sam2006
04-05 12:03 PM
I have done it also
response were good from the staff members
5$ per person who calls and posts his message here
i know all the consultants and IT are busy
please do it for a greater purpose in life
5$ per person from today-2morrow
response were good from the staff members
5$ per person who calls and posts his message here
i know all the consultants and IT are busy
please do it for a greater purpose in life
5$ per person from today-2morrow
wallpaper Prince William and Kate
kakatiya
07-23 08:10 PM
my lawyer said for concurrent filings a separate letter from employer is not needed.i am filing with one letter for I 140.
legal_la
07-02 06:05 PM
contributed 100 just now, my drop in the ocean, I will try to add more drops in coming days.
2011 Prince William and Kate
ajthakur
07-15 02:52 AM
I spoke with the immigration guy at my ex employers place. My 140 was indeed revoked. He doesnt know the date when it was revoked. He is certain the 140 sponsoring employer is willing to employ me. This means I can get an Employment Verification Letter from him.
Will this cause a concern with USCIS as
1. This company applies for 140
2. Revokes an approved 140 when employee quits
3. Is again willing to offer the job
Should I take AC21 route instead as I have an offer with the company B.
Will this cause a concern with USCIS as
1. This company applies for 140
2. Revokes an approved 140 when employee quits
3. Is again willing to offer the job
Should I take AC21 route instead as I have an offer with the company B.
more...
immigal
09-26 12:44 PM
No. Please attach copy of the affidavit. If you are called for interview, carry the original affidavit with you. This is what my attorney did..send the copy.
Jaime
09-12 01:24 AM
You will have to wait for decades more, unless we all go to Washington and seize the change! Truth is on our side!!!! LET'S ALL GO!!!!! THIS IS THE TIME WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR SO LONG!!!
more...
sen_raju
09-19 10:39 AM
Yes, I agree we should change the name to LegalImmigrationVoice. I feel a gr8 sense achievement and satisfaction that I was a part of the rally and was carrying Florida's flag.
Yes we need to put the word LEGAL everywhere. Even at the airport and in the flight after looking at our T-shirts people were asking what we were demanding. It was not clear to them whether we are legal or illegal and so we had to explain them.
Also we should not narrow it down to India and China only....May be in future it will be a good idea to check with the speakers what they are going to talk about.
Overall it was a gr8 effort and hope we will have more turnout in the future.
Yes we need to put the word LEGAL everywhere. Even at the airport and in the flight after looking at our T-shirts people were asking what we were demanding. It was not clear to them whether we are legal or illegal and so we had to explain them.
Also we should not narrow it down to India and China only....May be in future it will be a good idea to check with the speakers what they are going to talk about.
Overall it was a gr8 effort and hope we will have more turnout in the future.
2010 Prince William Kate Middleton
royus77
08-11 10:58 PM
If there is a non-controversial immi. law change attempt I will donate $500. I will also bring my friends and the total may exceed $2000. We all willing to donate but only if we know that there is good chance of passing.
If there is an attempt to push ideas like recapture, forget it. It will not pass in this economy. I do not want to waste my money and time on those kind of ideas.
IMHO. Not to find fault with anyone. Please do not mistake me.
what is the percentage you are looking ? 50 -50 ?I know thousands of people who can write a check for 10K to support any law that can give them a GC in the next 3-6 months..
If there is an attempt to push ideas like recapture, forget it. It will not pass in this economy. I do not want to waste my money and time on those kind of ideas.
IMHO. Not to find fault with anyone. Please do not mistake me.
what is the percentage you are looking ? 50 -50 ?I know thousands of people who can write a check for 10K to support any law that can give them a GC in the next 3-6 months..
more...
Jbpvisa
07-12 11:01 PM
http://www.murthy.com/chertoff_murthy.html
July 12, 2007
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Michael Chertoff, Esq.
