GC_sufferer
07-06 08:53 AM
Looks like she changed the Article title in NYT.
The initial one is "Agency Mix-Up Denies Applicants Green Cards", and now "Suit Planned Over Visas for the Highly Skilled".
The initial one is "Agency Mix-Up Denies Applicants Green Cards", and now "Suit Planned Over Visas for the Highly Skilled".
wallpaper naruto shippuden akatsuki
qplearn
12-19 11:00 AM
Well, one or two of us are dispensible but if unite in our effort, then we definitely become indespensible....did we really make an impact by making those thousands of phone calls for the lame duck?.....the fact is that an average american doesn't give a ***** about whether we get our green cards or not because they don't even know our pains.....and the government has too many other trivial and not so trivial issues to deal with than worry about us......lobbying is a good idea but we are still not getting the attention we should be getting......do you think they can really abolish the h1b program?.......foreign workers have become the veins and arteries of these companies and unless until you stop the blood supply, no body is going to even notice.......the dependency on foreign workers is more today that it was a decade ago just because of the sheer volume.
no the h-1b program will never be abolished. foreign workers are needed in univs for one. and don't forget that the chinese came here to build the rail-way(road) and the indians and chinese (and ppl from many other nationalities) to fix the y2k bug. but regarding making phone calls, i think your assesment is wrong. that made the biggest impact of all. and guess what it costs? almost nothing other than some time and cell phone minutes. let's call Senator Cornyn (see another thread started by jansilal).
no the h-1b program will never be abolished. foreign workers are needed in univs for one. and don't forget that the chinese came here to build the rail-way(road) and the indians and chinese (and ppl from many other nationalities) to fix the y2k bug. but regarding making phone calls, i think your assesment is wrong. that made the biggest impact of all. and guess what it costs? almost nothing other than some time and cell phone minutes. let's call Senator Cornyn (see another thread started by jansilal).
TeddyKoochu
09-07 11:39 AM
I think there is more smartness needed than luck in the greencard process. If you look at the posts in this thread there are some people that came to USA in 1990s and still waiting, while some that came much later are on their way to citizenship. Some got the EB2 route and are happy and some in EB3 have only gloom before them.
This in my opinion has helped smart folks among us:
- They applied for GC as soon as possible. Those who waited did not give importance to Greencard as soon as they started a job in USA are now paying for their mistakes. During the initial days of career I have seen people saying that GC is not important to them etc but when their H1B is about to expire they panic and get desperate for Green Card.
- Before pre-PERM era in 2005, smart folks took up jobs in states where labor certification had no backlog. They are now either waiting for citizenship or already citizens. On the other hand people in states like CA, NY etc suffered due to labor backlogs and far from getting greencard in hand.
- Any company can be good or bad for an individual. It it not a question of consulting vs fortune 500 or small vs big size of a company. Smart folks know what matters them the most when they join a company. When company sees them as a valuable asset, it applies for them. I have seen where company applied for GC as soon as the employee joined it. And I have seen posts where people had to wait for several years before company applied.
- People who took advantage of the Labor substitution got faster labors. Some could take advantage of EB2 labors and they are very fortunate. This is in no way endorsing the labor substitution rule, but in pre 2007 times nobody was protesting against it. This is a sad reality.
- Smart folks took the risk and changed jobs wth EB2 job requirements, so that they can file in EB2. Such folks with 2007 PD are happy today and people with 2003 PDs in EB3 will have to wait for a long time.
- If you read posts on this thread, many people have posted that they feel they are being screwed by their employer or lawyer. But hardly anyone has said they took any action against it. This is also a sad reality where we as a community have failed and will continue to suffer.
- Many folks have said that they thought they were in EB2. But found they are in EB3. This shows another weakness of our community and lack of awareness. IV forum tries to spread the awareness but unless an individual takes initiative, they will suffer.
Many people were able to file I485 in July 2007 due to IV effort. Imagine a 2004 EB3 India person without EAD today? How will he survive a job loss on H1B in a bad economy? We should take a lesson from that event and try for another big push. There is no other shortcut for us. It is shocking to find people on this thread that are in this country for more than 10 years and without a green card. These folks should be the most vocal folks in this effort.
