paskal
05-23 02:52 PM
these actions are not done "casually' or haphazardly"
we have created these strategies based on advice and feedback from the offices of friendly lawmakers, advice from professinal lobbyists and our own experience so far. the "assistants" you speak too keep running tallies of phone calls on a given issue and these are communicated regularly to legislative directors and lawmakers. digital signatures and even digital petitions are given less weight- handwritten snail mailed letters on the other hand are treated with great importance.
you may wish to google the nyt articles on how numbers usa operates to derail bills- they call! if our members would show the same enthusiasm and every single person would call when requested, we could have the same impact.
we have created these strategies based on advice and feedback from the offices of friendly lawmakers, advice from professinal lobbyists and our own experience so far. the "assistants" you speak too keep running tallies of phone calls on a given issue and these are communicated regularly to legislative directors and lawmakers. digital signatures and even digital petitions are given less weight- handwritten snail mailed letters on the other hand are treated with great importance.
you may wish to google the nyt articles on how numbers usa operates to derail bills- they call! if our members would show the same enthusiasm and every single person would call when requested, we could have the same impact.
wallpaper Zarine Khan
PlainSpeak
04-19 08:19 AM
That is one more guy in front of me who is gone from the line enabling me to be closer to the GC dispensing window :D
unitednations
03-31 11:51 AM
I (and I�m sure others too) would like to know how the following works,
Employer X filed labor, 140 for their employee. Both were approved (assumption - no RFEs, etc. until now), 485 was filed for in July 2007, and remains pending.
The employee was employed with Employer X from before the labor was applied and until ~360 days after the 485 was filed, and was always paid more than the LC prevailing wage/offered salary.
In July 2008, the employee leaves employer X and joins employer Y under AC21 provisions. An AC21 letter, G-28N are submitted.
140 never gets revoked by employer X.
In Jan 2009, employer X receives an Ability to Pay RFE for another pending 140 of theirs.
At this point, employer X has 16 140s that are open (pending OR approved with 485 pending to be filed/filed and pending). Out of those 16 140s, one was for the employee that left under AC21.
When they respond to that RFE, I do understand that they could be asked to show ability to pay for all 16 140s, even for the one that doesn�t work for them anymore, because of the fact that it was never revoked.
In this case, is the employee (that left) covered or at risk? I ask this question because the employee that left submitted AC21 documentation immediately upon leaving, thus notifying the USCIS that the �ability to pay� responsibility for his case, if any at all, now lies with the new future employer. There probably isn�t any clear definition of such a situation in the law, but can such an argument ever hold up in court, and protect the employee�s AOS application from getting affected due to any ability to pay issues the old employer (X) has had AFTER the employee left them.
The only person on here that I expect to be able to give a non-speculative answer to this is UN, unless someone else has personally gone through something similar.
Long post, I know, and I hope it does get read.
Thank you.
I worked on a very big case back in 2006.
Company had 20 pending 140's which were filed in 2005
Company had 42 approved 140's
in Janaury 2006 they sent RFE on one of the cases and asked for ability to pay. Before response was sent; second rfe is received on another pending casestating ability to pay and that uscis has noted company has filed many 140's; then third rfe is received on another case asking ability to pay on all pending cases (note this was in vermont service center and at this time the whole cybersoftech issue was going on; so there was a heightened alert from vermont service center).
In preparing for the response to the 20 pending cases; we had to analyze the 42 approved cases to ensure that just in case USCIS went after those cases together with the 20 then we should be ready in this particular response to justify the 42 approved cases.
In the response we only showed the 20 pending cases and that we had ability to pay for them.
Within three weeks; USCIS sent notice of intent to revoke the approved 140's. In the notice of intent to revoke; they stated that their records showed 20 pending; 42 approved cases and 205 h-1b's filed. USCIS went through their calculations and stated that if the average salary was xxx on all these petitions then the company would have to have paid close to $15 million in salaries which was (at that time the 2004 tax returns) more then five times the revenue. USCIS also went on to state they thought the company was involved in fraudulently obtaining h-1b's and 140's.
