source of this info.
Well,I'm sure that the well versed senators and congressmen will be aware of these facts, and you are only losing you own credibility with them.
The trust will be out soon.
Sincerely.
XXXXX
Hello,
I happened to come across your fax initiative "Ask your Members of Congress to oppose the SKIL Act H-1B increases".
Seems like you have got many facts wrong.
I'm surprised that an advocacy group as yours would try to make statements that would dilute your own credibility.
Below are some corrections,
"(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies."
The above statement is a matter of perspective. People can still come on visitor visas and have babies here.In any case, I personally do know of people who have gone back to their own countries to have their babies.
"(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers."
The above statement in COMPLETELY incorrect.
Everyone on H1-B is required to pay federal, state, medicaid, Social Security and other taxes that any other native employee would pay.
On the other hand, H1-B employees dont stand to gain from the Social Security when they relocate back to their country after 6 years.
(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.
This is incorrect too.H1-B requires labor clearance and specific skills, even for h1-b transfers.
(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.
You got to be kidding.There is no such thing.
I would appreciate it if you can quote any official source of this info.
Well,I'm sure that the well versed senators and congressmen will be aware of these facts, and you are only losing you own credibility with them.
The trust will be out soon.
Sincerely.
XXXXX
2011 LENARDO DA VINCI
ars01
07-24 11:14 AM
I agree with jcmenon. We want to push for filing of Adjustment of Status or I-485 application to get EAD, Advance parole, etc. We are not asking to be given that status. The law says the status will only be given if the numbers are available. I think that is exactly what we are trying for in SKIL BILL as well. I think it is worth pursuing this option directly with USCIS.
more...
DDD
02-18 12:14 AM
every package except LW has a free trial.
neelu
12-12 10:48 AM
We have asked an immigration lawyer this question. Someone even quoted all the sections of INA and CFR(code of federal regulations) to make the point -- that you can have regulation changed to file 485.
The lawyer was of the opinion that you need change in INA to be able to file 485 when dates are not current. It cannot be done with administrative changes.
Hi Logiclife,
If an attorney says that it cannot be done with administrative changes, then I guess, we dont have much to argue.
But I cannot understand the logic behind why it cant be done. I mean, disallowing concurrent processing is possible by an administrative change, why is the reverse (or something similar like allowing 485 filing without pd being current), not possible?
I am sorry for not being to let go of this, but I thought, logic-life can see some logic in this!!! :)
Thank you.
The lawyer was of the opinion that you need change in INA to be able to file 485 when dates are not current. It cannot be done with administrative changes.
Hi Logiclife,
If an attorney says that it cannot be done with administrative changes, then I guess, we dont have much to argue.
But I cannot understand the logic behind why it cant be done. I mean, disallowing concurrent processing is possible by an administrative change, why is the reverse (or something similar like allowing 485 filing without pd being current), not possible?
I am sorry for not being to let go of this, but I thought, logic-life can see some logic in this!!! :)
Thank you.
more...
pbojja
12-10 11:45 AM
With all the porting nonsense going on eb2 will move backward and eb3 will inch forward slowly. We might end up with eb2 and eb3 in 2002. congrats to all the people who ported, the only thing you accomplished is you made sure eb2 does not progress (it does not mean you have have moved forward by porting, it just means that you have made sure you have prevented original eb2 guys from getting green card), the people who ported wont gain any benefit but they will make it worse for everyone, they have to file a second i140 which will take at least another 1 year to clear and after 1 year when the ported 140's clear the eb2 will go back to 2002. You have also accomplished another great feat, DOL is going to make it impossible to file eb2 in IT jobs so even genuine people are screwed. Before people start giving red dots and justifying there porting I have an message for you, your behavior is no different from the people who did labor substitution, the end result was DOL ended labor substitution and the result of all this porting is DOL has made it impossible to get eb2 even for genuine cases. Just because others are doing it does not mean you can do it, obviously it is wrong therefore dol removed labor substitution and now dol is making it impossible to get eb2 for IT jobs even for genuine cases. 90 % of people doing this porting are desi consulting employees, they wine and complain about desi consulting companies as blood suckers (justifiably) but they themselves are bloodsuckers on the EB2 community by doing this eb3 to eb2 porting.
Stop the non-sense . As if USCIS-DOL knows exactly how many portings are going on ..do you think all the movement of this dates make sense ? just check last year movements .. they have no theory no logic or no numbers they just move with no logic ... At the end of year they move to 2006 or 2007and back to 2003 next year ..