-
Pappu excellent post full of true facts. Being smart in my opinion means being knowledgeable and aware of the current situation at any given point of time rather than being ignorant and indifferent. Most of the time doing some basic research can lead an individual to the right option that is legally consistent and correct, it’s really never too late to correct course. Yes there will be street smart people (Sub labor being one example) who will game the system but besides other things let’s accept that they know how things work. Life is about learning and then What Next? It’s really about continuous improvement and trying to move in the right direction. Not having the desired end result is fine but not doing anything or not trying is bad. Very nice and motivating stories from some of the veteran’s you give us the motivation to hang on. OP you seem to have started a nice discussion.
This in my opinion has helped smart folks among us:
- They applied for GC as soon as possible. Those who waited did not give importance to Greencard as soon as they started a job in USA are now paying for their mistakes. During the initial days of career I have seen people saying that GC is not important to them etc but when their H1B is about to expire they panic and get desperate for Green Card.
- Before pre-PERM era in 2005, smart folks took up jobs in states where labor certification had no backlog. They are now either waiting for citizenship or already citizens. On the other hand people in states like CA, NY etc suffered due to labor backlogs and far from getting greencard in hand.
- Any company can be good or bad for an individual. It it not a question of consulting vs fortune 500 or small vs big size of a company. Smart folks know what matters them the most when they join a company. When company sees them as a valuable asset, it applies for them. I have seen where company applied for GC as soon as the employee joined it. And I have seen posts where people had to wait for several years before company applied.
- People who took advantage of the Labor substitution got faster labors. Some could take advantage of EB2 labors and they are very fortunate. This is in no way endorsing the labor substitution rule, but in pre 2007 times nobody was protesting against it. This is a sad reality.
- Smart folks took the risk and changed jobs wth EB2 job requirements, so that they can file in EB2. Such folks with 2007 PD are happy today and people with 2003 PDs in EB3 will have to wait for a long time.
- If you read posts on this thread, many people have posted that they feel they are being screwed by their employer or lawyer. But hardly anyone has said they took any action against it. This is also a sad reality where we as a community have failed and will continue to suffer.
- Many folks have said that they thought they were in EB2. But found they are in EB3. This shows another weakness of our community and lack of awareness. IV forum tries to spread the awareness but unless an individual takes initiative, they will suffer.
Many people were able to file I485 in July 2007 due to IV effort. Imagine a 2004 EB3 India person without EAD today? How will he survive a job loss on H1B in a bad economy? We should take a lesson from that event and try for another big push. There is no other shortcut for us. It is shocking to find people on this thread that are in this country for more than 10 years and without a green card. These folks should be the most vocal folks in this effort.
-
Pappu excellent post full of true facts. Being smart in my opinion means being knowledgeable and aware of the current situation at any given point of time rather than being ignorant and indifferent. Most of the time doing some basic research can lead an individual to the right option that is legally consistent and correct, it’s really never too late to correct course. Yes there will be street smart people (Sub labor being one example) who will game the system but besides other things let’s accept that they know how things work. Life is about learning and then What Next? It’s really about continuous improvement and trying to move in the right direction. Not having the desired end result is fine but not doing anything or not trying is bad. Very nice and motivating stories from some of the veteran’s you give us the motivation to hang on. OP you seem to have started a nice discussion.
2011 wallpaper naruto akatsuki.
![wallpaper naruto shippuden akatsuki. [PSP]Naruto Shippuden Akatsuki](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sK17V65qB1bthz4SNjnlUItjgWIXK4YXbo7EQNh1hSo-GhxBM8zs5FWIm-qUeRpjsvO9xDhSseEACd5Ve_yWwjc4LEr4vCm4bse1IVcqKse3t5h1vuU_i02Sa_XfTSN8kR_awXgJmVp3SLj1J0_rupOFnj_1E3C91mn67gYJF-tx5NfQWu8FYPYAKBLylg_EQqvpdsJL3jbEvehV8=s0-d "[PSP]Naruto Shippuden Akatsuki")
eb3retro
03-10 11:47 PM
I received the rfe details today..Here is my list of documents needed by uscis
1) updated properly completed form G-325A
2) employment letter from my new employer to prove that i am working on the same/similar job as my LC (since I did not submit AC21 documents), I need to do it now, since I changed my address and the letter mentions that I am not staying in the same state as of my original LC and now they require AC21 documents.
