rameshavula
05-12 09:38 AM
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/immig12.html
Its a good sign.....
Ramesh
Its a good sign.....
Ramesh
wallpaper Sigmund Freud intuitively
vbkris77
07-02 11:12 AM
I have followed it up with AILF and 3 more attorneys just in case to see if a law suit is feasible. All of them said, it is not possible. Only option left is to write to Dept. of Justice to see if this law holds a constitutional test. I wrote once, but never got any reply on that.
But if we could take this as a group and mobilise on a mass scale to reach out to DOJ and have them review this INA law we might get attention.
Couple of points to Nay sayers.. that this is not racial descrimination
INA even though uses country of birth instead of color of skin It is still considered raical because, Under the same INA, if someone is born in a retro. country and their parents are not from that country, One could use parents country of birth.
So if a family from UK on a business to India gave birth to a child, this child is not subjected to India limits. Which means this applies only to natives from India.
I tried explaining this in my writing to DOJ. But one letter didn't do the job required.
But if we could take this as a group and mobilise on a mass scale to reach out to DOJ and have them review this INA law we might get attention.
Couple of points to Nay sayers.. that this is not racial descrimination
INA even though uses country of birth instead of color of skin It is still considered raical because, Under the same INA, if someone is born in a retro. country and their parents are not from that country, One could use parents country of birth.
So if a family from UK on a business to India gave birth to a child, this child is not subjected to India limits. Which means this applies only to natives from India.
I tried explaining this in my writing to DOJ. But one letter didn't do the job required.
getgreensoon1
06-03 08:38 AM
Sukanya Roy is America's spelling bee champion | Sukanya Roy | 2011 Scripps National Spelling Bee | Indian Express (http://expressbuzz.com/world/sukanya-roy-is-americas-spelling-bee-champion/280779.html)
WASHINGTON: Spelling tongue twister "cymotrichous", Greek for having wavy hair, Indian American Sukanya Roy has won the 2011 Scripps National Spelling Bee crown to retain the coveted honour for the community for the fourth year in a row.
Roy, 14, an eighth-grader at Abington Heights Middle School, Pennsylvania, said she knew as soon as she heard "cymotrichous" that she'd get the word right and win the championship Thursday night.
"My heart started pounding, I guess," she said. "I couldn't believe it. . It's just amazing. It's hard to put into words."
It was Roy's third trip to the national spelling bee, and she had credited her past experience with keeping her calm and relaxed heading into the finals. She tied for 12th place in 2009 and 20th place in 2010.
Roy speaks Bengali and every summer travels to India to visit family. She hopes to pursue a career in international relations.
Roy is the ninth Indian-American in the last 13 years, a run that began when Nupur Lala captured the crown in 1999 and was later featured in the documentary "Spellbound."
The winner will be awarded a $30,000 cash prize, a trophy, a $2,500 US savings bond, a complete reference library, a $5,000 scholarship and $2,600 in reference works and other prizes.
Anamika Veeramani had scored a hat-trick for Indian-Americans in taking the crown last year.
Roy was one of the six Indian Americans - Sriram Hathwar, Arvind Mahankali, Prakash Mishra, Mashad Arora, and Dhivya Senthil Murugan - who made it to the last 13 in the finals.
The youngest finalist was 10-year-old Dhivya Murugan of Denver, who was born in India.
The spelling bee kids just keep getting better and better. Even words like chlorthalidone," "dreikanter," "renminbi" and "helichrysum" couldn't sufficiently narrow down the field in the semifinals, which needed 95 minutes of overtime earlier Thursday to whittle the competitors from 41 to 13.
The week began with 275 spellers. A written test Tuesday and two oral rounds Wednesday reduced the field for the semifinals.
According to the Scripps Spelling Bee's website, this year brought contenders ranging in age from 8 to 15 years old from all over the world.