I m EB2 2006 and I have no problems with portings ..go for it EB3 folks ..I know it will be a year or more process but worth it , I think EB3 early 2000 folks deserve GC than a 2006-2007 EB2 folks(Dont think you are genious just because you are EB2 ..we know we all do same jobs).
I m ready for reds and dont care a bit .
Stop the non-sense . As if USCIS-DOL knows exactly how many portings are going on ..do you think all the movement of this dates make sense ? just check last year movements .. they have no theory no logic or no numbers they just move with no logic ... At the end of year they move to 2006 or 2007and back to 2003 next year ..
I m EB2 2006 and I have no problems with portings ..go for it EB3 folks ..I know it will be a year or more process but worth it , I think EB3 early 2000 folks deserve GC than a 2006-2007 EB2 folks(Dont think you are genious just because you are EB2 ..we know we all do same jobs).
I m ready for reds and dont care a bit .
2010 Wallpaper - Leonardo Da Vinci
battineni
08-12 09:47 AM
How come a person with EB2 category applied GC in 2006 doing the same thing that a EB3 person does who applied GC in 2002 gets their Green Cards approved?? Again not against any category...What in the world of kinda rationale is this is??
not even 2002, it's just 01Jan2002, means only 2001.
EB2 person who applied for greencard in 2006 getting the GC wth the person who applied in EB2 - 2006.
This gap between EB2 and EB3 is keep on increasing....
EB2 move is in Months....EB3 move not even in Days...
I'm not against EB2... but just comparing.:(
not even 2002, it's just 01Jan2002, means only 2001.
EB2 person who applied for greencard in 2006 getting the GC wth the person who applied in EB2 - 2006.
This gap between EB2 and EB3 is keep on increasing....
EB2 move is in Months....EB3 move not even in Days...
I'm not against EB2... but just comparing.:(
more...
walking_dude
10-28 11:46 PM
I sent mine. Did you send yours?
hair Leonardo da Vinci is one of
chanduv23
03-09 12:31 PM
VDLRao is ONLY a stress reliever - not to be taken seriously.
I am surprised that the community still does not realize the gravity of the situation and still thinks and plays the "positive attitude" game on their own lives.
Hello - economy is tanking and right now, we cannot see any positive movement in near future.
Please be prepared to protect yourself from job layoffs and immigration challenges rather than sitting and playing the predictions game
I am surprised that the community still does not realize the gravity of the situation and still thinks and plays the "positive attitude" game on their own lives.
Hello - economy is tanking and right now, we cannot see any positive movement in near future.
Please be prepared to protect yourself from job layoffs and immigration challenges rather than sitting and playing the predictions game
more...
gcseeker2002
03-20 07:56 PM
How do you know that the labour process has slowed down from Mar 01 2011 ? Any source for this info? Please share.
Yes I would also like to know where it says that Labor process is stalled from Mar 1st,as it is impacting my current decision.
Yes I would also like to know where it says that Labor process is stalled from Mar 1st,as it is impacting my current decision.
hot Leonardo da Vinci Treasury
Morty
08-07 02:55 PM
Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident.
On August 7, 2008, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within 60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later. If you move before you get your new card call customer service. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
PD: July 2004
RD: July 3rd 2007
ND: Sept 12th 2007
I-140 Approved May 2007
Service Center: NSC
Name check: Pending (when I had infopass a week ago)
Thanks guys. I wish every one good luck, and I am going to contribute my advise, and suggestions.
I opended SR 3 weeks ago, On Monday I used POJ method to talk to IO. She said, my case has been assigned to officer. Today got this status updated.
Congrats Myvoice23. Enjoy the new found freedom.
I tried to contact IO using POJ method(as from your profile) but the call landed at USCIS customer service. The lady checked and said the current processing time is one month behind my notice date and she cannot do any thing at this time. She asked me to call when the processing time is past my notice date so that she can open SR.
Current Status: Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident.
On August 7, 2008, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within 60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later. If you move before you get your new card call customer service. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
PD: July 2004
RD: July 3rd 2007
ND: Sept 12th 2007
I-140 Approved May 2007
Service Center: NSC
Name check: Pending (when I had infopass a week ago)
Thanks guys. I wish every one good luck, and I am going to contribute my advise, and suggestions.