1) updated properly completed form G-325A
2) employment letter from my new employer to prove that i am working on the same/similar job as my LC (since I did not submit AC21 documents), I need to do it now, since I changed my address and the letter mentions that I am not staying in the same state as of my original LC and now they require AC21 documents.
more...
texanguy
09-10 05:25 PM
i think they will have to wait till the end of the quarter to assign that quota, how would they know about the number of the prospective applicant ahead of time? They first have to make sure that "current" status people should get a visa number. Not a fact i like, but thats the way it is...
But at the same time EB2 will get spillover from EB1 and EB2 ROW, so its expected that EB2 I will move forward. But how much that spillover is gonna be? Any data?
But at the same time EB2 will get spillover from EB1 and EB2 ROW, so its expected that EB2 I will move forward. But how much that spillover is gonna be? Any data?
MDix
08-22 09:32 PM
Simple English : EB2 will be more tough. They do have same strict guideline for EB1 also. If implemented then it will be tough to get EB2.
E21(EB2):
5. Paragraph (2)(A) of Chapter 22.2(j) of the AFM is revised to read as follows:
(A) Evaluation of Evidence Submitted in Support of a Petition for an Alien of Exceptional Ability. 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) provides that, in order to show the requisite exceptional ability, the petition must be accompanied by at least three of six criteria (set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii)). ISOs should use a two-part analysis where the evidence is first counted and then considered in the context of a final merits determination.
Part One: Evaluate Whether the Evidence Provided Meets at Least Three E21 Alien of Exceptional Ability Criteria. You must make a determination regarding whether the evidence submitted in the petition meets at least three criteria at 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii). Note: While ISOs must consider the quality and caliber of the evidence to determine whether a particular regulatory criterion has been met, the ISO should not make a determination relative to the alien�s claimed exceptional ability in Part One of the case analysis.
(i) An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability;
(ii) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being sought;
(iii) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation;
(iv) Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability;
Note: To satisfy this criterion, the evidence must show that the alien has commanded a salary or remuneration for services that is indicative of his or her claimed exceptional ability relative to others working in the field.
(v) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or
(vi) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations.
Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions (AFM Update AD 10-41)
Page 16
(vii) If the above standards do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility.
8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(iii) provides that petitioners may submit �comparable evidence� to establish an alien�s eligibility in cases where the standards set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) do not apply. In cases where such comparable evidence is submitted, it is reasonable to require the petitioner to explain why 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) does not apply.
Part One: Evaluative Determination. The determination in Part One of the analysis is limited whether the evidence submitted satisfies at least three of the criteria at 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) or the comparable evidence criterion in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(iii). After determining that, by a preponderance of the evidence, those criteria have been met, the ISO should move on to Part Two of the analysis to make a separate merits-based determination of eligibility based on the totality of evidence presented.
Part Two: Final Merits Determination. Meeting the minimum requirement by providing evidence three of the regulatory criteria does not, in itself, establish that the alien in fact meets the requirements for classification as an alien of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2) of the INA. In Part Two of the analysis, you must consider all of the evidence to make a final merit determination of whether or not the petitioner has, by a preponderance of the evidence, shown that the beneficiary is at a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered. Therefore, evidence submitted to establish exceptional ability must somehow place the alien above others in the field in order to fulfill the criteria; qualifications possessed by most members of a given field cannot demonstrate a degree of expertise "significantly above that ordinarily encountered." Note that section 203(b)(2)(C) of INA provides that mere possession of a degree, diploma, certificate or similar award from a college, university school or other institution of learning shall not by itself be considered sufficient evidence of exceptional ability. To meet the criterion set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), formal recognition in the form of certificates and other documentation that are contemporaneous with the alien�s claimed contributions and achievements may have more weight than letters prepared for the petition "recognizing" the alien's achievements.
6. The existing text of paragraph (2)(B) of Chapter 22.2(j) of the AFM is removed and the paragraph is reserved.
7. Technical Correction: The thirteenth paragraph in Chapter 22.2(b)(5)(B) of the AFM is revised to read as follows:
For successor-in-interest purposes, the transfer of ownership may occur at any time after the filing of the original labor certification with DOL.
Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions (AFM Update AD 10-41)
Page 17
8. Technical Correction: The DOL email address to use to request duplicate approved labor certifications from DOL in paragraphs (9) and (10) of Chapter 22.2(b) of the AFM is revised (in both paragraphs) to read as follows:
The duplicate
E21(EB2):
5. Paragraph (2)(A) of Chapter 22.2(j) of the AFM is revised to read as follows:
(A) Evaluation of Evidence Submitted in Support of a Petition for an Alien of Exceptional Ability. 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) provides that, in order to show the requisite exceptional ability, the petition must be accompanied by at least three of six criteria (set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii)). ISOs should use a two-part analysis where the evidence is first counted and then considered in the context of a final merits determination.
Part One: Evaluate Whether the Evidence Provided Meets at Least Three E21 Alien of Exceptional Ability Criteria. You must make a determination regarding whether the evidence submitted in the petition meets at least three criteria at 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii). Note: While ISOs must consider the quality and caliber of the evidence to determine whether a particular regulatory criterion has been met, the ISO should not make a determination relative to the alien�s claimed exceptional ability in Part One of the case analysis.
(i) An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability;
(ii) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being sought;
(iii) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation;
(iv) Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability;
Note: To satisfy this criterion, the evidence must show that the alien has commanded a salary or remuneration for services that is indicative of his or her claimed exceptional ability relative to others working in the field.
(v) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or
(vi) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations.
Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions (AFM Update AD 10-41)
Page 16
(vii) If the above standards do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility.
8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(iii) provides that petitioners may submit �comparable evidence� to establish an alien�s eligibility in cases where the standards set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) do not apply. In cases where such comparable evidence is submitted, it is reasonable to require the petitioner to explain why 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) does not apply.
Part One: Evaluative Determination. The determination in Part One of the analysis is limited whether the evidence submitted satisfies at least three of the criteria at 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) or the comparable evidence criterion in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(iii). After determining that, by a preponderance of the evidence, those criteria have been met, the ISO should move on to Part Two of the analysis to make a separate merits-based determination of eligibility based on the totality of evidence presented.
Part Two: Final Merits Determination. Meeting the minimum requirement by providing evidence three of the regulatory criteria does not, in itself, establish that the alien in fact meets the requirements for classification as an alien of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2) of the INA. In Part Two of the analysis, you must consider all of the evidence to make a final merit determination of whether or not the petitioner has, by a preponderance of the evidence, shown that the beneficiary is at a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered. Therefore, evidence submitted to establish exceptional ability must somehow place the alien above others in the field in order to fulfill the criteria; qualifications possessed by most members of a given field cannot demonstrate a degree of expertise "significantly above that ordinarily encountered." Note that section 203(b)(2)(C) of INA provides that mere possession of a degree, diploma, certificate or similar award from a college, university school or other institution of learning shall not by itself be considered sufficient evidence of exceptional ability. To meet the criterion set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), formal recognition in the form of certificates and other documentation that are contemporaneous with the alien�s claimed contributions and achievements may have more weight than letters prepared for the petition "recognizing" the alien's achievements.
6. The existing text of paragraph (2)(B) of Chapter 22.2(j) of the AFM is removed and the paragraph is reserved.
7. Technical Correction: The thirteenth paragraph in Chapter 22.2(b)(5)(B) of the AFM is revised to read as follows:
For successor-in-interest purposes, the transfer of ownership may occur at any time after the filing of the original labor certification with DOL.
Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions (AFM Update AD 10-41)
Page 17
8. Technical Correction: The DOL email address to use to request duplicate approved labor certifications from DOL in paragraphs (9) and (10) of Chapter 22.2(b) of the AFM is revised (in both paragraphs) to read as follows:
The duplicate
more...
xyzgc
02-09 07:05 AM
Wow, there you go! How come it becomes not 'stupid' when a girl spends husband's money to support her parents?
This, effectively, means that if the girl stops earning for any reason such as pregnancy or is unable to earn, she immediately forfeits the right to send money to her parents. This is the most illogical statement I have ever heard.
And it also means that for any reason, if a girl remains a house wife, she has no right to send any money to the parents like you, as the earning member, do.
This is the very strange attitude that may get a marriage in trouble.
Why shouldn't a husband send money to his parents from his earnings? The husband and wife can talk about it and based on circumstances take a decision.
BUT if the girl takes for granted her rights to spend for her parents from husband's earnings, then it becomes an issue!
Did I even say husband shouldn't send money to his parents from his earnings?
But shouldn't that be also need-based? How come it is the right of the husband to send any amount of money he wants to his parents without the wife complaining and how come it becomes a case of "taking for granted" when a non-earning wife wants to send money to her folks in need? This is a hypothetical situation and nothing to do with OP's case.