Secretary
Department of Homeland Security
RE: USCIS Decision to Reject I-485 Filings
Dear Mr. Chertoff:
It was a pleasure and an honor to meet with you and to share my views during your panel discussion at the Harvard Worldwide Congress June 15, 2007 in Washington, D.C. I understand and appreciate that the responsibility vested in you as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is no simple task. We applaud your service to our nation. After meeting with you personally and speaking with you, I am more convinced than ever that you will do the right thing for our country and for the people you serve, both in terms of securing our nation and in being the leader of the DHS, with over 20 federal agencies reporting to you, including the USCIS.
Purpose of this Letter
I am writing to you at this time to address recent actions by the USCIS to refuse to accept I-485 adjustment of status filing during July 2007 that are having significant impact upon the reliability of the legal immigration system in this country, as well as impacting legal foreign nationals and the many U.S. businesses that rely upon the work they perform.
USCIS Decision Contradicts its Long Standing Procedure
In contradiction of its own long standing policy and procedure, we understand that the USCIS, through its Director Gonzalez, contacted the U.S. Department of State (DOS) and requested or required the DOS to issue a �revised� Visa Bulletin on July 2, 2007. The USCIS then used the revised Bulletin to refuse to accept I-485 filings. This decision deprives thousands of foreign nationals, and their families, of the rights and privileges that are attendant to the I-485 filing.
These Highly Skilled Professionals Followed All the Rules and Believe in the American Dream
These professionals and their employers have played by our established immigration laws and rules. The vast majority of these thousands of potential applicants has a U.S. employer corporation, university or other business as a sponsor for permanent resident status. The exceptions from an employer are for those who are considered of �extraordinary ability� or whose work is in our �national interest.� Many of these applicants have completed their Bachelor�s, Master�s and/or PhD programs from U.S. universities. They believe in the opportunities of this great nation and strive to achieve the American Dream by following all the rules, working hard, paying taxes, and striving to do the right thing. They believe in this country, and rely upon our systems, our government, and our processes. Unfortunately, on July 2, 2007, we let them down. The USCIS abandoned its own system and long standing practices. This happened through manipulation of the use of visa numbers, insisting upon the issuance of a "revised visa bulletin," and instituting the USCIS policy of rejecting every employment-based I-485 that could have been filed during the month of July 2007.
USCIS Decision Denies Substantive and Procedural Rights to Highly Skilled Workers and Their Employers - Many of Whom Have Already Suffered and Will Suffer Further Harm/ Injury
Not only does the USCIS' action harm the individuals and employers involved, it undermines the reliability of our entire employment-based immigration system. The unexpected decision of the USCIS to refuse to accept any I-485 filings denies both substantive and procedural due process rights to would be applicants across the U.S. All of these applicants are employment based (EB) applicants who are primarily highly skilled professionals or experienced workers, that the U.S. seeks in high demand areas, including: science, technology, medicine, research, business, academia, and education.
The harm in not accepting the filings in July 2007 goes beyond mere delay. In reliance upon the July Visa Bulletin, starting in mid-June 2007, these applicants took the steps necessary to prepare their filings and made decisions in reliance upon the USCIS accepting their filings during July 2007. In order to be present in the U.S., as required for these filings, many applicants and their families canceled travel plans abroad or arranged to return to the U.S. on short notice missing family weddings and other important life events. They undertook medical examinations and paid for the required tests which must accompany the I-485 filings. (The USCIS had refused to waive this requirement even temporarily.) They hired lawyers to process their paperwork; they arranged to obtain documents from abroad on an expedited basis, involving foreign lawyers and foreign governments, all at a significant cost. They made employment and other strategic immigration related decisions to be able to process their I-485s for them and their families. Some canceled visa appointments at the consulates, or withdrew other immigration filings, all in reliance upon the USCIS accepting I-485 filings during July 2007.
The applicants and their employers lose the rights and privileges that accompany the filing of the I-485. These include eligibility for the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and Advanced Parole (AP), thus eliminating the need for the individuals and their employers to make the filings necessary to maintain a non-immigrant, temporary status. These same ancillary benefits also apply to dependant family members. Most importantly, those that have not filed I-485s are not eligible for "portability" benefits under the �American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act� of Oct. 2000 or �AC21� as it is sometimes referred to. This ineligibility for AC21 portability forces career stagnation. This is to the detriment of the individual as well as their sponsoring employer. Under AC21 portability, employers can promote and/or relocate employees to positions that are the same or similar job classifications as the positions for which they were initially sponsored. Individuals can utilize these provisions for career advancement, and for entrepreneurship. Given that the green card process often spans many years, AC21 portability allows the necessary flexibility to permit the case to continue, to accommodate changes in the sponsoring employer's needs as well as opportunities that are specific to the beneficiary.