I opended SR 3 weeks ago, On Monday I used POJ method to talk to IO. She said, my case has been assigned to officer. Today got this status updated.
Congrats Myvoice23. Enjoy the new found freedom.
I tried to contact IO using POJ method(as from your profile) but the call landed at USCIS customer service. The lady checked and said the current processing time is one month behind my notice date and she cannot do any thing at this time. She asked me to call when the processing time is past my notice date so that she can open SR.
more...
house Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)
frostrated
06-11 03:55 PM
Done. Sent to senators in Texas. Also sent to house members just so that they are aware.
Sent to all friends : Citizens, GC holders and those in the same boat as us. Even sent to native born Americans to help us to help their country.
Sent to all friends : Citizens, GC holders and those in the same boat as us. Even sent to native born Americans to help us to help their country.
tattoo St. John the Baptist, Da Vinci Leonardo Wallpapers
coopheal
03-20 11:31 AM
I work for a very reputed company. Lawyers filed EB3 because it was easy for them. At that time everything was current and nobody really cared about EB2/EB3.
Don�t give me moral argument about cutting lines. If someone is qualified for EB2 and position needs EB2 qualified and person is already in process of GC with EB3, he/she has every right to move over to EB2. Don�t even try to equate this with lab subs.
If desi company�s are misusing it then put proper review/audit for it. That doesn�t mean I cannot join an EB2 job and not switch over. You can say however loud you want � no one would listen and no one should listen to you.
Hi Coopheal:
With Due respects to your Seniority and Agony/ Frustration being retrogessed.
Standard Companies donot opt for having two I140s approved for a particular employees which is a "Logical Fallacy" of EB concept. Leave alone Rat Desi Companies.. They can do anything and turn the boards off..
If your arguement is right: first you have to stop L1s getting Gcs in less than 10 months.. (on an average). Porting EB3 to Eb2 is a big junk and disrepct to the EB2 Qualifier. Now, Qualifying Eb2, if you feel, is not a big deal, why the companies did not preferred it out for Eb3s in first place because lack of Job Requirements. (infact, this portings have to be highlighted to USCIS as Junk technique and illegal).
So the whole arguement doesnot workout. Soon, wait and see Portings would bestopped, with Desi companies messing itaround like Approved labors (infact, it isa refined version of approved labor scams).
Please donot jump on me.. its a waste of time.. But the logic holds good EB2 Vs. EB3. If allowed, People may even qualify for EB1, (People would work it out also sooner or later) Let's respect each other profiles.. and its a matter of time we are all there.
This is my Honest Advice.. Trust me. I am a 2003 eb3 victim.. No way to jump lines.. its inhuman.
Thanks,
Don�t give me moral argument about cutting lines. If someone is qualified for EB2 and position needs EB2 qualified and person is already in process of GC with EB3, he/she has every right to move over to EB2. Don�t even try to equate this with lab subs.
If desi company�s are misusing it then put proper review/audit for it. That doesn�t mean I cannot join an EB2 job and not switch over. You can say however loud you want � no one would listen and no one should listen to you.
Hi Coopheal:
With Due respects to your Seniority and Agony/ Frustration being retrogessed.
Standard Companies donot opt for having two I140s approved for a particular employees which is a "Logical Fallacy" of EB concept. Leave alone Rat Desi Companies.. They can do anything and turn the boards off..
If your arguement is right: first you have to stop L1s getting Gcs in less than 10 months.. (on an average). Porting EB3 to Eb2 is a big junk and disrepct to the EB2 Qualifier. Now, Qualifying Eb2, if you feel, is not a big deal, why the companies did not preferred it out for Eb3s in first place because lack of Job Requirements. (infact, this portings have to be highlighted to USCIS as Junk technique and illegal).
So the whole arguement doesnot workout. Soon, wait and see Portings would bestopped, with Desi companies messing itaround like Approved labors (infact, it isa refined version of approved labor scams).
Please donot jump on me.. its a waste of time.. But the logic holds good EB2 Vs. EB3. If allowed, People may even qualify for EB1, (People would work it out also sooner or later) Let's respect each other profiles.. and its a matter of time we are all there.
This is my Honest Advice.. Trust me. I am a 2003 eb3 victim.. No way to jump lines.. its inhuman.
Thanks,
more...
pictures Leonardo, da Vinci
shivaz90
07-13 11:44 AM
Reading through this thread I find this intense debate about the value and intentions of Murthy's letter.