Now; company guy talks to Shusterman and he wants $2k per case and he can only handle the immigration component and that he neeed a CPA (which was me) and the company guy should also get a criminal attorney.
Well anyways; because in the first 20 cases we thought uscis may go after the approved 140's; the financials looked the right way to support all the cases.
The response was very scientific; hire dates; priority dates; amounts people got paid before priority date; amounts paid after; dates people left the company, etc.
In the various calculations; we proved out that even with people leaving who used ac21; we still had ability to pay for them (ie., even though they were no longer there we still had the financials to pay them). Then we gave another scenario that ability to pay clock should stop once person used ac21. We then did recalculation under this scenario.
In every scenario we showed we had ability to pay. Now; we never requested USCIS to revoke the approved 140's for people who had left; in one of the scenarios we adjusted the calculation to stop showing ability to pay once a person left.
USCIS re-approved all the cases. However; they sent notice of intent to deny for pepole who left using ac21. those candidates then gave updated letters and they all eventually got the greencards approved.
Now;this particular case is a little different because even though people left; the company still had ability to pay for them. Therefore, it is difficult to draw conclusion from this for other peoples particular cases. In this case; the fair value of the work I did for them would have cost them about $100K (i actually did audited financial statements for them; they are the only company I did audited financial statements for becuase the stakes were very very high for everyone concerned).
I can tell you that when a company does get this type of RFE; it is very difficult to substantiate everyone together and the calculations and supporting documentation is very complex AND companies have very little desire to help those who have already left. In these types of queries; the company/lawyer doesn't even bother to justify those who have already left; they just ask for revoation and they prove ability to pay for those who are still left with the company. Therefore; USCIS could just make the determination that those revoked cases were approved in error.
The main law for ability to pay is that company has to prove it from priority date until person obtains lawful permanent residency; law was never changed/modified to accomodate ability to pay for a company whose candidates have left using ac21.
Note: This is all pure speculation of what is going on in these cases. I am just writing out loud of why/if there is a shift within uscis.
Employer X filed labor, 140 for their employee. Both were approved (assumption - no RFEs, etc. until now), 485 was filed for in July 2007, and remains pending.
The employee was employed with Employer X from before the labor was applied and until ~360 days after the 485 was filed, and was always paid more than the LC prevailing wage/offered salary.
In July 2008, the employee leaves employer X and joins employer Y under AC21 provisions. An AC21 letter, G-28N are submitted.
140 never gets revoked by employer X.
In Jan 2009, employer X receives an Ability to Pay RFE for another pending 140 of theirs.
At this point, employer X has 16 140s that are open (pending OR approved with 485 pending to be filed/filed and pending). Out of those 16 140s, one was for the employee that left under AC21.
When they respond to that RFE, I do understand that they could be asked to show ability to pay for all 16 140s, even for the one that doesn�t work for them anymore, because of the fact that it was never revoked.
In this case, is the employee (that left) covered or at risk? I ask this question because the employee that left submitted AC21 documentation immediately upon leaving, thus notifying the USCIS that the �ability to pay� responsibility for his case, if any at all, now lies with the new future employer. There probably isn�t any clear definition of such a situation in the law, but can such an argument ever hold up in court, and protect the employee�s AOS application from getting affected due to any ability to pay issues the old employer (X) has had AFTER the employee left them.
The only person on here that I expect to be able to give a non-speculative answer to this is UN, unless someone else has personally gone through something similar.
Long post, I know, and I hope it does get read.
Thank you.
I worked on a very big case back in 2006.
Company had 20 pending 140's which were filed in 2005
Company had 42 approved 140's
in Janaury 2006 they sent RFE on one of the cases and asked for ability to pay. Before response was sent; second rfe is received on another pending casestating ability to pay and that uscis has noted company has filed many 140's; then third rfe is received on another case asking ability to pay on all pending cases (note this was in vermont service center and at this time the whole cybersoftech issue was going on; so there was a heightened alert from vermont service center).
In preparing for the response to the 20 pending cases; we had to analyze the 42 approved cases to ensure that just in case USCIS went after those cases together with the 20 then we should be ready in this particular response to justify the 42 approved cases.
