sc3
10-17 01:44 PM
Question 18 should be helpful to your situation with RD.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/cbo_30sept08.pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/cbo_30sept08.pdf
wallpaper real madrid vs barcelona april
jjava100
09-10 01:40 PM
50, it said on the log in screen.
or more reputation points.. how to increase them to get to chat?? Thanks
or more reputation points.. how to increase them to get to chat?? Thanks
nlssubbu
12-27 02:33 PM
Dubai - no issues without valid stamp
Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg - I heard no issues now, if u have valid i 797 - waiting forr some comments
Amsterdam/Schiphol - No issue without valid stamp
London - ?????
Seoul - ?????
Singapore - ??????
Bangkok - ?????
Kuwait - ?????
Zurich -- ????
Geneva -- ???
I know that Seoul, Bangkok and Singapore does not need transit visa, if you do not step out of the Airport and have a connecting flight resevered for your outbound destination.
Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg - I heard no issues now, if u have valid i 797 - waiting forr some comments
Amsterdam/Schiphol - No issue without valid stamp
London - ?????
Seoul - ?????
Singapore - ??????
Bangkok - ?????
Kuwait - ?????
Zurich -- ????
Geneva -- ???
I know that Seoul, Bangkok and Singapore does not need transit visa, if you do not step out of the Airport and have a connecting flight resevered for your outbound destination.
2011 Barcelona vs Real Madrid
GC_sufferer
07-04 10:58 PM
nixstor,
First, with out name check cleared by FBI, no 485 will be approved. Assiging visa number to a 485 appliction initally, nothing to do with name check. If the applicant is threat to the security of the country, his/her 485 will be denied and they will take back the already assigned number. Both are two different issues.
Another myth: USCIS processed 60,000 485 in June. It is wrong. They processed 60,000 485 over the period of 6 months to 5 years. And they just approved in June, based on earlier processing.
Ramba, is that mean they might use less than 140K visas in 2007, because the name check may not be cleared for all 20K applictions in 3 months.
First, with out name check cleared by FBI, no 485 will be approved. Assiging visa number to a 485 appliction initally, nothing to do with name check. If the applicant is threat to the security of the country, his/her 485 will be denied and they will take back the already assigned number. Both are two different issues.
Another myth: USCIS processed 60,000 485 in June. It is wrong. They processed 60,000 485 over the period of 6 months to 5 years. And they just approved in June, based on earlier processing.
Ramba, is that mean they might use less than 140K visas in 2007, because the name check may not be cleared for all 20K applictions in 3 months.
more...
logiclife
01-31 02:07 PM
What if the employer is an NGO or NPO? I believe, it is not counted against the H-1 quota but in that case, can he start working right away?
That depends. I dont know how the H1s that are issued outside of quota for educational and non-profit organizations work. If they have the validity date sooner than 1st Oct 2007, then yes, you can start working based on that date.
Whatever the case, the H1 Approval letter (I - 797 ) will have start-date and end-date on it and that when you can work legally.
That depends. I dont know how the H1s that are issued outside of quota for educational and non-profit organizations work. If they have the validity date sooner than 1st Oct 2007, then yes, you can start working based on that date.
Whatever the case, the H1 Approval letter (I - 797 ) will have start-date and end-date on it and that when you can work legally.
abhijitp
07-24 04:09 PM
USCIS has released a press release July 23, 2007. Check QUESTION 13
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf
Yes, but it does not mention EVL. If USCIS mentions the EVL in another press release, that would be the ideal scenario, but probably won't happen.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf
Yes, but it does not mention EVL. If USCIS mentions the EVL in another press release, that would be the ideal scenario, but probably won't happen.
more...
ndbhatt
02-18 07:00 PM
Sorry guys, I misread somewhere.:D
What about illegal immigrants with < 5years. I think these senators will leave the overall problem unsolved.
What about legal immigrants with < 5years :confused:
What about illegal immigrants with < 5years. I think these senators will leave the overall problem unsolved.
What about legal immigrants with < 5years :confused:
2010 real madrid vs barcelona live
delhiguy
07-09 03:43 PM
I was surprised to see that nowhere it was mentioned that USCIS processed 25k petitions over the weekend (or nearly 60k in 2 weeks) as reported by some USCIS officials last week and in many cases broke their own regulations by approving several cases with pending background/name checks. That definitely sounds to me like a conspiracy against July filers....In my view, that should have been one of the strongest points we can use against USCIS. I dont think we have a case against DOS as they had to revise the bulletin as USCIS requested more than available Visa numbers and exhausted the quota.....Even Dr. Rice made it clear in her NBC interview from the DOS perspective that revision of visa bulletin caused an "inconvenience" to the petitioners....