Let's first deal with the value part: This letter could be from any one of us or anybody else from Timbuktu. Why does this letter have any special significance except that the DHS secretary may read it because Murthy and the secretary are alumni of the same institution (see how carefully this part is added to the letter for our consumption). Now this feeds into the intention part. Even if Murthy wrote a letter to the DHS Secretary why did she have to publicize it on her website (except for the gullible among us to take notice). Generally publicized letters have value if they are from some influential policy maker or lawmaker. In this case Murthy is neither and so her letter does not add or subtract any value to this debate. So we are left with the question of who gains by publicizing this letter. Your guess is as good as mine.
Ultimately I am left wondering why this thread was started in the first place except to garner cheap publicity. Do we really have so much time on our hands?
"Why does Murthy publicize such a letter?" - well it means that she has a client base who needs to know what she is doing in her capacity as thier attorney. Second - there are thousands of Murthy.com members who are neither her client nor her well wishers - but who go to her site to find what is going on latest in the world of Immigration. Not to discredit anyone's effort in this issue - ask any immigrant or potential immigrant into this country about immigration related question, I can guarantee you that they have gained almost all thier knowledge about the process from Murthy.com site. Intended or unintended - the message to DHS is welcome, particularly at this time, be it from whoever.
Anyone who has been a regular murthy.com visitor knows that her site consists of all her interactions with all the Agency people and government officials regarding immigration. Its called the "Internet". People post stuff - period! If it is meant to garner attention, yes, people will post messages. Its far better than a bunch of goof balls posting in youtube about thier experience with coke and spearmint. Please come out of the caves - people.
Let's first deal with the value part: This letter could be from any one of us or anybody else from Timbuktu. Why does this letter have any special significance except that the DHS secretary may read it because Murthy and the secretary are alumni of the same institution (see how carefully this part is added to the letter for our consumption). Now this feeds into the intention part. Even if Murthy wrote a letter to the DHS Secretary why did she have to publicize it on her website (except for the gullible among us to take notice). Generally publicized letters have value if they are from some influential policy maker or lawmaker. In this case Murthy is neither and so her letter does not add or subtract any value to this debate. So we are left with the question of who gains by publicizing this letter. Your guess is as good as mine.
Ultimately I am left wondering why this thread was started in the first place except to garner cheap publicity. Do we really have so much time on our hands?
"Why does Murthy publicize such a letter?" - well it means that she has a client base who needs to know what she is doing in her capacity as thier attorney. Second - there are thousands of Murthy.com members who are neither her client nor her well wishers - but who go to her site to find what is going on latest in the world of Immigration. Not to discredit anyone's effort in this issue - ask any immigrant or potential immigrant into this country about immigration related question, I can guarantee you that they have gained almost all thier knowledge about the process from Murthy.com site. Intended or unintended - the message to DHS is welcome, particularly at this time, be it from whoever.
Anyone who has been a regular murthy.com visitor knows that her site consists of all her interactions with all the Agency people and government officials regarding immigration. Its called the "Internet". People post stuff - period! If it is meant to garner attention, yes, people will post messages. Its far better than a bunch of goof balls posting in youtube about thier experience with coke and spearmint. Please come out of the caves - people.
dresses leonardo da vinci
dilber
07-20 05:37 AM
Here you go - conversion should not impact this as the number of LC approvals remains the same:
Here are all the LC approvals for India in the last seven years.
Year, Total LC Approved, Total India
2007 85112 24573
2006 79782 22298
2005 6133 1350
2004 43582 No Info
2003 62912 No Info
2002 79784 No Info
2001 77921 No Info
2000 70204 No Info
Lets assume about 25% of pre-PERM LCs are India based on post-PERM data. Thus for fiscal 2004 (Oct 2003 thru Sep 2004) the total LC number is 43,852. Assume 25% of that to be India based on PERM data. That gives about 11,000 India LCs in 2004 alone (All EB categories combined). If you assume an average of 2.5 dependents then the number of visas required for all India EB categories for 2004 is 27,500 (11,000*2.5). The regular quota for EB2 and EB3 combined is only about 9,800. That means 17,700 visas have to come from somewhere. I dont think those many visas are remaining for this year. Be prepared to see FIFO thrown under the bus and approvals with PDs that are all over the place. Please critique this analysis without piling on. Thoughts?