The list of stories of individuals and families harmed by the USCIS decision is endless. We have for example, many spouses who will now be separated potentially for years on end, as one received a green card during the USCIS' June "rush," while the other is now ineligible to file.
The USCIS decision also created a burden on U.S. employers. Further delays in the green card process mean that, at best, U.S. employers have to continue to file temporary petitions to keep their workforce in the U.S. legally; at worst, it jeopardizes the availability of this needed highly educated and skilled workforce.
USCIS Motive is to Collect Millions of Additional Filing Fees
Many are baffled by the USCIS decision to reject I-485 filings in July, and its use of the �revised� Visa Bulletin as an excuse. The suspected motive is the collection of the substantially higher filing fees that will be generated after July 27, 2007. This entire incident sends the wrong message about our government, our policies and our legal system reeking of greed and inconsistency. Even the appearance of such impropriety undermines our system.
.................
continue
July 12, 2007
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Michael Chertoff, Esq.
Secretary
Department of Homeland Security
RE: USCIS Decision to Reject I-485 Filings
Dear Mr. Chertoff:
It was a pleasure and an honor to meet with you and to share my views during your panel discussion at the Harvard Worldwide Congress June 15, 2007 in Washington, D.C. I understand and appreciate that the responsibility vested in you as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is no simple task. We applaud your service to our nation. After meeting with you personally and speaking with you, I am more convinced than ever that you will do the right thing for our country and for the people you serve, both in terms of securing our nation and in being the leader of the DHS, with over 20 federal agencies reporting to you, including the USCIS.
Purpose of this Letter
I am writing to you at this time to address recent actions by the USCIS to refuse to accept I-485 adjustment of status filing during July 2007 that are having significant impact upon the reliability of the legal immigration system in this country, as well as impacting legal foreign nationals and the many U.S. businesses that rely upon the work they perform.
USCIS Decision Contradicts its Long Standing Procedure
In contradiction of its own long standing policy and procedure, we understand that the USCIS, through its Director Gonzalez, contacted the U.S. Department of State (DOS) and requested or required the DOS to issue a �revised� Visa Bulletin on July 2, 2007. The USCIS then used the revised Bulletin to refuse to accept I-485 filings. This decision deprives thousands of foreign nationals, and their families, of the rights and privileges that are attendant to the I-485 filing.
These Highly Skilled Professionals Followed All the Rules and Believe in the American Dream
These professionals and their employers have played by our established immigration laws and rules. The vast majority of these thousands of potential applicants has a U.S. employer corporation, university or other business as a sponsor for permanent resident status. The exceptions from an employer are for those who are considered of �extraordinary ability� or whose work is in our �national interest.� Many of these applicants have completed their Bachelor�s, Master�s and/or PhD programs from U.S. universities. They believe in the opportunities of this great nation and strive to achieve the American Dream by following all the rules, working hard, paying taxes, and striving to do the right thing. They believe in this country, and rely upon our systems, our government, and our processes. Unfortunately, on July 2, 2007, we let them down. The USCIS abandoned its own system and long standing practices. This happened through manipulation of the use of visa numbers, insisting upon the issuance of a "revised visa bulletin," and instituting the USCIS policy of rejecting every employment-based I-485 that could have been filed during the month of July 2007.
USCIS Decision Denies Substantive and Procedural Rights to Highly Skilled Workers and Their Employers - Many of Whom Have Already Suffered and Will Suffer Further Harm/ Injury
Not only does the USCIS' action harm the individuals and employers involved, it undermines the reliability of our entire employment-based immigration system. The unexpected decision of the USCIS to refuse to accept any I-485 filings denies both substantive and procedural due process rights to would be applicants across the U.S. All of these applicants are employment based (EB) applicants who are primarily highly skilled professionals or experienced workers, that the U.S. seeks in high demand areas, including: science, technology, medicine, research, business, academia, and education.