I dont think legally you can sue someone, because they have worked harder.
I posted this link , so that everybody may know the legal reasons, which we can be presented in a court of law.
If this lawsuit is accepted by the court , then the USCIS lawyers would tell what exactly happened.
I till now personally believe , that the USCIS/DOS hasnt broken any law.
They may have however changed a pettern,process , but no law has been broken.
I dont think legally you can sue someone, because they have worked harder.
I posted this link , so that everybody may know the legal reasons, which we can be presented in a court of law.
If this lawsuit is accepted by the court , then the USCIS lawyers would tell what exactly happened.
I till now personally believe , that the USCIS/DOS hasnt broken any law.
They may have however changed a pettern,process , but no law has been broken.
more...
Libra
09-10 12:09 PM
no, not those people, but my guess many people who are working for desi companies like me defenitely feel this way.
SO LET'S GO TO DC.
Are you saying that whoever is happy in their job without a GC is in a closet or jail?
SO LET'S GO TO DC.
Are you saying that whoever is happy in their job without a GC is in a closet or jail?
hair Real Madrid vs Barcelona live
RNGC
12-23 09:49 PM
Hello everyone...
IV is doing a great job.....I suggest to send email to the individuals private email about these conference calls and meeting etc in atleast 2-3 in advance, ....We get so busy that we may not be able to check IV daily, but we do check our inbox...Planning to go to the CT meeting tomorrow....Anyone from plainsboro send me a PM
Ranga
Plainsboro, NJ
IV is doing a great job.....I suggest to send email to the individuals private email about these conference calls and meeting etc in atleast 2-3 in advance, ....We get so busy that we may not be able to check IV daily, but we do check our inbox...Planning to go to the CT meeting tomorrow....Anyone from plainsboro send me a PM
Ranga
Plainsboro, NJ
more...
trueguy
08-27 01:32 PM
Did anybody notice that FB I-485 processed numbers are same for every month. How USCIS can allocate same numbers to FB every month and not to EB. Wouldn't it be easy if they allocate annual quota of EB visas per month and any leftover from every month can be allocated to retrogressed countries in the same month.
hot real madrid vs barcelona copa
ronhira
04-09 07:02 PM
- the problem is with the congress, not with cis
Congress did not ask USCIS/DOS to subtract dependent visa numbers from 140K. If USCIS/DOS excludes dependent numbers from 140k, congress cannot question that because law doesn't mandate to include the dependent numbers in 140K.
-y the hell do u blame cis...... r they not allocating 140K per year
If USCIS/DOS doesn't agree to change their administration policy to exclude dependent visas from 140K after seeing our backlog, then who else do we have to blame.
Yes they are allocating 140K per year. But to who? In my view to the same applicant; one for primary applicant, another for his spouse, another for his kid, ....
Most of us here are 'keyboard ninjas'. Only very few contribute in actions and that contribution is hidden under donor forums. Without awareness of the good things happening, these keyboard-ninjas are not going to contribute in actions.
We all understand that blaming is not going to help anyone. But what else to do.
u'r saying that all these years uscis & dos was misinterpreting the law for counting dependents in the 140K count..... well, what is the army of 10,000 impotent immigration lawyers doing for last 15 years..... i know they r all dumb & sleazy..... but if that were the case someone in that useless army of 10,000 would have cared to file a lawsuit or someone in congress would have questioned uscis/dos..... the fact that no one questioned or filed for a suit just proves that uscis is interpreting the law correctly..... as much as i would like...... i am actually not convinced that its uscis fault for counting depends.... again here its the fault of the congress for framing the law like the way it is....
there are sleazy immigration lawyers who throw out this bullshit material hoping that some of it will stick, & guys like will think they r the gods..... in that sense its our fault to play right into the hands of sleazy immigration lawyers.... here r some of the creepiest of things thrown by some of these scam artist lawyers -
- fix backlog without immigration bill
- vb dates all current in 2 months
- spillover crap (this one is my favorite)
all that i'm trying to say is that we can do lot of things.... and beating down on uscis/dos is the last thing we all want to do....... becoz otherwise we waste the energy from our frustration/anger @ the wrong target......