EB2 has been on or Apr 2004 for a long time so all the ones before should have got the GC or at least most would have when we are calculation numbers for calculating retrogation We have to consider the numbers in in a particular category 11000 number as you say includes all the EB categories you have to discount out the EB1's because they have got their GCs long back. EB3 will also have to cut out form the calculation because they are not being counted. even if you consider 40% of these to be EB2 (a conservative estimate) then total GC needed including the dependents will be closer to 11000 (Total not just primary) and as Vdlrao and others have shown there should be more than this number available in this fiscal year alone. So I will have to agree with them that the numbers will go back but not all the way to Apr 2004 It should easily come in 2005 range may even come to 2006 since there were very few cases applied during 2005. Also can some one let me know if during 2005 when perm was instigated was regular labor processing also going on or was it completed stopped during that time.
Also conversations will affect this because people converting from EB3 to EB2 will make sure that they port their priority dates and hence if say all the EB3 people from 2003 convert to EB2 and successfully port their dates it will definitely push the dates south of 2003. Did I make sense???
Here are all the LC approvals for India in the last seven years.
Year, Total LC Approved, Total India
2007 85112 24573
2006 79782 22298
2005 6133 1350
2004 43582 No Info
2003 62912 No Info
2002 79784 No Info
2001 77921 No Info
2000 70204 No Info
Lets assume about 25% of pre-PERM LCs are India based on post-PERM data. Thus for fiscal 2004 (Oct 2003 thru Sep 2004) the total LC number is 43,852. Assume 25% of that to be India based on PERM data. That gives about 11,000 India LCs in 2004 alone (All EB categories combined). If you assume an average of 2.5 dependents then the number of visas required for all India EB categories for 2004 is 27,500 (11,000*2.5). The regular quota for EB2 and EB3 combined is only about 9,800. That means 17,700 visas have to come from somewhere. I dont think those many visas are remaining for this year. Be prepared to see FIFO thrown under the bus and approvals with PDs that are all over the place. Please critique this analysis without piling on. Thoughts?
EB2 has been on or Apr 2004 for a long time so all the ones before should have got the GC or at least most would have when we are calculation numbers for calculating retrogation We have to consider the numbers in in a particular category 11000 number as you say includes all the EB categories you have to discount out the EB1's because they have got their GCs long back. EB3 will also have to cut out form the calculation because they are not being counted. even if you consider 40% of these to be EB2 (a conservative estimate) then total GC needed including the dependents will be closer to 11000 (Total not just primary) and as Vdlrao and others have shown there should be more than this number available in this fiscal year alone. So I will have to agree with them that the numbers will go back but not all the way to Apr 2004 It should easily come in 2005 range may even come to 2006 since there were very few cases applied during 2005. Also can some one let me know if during 2005 when perm was instigated was regular labor processing also going on or was it completed stopped during that time.
Also conversations will affect this because people converting from EB3 to EB2 will make sure that they port their priority dates and hence if say all the EB3 people from 2003 convert to EB2 and successfully port their dates it will definitely push the dates south of 2003. Did I make sense???
more...
makeup Birth name: Leonardo di Ser
bobzibub
07-17 10:34 AM
NUMBERS USA TAX SERVICES!!!!!!
On an H1b? THEN PAY NO TAX!!!! WOOHOO!!!!!!!
All their "research" is suspect, this is just the most obvious. I did start building spreadsheets to regress employment/unemployment numbers with each immigration law they cite. There was no significant correlation. I should really do that again and post it somewhere.... Gotta get some better regression software though. Work like this will point out that the king has no clothes.
I'm ashamed to be a member of numbersUSA!!! :D
Cheers,
-b
On an H1b? THEN PAY NO TAX!!!! WOOHOO!!!!!!!
All their "research" is suspect, this is just the most obvious. I did start building spreadsheets to regress employment/unemployment numbers with each immigration law they cite. There was no significant correlation. I should really do that again and post it somewhere.... Gotta get some better regression software though. Work like this will point out that the king has no clothes.
I'm ashamed to be a member of numbersUSA!!! :D
Cheers,
-b
girlfriend LEONARDO DA VINCI PAINTINGS
pappu
07-01 10:22 PM
Info on the lawsuit by AILA:
==============
USCIS VISA BULLETIN/
VISA AVAILABILTY LAWSUIT
Frequently Asked Questions about Participating in this Lawsuit
AILF is considering filing a lawsuit in federal district court against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) over its rejection of otherwise properly filed adjustment of status applications for the alleged reason that a visa was not available, even though the Visa Bulletin from the Department of State (DOS) states that a visa was available at the time of filing.