And then how is it we, husbands, are the first ones to start complaining when our wives don't get a share of our in-laws property following their demise?
And tell me then, following a divorce why are there laws which require you to split your net worth evenly with your non-working ex-wife? Is that acceptable to you then or you want to put forth an argument that "hey, we don't have a child and she is no longer my wife and so I am not obligated to give her a dime"
This, effectively, means that if the girl stops earning for any reason such as pregnancy or is unable to earn, she immediately forfeits the right to send money to her parents. This is the most illogical statement I have ever heard.
And it also means that for any reason, if a girl remains a house wife, she has no right to send any money to the parents like you, as the earning member, do.
This is the very strange attitude that may get a marriage in trouble.
Why shouldn't a husband send money to his parents from his earnings? The husband and wife can talk about it and based on circumstances take a decision.
BUT if the girl takes for granted her rights to spend for her parents from husband's earnings, then it becomes an issue!
Did I even say husband shouldn't send money to his parents from his earnings?
But shouldn't that be also need-based? How come it is the right of the husband to send any amount of money he wants to his parents without the wife complaining and how come it becomes a case of "taking for granted" when a non-earning wife wants to send money to her folks in need? This is a hypothetical situation and nothing to do with OP's case.
And then how is it we, husbands, are the first ones to start complaining when our wives don't get a share of our in-laws property following their demise?
And tell me then, following a divorce why are there laws which require you to split your net worth evenly with your non-working ex-wife? Is that acceptable to you then or you want to put forth an argument that "hey, we don't have a child and she is no longer my wife and so I am not obligated to give her a dime"
2010 Akatsuki
sareesh
07-16 12:44 PM
Mailed check yesterday.
Thanks,
SG.
Thanks,
SG.
more...
maddipati1
11-19 11:09 PM
This scenarios is for those who used all 6 years on H1 and got H1 extension due to a pending AOS application. they may have EADs too..
Ron Gocher quotes:
"Again, to be clear, my point is that if your AOS is denied, you immediately lose all eligibility for post sixth year extensions of H status. All time spent in H status counts against the six year limit. If you burn up time in H status while you are waiting for an AOS adjudication, you may well make it impossible to go back into H status if your AOS is denied."
My interpret...
Rule 1 :
> The max limit for H1 is only 6 years.
> You can only extend H1 beyond 6 years if there is a pending AOS
this means if there is no pending AOS, u r not eligible for H1.
On thing is clear, if AOS denial is valid, then thats it, no more H1 (after 6yrs)
but surprisingly Ron doesnt use the same logic for EAD too.
> EAD is also given as a temp relief for those who has pending AOS
so if there is no pending AOS, no more EAD too.
he thinks EAD is valid even after AOS valid Denial.
THe BIG QUESTION is, If AOS is wrongly denied and MTR is open,
What is the status of the dude?
Is the status AOS, coz its been denied already...
But again, if the dude's out of status due to AOS denial,
how come CIS allow to file MTR? Coz they know the guy who is
filing MTR is out-of-status due to AOS denial :-)
Its like a software u tested a lot with all kind of scenarios,
but there is one scenario still not tested.
Like in software, the dudes who initially wrote the code and the dudes who initially spcified requirements, are long gone to a different jobs. and after a few years (5,10 etc), a new set of dudes trying to wonder why this scenarios is missed, coz the whole biz process is already changed totally.
so, the dudes who wrote these rules and regulations are long gone and retired. and there are hell lot of things changed afterwards like AC21 etc etc.
thats is why systems need to be re-evaluated in a regular basis.
can this shit be any more tangled.... :-)
Ron Gocher quotes:
"Again, to be clear, my point is that if your AOS is denied, you immediately lose all eligibility for post sixth year extensions of H status. All time spent in H status counts against the six year limit. If you burn up time in H status while you are waiting for an AOS adjudication, you may well make it impossible to go back into H status if your AOS is denied."
My interpret...
Rule 1 :
> The max limit for H1 is only 6 years.
> You can only extend H1 beyond 6 years if there is a pending AOS
this means if there is no pending AOS, u r not eligible for H1.
On thing is clear, if AOS denial is valid, then thats it, no more H1 (after 6yrs)
but surprisingly Ron doesnt use the same logic for EAD too.