In the response we only showed the 20 pending cases and that we had ability to pay for them.
Within three weeks; USCIS sent notice of intent to revoke the approved 140's. In the notice of intent to revoke; they stated that their records showed 20 pending; 42 approved cases and 205 h-1b's filed. USCIS went through their calculations and stated that if the average salary was xxx on all these petitions then the company would have to have paid close to $15 million in salaries which was (at that time the 2004 tax returns) more then five times the revenue. USCIS also went on to state they thought the company was involved in fraudulently obtaining h-1b's and 140's.
Now; company guy talks to Shusterman and he wants $2k per case and he can only handle the immigration component and that he neeed a CPA (which was me) and the company guy should also get a criminal attorney.
Well anyways; because in the first 20 cases we thought uscis may go after the approved 140's; the financials looked the right way to support all the cases.
The response was very scientific; hire dates; priority dates; amounts people got paid before priority date; amounts paid after; dates people left the company, etc.
In the various calculations; we proved out that even with people leaving who used ac21; we still had ability to pay for them (ie., even though they were no longer there we still had the financials to pay them). Then we gave another scenario that ability to pay clock should stop once person used ac21. We then did recalculation under this scenario.
In every scenario we showed we had ability to pay. Now; we never requested USCIS to revoke the approved 140's for people who had left; in one of the scenarios we adjusted the calculation to stop showing ability to pay once a person left.
USCIS re-approved all the cases. However; they sent notice of intent to deny for pepole who left using ac21. those candidates then gave updated letters and they all eventually got the greencards approved.
Now;this particular case is a little different because even though people left; the company still had ability to pay for them. Therefore, it is difficult to draw conclusion from this for other peoples particular cases. In this case; the fair value of the work I did for them would have cost them about $100K (i actually did audited financial statements for them; they are the only company I did audited financial statements for becuase the stakes were very very high for everyone concerned).
I can tell you that when a company does get this type of RFE; it is very difficult to substantiate everyone together and the calculations and supporting documentation is very complex AND companies have very little desire to help those who have already left. In these types of queries; the company/lawyer doesn't even bother to justify those who have already left; they just ask for revoation and they prove ability to pay for those who are still left with the company. Therefore; USCIS could just make the determination that those revoked cases were approved in error.
The main law for ability to pay is that company has to prove it from priority date until person obtains lawful permanent residency; law was never changed/modified to accomodate ability to pay for a company whose candidates have left using ac21.
Note: This is all pure speculation of what is going on in these cases. I am just writing out loud of why/if there is a shift within uscis.
2011 Salman Khan and Zarine Khan in
deletedUser459
06-05 11:42 AM
haha. yeah, it asks for a username and pas when you go to this page now
i can't see it
i can't see it
more...
munnashi
11-03 04:25 PM
EB-3 I June 24 2004
gsc999
07-13 02:32 AM
This is the press release prepared with help from the Core. Please send it out to your friends, journalists and other contacts.
http://www.touchdownusa.org/SanJose/SanJoseRallyPR.pdf
Best of Luck for the rally.
--
Thanks for doing this. Just got back from making banners.
http://www.touchdownusa.org/SanJose/SanJoseRallyPR.pdf
Best of Luck for the rally.
--
Thanks for doing this. Just got back from making banners.
more...
arunmohan
06-12 01:59 PM
Group:
I don't see any improvement since 2005 except June/July 2007 fisaco. But people are still waiting since long time.
I will request all EB3-India/EB3 ROW filers to join this thread. We need help from IV.
I don't see any improvement since 2005 except June/July 2007 fisaco. But people are still waiting since long time.
I will request all EB3-India/EB3 ROW filers to join this thread. We need help from IV.
2010 “Zarine Khan of Veer Unveiled”
leoindiano
12-02 06:16 PM
Freinds,
got CPO email yesterday, status was post decision activity
today, status changed to notice sent, status moved back to decision
I believe there will be another email with welcome notice?
Nov 2004, EB2-I, Texas
Thanks for all your help.