Any foreign national who is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status and whose adjustment of status application has been or will be returned or rejected solely on this basis may be eligible to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit. If you are considering being a participant in this lawsuit, you may find the following frequently asked questions and answers helpful.
Q: What is AILF?
A: The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of immigrants and refugees and to securing fair and just application and administration of the U.S. immigration laws. In order to achieve these goals, AILF sometimes files lawsuits involving various aspects of immigration law.
Q: What is this lawsuit about?
A: This lawsuit will be filed by plaintiffs who have been harmed because USCIS rejected or returned or is expected to reject or return a properly submitted adjustment of status application for the alleged reason that no visa was immediately available even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that a visa was available at that time.
To be eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, a foreign national must show that a visa number is “immediately available.” USCIS regulations state that the DOS Visa Bulletin is used to determine whether a visa number is immediately available. This Bulletin is published once a month and lists the visa availability dates for all categories of immigrants for the following month. Thus, for example, the July 2007 bulletin, listing visa availability dates for the entire month of July, was published in June 2007.
AILF has learned that USCIS has refused to allow certain adjustment of status applications to be filed even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that visa numbers are available for the immigrant category at that time. USCIS rejected these applications because DOS informed it in an internal communication that no visa numbers remained for that category of immigrants. To date, this has happened only in the employment-based “other worker” category. We anticipate that it may happen in a number of other types of employment-based immigrant categories beginning in July 2007.
We believe USCIS violated the law when it failed to apply the visa availability dates listed in the Visa Bulletin, as required by a federal regulation, and instead rejected properly filed adjustment applications. Through this lawsuit, we will challenge the rejection of adjustment of status applications on this basis. We will ask the court to order USCIS to accept the rejected adjustment applications and treat them as being filed as of the date they originally would have been filed had USCIS not rejected them.
Q: What is a “plaintiff” and how do I know if I am eligible to be a “plaintiff” in this lawsuit?
A: A plaintiff is a person who files a lawsuit against someone else. We are still determining the categories of plaintiffs but an eligible plaintiff for this lawsuit may include:
[other worker category]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in the “other worker” category for receipt by USCIS in June 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
[other employment-based categories]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in any employment-based category other than “other worker” for receipt by USCIS in July 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
Q: Why should I be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
2
A: If the lawsuit is successful, USCIS should accept your adjustment application and treat it as if it had been filed as of the date that you originally tried to file it. Because your adjustment application will then be considered to be pending before the agency, you may be eligible for interim benefits, including an employment authorization document, advance parole, and others.
What the lawsuit will not do is make a visa number immediately available to you if none is available. If the visa numbers have in fact been used for the current fiscal year, the court does not have the authority under the law to make a new number available to you. However, if the court orders that USCIS accept your adjustment application as of the date that you originally tried to file it, you will be at an earlier place in line when visa numbers become available again in the next fiscal year, October 1, 2007. Additionally, as mentioned, you may be eligible for interim benefits while you are waiting.
Q: What is likely to happen because of the suit?
A: Lawsuits are uncertain by nature. We cannot predict the exact outcome. However, other efforts to resolve these problems with USCIS have not succeeded. For this reason, we believe that a lawsuit is the only remaining possible way to resolve these problems.
Q: Will being a plaintiff in this lawsuit hurt my chances for permanent residence?
A: If an individual is otherwise legally entitled to have an application granted, the government cannot lawfully deny that application on the basis that the person is participating or participated in a lawsuit. If we believed the government was taking such action, we would complain to the lawyers representing the government and to the judge handling the case. In our experience, this retaliation has not happened.
Please be aware, though, that USCIS is likely to examine plaintiffs’ adjustment of status applications more closely than it otherwise might. It may ask the plaintiffs questions and ask for additional information about their adjustment applications or immigration status. See below regarding “discovery.”
Q: How much time must plaintiffs spend on this lawsuit?
A: Plaintiffs will have to provide us with the information and documentation we need in order to prepare the lawsuit. AILF will do most of the work in the lawsuit on paper. Depending on how the case proceeds, the government and its attorneys may want to ask the plaintiffs some questions about their case, either through written questions and answers or in person. This is called “discovery.” One type of discovery is a “deposition,” which is an interview where parties are asked questions about their cases.