Congress did not ask USCIS/DOS to subtract dependent visa numbers from 140K. If USCIS/DOS excludes dependent numbers from 140k, congress cannot question that because law doesn't mandate to include the dependent numbers in 140K.
-y the hell do u blame cis...... r they not allocating 140K per year
If USCIS/DOS doesn't agree to change their administration policy to exclude dependent visas from 140K after seeing our backlog, then who else do we have to blame.
Yes they are allocating 140K per year. But to who? In my view to the same applicant; one for primary applicant, another for his spouse, another for his kid, ....
Most of us here are 'keyboard ninjas'. Only very few contribute in actions and that contribution is hidden under donor forums. Without awareness of the good things happening, these keyboard-ninjas are not going to contribute in actions.
We all understand that blaming is not going to help anyone. But what else to do.
u'r saying that all these years uscis & dos was misinterpreting the law for counting dependents in the 140K count..... well, what is the army of 10,000 impotent immigration lawyers doing for last 15 years..... i know they r all dumb & sleazy..... but if that were the case someone in that useless army of 10,000 would have cared to file a lawsuit or someone in congress would have questioned uscis/dos..... the fact that no one questioned or filed for a suit just proves that uscis is interpreting the law correctly..... as much as i would like...... i am actually not convinced that its uscis fault for counting depends.... again here its the fault of the congress for framing the law like the way it is....
there are sleazy immigration lawyers who throw out this bullshit material hoping that some of it will stick, & guys like will think they r the gods..... in that sense its our fault to play right into the hands of sleazy immigration lawyers.... here r some of the creepiest of things thrown by some of these scam artist lawyers -
- fix backlog without immigration bill
- vb dates all current in 2 months
- spillover crap (this one is my favorite)
all that i'm trying to say is that we can do lot of things.... and beating down on uscis/dos is the last thing we all want to do....... becoz otherwise we waste the energy from our frustration/anger @ the wrong target......
more...
house real madrid vs barcelona april
tooclose
07-12 06:49 PM
Hi,
My PD is March 1st 2006. Just wondering is March 1st is in or out? i.e. cut off is March 2nd or March 1st?
thanks,
Rwe
Well my PD is 3-Mar-2006. So close but too far. :mad:
My PD is March 1st 2006. Just wondering is March 1st is in or out? i.e. cut off is March 2nd or March 1st?
thanks,
Rwe
Well my PD is 3-Mar-2006. So close but too far. :mad:
tattoo Dont#39;s think Barcelona Vs Real
ItIsNotFunny
10-15 02:28 PM
I have a doubt about what can be accomplished by the flower campaign. I am totally for it if it would help but just think - it is not in USCIS hands to assign more visas to EB3 or EB2. The number of visas is limited and the number of people waiting for the visas is huge. That is the whole cause of retrogression . If there were as many visas as the people everything would be current.
This is a simple matter of demand and supply . The thing that can help is visa recapture but that again USCIS can't do and only the Congress . What we need to do is point our efforts in the right direction .
Think how the supply is controlled?
Just as a hypothetical example, if USCIS makes a spill over policy that ROW can not lead any other country by more than 3 years.
If we try we can achieve something, atleast we can see some avenues. If we sit silent - Nope, then we are loosers not fighters.
This is a simple matter of demand and supply . The thing that can help is visa recapture but that again USCIS can't do and only the Congress . What we need to do is point our efforts in the right direction .
Think how the supply is controlled?
Just as a hypothetical example, if USCIS makes a spill over policy that ROW can not lead any other country by more than 3 years.
If we try we can achieve something, atleast we can see some avenues. If we sit silent - Nope, then we are loosers not fighters.
more...
pictures real madrid vs barcelona live.
GCard_Dream
12-12 05:48 PM
nomi,
I am very surprised that there is not as much interest in this thread as I had expected but you are doing great in trying to explore this avenue. I wish I had some of the answers. Keep up the good work.
I am very surprised that there is not as much interest in this thread as I had expected but you are doing great in trying to explore this avenue. I wish I had some of the answers. Keep up the good work.
dresses Preview: Real Madrid CF vs
ramus
07-02 10:44 PM
100 more from tapukakababa
Accept my $100 contribution towards USCIS lawsuit done by AILA.