I tried 3 pronged strategy around nov. 10th, finally case moved
1)Applied for AP renewal
2)wrote to napolitano
3)wrote to ombudsman
got CPO email yesterday, status was post decision activity
today, status changed to notice sent, status moved back to decision
I believe there will be another email with welcome notice?
Nov 2004, EB2-I, Texas
Thanks for all your help.
I tried 3 pronged strategy around nov. 10th, finally case moved
1)Applied for AP renewal
2)wrote to napolitano
3)wrote to ombudsman
more...
when
07-18 04:05 PM
:-|
hair Zarine Khan of Veer unveiled
InTheMoment
05-07 09:13 PM
And...can you please tell where you got this translation and what verse are you referring to ?!!!
I totally understand the emotional point of someone being want to be a Indian Citizen but I have to stress there is no other country in the world like U.S.A. This is the country where every human being is treated with utmost respect (don't try to show me exceptions - U.S. is a country where most of things are close to being perfect imaginatively), have freedom to say anything they want without getting intimidated and U.S is a country I believe will be the last bastion for humanity when terrosists/fundamentalists spread their tentancles and take over the world by force or other means (if not now probabbly in the next 100-150 years). Hypocrisy is relatively less. We Indians live in a dream world nurtured by the Indian politicians, who try to inject doses of patriotic non-sense into the masses while they themselves stove away million of dollars in Swiss banks. 70% of Indian population lives below poverty line and the educated masses of India think that their country will become a super power by 2020. Politicians like Mayawati play caste politics and dream of taking the top most post while our liberal media, without a wee-bit of shame, extends its highest support for them. Corruption is part of our daily life and we are part of the everyday corruption but we still find no fault in our society. Our population growth is beyond control while not a single politician is concerned about the stress it is going to create on our natural resources in the future. Our education system is in shambles but our great politicians fight for increasing the reservation system to different castes just for the sake of garnering more votes. And the list goes on. Alas���God help India.
FYI: I am a Indian and haven't even started my greencard process, for the same emotional reasons you mentioned, intending to R2I soon. Given a choice and circumstances, I would have opted for U.S.C as "I have no hope for this world neither do I wish for it" - quoting Bhagawan Krishna from Bhagavad Gita.
I totally understand the emotional point of someone being want to be a Indian Citizen but I have to stress there is no other country in the world like U.S.A. This is the country where every human being is treated with utmost respect (don't try to show me exceptions - U.S. is a country where most of things are close to being perfect imaginatively), have freedom to say anything they want without getting intimidated and U.S is a country I believe will be the last bastion for humanity when terrosists/fundamentalists spread their tentancles and take over the world by force or other means (if not now probabbly in the next 100-150 years). Hypocrisy is relatively less. We Indians live in a dream world nurtured by the Indian politicians, who try to inject doses of patriotic non-sense into the masses while they themselves stove away million of dollars in Swiss banks. 70% of Indian population lives below poverty line and the educated masses of India think that their country will become a super power by 2020. Politicians like Mayawati play caste politics and dream of taking the top most post while our liberal media, without a wee-bit of shame, extends its highest support for them. Corruption is part of our daily life and we are part of the everyday corruption but we still find no fault in our society. Our population growth is beyond control while not a single politician is concerned about the stress it is going to create on our natural resources in the future. Our education system is in shambles but our great politicians fight for increasing the reservation system to different castes just for the sake of garnering more votes. And the list goes on. Alas���God help India.
FYI: I am a Indian and haven't even started my greencard process, for the same emotional reasons you mentioned, intending to R2I soon. Given a choice and circumstances, I would have opted for U.S.C as "I have no hope for this world neither do I wish for it" - quoting Bhagawan Krishna from Bhagavad Gita.
more...
gsc999
07-11 01:26 AM
IMMIGRATION VOICE ACTION ALERT: 7/11/2007.
Dear Members:
Immigration Voice is organizing its first peaceful protest rally in San Jose, CA on July 14th in order to protest the broken system of legal high-skills immigration. This protest march is being organized to oppose the enormous visas backlogs in the employment based immigration system. This protest march is also intended to oppose the recent decision of USCIS to block the adjustment of status petitions in July resulting from an unprecedented out-of-order reversal on the part of DOS and USCIS.