> EAD is also given as a temp relief for those who has pending AOS
so if there is no pending AOS, no more EAD too.
he thinks EAD is valid even after AOS valid Denial.
THe BIG QUESTION is, If AOS is wrongly denied and MTR is open,
What is the status of the dude?
Is the status AOS, coz its been denied already...
But again, if the dude's out of status due to AOS denial,
how come CIS allow to file MTR? Coz they know the guy who is
filing MTR is out-of-status due to AOS denial :-)
Its like a software u tested a lot with all kind of scenarios,
but there is one scenario still not tested.
Like in software, the dudes who initially wrote the code and the dudes who initially spcified requirements, are long gone to a different jobs. and after a few years (5,10 etc), a new set of dudes trying to wonder why this scenarios is missed, coz the whole biz process is already changed totally.
so, the dudes who wrote these rules and regulations are long gone and retired. and there are hell lot of things changed afterwards like AC21 etc etc.
thats is why systems need to be re-evaluated in a regular basis.
can this shit be any more tangled.... :-)
hair [PSP]Naruto Shippuden Akatsuki
GCSeekerCT
03-04 07:30 PM
They can deny for whatever reason they think is risky. Banks are looking for reasons to NOT loan right now, as opposed to 2 years ago when everyone waling in were offered free money.
I suggest you go to a reputed FCU or small, regional bank. IMO, they are much better to work with. I recently refinanced a loan with an FCU, originally extended to me by our local bank.
Terms and paperwork is VERY easy, you get to talk to the same people through your application as opposed to a big bank where your papers are pushed around the country every week (my experience with BoA).
HTH
I suggest you go to a reputed FCU or small, regional bank. IMO, they are much better to work with. I recently refinanced a loan with an FCU, originally extended to me by our local bank.
Terms and paperwork is VERY easy, you get to talk to the same people through your application as opposed to a big bank where your papers are pushed around the country every week (my experience with BoA).
HTH
more...
test101
07-24 05:15 PM
all what i did is the following :
A-filed the application and paid it on line. I called the cgnfs to check on the required documents.
B- part of the cgnfs application is need to be sent the the Nusring Board of education in the state you are licensed in. Call the nursing board of education in your state, usually there is a fee for varification of licneses.
Ask them if you can include an express paid envelop so there wont be any delays. Explain to the nursing board that you need it fast so they finish it fast.
C-Your transcripits has to be sent from your college.(do not send it yourself). I went to my college, ordered my transcripit and went to the nursing office and had them express mail it the same day.
I believe you need your high school diploma as well. Call the cfnfs and them for they exactly wants from you.
You do not need Toefl if you are educated in the US.
My experience with them is that they are fast if you are US educated because they do not really have to evaluate your education.
good luck
A-filed the application and paid it on line. I called the cgnfs to check on the required documents.
B- part of the cgnfs application is need to be sent the the Nusring Board of education in the state you are licensed in. Call the nursing board of education in your state, usually there is a fee for varification of licneses.
Ask them if you can include an express paid envelop so there wont be any delays. Explain to the nursing board that you need it fast so they finish it fast.
C-Your transcripits has to be sent from your college.(do not send it yourself). I went to my college, ordered my transcripit and went to the nursing office and had them express mail it the same day.
I believe you need your high school diploma as well. Call the cfnfs and them for they exactly wants from you.
You do not need Toefl if you are educated in the US.
My experience with them is that they are fast if you are US educated because they do not really have to evaluate your education.
good luck
hot wallpaper naruto akatsuki. wallpaper naruto shippuden
nlssubbu
07-25 01:29 PM
priti8888
Visa Allotment or Assigning of Visas by USCIS - I cannot digest the assumption that USCIS/DOS/DOL are fools and there is no coordination among them to know who from which country has applied for GC under which category. These Govt. agencies are so efficient that they can even go through these forums and connect IDs here to applications. It is a piece of cake for them to find out the entire background of an applicant as soon as even the LC is filed. They very well know who is stuck with which employer in which state and what stage and to whom they are approving the GCs. If the employers are Americans, they can even call the DOL and ask them to hold the LC approval because they know that once their employees get their GCs they will quit them.
I am not trying to be negative and pessimistic, but please think about the chances of immigrants sueing these Govt. agencies during any of the stages in GC process and winning the lawsuit. And ofcourse, the immigration lawyers are too happy with the retrogressions and the way the immigration system works in this country.