The harm in not accepting the filings in July 2007 goes beyond mere delay. In reliance upon the July Visa Bulletin, starting in mid-June 2007, these applicants took the steps necessary to prepare their filings and made decisions in reliance upon the USCIS accepting their filings during July 2007. In order to be present in the U.S., as required for these filings, many applicants and their families canceled travel plans abroad or arranged to return to the U.S. on short notice missing family weddings and other important life events. They undertook medical examinations and paid for the required tests which must accompany the I-485 filings. (The USCIS had refused to waive this requirement even temporarily.) They hired lawyers to process their paperwork; they arranged to obtain documents from abroad on an expedited basis, involving foreign lawyers and foreign governments, all at a significant cost. They made employment and other strategic immigration related decisions to be able to process their I-485s for them and their families. Some canceled visa appointments at the consulates, or withdrew other immigration filings, all in reliance upon the USCIS accepting I-485 filings during July 2007.
The applicants and their employers lose the rights and privileges that accompany the filing of the I-485. These include eligibility for the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and Advanced Parole (AP), thus eliminating the need for the individuals and their employers to make the filings necessary to maintain a non-immigrant, temporary status. These same ancillary benefits also apply to dependant family members. Most importantly, those that have not filed I-485s are not eligible for "portability" benefits under the �American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act� of Oct. 2000 or �AC21� as it is sometimes referred to. This ineligibility for AC21 portability forces career stagnation. This is to the detriment of the individual as well as their sponsoring employer. Under AC21 portability, employers can promote and/or relocate employees to positions that are the same or similar job classifications as the positions for which they were initially sponsored. Individuals can utilize these provisions for career advancement, and for entrepreneurship. Given that the green card process often spans many years, AC21 portability allows the necessary flexibility to permit the case to continue, to accommodate changes in the sponsoring employer's needs as well as opportunities that are specific to the beneficiary.
The list of stories of individuals and families harmed by the USCIS decision is endless. We have for example, many spouses who will now be separated potentially for years on end, as one received a green card during the USCIS' June "rush," while the other is now ineligible to file.
The USCIS decision also created a burden on U.S. employers. Further delays in the green card process mean that, at best, U.S. employers have to continue to file temporary petitions to keep their workforce in the U.S. legally; at worst, it jeopardizes the availability of this needed highly educated and skilled workforce.
USCIS Motive is to Collect Millions of Additional Filing Fees
Many are baffled by the USCIS decision to reject I-485 filings in July, and its use of the �revised� Visa Bulletin as an excuse. The suspected motive is the collection of the substantially higher filing fees that will be generated after July 27, 2007. This entire incident sends the wrong message about our government, our policies and our legal system reeking of greed and inconsistency. Even the appearance of such impropriety undermines our system.
.................
continue
hair prince william kate middleton
jamesbond007
09-10 11:12 AM
I guess, getting 30 green dots is tougher than getting GC itself:D
Restricting chat access based on dots earned is probably the most idiotic thing IV has done. Folks who have contributed hundreds of dollars should be allowed access irrespective of posts or stupid dots.
I concur.
This is one way to get an additional post by saying simple things like "i agree" etc. But how to get green dots?
50 posts and 30 green dots to access the chat feature? WOW.
It is ridiculous to restrict access just because some one does not agree with what one is posting and instead of debating it, they give a red dot.
This smells of EB1, EB2, EB3 etc?
When IV is asking everyone's participation, trying to increase the visibility, trying to improve the numbers, why this exclusionary practice?
Restricting chat access based on dots earned is probably the most idiotic thing IV has done. Folks who have contributed hundreds of dollars should be allowed access irrespective of posts or stupid dots.
I concur.
This is one way to get an additional post by saying simple things like "i agree" etc. But how to get green dots?
50 posts and 30 green dots to access the chat feature? WOW.
It is ridiculous to restrict access just because some one does not agree with what one is posting and instead of debating it, they give a red dot.