Accept my $100 contribution towards USCIS lawsuit done by AILA.
more...
makeup real madrid vs barcelona live
kartikiran
03-18 01:24 PM
Its more than 6 yrs now, since I started my GC process.
__________________
PD Date: 03/25/2002 EB3
I140 aprvd from TSC: 06/2006
485 filed @ TSC: June 29th 2007.
__________________
PD Date: 03/25/2002 EB3
I140 aprvd from TSC: 06/2006
485 filed @ TSC: June 29th 2007.
girlfriend Real Madrid vs Barcelona Live
sammas
07-12 04:01 PM
F. DETERMINATION OF THE NUMERICAL LIMITS ON IMMIGRANTS REQUIRED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT (INA)
The State Department is required to make a determination of the worldwide numerical limitations, as outlined in Section 201(c) and (d) of the INA, on an annual basis. These calculations are based in part on data provided by U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (CIS) regarding the number of immediate relative adjustments in the preceding year and the number of aliens paroled into the United States under Section 212(d)(5) in the second preceding year. Without this information, it is impossible to make an official determination of the annual limits. To avoid delays in processing while waiting for the CIS data, the Visa Office (VO) bases allocations on the minimum annual limits outlined in Section 201 of the INA. On July 7th, CIS provided the required data to VO.
The Department of State has determined the Family and Employment preference numerical limits for FY-2010 in accordance with the terms of Section 201 of the INA. These numerical limitations for FY-2010 are as follows:
Worldwide Family-Sponsored preference limit: 226,000
Worldwide Employment-Based preference limit: 150,667
Under INA Section 202(A), the per-country limit is fixed at 7% of the family and employment annual limits. For FY-2010 the per-country limit is 26,367. The dependent area annual limit is 2%, or 7,533.
The State Department is required to make a determination of the worldwide numerical limitations, as outlined in Section 201(c) and (d) of the INA, on an annual basis. These calculations are based in part on data provided by U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (CIS) regarding the number of immediate relative adjustments in the preceding year and the number of aliens paroled into the United States under Section 212(d)(5) in the second preceding year. Without this information, it is impossible to make an official determination of the annual limits. To avoid delays in processing while waiting for the CIS data, the Visa Office (VO) bases allocations on the minimum annual limits outlined in Section 201 of the INA. On July 7th, CIS provided the required data to VO.
The Department of State has determined the Family and Employment preference numerical limits for FY-2010 in accordance with the terms of Section 201 of the INA. These numerical limitations for FY-2010 are as follows:
Worldwide Family-Sponsored preference limit: 226,000
Worldwide Employment-Based preference limit: 150,667
Under INA Section 202(A), the per-country limit is fixed at 7% of the family and employment annual limits. For FY-2010 the per-country limit is 26,367. The dependent area annual limit is 2%, or 7,533.
hairstyles real madrid vs barcelona live
rajuram
05-26 09:06 PM
FYI, this is common if you are passing close border towns in TX and NM.
No big deal, just carry some copies in your car.
No big deal, just carry some copies in your car.
madhu345
12-27 06:51 AM
As many Airlines startes Non Stop services to India, why do we care abiut Transit visa.
I travelled American in May the service is pretty good, also Continental is pretty good.
-Madhu
I travelled American in May the service is pretty good, also Continental is pretty good.
-Madhu
amitjoey
07-03 11:50 PM
I understand that a lot of people have a genuine concern about why we would need funds for a law-suit, especially when AILF is doing it and it wont cost members to participate.
I am not core IV member, and I do not know the right answer, so I might be wrong, but last time there was a discussion about lawsuit, and previous occasions when it was discussed, it was clear that lawsuits have to be accompanied by a simultaneous campaign of lobbying, media coverage, and buying print and radio space. If we have to make a big splash, and make it really red and dark. That will also put a lot of pressure on the concerned authorities. These related activities need $$. Again, I might be totally offbase here. Pappu can answer this.
I am not core IV member, and I do not know the right answer, so I might be wrong, but last time there was a discussion about lawsuit, and previous occasions when it was discussed, it was clear that lawsuits have to be accompanied by a simultaneous campaign of lobbying, media coverage, and buying print and radio space. If we have to make a big splash, and make it really red and dark. That will also put a lot of pressure on the concerned authorities. These related activities need $$. Again, I might be totally offbase here. Pappu can answer this.