Please join this rally in huge numbers to create more awareness in the Media, Congress and the Administration. We are already getting attention of Congress and the Administration due to recently published articles on the flower campaign in New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/us/11visa.html) and Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/10/AR2007071002055.html) on July 11th. If you cannot join but if you know someone who lives in San Jose area and who doesn’t know about this effort, please ask him or her to join this rally. More numbers will get us more media coverage and more attention to this issue.
This rally has the potential to bring our issue to the attention of everyone, including the Silicon Valley tech employers who have a stake in the morale and productivity of the hi-tech foreign employees in their companies and their backlogged immigration.
EVENT:
Peaceful protest march by Legal Immigrants in San Jose, CA.
LOCATION:
The New City Hall
200 E Santa Clara St
San Jose, CA 95113
DATE:
Saturday July 14, 2007
TIME:
11:00 am To 2:30 pm
ORIGIN, DESTINATION, ROUTE & PARKING DETAILS:
11:00 AM: Meet at San Jose City Hall at 200 E Santa Clara St.
PARKING: (Free weekend parking in the 4th St. garage on 44 South Fourth St., & San Fernando St. across from the MLK Jr library; For other free parking areas in downtown San Jose see: http://www.sjdowntownparking.com/free_parking.php (http://www.sjdowntownparking.com/free_parking.php) )
1) 11:30 AM: Go to the square in front of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library (150 E San Fernando St).
2) 12:30 PM: Walk towards 635 N 1st St through S 4th St, E San Carlos St, Market Street and N 1st Street.
3) 1:15 PM: Arrive at 635 N 1st St and stay till 2:00 PM
4) 2:30 PM: back to City Hall
IMPORTANT THINGS TO REMEMBER:
1) Abide by the laws.
2) Stay on sidewalks.
3) Follow traffic rules, show courtesy to other pedestrians.
4) Do not block building entrances.
5) Dress Professionally. No shorts or Bermudas. Wear formal dress clothes, semi-casual or business-casual.
WHAT TO BRING:
Plenty of water, snacks and sun block (if needed).
BANNERS AND SIGNS:
Do not bring your own signs. We will have banners and signs ready for you.
FOR DRIVING DIRECTIONS TO THE NEW CITY HALL IN SAN JOSE, SEE BELOW:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/newCityHall/gettingThere.asp (http://www.sanjoseca.gov/newCityHall/gettingThere.asp)
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: Event leaders or organizers take no responsibility and will not be held responsible for any injuries or accidents that may occur during the posted events. It is your responsibility to abide by law. By joining this event, you are taking responsibility for your own safety and well-being.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards,
Immigration Voice Core Team.
Dear Members:
Immigration Voice is organizing its first peaceful protest rally in San Jose, CA on July 14th in order to protest the broken system of legal high-skills immigration. This protest march is being organized to oppose the enormous visas backlogs in the employment based immigration system. This protest march is also intended to oppose the recent decision of USCIS to block the adjustment of status petitions in July resulting from an unprecedented out-of-order reversal on the part of DOS and USCIS.
Please join this rally in huge numbers to create more awareness in the Media, Congress and the Administration. We are already getting attention of Congress and the Administration due to recently published articles on the flower campaign in New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/us/11visa.html) and Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/10/AR2007071002055.html) on July 11th. If you cannot join but if you know someone who lives in San Jose area and who doesn’t know about this effort, please ask him or her to join this rally. More numbers will get us more media coverage and more attention to this issue.
This rally has the potential to bring our issue to the attention of everyone, including the Silicon Valley tech employers who have a stake in the morale and productivity of the hi-tech foreign employees in their companies and their backlogged immigration.
EVENT:
Peaceful protest march by Legal Immigrants in San Jose, CA.
LOCATION:
The New City Hall
200 E Santa Clara St
San Jose, CA 95113
DATE:
Saturday July 14, 2007
TIME:
11:00 am To 2:30 pm
ORIGIN, DESTINATION, ROUTE & PARKING DETAILS:
11:00 AM: Meet at San Jose City Hall at 200 E Santa Clara St.