This smells of EB1, EB2, EB3 etc?
When IV is asking everyone's participation, trying to increase the visibility, trying to improve the numbers, why this exclusionary practice?
more...
pitha
06-12 02:42 PM
very well said, some people here say (or is it hope) that getting an amendment introduced and passed is as simple as buying a ticket to a movie. After all the shock treatment given to us by durbin, kyl, kennedy some people just want more shock treatment
it is very easy to say - support CIR and get our ammendments attached to CIR...we were not even able to put forth our ammdmt on the floor last time around....It is not as easy as 1-2-3 ...
SUpport BILL - Get Ammdt attached- Live happily ever after....
NUmber 2 above - Getting Ammddt attached - is next to impossible given the anti immigrant mood already persistant in senators (due to so many provisions for illegals) and also the Anti H1B lobbying thats been going on.
Remember we are always grouped with H1B folks, when it comes to GC
it is very easy to say - support CIR and get our ammendments attached to CIR...we were not even able to put forth our ammdmt on the floor last time around....It is not as easy as 1-2-3 ...
SUpport BILL - Get Ammdt attached- Live happily ever after....
NUmber 2 above - Getting Ammddt attached - is next to impossible given the anti immigrant mood already persistant in senators (due to so many provisions for illegals) and also the Anti H1B lobbying thats been going on.
Remember we are always grouped with H1B folks, when it comes to GC
hot prince william kate middleton
acecupid
07-03 11:47 AM
Taking a benefit of one group, then distribute the pain across the board is not fair to ROW applicants. This is not the solution. You cannot say to us ROW people that we don't understand the fustration of waiting for our GC as well.
I think its ridiculous that some family takes up to 4 GC from the EB GC pool, why don't you make a petition to state that only EB GC goes to EB primary applicant while your family takes up family based GC. Unless your wife and kids are hired to work as the rest of us, them taking EB based GC is unfair to the rest of us who don't have a family.If you petition to eliminate country EB GC only to the primary applicant, then fine....i am all for it, but if you add your wife and kids to it, i say no.
If you call it re-distribution of pain, I would call it sharing the pain. I think its high time ROW candidates felt the pain which we non-ROW have suffered for a long time. You are objecting just because you are on the better side and wish to continue with the better bargain. If you think about it as a EB group in general, then its absolutely ridiculous that there should be country limits for EB category GC when there is no limits on H1B which is the primary route for most EB category GC applications. I completely agree with you on the family quotient of your arguement, they should not get the GC numbers which is meant only for primary EB applicant. Not that I want families to suffer, but the family GC numbers for EB applicants should not count towards GC number cap.
I think its ridiculous that some family takes up to 4 GC from the EB GC pool, why don't you make a petition to state that only EB GC goes to EB primary applicant while your family takes up family based GC. Unless your wife and kids are hired to work as the rest of us, them taking EB based GC is unfair to the rest of us who don't have a family.If you petition to eliminate country EB GC only to the primary applicant, then fine....i am all for it, but if you add your wife and kids to it, i say no.
If you call it re-distribution of pain, I would call it sharing the pain. I think its high time ROW candidates felt the pain which we non-ROW have suffered for a long time. You are objecting just because you are on the better side and wish to continue with the better bargain. If you think about it as a EB group in general, then its absolutely ridiculous that there should be country limits for EB category GC when there is no limits on H1B which is the primary route for most EB category GC applications. I completely agree with you on the family quotient of your arguement, they should not get the GC numbers which is meant only for primary EB applicant. Not that I want families to suffer, but the family GC numbers for EB applicants should not count towards GC number cap.
more...
house Prince William Kate Middleton:
bharad
02-04 02:38 PM
have sent you a p.m.
tattoo Prince William, Kate Middleton
addsf345
11-07 07:24 PM
trying to revive this discussion. Its been more than 6 - 8 months, so what are the updates? Please share.
I am aspiring AC21 wannabe. Appreciate word of advice from those who have successfully used this option.
I am aspiring AC21 wannabe. Appreciate word of advice from those who have successfully used this option.
more...
pictures prince william kate middleton
gcphul
04-09 12:05 AM
I got 9thh year visa Stamped in chennai in jan with no issus it was smooth.I returned to JFK in Mid Feb. IO just asked one question abt my job role.Thats it i am done.But for my wife he took finger prints. Database showing someone else name and Pic. He asked to go the seperate room. IO was re checking again in computer my wife name and pic showing passport and pic came on the computer. I asked IO that something officer he just said Finger prints mis-mathing and he said its not big deal, wait few more minutes I let u go. After few minutes 2 IO's discussed something which I couldnt hear, they said to u can go. I was scared little bit. It was smooth.
dresses kate middleton william kate
the_googly
11-13 11:09 AM
Not sure if we can conclude that there has been NO spillover. The dates have not moved back (retrogressed). You need more visa numbers than the quota - even to hold the dates. The only way to find out is to get the pending visa numbers report.
more...
makeup tattoo prince william kate
ramus
07-02 08:16 PM
Thanks.. Please ask others to contribute..
Contributed $100 in the evening
Contributed $100 in the evening
girlfriend Prince William Kate Middleton
abhishek101
06-15 11:36 AM
as a 501(3)(C) organization immigration voice has is limited in its efforts to contribute for any cause, while it can spend a max of 30 % (lawyers please comment) on Advocacy but it cannot do political campaigns openly, if people want to contribute and defeat Sen Grassley they need a 501(4) type of non profit.
hairstyles Prince William and Kate
indigokiwi
03-04 08:43 AM
^^^^^^^^^
bondgoli007
02-15 07:55 PM
wow!!! Among the most divisive debate if ever I have seen one on IV.
Without offering my opinion on the topic at hand (divide and rule), I think "some" (not all or even most) of the members posting need to take a step back and see how hurtful their posts on this topic are getting to be. Some posts seem to have subtle racial bias and the ones in response seem to read too much into them too.
Guys, try not to post reactive or even respond to posts that are purely personal. I for one feel that this thread really doesn't do anyone any good and though Canuck's reason might have been more noble, it clearly is inducing normally clear headed individuals to get angry :-)
We all agree in general that EB process is a mess and working together we are trying to fix it. Certainly each of us have our preference in 'how' it should be fixed. However the IV core has goals based on broadly accepted potential fixes...lets support those and keep the infighting to a minimum...
GO IV
Without offering my opinion on the topic at hand (divide and rule), I think "some" (not all or even most) of the members posting need to take a step back and see how hurtful their posts on this topic are getting to be. Some posts seem to have subtle racial bias and the ones in response seem to read too much into them too.
Guys, try not to post reactive or even respond to posts that are purely personal. I for one feel that this thread really doesn't do anyone any good and though Canuck's reason might have been more noble, it clearly is inducing normally clear headed individuals to get angry :-)
We all agree in general that EB process is a mess and working together we are trying to fix it. Certainly each of us have our preference in 'how' it should be fixed. However the IV core has goals based on broadly accepted potential fixes...lets support those and keep the infighting to a minimum...
GO IV
PHANI_TAVVALA
05-15 11:21 AM
Now why do you think that a Harvard Graduate will stay with $120K salary for 15 years .Don't you think that in 15 years he will make much more compare to the average job?I know couple of my friends from MIT sloan are making $200K just after 3 years of graduation.
Read my friend read! "Assuming a Harvard M.B.A graduate on a average make $120k out-of-school if would take 15 years for him to break-even even with all the increments and bonuses.". Do everyone who graduate from MIT Sloan make $200k after 3 years of graduation? Think about it. What do you think average salary of a ISB graduates is when you were hearing students getting offers of Rs. 1 crore? It was only 15Lacs.
Read my friend read! "Assuming a Harvard M.B.A graduate on a average make $120k out-of-school if would take 15 years for him to break-even even with all the increments and bonuses.". Do everyone who graduate from MIT Sloan make $200k after 3 years of graduation? Think about it. What do you think average salary of a ISB graduates is when you were hearing students getting offers of Rs. 1 crore? It was only 15Lacs.
No comments:
Post a Comment