Depositions are possible but not common in this type of case. In the event that discovery and/or depositions were required, an AILF attorney or an attorney working with us would assist plaintiffs to comply with any discovery requests, and would appear with plaintiffs at any deposition at no charge (see below). At a later stage, a plaintiff may be required to be present at
3
a hearing or a trial and possibly be asked to testify about their particular case, but this is quite rare.
Q: Will it cost me anything to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: AILF and any co-counsel will not charge any attorney’s fees for representing individuals in this lawsuit. AILF and any co-counsel also will pay the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuit, such as filing fees, copying, long distance calls, travel expenses for AILF attorneys and staff, depositions, transcripts, etc. In the unlikely event that an individual should be required to be present at a deposition, hearing or a trial, we may ask that he/she pay their own travel and lodging expenses, if any. Those expenses would be reimbursed if the lawsuit is successful and we recover costs.
Q: Will anyone know that I am a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: Lawsuits are public information, and are available as a public court document. Many courts now have lawsuits and other documents available electronically, accessible via the internet. Also, USCIS will, of course, know the identity of the plaintiffs. We also will discuss plaintiffs’ cases with any other lawyers working with us on the lawsuit. It also is possible that the media – newspapers, radio, or TV reporters – will see the court documents and decide to do a story on the lawsuit.
Q: What should I do if I am eligible and interested in being a plaintiff in the lawsuit?
A: Please quickly submit the Questionnaire for Potential Plaintiffs and send us the documents requested. If you do not have the Questionnaire, please send an email to visabulletin@ailf.org, and we will send it to you. You may also fax a request to AILF LAC at (202) 742-5619. Please indicate this is a question about the visa bulletin litigation.
If you have any questions that are not answered by this FAQ or the questionnaire, please send them to visabulletin@ailf.org or fax to (202) 742-65619, and we will respond. Thank you!
===============
==============
USCIS VISA BULLETIN/
VISA AVAILABILTY LAWSUIT
Frequently Asked Questions about Participating in this Lawsuit
AILF is considering filing a lawsuit in federal district court against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) over its rejection of otherwise properly filed adjustment of status applications for the alleged reason that a visa was not available, even though the Visa Bulletin from the Department of State (DOS) states that a visa was available at the time of filing.
Any foreign national who is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status and whose adjustment of status application has been or will be returned or rejected solely on this basis may be eligible to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit. If you are considering being a participant in this lawsuit, you may find the following frequently asked questions and answers helpful.
Q: What is AILF?
A: The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of immigrants and refugees and to securing fair and just application and administration of the U.S. immigration laws. In order to achieve these goals, AILF sometimes files lawsuits involving various aspects of immigration law.
Q: What is this lawsuit about?
A: This lawsuit will be filed by plaintiffs who have been harmed because USCIS rejected or returned or is expected to reject or return a properly submitted adjustment of status application for the alleged reason that no visa was immediately available even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that a visa was available at that time.
To be eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, a foreign national must show that a visa number is “immediately available.” USCIS regulations state that the DOS Visa Bulletin is used to determine whether a visa number is immediately available. This Bulletin is published once a month and lists the visa availability dates for all categories of immigrants for the following month. Thus, for example, the July 2007 bulletin, listing visa availability dates for the entire month of July, was published in June 2007.
AILF has learned that USCIS has refused to allow certain adjustment of status applications to be filed even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that visa numbers are available for the immigrant category at that time. USCIS rejected these applications because DOS informed it in an internal communication that no visa numbers remained for that category of immigrants. To date, this has happened only in the employment-based “other worker” category. We anticipate that it may happen in a number of other types of employment-based immigrant categories beginning in July 2007.
We believe USCIS violated the law when it failed to apply the visa availability dates listed in the Visa Bulletin, as required by a federal regulation, and instead rejected properly filed adjustment applications. Through this lawsuit, we will challenge the rejection of adjustment of status applications on this basis. We will ask the court to order USCIS to accept the rejected adjustment applications and treat them as being filed as of the date they originally would have been filed had USCIS not rejected them.
Q: What is a “plaintiff” and how do I know if I am eligible to be a “plaintiff” in this lawsuit?