PARKING: (Free weekend parking in the 4th St. garage on 44 South Fourth St., & San Fernando St. across from the MLK Jr library; For other free parking areas in downtown San Jose see: http://www.sjdowntownparking.com/free_parking.php (http://www.sjdowntownparking.com/free_parking.php) )
1) 11:30 AM: Go to the square in front of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library (150 E San Fernando St).
2) 12:30 PM: Walk towards 635 N 1st St through S 4th St, E San Carlos St, Market Street and N 1st Street.
3) 1:15 PM: Arrive at 635 N 1st St and stay till 2:00 PM
4) 2:30 PM: back to City Hall
IMPORTANT THINGS TO REMEMBER:
1) Abide by the laws.
2) Stay on sidewalks.
3) Follow traffic rules, show courtesy to other pedestrians.
4) Do not block building entrances.
5) Dress Professionally. No shorts or Bermudas. Wear formal dress clothes, semi-casual or business-casual.
WHAT TO BRING:
Plenty of water, snacks and sun block (if needed).
BANNERS AND SIGNS:
Do not bring your own signs. We will have banners and signs ready for you.
FOR DRIVING DIRECTIONS TO THE NEW CITY HALL IN SAN JOSE, SEE BELOW:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/newCityHall/gettingThere.asp (http://www.sanjoseca.gov/newCityHall/gettingThere.asp)
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: Event leaders or organizers take no responsibility and will not be held responsible for any injuries or accidents that may occur during the posted events. It is your responsibility to abide by law. By joining this event, you are taking responsibility for your own safety and well-being.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards,
Immigration Voice Core Team.
hot Zarine Khan – Veer movie
.jpg "Salman khan, Zarine khan")
abhijitp
12-03 04:46 PM
With all due respect I don't think lottery may be a workable idea. Here's why -
Those who buy lotteries wish to spend least posible amount of money for a chance to win an insanely large sum of money - for e.g. spend $10 to win $10 million. Idea is prize money should make the money spent feel ridiculously low ( it doesn't matter if chances of winning are lower than getting struck by lightning ! ). How can this be worked out in the IV scenario?
2 times the money is less than what people win at a 'Pot luck'!
Unforunately though, the audience does believe in "penny wise pound foolish".
People should not need a lottery or an IV credit card, they would be contributing without any of these incentives... if only they realized
1) no relief is likely unless they want to help IV DO SOMETHING about it
2) getting a GC sooner means saving a LOT more money than $50 a month
Those who buy lotteries wish to spend least posible amount of money for a chance to win an insanely large sum of money - for e.g. spend $10 to win $10 million. Idea is prize money should make the money spent feel ridiculously low ( it doesn't matter if chances of winning are lower than getting struck by lightning ! ). How can this be worked out in the IV scenario?
2 times the money is less than what people win at a 'Pot luck'!
Unforunately though, the audience does believe in "penny wise pound foolish".
People should not need a lottery or an IV credit card, they would be contributing without any of these incentives... if only they realized
1) no relief is likely unless they want to help IV DO SOMETHING about it
2) getting a GC sooner means saving a LOT more money than $50 a month
more...
house Zarine Khan Promotes Veer
wikipedia_fan
05-05 02:18 PM
Forum Gurus - I got a denial letter on my 485. I am a July 2007 filer and applied for AOS in July 2007. My 140 was revoked by ex employer in August 2008 and immediately I got a NOID from USCIS and responded to it in a timely manner and my case processing resumed.
But now, I got a denial stating that my 140 has been revoked in August 2008 and thats why my 485 is denied. My Attorney is filing for MTR and says it is a mistake on their side and will be resolved through MTR.
It just baffles me that the person who sent the denial letter never looked into the system to see my case trail and blindly issued the denial notice. My Attorney says, it is very much possible that they do not look at RFEs or responses - they just issue denials when they browse through the 140s.
I am EB2 India with a priority date of March 2006. I think some kind of pre assessment is going on. There are no LUDs and mine is at the TSC.
Is there anyone else in the same boat? How long does it take for MTR to get processed?
Folks I have an update on my case.