Hi,
This issue was discussed in detail in Ombudsman report in 2006. Please look from page 29 which gives detail description of the inability to give accurate numbers and communicate effectively between USCIS and DOS.
It clearly states that DOS was unable to determin exact numbers and could not co-ordinate with DOL / USCIS regarding cut-off date, by country numbers and also the total number of cards issued resulting in not all allocated numbers are approved as well.
Thanks
Visa Allotment or Assigning of Visas by USCIS - I cannot digest the assumption that USCIS/DOS/DOL are fools and there is no coordination among them to know who from which country has applied for GC under which category. These Govt. agencies are so efficient that they can even go through these forums and connect IDs here to applications. It is a piece of cake for them to find out the entire background of an applicant as soon as even the LC is filed. They very well know who is stuck with which employer in which state and what stage and to whom they are approving the GCs. If the employers are Americans, they can even call the DOL and ask them to hold the LC approval because they know that once their employees get their GCs they will quit them.
I am not trying to be negative and pessimistic, but please think about the chances of immigrants sueing these Govt. agencies during any of the stages in GC process and winning the lawsuit. And ofcourse, the immigration lawyers are too happy with the retrogressions and the way the immigration system works in this country.
Hi,
This issue was discussed in detail in Ombudsman report in 2006. Please look from page 29 which gives detail description of the inability to give accurate numbers and communicate effectively between USCIS and DOS.
It clearly states that DOS was unable to determin exact numbers and could not co-ordinate with DOL / USCIS regarding cut-off date, by country numbers and also the total number of cards issued resulting in not all allocated numbers are approved as well.
Thanks
more...
house Download For PSP Wallpaper:
priti8888
07-23 06:30 PM
This is aboslutly not possible; he/she is trying to fool every one. Before retrogression, the last date to file a 485 for a EB3-Indian with PD 08/2004 was 12/31/2004. From Jan 2005 till July 2007 EB3 Inida was retrogressed for his PD. So he/she could not apply 485 in Feb 2005. The other optins could be he/she may be in EB2 catagory or a Schulde A nurse.
I was in similar time frame; So I know the date well....
correction..I got the EAD in Feb 05, My RD is Dec 04.
I was in similar time frame; So I know the date well....
correction..I got the EAD in Feb 05, My RD is Dec 04.
tattoo Add this wallpaper to your800
Hermione
10-01 09:24 AM
Well, if they wasted more than 1,000 visas, I am going to write and call everyone on my list. Don't tell me they can't manage to appove 140K visas a year, or they are overloaded with work - USCIS approves a total of more than 1M green cards a year, so let's not pretend they do not have the capacity.
more...
pictures naruto shippuden akatsuki
map_boiler
07-06 12:01 AM
duplicate thread...admin please merge this with "News Article Thread -3"
dresses naruto shippuden akatsuki
chocolate
06-05 09:04 AM
If this bill pass without our provisions in it lot of us will be doomed!!
If the bill passes then obviously they have to look into people who are stuck in labor in BECs right. Look at the labor substitution elimination rule it will go into effect from July 15 and its still 1 1/2 months. Also it gives relief to people who havent applied next stages although labor approved and whose labor is to approve.
If the bill passes then obviously they have to look into people who are stuck in labor in BECs right. Look at the labor substitution elimination rule it will go into effect from July 15 and its still 1 1/2 months. Also it gives relief to people who havent applied next stages although labor approved and whose labor is to approve.
more...
makeup naruto shippuden akatsuki
badluck
07-06 01:52 PM
Cmon stop the rumour. Just because some of you sent the application on 2nd doesnt mean that they will honour it. If and if they do , there will be much more serious and valid lawsuit, because they've already issued a revision from 2nd July. Under law they have to give everyone a fair and equal chance.
So pls stop cooking rumours from your lawyer. He simply doesn't want to pay back your fee and keeping your hope high..
2 cents
I think you sent your application after july 2...:D
So pls stop cooking rumours from your lawyer. He simply doesn't want to pay back your fee and keeping your hope high..
2 cents
I think you sent your application after july 2...:D
girlfriend naruto shippuden akatsuki
gene77
03-20 12:43 PM
Folks,
I'm on H1 and my wife is on H4. We have both got our EADs and have visa stamps till Jun 2010.
Can my wife switch to the EAD status and start working even though I remain on H1 status till my visa expiry? Is this allowed?