A: A plaintiff is a person who files a lawsuit against someone else. We are still determining the categories of plaintiffs but an eligible plaintiff for this lawsuit may include:
[other worker category]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in the “other worker” category for receipt by USCIS in June 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
[other employment-based categories]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in any employment-based category other than “other worker” for receipt by USCIS in July 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
Q: Why should I be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
2
A: If the lawsuit is successful, USCIS should accept your adjustment application and treat it as if it had been filed as of the date that you originally tried to file it. Because your adjustment application will then be considered to be pending before the agency, you may be eligible for interim benefits, including an employment authorization document, advance parole, and others.
What the lawsuit will not do is make a visa number immediately available to you if none is available. If the visa numbers have in fact been used for the current fiscal year, the court does not have the authority under the law to make a new number available to you. However, if the court orders that USCIS accept your adjustment application as of the date that you originally tried to file it, you will be at an earlier place in line when visa numbers become available again in the next fiscal year, October 1, 2007. Additionally, as mentioned, you may be eligible for interim benefits while you are waiting.
Q: What is likely to happen because of the suit?
A: Lawsuits are uncertain by nature. We cannot predict the exact outcome. However, other efforts to resolve these problems with USCIS have not succeeded. For this reason, we believe that a lawsuit is the only remaining possible way to resolve these problems.
Q: Will being a plaintiff in this lawsuit hurt my chances for permanent residence?
A: If an individual is otherwise legally entitled to have an application granted, the government cannot lawfully deny that application on the basis that the person is participating or participated in a lawsuit. If we believed the government was taking such action, we would complain to the lawyers representing the government and to the judge handling the case. In our experience, this retaliation has not happened.
Please be aware, though, that USCIS is likely to examine plaintiffs’ adjustment of status applications more closely than it otherwise might. It may ask the plaintiffs questions and ask for additional information about their adjustment applications or immigration status. See below regarding “discovery.”
Q: How much time must plaintiffs spend on this lawsuit?
A: Plaintiffs will have to provide us with the information and documentation we need in order to prepare the lawsuit. AILF will do most of the work in the lawsuit on paper. Depending on how the case proceeds, the government and its attorneys may want to ask the plaintiffs some questions about their case, either through written questions and answers or in person. This is called “discovery.” One type of discovery is a “deposition,” which is an interview where parties are asked questions about their cases.
Depositions are possible but not common in this type of case. In the event that discovery and/or depositions were required, an AILF attorney or an attorney working with us would assist plaintiffs to comply with any discovery requests, and would appear with plaintiffs at any deposition at no charge (see below). At a later stage, a plaintiff may be required to be present at
3
a hearing or a trial and possibly be asked to testify about their particular case, but this is quite rare.
Q: Will it cost me anything to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: AILF and any co-counsel will not charge any attorney’s fees for representing individuals in this lawsuit. AILF and any co-counsel also will pay the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuit, such as filing fees, copying, long distance calls, travel expenses for AILF attorneys and staff, depositions, transcripts, etc. In the unlikely event that an individual should be required to be present at a deposition, hearing or a trial, we may ask that he/she pay their own travel and lodging expenses, if any. Those expenses would be reimbursed if the lawsuit is successful and we recover costs.
Q: Will anyone know that I am a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: Lawsuits are public information, and are available as a public court document. Many courts now have lawsuits and other documents available electronically, accessible via the internet. Also, USCIS will, of course, know the identity of the plaintiffs. We also will discuss plaintiffs’ cases with any other lawyers working with us on the lawsuit. It also is possible that the media – newspapers, radio, or TV reporters – will see the court documents and decide to do a story on the lawsuit.
Q: What should I do if I am eligible and interested in being a plaintiff in the lawsuit?
A: Please quickly submit the Questionnaire for Potential Plaintiffs and send us the documents requested. If you do not have the Questionnaire, please send an email to visabulletin@ailf.org, and we will send it to you. You may also fax a request to AILF LAC at (202) 742-5619. Please indicate this is a question about the visa bulletin litigation.
If you have any questions that are not answered by this FAQ or the questionnaire, please send them to visabulletin@ailf.org or fax to (202) 742-65619, and we will respond. Thank you!
===============
hairstyles Leonardo da Vinci Wallpapers
bigboy007
07-18 12:34 PM
i think we need to wait till a week more and then give a call back to USCIS just to make sure , as per my understanding and my lawyers info none were rejected and they will be accepted.
lc1978
02-16 03:41 PM
You just made a payment of $ 100.00
Your receipt number for this payment is: 4704-4941-3704-4919.
All the best
Your receipt number for this payment is: 4704-4941-3704-4919.
All the best
ramus
07-02 05:16 PM
Who is first?