-----------------
GCANDGC
Typically Indian parents make their kids work on these kind of things to satisfy their own egos. Its a useless thing.....who cares about who knows how many spellings or something.....its all some software today...who needs to be a master of spellings .....only people with right logic and aptitude will suceed.
WASHINGTON: Spelling tongue twister "cymotrichous", Greek for having wavy hair, Indian American Sukanya Roy has won the 2011 Scripps National Spelling Bee crown to retain the coveted honour for the community for the fourth year in a row.
Roy, 14, an eighth-grader at Abington Heights Middle School, Pennsylvania, said she knew as soon as she heard "cymotrichous" that she'd get the word right and win the championship Thursday night.
"My heart started pounding, I guess," she said. "I couldn't believe it. . It's just amazing. It's hard to put into words."
It was Roy's third trip to the national spelling bee, and she had credited her past experience with keeping her calm and relaxed heading into the finals. She tied for 12th place in 2009 and 20th place in 2010.
Roy speaks Bengali and every summer travels to India to visit family. She hopes to pursue a career in international relations.
Roy is the ninth Indian-American in the last 13 years, a run that began when Nupur Lala captured the crown in 1999 and was later featured in the documentary "Spellbound."
The winner will be awarded a $30,000 cash prize, a trophy, a $2,500 US savings bond, a complete reference library, a $5,000 scholarship and $2,600 in reference works and other prizes.
Anamika Veeramani had scored a hat-trick for Indian-Americans in taking the crown last year.
Roy was one of the six Indian Americans - Sriram Hathwar, Arvind Mahankali, Prakash Mishra, Mashad Arora, and Dhivya Senthil Murugan - who made it to the last 13 in the finals.
The youngest finalist was 10-year-old Dhivya Murugan of Denver, who was born in India.
The spelling bee kids just keep getting better and better. Even words like chlorthalidone," "dreikanter," "renminbi" and "helichrysum" couldn't sufficiently narrow down the field in the semifinals, which needed 95 minutes of overtime earlier Thursday to whittle the competitors from 41 to 13.
The week began with 275 spellers. A written test Tuesday and two oral rounds Wednesday reduced the field for the semifinals.
According to the Scripps Spelling Bee's website, this year brought contenders ranging in age from 8 to 15 years old from all over the world.
-----------------
GCANDGC
Typically Indian parents make their kids work on these kind of things to satisfy their own egos. Its a useless thing.....who cares about who knows how many spellings or something.....its all some software today...who needs to be a master of spellings .....only people with right logic and aptitude will suceed.
2011 Sigmund Freud Iceberg
frankiesaysrelax
03-21 06:53 PM
Came back today on AP. Port EWR. Escorted to secondary inspection. "Purpose of your trip", "Are you working for the petitioning employer" and "Since when you have been working for them" were the questions.
Can you please clarify, what details did you fill in following columns of I-94.
1) Name of the City where Visa was issued: ( Did you write Advance Parole ?)
Your parole document is not a visa. I left it blank.
2) Date of Visa Issued: ( Did you write Date of issuing Parole ?)
Blank again.
Can you please clarify, what details did you fill in following columns of I-94.
1) Name of the City where Visa was issued: ( Did you write Advance Parole ?)
Your parole document is not a visa. I left it blank.
2) Date of Visa Issued: ( Did you write Date of issuing Parole ?)
Blank again.
more...
Hassan11
07-20 02:45 PM
The short answer is most republicans voted yes for the senator Cornyn's bill to recapture the unused employment -based visas from previous years and almost all Democrats voted No (except Murray democrat from Washington voted yes for the bill. I guess Microsoft does have influencial power on the senator from Washington state)
see the info here about bill: http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html
Yesterday, Senator Cornyn introduced on the Senate floor Amendment 2339 to H.R. 2669, FY 2008 Budget, proposing the following temporaary relieffor the employment-based immigrants. Sadly, the bill was rejected by 55 Nays, 40 Yeas, and one No Vote. Do your want to know who voted against this bill? Click here.
SEC. __. EMPLOYMENT-BASED VISAS.
(a) Recapture of Unused Employment-Based Immigrant Visas.--Section 106(d) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-313; 8 U.S.C. 1153 note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``1994, 1996, 1997, 1998,'' after ``available in fiscal year'';
(B) by striking ``or 2004'' and inserting ``2004, or 2006''; and
(C) by striking ``be available'' and all that follows and inserting the following: ``be available only to--
``(A) employment-based immigrants under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b));
``(B) the family members accompanying or following to join such employment-based immigrants under section 203(d) of such Act; and
``(C) those immigrant workers who had petitions approved based on Schedule A, Group I under section 656.5 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated by the Secretary of Labor.''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``1999 through 2004'' and inserting ``1994, 1996 through 1998, 2001 through 2004, and 2006''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by amending clause (ii) to read as follows:
``(ii) DISTRIBUTION OF VISAS.--The total number of visas made available under paragraph (1) from unused visas from fiscal years 1994, 1996 through 1998, 2001 through 2004, and 2006 shall be distributed as follows:
``(I) The total number of visas made available for immigrant workers who had petitions approved based on Schedule A, Group I under section 656.5 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated by the Secretary of Labor shall be 61,000.
``(II) The visas remaining from the total made available under subclause (I) shall be allocated equally among employment-based immigrants with approved petitions under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (and their family members accompanying or following to join).''.
(b) H-1B Visa Availability.--Section 214(g)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (vi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating clause (vii) as clause (ix); and
(3) by inserting after clause (vi) the following:
``(vii) 65,000 in each of fiscal years 2004 through 2007
``(viii) 115,000 in fiscal year 2008; and''.
This reporter asks the readers to join him to extend our "THANK YOU" to the Senator Cornyn for continuously supporting the American businesses, foreign brains, and employment-based immigration. This reporter also urges the readers to send a thank-you email for his support.
We are proud of the Senators from Minnesota, Norm Coleman (R) and Amy Klochubar, by setting aside the partisan politics and casting bi-parisan support for this bill. THANK YOU, and THANK!!
here is the list of the senators of their votes:
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Motion (Motion to Waive Cornyn Amdt No. 2339 )
Vote Number: 266 Vote Date: July 19, 2007, 11:00 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Motion Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2339 to S.Amdt. 2327 to H.R. 2669 (College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 )
Statement of Purpose: To provide interim relief for shortages in employment-based visas for aliens with extraordinary ability and advanced degrees and for nurses.
Vote Counts: YEAs 55
NAYs 40
Not Voting 5
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
see the info here about bill: http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html
Yesterday, Senator Cornyn introduced on the Senate floor Amendment 2339 to H.R. 2669, FY 2008 Budget, proposing the following temporaary relieffor the employment-based immigrants. Sadly, the bill was rejected by 55 Nays, 40 Yeas, and one No Vote. Do your want to know who voted against this bill? Click here.
SEC. __. EMPLOYMENT-BASED VISAS.
(a) Recapture of Unused Employment-Based Immigrant Visas.--Section 106(d) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-313; 8 U.S.C. 1153 note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``1994, 1996, 1997, 1998,'' after ``available in fiscal year'';
(B) by striking ``or 2004'' and inserting ``2004, or 2006''; and
(C) by striking ``be available'' and all that follows and inserting the following: ``be available only to--
``(A) employment-based immigrants under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b));
``(B) the family members accompanying or following to join such employment-based immigrants under section 203(d) of such Act; and
``(C) those immigrant workers who had petitions approved based on Schedule A, Group I under section 656.5 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated by the Secretary of Labor.''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``1999 through 2004'' and inserting ``1994, 1996 through 1998, 2001 through 2004, and 2006''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by amending clause (ii) to read as follows:
``(ii) DISTRIBUTION OF VISAS.--The total number of visas made available under paragraph (1) from unused visas from fiscal years 1994, 1996 through 1998, 2001 through 2004, and 2006 shall be distributed as follows:
``(I) The total number of visas made available for immigrant workers who had petitions approved based on Schedule A, Group I under section 656.5 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated by the Secretary of Labor shall be 61,000.
``(II) The visas remaining from the total made available under subclause (I) shall be allocated equally among employment-based immigrants with approved petitions under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (and their family members accompanying or following to join).''.
(b) H-1B Visa Availability.--Section 214(g)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (vi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating clause (vii) as clause (ix); and
(3) by inserting after clause (vi) the following:
``(vii) 65,000 in each of fiscal years 2004 through 2007
``(viii) 115,000 in fiscal year 2008; and''.
This reporter asks the readers to join him to extend our "THANK YOU" to the Senator Cornyn for continuously supporting the American businesses, foreign brains, and employment-based immigration. This reporter also urges the readers to send a thank-you email for his support.
We are proud of the Senators from Minnesota, Norm Coleman (R) and Amy Klochubar, by setting aside the partisan politics and casting bi-parisan support for this bill. THANK YOU, and THANK!!
here is the list of the senators of their votes:
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Motion (Motion to Waive Cornyn Amdt No. 2339 )
Vote Number: 266 Vote Date: July 19, 2007, 11:00 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Motion Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2339 to S.Amdt. 2327 to H.R. 2669 (College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 )
Statement of Purpose: To provide interim relief for shortages in employment-based visas for aliens with extraordinary ability and advanced degrees and for nurses.
Vote Counts: YEAs 55
NAYs 40
Not Voting 5
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
styrum
02-07 01:55 PM
Can somebody clarify what it means that "salary is large enough" for EB2?
If a PWD was obtained from the state "workforce agency" and it has some number there, the job order has been placed with that number, can DOL and/or CIS later on (while processing PERM and/or I140) still say that the salary is "not good enough for EB2"? Based on which considerations and how are we and the employer supposed to know them beforehand then?
If a PWD was obtained from the state "workforce agency" and it has some number there, the job order has been placed with that number, can DOL and/or CIS later on (while processing PERM and/or I140) still say that the salary is "not good enough for EB2"? Based on which considerations and how are we and the employer supposed to know them beforehand then?
more...
DSLStart
08-23 01:10 PM
Your case is a low hanging ripe fruit for them. Keep your fingers crossed in Sept.
Folks..
I have seen lots of posts about pre-adjudication..how do we know if any case has been pre-adjudicated or not?...recently i got an RFE on my spouse case for Marriage Certificate and Birth certificate bonafide..there is no RFE on my case and had an FP done on 08/11/2009 second time and noticed soft LUD on my case on the day of FP...dose this means they are working on my case...:confused::confused:
Folks..
I have seen lots of posts about pre-adjudication..how do we know if any case has been pre-adjudicated or not?...recently i got an RFE on my spouse case for Marriage Certificate and Birth certificate bonafide..there is no RFE on my case and had an FP done on 08/11/2009 second time and noticed soft LUD on my case on the day of FP...dose this means they are working on my case...:confused::confused:
2010 Sigmund+freud+iceberg
chanduv23
02-11 12:06 PM
OK. I received the Denial letter today and below is the extract from it.
What does not make sense to me is that it said I140 revoked but in the next line it said I 140 revoked because it you did not meet minimum requirments for labor cert .
This I140 was approve ( it was file for me ) and if they did have this question at that time , how come they revoke it now.
Or is this is the way they normally denay the 485 ?
I am in big trouble . ???
**********************
You are applying on the basis of an immigrant petition for alien worker, for I140 filed on your behalf. However the same petition has been revoked.
Since the approval of the visa petition files on your behalf is no longer considered valued, your application is here by denied.
Please note that the Form I140 is no longer valid for porting purpose under section 106� of AC21 if the I140 was revoked due to the fact that you did not meet the minimum requirements for the labor certificate at the time of filing. Due to the fact that beneficiary of the For I140 was found to be �unqualified� at the time of filing you are not eligible for relied under section 106� of AC21.
The regulation do not provide for an appeal from this decision.
*********************************
A certified labor is needed to approve your 140. So your 140 was approved without labor?
What does not make sense to me is that it said I140 revoked but in the next line it said I 140 revoked because it you did not meet minimum requirments for labor cert .
This I140 was approve ( it was file for me ) and if they did have this question at that time , how come they revoke it now.
Or is this is the way they normally denay the 485 ?
I am in big trouble . ???
**********************
You are applying on the basis of an immigrant petition for alien worker, for I140 filed on your behalf. However the same petition has been revoked.
Since the approval of the visa petition files on your behalf is no longer considered valued, your application is here by denied.
Please note that the Form I140 is no longer valid for porting purpose under section 106� of AC21 if the I140 was revoked due to the fact that you did not meet the minimum requirements for the labor certificate at the time of filing. Due to the fact that beneficiary of the For I140 was found to be �unqualified� at the time of filing you are not eligible for relied under section 106� of AC21.
The regulation do not provide for an appeal from this decision.
*********************************
A certified labor is needed to approve your 140. So your 140 was approved without labor?
more...
prince_waiting
10-12 03:13 PM
Emails dispatched. Got acknowledgement.
hair Sigmund Freud Iceberg
lola
07-10 10:35 PM
Greetings! I have been watching the flower campaign after I got the email last night in IV news letter. While We are extremely happy getting the media coverage we needed, we are ignoring one thing. There is one more important issue that we are missing here. USINPAC is rapidly claiming that they are behind this whole thing. This is more than plaigarism. some of you might say that this is not some thing as we should be considered about media attention as our primary issue amidst of this whole thing, but this can come back hurting if USINPAC starts claiming the credit in more sites. If they go beyond the cliff, they will do their own press release to claim credit and it gets more messier at that point. If you look at their press releases, they clearly denied us any credit by refering to the org as Emigration voice. I am positive reporters across the worls know the difference between Immigration and Emigration and whether people from India immigrate to US or emigrate to US. I feel that this is deliberately denying any google search for IV
http://in.news.yahoo.com/070710/48/6hwnn.html
I am going to call them first thing tomorrow morning and explain them to clearly give credit to Immigration Voice (with clear spelling) for the flower campaign. Other wise, may be we should consider doing a press release on the same. We do not need to get impolite with them and use harsh words. We can convey one single message like we did today with the flower campaign. Hopefully some one like logiclife/pappu can come up with one consistent message to be delivered when we call USINPAC
http://in.news.yahoo.com/070710/48/6hwnn.html
I am going to call them first thing tomorrow morning and explain them to clearly give credit to Immigration Voice (with clear spelling) for the flower campaign. Other wise, may be we should consider doing a press release on the same. We do not need to get impolite with them and use harsh words. We can convey one single message like we did today with the flower campaign. Hopefully some one like logiclife/pappu can come up with one consistent message to be delivered when we call USINPAC
more...
at0474
03-21 04:28 PM
"1) Name of the City where Visa was issued: ( Did you write Advance Parole ?)"
--I put USA.
"2) Date of Visa Issued: ( Did you write Date of issuing Parole ?)"
--Did not write anything.
"My wife has gone to India. She has her Passport with her two Parole Approvals and her new extended H-4 Approval. Does she need anything else other than these documenys ? "
--That's about it. Doesn't need anything else. If she is not getting her visa stamped and planning on returning on AP, she should just give AP to the officer and say that she is seeking entry on AP. Officer would direct her for secondary process where she will get her AP/i-94 stamped.
I guess you gave a copy of your documents to your wife. Even if you did not, you shouldn't worry much. She should be ok.
--I put USA.
"2) Date of Visa Issued: ( Did you write Date of issuing Parole ?)"
--Did not write anything.
"My wife has gone to India. She has her Passport with her two Parole Approvals and her new extended H-4 Approval. Does she need anything else other than these documenys ? "
--That's about it. Doesn't need anything else. If she is not getting her visa stamped and planning on returning on AP, she should just give AP to the officer and say that she is seeking entry on AP. Officer would direct her for secondary process where she will get her AP/i-94 stamped.
I guess you gave a copy of your documents to your wife. Even if you did not, you shouldn't worry much. She should be ok.
hot Sigmund Freud Iceberg
yagw
09-20 01:42 PM
LOA...means I am still employed without benefits ...at my old company.
what you said makes sense..this is how I am looking at it
-join new company
-donot send in ac 21 paperwork
-if i have rfe send in paperwork from present employer which will only be a generic letter----(i don't know how much detail uscis likes)
-the reason i want to do LOA is that this way i will be sure they will not revoke i -140
-what do the gurus feel ?
BTW--gave u green --thanks for the reply
If LOA can stop the old employer from revoking I-140, I would say, go for it. But just make sure you don't land into any other trouble (like non-competent etc. just an example, may not be relevant in your case, but you get the idea...).
Also, discuss with the new employer and make sure they are ok with supporting you in case of an RFE. From your response, looks like they might know what it is. What I can think of is, consult an attorney and discuss what kinda RFEs you can get that needs employer help (mostly EVL, ability to pay), prepare a sample response letter for both and check with the new employer they are ok with providing them if necessary.
DISCLAIMER: I am not an Attorney and this is not a legal advice
what you said makes sense..this is how I am looking at it
-join new company
-donot send in ac 21 paperwork
-if i have rfe send in paperwork from present employer which will only be a generic letter----(i don't know how much detail uscis likes)
-the reason i want to do LOA is that this way i will be sure they will not revoke i -140
-what do the gurus feel ?
BTW--gave u green --thanks for the reply
If LOA can stop the old employer from revoking I-140, I would say, go for it. But just make sure you don't land into any other trouble (like non-competent etc. just an example, may not be relevant in your case, but you get the idea...).
Also, discuss with the new employer and make sure they are ok with supporting you in case of an RFE. From your response, looks like they might know what it is. What I can think of is, consult an attorney and discuss what kinda RFEs you can get that needs employer help (mostly EVL, ability to pay), prepare a sample response letter for both and check with the new employer they are ok with providing them if necessary.
DISCLAIMER: I am not an Attorney and this is not a legal advice
more...
house Activesigmund freud
GCBy3000
11-04 12:58 PM
After reading your post, I just called the ICICI customer support and checked with them. They told me that I cannot get anything from my ICICI NRO account unless otherwise it is for education or for medical purpose.
I am not sure how you got your money from ICICI. May be you had put USD and got it back sometime later. Have you tried to bring back INR from ICICI account? If yes, let me know what you did.
Two years back the limit was $25,000 per year. It seems substantially higher now. I did it through a one stop process at ICICI. Not cumbersome at all.
I am not sure if it is as difficult as is everyone's impression in this thread.
http://www.icicibank.com/pfsuser/icicibank/depositproducts/outward_remittance/out_remittance.htm
BTW, I repatriated money from a resident Indian account (account that I opened when I was a resident). I did not personally get an RBI clearance etc.
There were strict repatriation rules in the days when $s were in demand in India. These days RBI wishes there were less $s in the market. One of the reasons why the outflow is liberalized.
Good Luck.
I am not sure how you got your money from ICICI. May be you had put USD and got it back sometime later. Have you tried to bring back INR from ICICI account? If yes, let me know what you did.
Two years back the limit was $25,000 per year. It seems substantially higher now. I did it through a one stop process at ICICI. Not cumbersome at all.
I am not sure if it is as difficult as is everyone's impression in this thread.
http://www.icicibank.com/pfsuser/icicibank/depositproducts/outward_remittance/out_remittance.htm
BTW, I repatriated money from a resident Indian account (account that I opened when I was a resident). I did not personally get an RBI clearance etc.
There were strict repatriation rules in the days when $s were in demand in India. These days RBI wishes there were less $s in the market. One of the reasons why the outflow is liberalized.
Good Luck.
tattoo sigmund freud diagram
walking_dude
03-17 05:56 PM
No. Bernankes support wouldn't hurt. But statements like these, by you, may give the impression that IVs approach is ineffective which is not the case.
In America, people gets recognized when they offers a solution for a problem faced by the country. Whiners are (who write to Bush or Senators) do not get noticed nor are respected.
I stand corrected that we still need to send letters and faxes to Senators and Bush. But a little push from the Fed won't hurt IV's efforts, would they?
In America, people gets recognized when they offers a solution for a problem faced by the country. Whiners are (who write to Bush or Senators) do not get noticed nor are respected.
I stand corrected that we still need to send letters and faxes to Senators and Bush. But a little push from the Fed won't hurt IV's efforts, would they?
more...
pictures Simply need to sigmund freud
lelica32
05-21 05:39 PM
I still have April, 15.
dresses Sigmund+freud+iceberg+
ashkam
05-13 03:19 PM
I am talking about a person (like 485mbe - the one who has posted next to yr post) who has a PD of 2001 ..I am not saying that they should give Eb2's quota to EB3 ..but they should try to pull the category that is worst affected..or atleast give EB3 something ..
my question to you is ..say in the year 2010, would u support a situation where all categories are current or at 1 year difference ...while a particular category (eb3 I in this case) is at 2001 ??.. even if you do ..my feeling is that USCIS will try to pull EB3 - I (if something like above happens)..but then they are just a govt agency ..and in the end they are similar to govt agency in India ..only difference is that maybe little better
can I force them to do something just --No. can I pray for it -- maybe ..should I be ready for it (i.e. Eb3 - still in 2001 - 2002) - definitely !!
"but they should try to pull the category that is worst affected"
See, again, you are looking at it from the immigrant's point of view. Look at it from America's point of view. Immigration isn't like charity. America isn't in the business of helping immigrants, it is in the business of helping itself. No longer does America accept your tired, your poor, your huddled masses (http://www.libertystatepark.com/emma.htm), your wretched refuse anymore. The fact is that it is a matter of irrelevance to the US whether it is EB2 or EB3 that is retrogressed. It is only interested in retaining the best labor force in the world. EB1 and EB2 happen to be the best, at least on paper, therefore they are the chosen ones. The moment the US gets more self sufficient in so-called "high skilled professionals", it will make the green card opening narrower, perhaps even get rid of the EB3 category altogether. And would that be fair or just? Yes. Why? Because America is looking out for its own interests, not that of the immigrants. It's what every government does and should do.
my question to you is ..say in the year 2010, would u support a situation where all categories are current or at 1 year difference ...while a particular category (eb3 I in this case) is at 2001 ??.. even if you do ..my feeling is that USCIS will try to pull EB3 - I (if something like above happens)..but then they are just a govt agency ..and in the end they are similar to govt agency in India ..only difference is that maybe little better
can I force them to do something just --No. can I pray for it -- maybe ..should I be ready for it (i.e. Eb3 - still in 2001 - 2002) - definitely !!
"but they should try to pull the category that is worst affected"
See, again, you are looking at it from the immigrant's point of view. Look at it from America's point of view. Immigration isn't like charity. America isn't in the business of helping immigrants, it is in the business of helping itself. No longer does America accept your tired, your poor, your huddled masses (http://www.libertystatepark.com/emma.htm), your wretched refuse anymore. The fact is that it is a matter of irrelevance to the US whether it is EB2 or EB3 that is retrogressed. It is only interested in retaining the best labor force in the world. EB1 and EB2 happen to be the best, at least on paper, therefore they are the chosen ones. The moment the US gets more self sufficient in so-called "high skilled professionals", it will make the green card opening narrower, perhaps even get rid of the EB3 category altogether. And would that be fair or just? Yes. Why? Because America is looking out for its own interests, not that of the immigrants. It's what every government does and should do.
more...
makeup sigmundfreudicebergwhat
EBX-Man
05-06 11:02 AM
gc_rip,srisri007,
Instead of asking people on this forum i would say it is a question which needs to be addressed to the education evaluations people. They are the best persons to provide you with proper advice and guidance.
Instead of asking people on this forum i would say it is a question which needs to be addressed to the education evaluations people. They are the best persons to provide you with proper advice and guidance.
girlfriend Freud+iceberg+analogy
laborchic
10-12 01:43 PM
If you see a guy wearing a black suit and a pink tie in the party today than thats NOT me...
he he he .. I am getting in party mood already..
he he he .. I am getting in party mood already..
hairstyles sigmund freud proposed
24fps
02-15 08:04 PM
No, it wasn't. The 1999 quota was exhausted in April 1999. Granted this is better than the situation today, but not by much as the quota was larger that year and the economy was smaller.
http://www.murthy.com/arc_news/a_h1quot.html
well i meant pre y2k , april 2009 was the year that indians were bought in for y2k
i have a friend who got an h1b approved in 97 in the last week of aug
They said the results are statistically significant, which means that you can extrapolate to draw conclusions about the entire H1 population.
well i dont know if they actually said that or its your own conclusions but eitherways i do know that most of the peepz working with bodyshoppers have souped resume's or have some shit going on .
when my bro got here to do his masters in 2005 , the masters quota was availble till about july
in about 2 years it became a lottery without the number of student intake doubling/trembling up to make it one
they were body-shoppers running multiple petitions on students through a well run fraud circuit which artificially created a shortage
Not really. They used one example of someone working in a gas station for shock effect. The main complaint from the anti-immigrant side about the report was not that the 20% rate was understated, but that the rate would have been higher if it had included anyone paying a Level 1 wage as well.
again i dont know if thats what the anti-immi's complain about or if thats your own conclusion but the fact is that they're racist and will always have something to cloak around and raise as an issue
but the fact of the matter is that when any fraud is unearthed with connections to the highly skilled worker , the whole "Brand equity" gets badly tarnished , it not only gives the Anti -Immi's more fuel but also sways public opinion in all quadrants
you cant separate the Anti-immi jingoism and the fraud committed through those Desi bodyshoppers ,
http://www.murthy.com/arc_news/a_h1quot.html
well i meant pre y2k , april 2009 was the year that indians were bought in for y2k
i have a friend who got an h1b approved in 97 in the last week of aug
They said the results are statistically significant, which means that you can extrapolate to draw conclusions about the entire H1 population.
well i dont know if they actually said that or its your own conclusions but eitherways i do know that most of the peepz working with bodyshoppers have souped resume's or have some shit going on .
when my bro got here to do his masters in 2005 , the masters quota was availble till about july
in about 2 years it became a lottery without the number of student intake doubling/trembling up to make it one
they were body-shoppers running multiple petitions on students through a well run fraud circuit which artificially created a shortage
Not really. They used one example of someone working in a gas station for shock effect. The main complaint from the anti-immigrant side about the report was not that the 20% rate was understated, but that the rate would have been higher if it had included anyone paying a Level 1 wage as well.
again i dont know if thats what the anti-immi's complain about or if thats your own conclusion but the fact is that they're racist and will always have something to cloak around and raise as an issue
but the fact of the matter is that when any fraud is unearthed with connections to the highly skilled worker , the whole "Brand equity" gets badly tarnished , it not only gives the Anti -Immi's more fuel but also sways public opinion in all quadrants
you cant separate the Anti-immi jingoism and the fraud committed through those Desi bodyshoppers ,
12samanta
07-22 09:19 AM
Yesterday i sent letters by mail to OH 2 senators and 1 representative.
oliTwist
04-13 09:16 PM
lets see how this trend goes...