If yes, then can she travel on AP while I'm still on H1 visa?
If we're both re-entering the US, can the IO ask why is the spouse on EAD/AP and not the primary applicant?
Thank you very much!
I'm on H1 and my wife is on H4. We have both got our EADs and have visa stamps till Jun 2010.
Can my wife switch to the EAD status and start working even though I remain on H1 status till my visa expiry? Is this allowed?
If yes, then can she travel on AP while I'm still on H1 visa?
If we're both re-entering the US, can the IO ask why is the spouse on EAD/AP and not the primary applicant?
Thank you very much!
hairstyles Naruto+shippuden+akatsuki+
john2255
07-21 07:42 AM
What you should do.
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
niklshah
08-02 04:23 PM
i am a 2nd july filer, my cheques were cashed today. filed at nebraska
johnamit
08-10 02:00 PM
nothing new but here it is:
source: http://www.murthy.com/news/n_notaug.html
Delays in Issuance of USCIS Receipt Notices - August 2007
Posted Aug 10, 2007
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS has advised that, as of August 3, 2007, they have received a substantially higher than normal volume of filings. This comes as no surprise, as it is most likely related to the July 2007 Visa Bulletin filings. The volume of cases has created a "front log" of cases awaiting initial data entry and issuance of receipt notices. The USCIS advises that the receipt notice delays will not impact eligibility for change of status or extension of status. Cases will be treated as received on their actual receipt dates, even if the receipt notice is delayed. The actual date that the filing was received at the USCIS (receipt date) will appear on the I-797 receipt notice, in addition to a later issuance of the receipt notice (notice date).
�MurthyDotCom
Issuance of Receipt Notices at NSC and TSC
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS has published updates with information about receipt notices and the order in which they will be issued. As of August 3, 2007, the Nebraska Service Center (NSC) had issued receipts for employment-based I-485s, I-131s, and I-140s filed on or before July 1, 2007. (Although July 1, 2007, is a Sunday, that is the date that was given by the USCIS.) NSC is issuing receipts for I-765s filed on or before July 2, 2007. The Texas Service Center (TSC) is reporting that it is issuing receipts for employment-based I-485s, I-131, and I-765s filed on June 26, 2007.
�MurthyDotCom
Murthy Law Firm Update and Suggestion
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS plans to provide weekly updates on its issuance of receipt notices. As of last week, the Murthy Law Firm had received some I-485 receipt notices dated July 2, 2007. Those awaiting receipts should also see if their filing fee checks have been cashed. This confirms that the case was accepted for processing. A receipt number of the file / case can be found on the back of the check.
source: http://www.murthy.com/news/n_notaug.html
Delays in Issuance of USCIS Receipt Notices - August 2007
Posted Aug 10, 2007
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS has advised that, as of August 3, 2007, they have received a substantially higher than normal volume of filings. This comes as no surprise, as it is most likely related to the July 2007 Visa Bulletin filings. The volume of cases has created a "front log" of cases awaiting initial data entry and issuance of receipt notices. The USCIS advises that the receipt notice delays will not impact eligibility for change of status or extension of status. Cases will be treated as received on their actual receipt dates, even if the receipt notice is delayed. The actual date that the filing was received at the USCIS (receipt date) will appear on the I-797 receipt notice, in addition to a later issuance of the receipt notice (notice date).
�MurthyDotCom
Issuance of Receipt Notices at NSC and TSC
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS has published updates with information about receipt notices and the order in which they will be issued. As of August 3, 2007, the Nebraska Service Center (NSC) had issued receipts for employment-based I-485s, I-131s, and I-140s filed on or before July 1, 2007. (Although July 1, 2007, is a Sunday, that is the date that was given by the USCIS.) NSC is issuing receipts for I-765s filed on or before July 2, 2007. The Texas Service Center (TSC) is reporting that it is issuing receipts for employment-based I-485s, I-131, and I-765s filed on June 26, 2007.
�MurthyDotCom
Murthy Law Firm Update and Suggestion
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS plans to provide weekly updates on its issuance of receipt notices. As of last week, the Murthy Law Firm had received some I-485 receipt notices dated July 2, 2007. Those awaiting receipts should also see if their filing fee checks have been cashed. This confirms that the case was accepted for processing. A receipt number of the file / case can be found on the back of the check.
No comments:
Post a Comment