We filed for Motion to reopen on which were receipted on March 27th, 2009. I wrote to Congressman, Senators and also Ombudsman. Today my congressman's office got an update that our MTRs were approved on April 30th and our 485s got reopened and they have sent letters to that effect.
What a relief. It was a stressful 6 week ordeal. Thanks to IV and its members for the help and support.
But now, I got a denial stating that my 140 has been revoked in August 2008 and thats why my 485 is denied. My Attorney is filing for MTR and says it is a mistake on their side and will be resolved through MTR.
It just baffles me that the person who sent the denial letter never looked into the system to see my case trail and blindly issued the denial notice. My Attorney says, it is very much possible that they do not look at RFEs or responses - they just issue denials when they browse through the 140s.
I am EB2 India with a priority date of March 2006. I think some kind of pre assessment is going on. There are no LUDs and mine is at the TSC.
Is there anyone else in the same boat? How long does it take for MTR to get processed?
Folks I have an update on my case.
We filed for Motion to reopen on which were receipted on March 27th, 2009. I wrote to Congressman, Senators and also Ombudsman. Today my congressman's office got an update that our MTRs were approved on April 30th and our 485s got reopened and they have sent letters to that effect.
What a relief. It was a stressful 6 week ordeal. Thanks to IV and its members for the help and support.
tattoo Salman Khan,Zarine Khan At
trueguy
08-20 02:56 PM
Bump
more...
pictures Zarine Khan in Veer
abqguy
06-02 03:05 PM
They all took down the message, very friendly and said they will pass on the message to the House Reps.
dresses Salman khan, Zarine khan
Macaca
02-07 07:52 PM
If you are not counted against cap, that is equivalent to visa available = PD current.
I interpret SKILL as follows for US MS.
1. You wait for your PD to become current.
2. When your PD becomes current, you are not counted against the cap.
How can we verify that my understanding of step 1 is incorrect? Thanks.
I interpret SKILL as follows for US MS.
1. You wait for your PD to become current.
2. When your PD becomes current, you are not counted against the cap.
How can we verify that my understanding of step 1 is incorrect? Thanks.
more...
makeup Zarine Khan, Katrina Kaif#39;s
mheggade
07-14 05:27 PM
Signed
girlfriend Zarine Khan Wallpapers 14
rockstart
06-11 09:46 AM
Since they will be a party to this along with you it is better you talk to them and make sure they assist you properly. Also was your insurance at that time conforming to state minimum requirements if that is the case then you can breathe easy since you had done everything that law asked you to do so hopefully there is no criminal case against you. Worst if court ask's you to pay financially you can declare bankruptcy and minimize the impact. I am sure that does not affect GC. But rather than forum you need a good attorney to talk to. Make sure who ever you select to talk to about this accident case you arrange a meeting between this lawyer and your immigration lawyer so that both are well aware of situation.
hairstyles Zarine Khan - Old
chicago60607
09-17 12:10 PM
Voting on the amendment is going on (HR6020)
desi485
11-09 11:25 PM
Thanks for the additional information. In case 1 - can the applicant still retain the priority date if s/he wants to start a new GC process? In other words, does 6 year expiration have any effect on retaining PD?
From what I have gathered so far, it appears that it's a misconception that a lot of people have who feel it's safer to stay on H1. It doesn't sound like EAD is as bad as I had once initially thought..
As far as I know, one retains the PD for life once I-140 is approved; unless CIS revokes I-140 due to fraud or min-interpretation. Otherwise PD is yours forever, across the category (eb-1, 2 or 3).
From what I have gathered so far, it appears that it's a misconception that a lot of people have who feel it's safer to stay on H1. It doesn't sound like EAD is as bad as I had once initially thought..
As far as I know, one retains the PD for life once I-140 is approved; unless CIS revokes I-140 due to fraud or min-interpretation. Otherwise PD is yours forever, across the category (eb-1, 2 or 3).
misanthrope
10-03 03:48 PM
on how you intentionally lied to get into US?
Your post subject has grammatical errors. Please look into it. Thanks.
Your post subject has grammatical errors. Please look into it. Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment