bluez25
07-11 01:59 AM
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1328455.php/Indian_green_card_seekers_in_flowery_U.S._protest
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1035511020070710
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1035511020070710
wallpaper 3′ ig sean finally famous vol
addsf345
11-25 01:12 PM
^^BUMPER^^
Guys, we need more letters...forwarded to my 4 other friends, they promised to send letters by tomorrow before thanksgivings break.
Guys, we need more letters...forwarded to my 4 other friends, they promised to send letters by tomorrow before thanksgivings break.
pani_6
09-23 05:00 PM
So for EB-3 we have 1630 from 01, and 8300 from 02 and 12500 from 03..how long would this take to clear given EB 3 allotment??. every year??.
2011 Finally Famous: The Album,
mallu
09-14 10:25 PM
http://boards.immigration.com/showpost.php?p=1781566&postcount=6128
more...
mrsr
06-20 09:36 AM
please clear the doubt .. Affidavit of support is it I-134 or 864?
little_willy
08-20 10:46 PM
With the earlier method or the current method, EB3-I will always end up last. Vertically EB3-ROW gets the excess visas (old method), horizontally EB2-I gets the excess visas (new method). So, either way EB3-I won't benefit, the only solace being that with the current system atleast our EB2-I friends are getting their freedom faster.
For us, visa recapture or other legislative changes are the only relief.
BTW, my PD is June 2003, EB3-I
For us, visa recapture or other legislative changes are the only relief.
BTW, my PD is June 2003, EB3-I
more...
check_rd
05-23 08:42 PM
Hi,
I do not have medical records to prove that I have taken some of the vaccination that is mandatory for the medical test. However, I do have taken those and my Doctor back in India has those records. Is there a way people know that these records in "any format" / a "specific format" can be faxed or fedexed here and can be used?
Any help will be highly apprciated.
- N
Can be of any format . Sample
To WHOM SO EVER IT IS CONCERNED
This is to certify that Mr XXX is upto date with his TD and MMR vacinations.
From,
Dr ....
Address and Seal
This needs to be taken on the Doctor's Letter Pad.
I have been tested with TB (PPD) positive and have been asked to take an XRAY. I called up my PCP doctor and he has authorized to take the XRAY covered under my insurance if not i would have to pay $60. Its one way of saving money if XRAY is needed go talk to your PCP and get approval so its free.
I do not have medical records to prove that I have taken some of the vaccination that is mandatory for the medical test. However, I do have taken those and my Doctor back in India has those records. Is there a way people know that these records in "any format" / a "specific format" can be faxed or fedexed here and can be used?
Any help will be highly apprciated.
- N
Can be of any format . Sample
To WHOM SO EVER IT IS CONCERNED
This is to certify that Mr XXX is upto date with his TD and MMR vacinations.
From,
Dr ....
Address and Seal
This needs to be taken on the Doctor's Letter Pad.
I have been tested with TB (PPD) positive and have been asked to take an XRAY. I called up my PCP doctor and he has authorized to take the XRAY covered under my insurance if not i would have to pay $60. Its one way of saving money if XRAY is needed go talk to your PCP and get approval so its free.
2010 Big Sean – Finally Famous Vol.
Lasantha
05-15 12:33 PM
Thanks for the reply..Sanju.
Would you know if you were to use AC21 after 180 days of filing 485, to change employer what you would need..?
Do you need to change H1-B ???
Thanks
Hey Buddy, as far as I know when you use AC21 you loose your non-immigrant status but start working leagally. So changing H1 to the new company is not needed.
And as far as I can think, if you change your H1 to a new company at that pont it might even affect negatively on your green card process. Please check that with a lawyer.
Would you know if you were to use AC21 after 180 days of filing 485, to change employer what you would need..?
Do you need to change H1-B ???
Thanks
Hey Buddy, as far as I know when you use AC21 you loose your non-immigrant status but start working leagally. So changing H1 to the new company is not needed.
And as far as I can think, if you change your H1 to a new company at that pont it might even affect negatively on your green card process. Please check that with a lawyer.
more...
gc28262
08-20 06:43 PM
Lingo was a good service till vonage announced this deal.
Lingo has 3 cents to India on World plan $21.95/Month.
Lingo has a 2 year contract. If you leave them before 2 years, need to pay $100 penalty.
Lingo has 3 cents to India on World plan $21.95/Month.
Lingo has a 2 year contract. If you leave them before 2 years, need to pay $100 penalty.
hair ig sean finally famous
alisa
04-17 07:36 PM
I think this must be publicised somehow.
Firstly, it would be tragic if the employers are alegally llowed to discriminate against AOS applicant with EAD cards. Hopefully, it is not allowed under the law.
And in that case, it should be publicised and brought up that it is illegal.
I disagree with your conclusion. The employer has the right to prefer US Citizens over another individual only if the two individuals are equally qualified. For the cases mentioned in this thread, employers have flatly refused to consider anybody on EAD. So the clause of preference to US citizens does not apply.
If you read up on section 1160 (a) or 1255a (a)(1) you will find that it includes people who have filed for AOS. It is my understanding that an EB immigrant with AOS pending is included in the "alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence under section 1160 (a) or 1255a (a)(1)" category. I am not a lawyer and could be wrong but this is my interpretation. If you are on H-1B, this does not apply. But if you have EAD and AOS pending this should apply. There is no way for an employer to distinguish between an EB immigrant with EAD and AOS pending v/s a FB immigrant with EAD and AOS pending.
Firstly, it would be tragic if the employers are alegally llowed to discriminate against AOS applicant with EAD cards. Hopefully, it is not allowed under the law.
And in that case, it should be publicised and brought up that it is illegal.
I disagree with your conclusion. The employer has the right to prefer US Citizens over another individual only if the two individuals are equally qualified. For the cases mentioned in this thread, employers have flatly refused to consider anybody on EAD. So the clause of preference to US citizens does not apply.
If you read up on section 1160 (a) or 1255a (a)(1) you will find that it includes people who have filed for AOS. It is my understanding that an EB immigrant with AOS pending is included in the "alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence under section 1160 (a) or 1255a (a)(1)" category. I am not a lawyer and could be wrong but this is my interpretation. If you are on H-1B, this does not apply. But if you have EAD and AOS pending this should apply. There is no way for an employer to distinguish between an EB immigrant with EAD and AOS pending v/s a FB immigrant with EAD and AOS pending.
more...
qasleuth
11-24 11:44 PM
I have decided not to reply to any of the comments here and I will stick to that decision. However, I have received quite a few red dots with following comments....that shows how mature people are in this forum. Thank you.
11-24-2008 09:56 AM ass**ole
11-24-2008 09:51 AM bad advice
11-23-2008 03:32 AM foreclose and then buy a new car and get some credit cards? THIS is the fuckin reason we are all ina mess now.
11-23-2008 01:54 AM not good
You are funny....you should take the moral high ground only when you are on the right side...you gave morally/ethically repugnant suggestions and have "decided not to reply to any of the comments here"...very funny.
I do not condone the pathetic language folks here use including from sledge_hammer. You can make your arguments with civility. No need to call people "fools", "idiots", "stupids" etc. Shows your own under-confidence and lashing out at the wrong things/people.
11-24-2008 09:56 AM ass**ole
11-24-2008 09:51 AM bad advice
11-23-2008 03:32 AM foreclose and then buy a new car and get some credit cards? THIS is the fuckin reason we are all ina mess now.
11-23-2008 01:54 AM not good
You are funny....you should take the moral high ground only when you are on the right side...you gave morally/ethically repugnant suggestions and have "decided not to reply to any of the comments here"...very funny.
I do not condone the pathetic language folks here use including from sledge_hammer. You can make your arguments with civility. No need to call people "fools", "idiots", "stupids" etc. Shows your own under-confidence and lashing out at the wrong things/people.
hot Big Sean #39;Finally Famous
ilikekilo
06-29 05:43 PM
This is like playing with people's minds. I really dont care at this point if I get my GC or not. I hope people who create this kind of havoc die a rotten death.:mad:
http://www.aila.com/RecentPosting/RecentPostingList.aspx
chk this out above link
http://www.aila.com/RecentPosting/RecentPostingList.aspx
chk this out above link
more...
house Big Sean – Finally Famous; Big
bhagyesh1679
02-12 11:09 AM
Hi all,
I am planning for a trip to india and get my first visa stamping done some time in may. My visa was approved in july 2007. Does anyone think that this issue will prolong till may? Or will all these database updates for the PIMS verification checks be complete by then? Any inputs will be highly appreciated. Thanks.
I am planning for a trip to india and get my first visa stamping done some time in may. My visa was approved in july 2007. Does anyone think that this issue will prolong till may? Or will all these database updates for the PIMS verification checks be complete by then? Any inputs will be highly appreciated. Thanks.
tattoo dresses finally famous big
singhv_1980
02-15 03:28 PM
I called the Nogales (mexico) US embassy and they were able to look up the PIMS system using the petition number.
I hope the PIMS is a "centralized" system. So even the consulate in India would be using the same.
R u going to Nogales or just called to inquire???
I hope the PIMS is a "centralized" system. So even the consulate in India would be using the same.
R u going to Nogales or just called to inquire???
more...
pictures dresses images Album Artwork
CADude
11-06 03:40 PM
Wow.. Applicants are waiting since 2002 and Govt Agency know it but don't do anything. Shame on you FBI NNCP :mad:
Check this:
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
Check this:
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
dresses Sean: Finally Famous Vol.2
gc_on_demand
08-25 03:19 PM
Ok...the way I see this is 5000min/month at $25 (not adding taxes) is 5 cents a minutes...that is more than what I pay for my calling cards....bottom line....if your monthly calling bill is less than $ 25 there is no reason why you should get Vonage.
Use this one !
Free online calculators for home, work, and school (http://www.calculateforfree.com/)
Use this one !
Free online calculators for home, work, and school (http://www.calculateforfree.com/)
more...
makeup finally famous big sean album
h1techSlave
03-25 07:30 PM
Using the same logic, they can avoid interviewing an African American.
I think we all should get together and file a class action law suit against those companies.
Yes, This comes into picture once company decides to hire. Now hiring is teh last process and beofre that you get grilled in multiple interviews. Employer is tsill at liberty not to interview EAD holder. If you are not interviewed, hiring would not come into picture and hence this text of law in I-9 form is worthless for you for that position. This I-9 text will only cover the situation for the period after hiring not before hiring.
I think we all should get together and file a class action law suit against those companies.
Yes, This comes into picture once company decides to hire. Now hiring is teh last process and beofre that you get grilled in multiple interviews. Employer is tsill at liberty not to interview EAD holder. If you are not interviewed, hiring would not come into picture and hence this text of law in I-9 form is worthless for you for that position. This I-9 text will only cover the situation for the period after hiring not before hiring.
girlfriend With Finally Famous: The Album
gc_chahiye
06-26 01:45 PM
Folks,
This is the best I have come across :
husband files for himself - I 485
Wife files for herself - I 485
If one of the apps are approved, the other can Join.
No risks....
yes, this sames to be the safest option. only catch seems to be:
- if you are on EAD, then you how do you join? your EAD is based off your I485, which u are presumably abandoning so you can join the other application.
This is the best I have come across :
husband files for himself - I 485
Wife files for herself - I 485
If one of the apps are approved, the other can Join.
No risks....
yes, this sames to be the safest option. only catch seems to be:
- if you are on EAD, then you how do you join? your EAD is based off your I485, which u are presumably abandoning so you can join the other application.
hairstyles girlfriend Big Sean - Finally
NKR
08-07 01:18 PM
Yes, I agree that not filing GC earlier is not an excuse for MBA. The point is he still would have been in the same situation (EB3, 2003 is not too different from EB2, 2005) in terms of how fast he will get his GC.
The law would allow him to port his EB3 PD just like how it is doing now. he will not be in the same situation, isn't this better now?
The law would allow him to port his EB3 PD just like how it is doing now. he will not be in the same situation, isn't this better now?
gbof
10-06 09:10 PM
guys,
I replied to the PMs abd as req I sent the letter sample that I sent to Janet N. Kewlchap and fatjoe I didn't get ur email ids......
You can get my letter from caliguy or gbof I sent them my letter too.YES I DID APPROACH CIS OMBUDSMan
Regards,
SoP
SoP, i got NO mail from you-- just check if you got my e-mail right
I replied to the PMs abd as req I sent the letter sample that I sent to Janet N. Kewlchap and fatjoe I didn't get ur email ids......
You can get my letter from caliguy or gbof I sent them my letter too.YES I DID APPROACH CIS OMBUDSMan
Regards,
SoP
SoP, i got NO mail from you-- just check if you got my e-mail right
grupak
03-24 10:37 AM
Yes, it is for a job which does NOT require security clearance.
Is there a formal way / method to let the company and USCIS know of such discrimination ? Any published guidelines from USCIS ?
Your response would depend on how badly you want this job.
Most times the hiring staff doesn't know the law and are too lazy. Anything out of the ordinary, they just reject.
If you want the job, you don't want to appear like a trouble maker. So, you could just write back politely that you were surprised by the disqualification since the Department of Homeland Security (do not write USCIS) had issued the EAD and enquire if they know that DHS guides employers against discrimination towards EAD holders. You can mention or attach form I-9.
Alternatively if you want to hold their feet to the fire, you can contact a lawyer. Hiring a lawyer should get their attention. Let the lawyer contact them. And also let DHS know about this employer. Write to them.
In any case, we cannot let employers come up with their own laws after we have gone through so much to get to the EAD stage. The law is the law and we are following it.
Is there a formal way / method to let the company and USCIS know of such discrimination ? Any published guidelines from USCIS ?
Your response would depend on how badly you want this job.
Most times the hiring staff doesn't know the law and are too lazy. Anything out of the ordinary, they just reject.
If you want the job, you don't want to appear like a trouble maker. So, you could just write back politely that you were surprised by the disqualification since the Department of Homeland Security (do not write USCIS) had issued the EAD and enquire if they know that DHS guides employers against discrimination towards EAD holders. You can mention or attach form I-9.
Alternatively if you want to hold their feet to the fire, you can contact a lawyer. Hiring a lawyer should get their attention. Let the lawyer contact them. And also let DHS know about this employer. Write to them.
In any case, we cannot let employers come up with their own laws after we have gone through so much to get to the EAD stage. The law is the law and we are following it.
No comments:
Post a Comment