Hello_Hello
01-20 06:29 AM
1. Ravi Venkatesh
2. Rani Swami
3. Hema Prabhu
4. Dayal Sharma
5. Chin Chu
6. Dang Wang
These are some of the people I am proud of who are EB-3. Are you proud of them too ?
2. Rani Swami
3. Hema Prabhu
4. Dayal Sharma
5. Chin Chu
6. Dang Wang
These are some of the people I am proud of who are EB-3. Are you proud of them too ?
wallpaper #2: Amores Perros 2000 DVDrip
logiclife
01-05 05:08 PM
As of late this morning have exceeded $6000. Its a start and we need to involve more people who are affected by retrogression.
logiclife.
logiclife.
enggr
03-17 03:56 AM
Friends,
My I-140 got denied after the RFE response. In response to the RFE in September my lawyer responded to the RFE in November and the result came early this month (march 2008).
In the RFE response in last November my lawyer told USCIS that the category was marked wrong as EB2 where the case should be actually under EB3.
USCIS denied the application saying that application cannot be approved under EB2 and request for EB3 cannot be entertained at this point.
The following are the words from USCIS denial notice.
"The petitioner indicated that it had made an error in marking the petition form and that the petition should be considered one requesting the beneficiary's classification under a different section of law. However, since the petition was filed for second-preference classification and was initially adjudicated on that basis, USCIS will not at this stage consider it for some other classification.
In accordance with a USCIS announcement dated on May 23, 2007, the petitioner may elect to file a new petition on the beneficiary's behalf requesting a different visa classification but supported by the instant labor certification.(A motion making this request would be denied.) If the petitioner elects to persue this option, it should include a cover letter which explains the request, include a copy of this denial notice, and clearly report that the original labor certification is with LIN XXXXXXXXXX housed in AXXXXXXXXX. "
Also mine and my wife's I-485 got denied on the same day. In the denial notice of I-485 USCIS has mentioned that "The regulation does not provide for an appeal to this decision."
We are planning to file a new labor certification by end of this month as the current one is 99% a gone case
As you all know I was trying to save this application to save my wife's EAD.
Please help me with one of the options below.
Regarding my rejected I-140 I have two choices as per USCIS and my lawyer. Either of them should be filed 33 days from first week of march. Doing both of the below options at the same time will result in automatic rejection of both
1) Appealing the decision
Pros: My wife gets a chance to win her EAD back which is a big win for us
Cons: USCIS has indicated in the rejection notice that they are rejecting the I-140 because it does not qualify for EB2. they added that our request for converting it into EB3 cannot be entertained at this moment of time. So chances of winning the appeal is small compared to filing new I-140 as per my lawyer
2) Applying new EB3 I-140
Pros: Chances of getting an approval under this new EB3 I-140 is more compared to appealing the old EB2 application (the old application also includes and the request to convert EB2 into EB3)
Cons: Definite loss of my wife's EAD. Also since the labor is on Aug 2006 they have a common expiration date of Jan 2008. All labors from June 2007 (somewhere around that time) expire 6 months of the approval date and I-140 within that 6 months only will be considered for processing. Since we have passed the Jan 2008 period my lawyer is saying the new I-140 can also get rejected. the only argument we can place is, the processing time taken/length of old I-140 processing and the suggestion given on old I-140 denial notice dated march 1st week.
I am wondering whether we can do an MTR (Motion to re-open on the old application). This option is not mentioned by USCIS or lawyer. I am wondering whether this option will eliminate the appeal/new I-140 application within 33 days previlege
. My answer to my attorney regarding the next course of action depends on your advice(s) very much.
Thanks in advance and I really appreciate who posted replies to my questions earlier.
Enggr:
Labor approved 2006 Aug EB2
I-140 applied 2006 Nov EB2
I-140 RFE 2007 Sep
RFE response 2007 Nov
I-140 denied 2008 Mar
My I-140 got denied after the RFE response. In response to the RFE in September my lawyer responded to the RFE in November and the result came early this month (march 2008).
In the RFE response in last November my lawyer told USCIS that the category was marked wrong as EB2 where the case should be actually under EB3.
USCIS denied the application saying that application cannot be approved under EB2 and request for EB3 cannot be entertained at this point.
The following are the words from USCIS denial notice.
"The petitioner indicated that it had made an error in marking the petition form and that the petition should be considered one requesting the beneficiary's classification under a different section of law. However, since the petition was filed for second-preference classification and was initially adjudicated on that basis, USCIS will not at this stage consider it for some other classification.
In accordance with a USCIS announcement dated on May 23, 2007, the petitioner may elect to file a new petition on the beneficiary's behalf requesting a different visa classification but supported by the instant labor certification.(A motion making this request would be denied.) If the petitioner elects to persue this option, it should include a cover letter which explains the request, include a copy of this denial notice, and clearly report that the original labor certification is with LIN XXXXXXXXXX housed in AXXXXXXXXX. "
Also mine and my wife's I-485 got denied on the same day. In the denial notice of I-485 USCIS has mentioned that "The regulation does not provide for an appeal to this decision."
We are planning to file a new labor certification by end of this month as the current one is 99% a gone case
As you all know I was trying to save this application to save my wife's EAD.
Please help me with one of the options below.
Regarding my rejected I-140 I have two choices as per USCIS and my lawyer. Either of them should be filed 33 days from first week of march. Doing both of the below options at the same time will result in automatic rejection of both
1) Appealing the decision
Pros: My wife gets a chance to win her EAD back which is a big win for us
Cons: USCIS has indicated in the rejection notice that they are rejecting the I-140 because it does not qualify for EB2. they added that our request for converting it into EB3 cannot be entertained at this moment of time. So chances of winning the appeal is small compared to filing new I-140 as per my lawyer
2) Applying new EB3 I-140
Pros: Chances of getting an approval under this new EB3 I-140 is more compared to appealing the old EB2 application (the old application also includes and the request to convert EB2 into EB3)
Cons: Definite loss of my wife's EAD. Also since the labor is on Aug 2006 they have a common expiration date of Jan 2008. All labors from June 2007 (somewhere around that time) expire 6 months of the approval date and I-140 within that 6 months only will be considered for processing. Since we have passed the Jan 2008 period my lawyer is saying the new I-140 can also get rejected. the only argument we can place is, the processing time taken/length of old I-140 processing and the suggestion given on old I-140 denial notice dated march 1st week.
I am wondering whether we can do an MTR (Motion to re-open on the old application). This option is not mentioned by USCIS or lawyer. I am wondering whether this option will eliminate the appeal/new I-140 application within 33 days previlege
. My answer to my attorney regarding the next course of action depends on your advice(s) very much.
Thanks in advance and I really appreciate who posted replies to my questions earlier.
Enggr:
Labor approved 2006 Aug EB2
I-140 applied 2006 Nov EB2
I-140 RFE 2007 Sep
RFE response 2007 Nov
I-140 denied 2008 Mar
2011 Films U Missed: #39;Amores Perros
raghureddy
03-18 07:15 PM
No it is not dead as i am still renewing my EAD with the same company. My H1 was denied as USCIS was asking about the client info after my project was over.
more...
Hermione
09-27 08:49 AM
Law abiding? I beg to differ. Application for asylum goes to court only if the petitioner spent more than one year illegally in the US.
That does not change the fact that the immigration system is broken, I just want to point out that what is considered to be "law abiding" or "law breaker" is aften very-very relative. We are all in the same boat.
That does not change the fact that the immigration system is broken, I just want to point out that what is considered to be "law abiding" or "law breaker" is aften very-very relative. We are all in the same boat.
willigetagc
09-02 11:50 AM
Edit. Latest ..on my case.(with a little history) and this is hilarious.
8/21/2008 : Talk with the California Service Center (hopefully)
Me: My case has been transferred all of a sudden to California with the PD became current (on july 21, 2008), why ?
Answer: Your case has been sent back to TSC on Aug. 15th. We do not have the case any more. You can call TSC to confirm.
8/22/2008: Talk with Customer Service
Customer Service: Your case is still in California.
9/2/2008 : Info pass appointment. Talk with IO
IO: Your case is still in TSC but will be transferred to CSC soon.
I cannot believe such an organization exists in the world.
************************************************** *********************************
LOL!!!! I wonder if they want "chai - paan" like their brethren back home. :D
8/21/2008 : Talk with the California Service Center (hopefully)
Me: My case has been transferred all of a sudden to California with the PD became current (on july 21, 2008), why ?
Answer: Your case has been sent back to TSC on Aug. 15th. We do not have the case any more. You can call TSC to confirm.
8/22/2008: Talk with Customer Service
Customer Service: Your case is still in California.
9/2/2008 : Info pass appointment. Talk with IO
IO: Your case is still in TSC but will be transferred to CSC soon.
I cannot believe such an organization exists in the world.
************************************************** *********************************
LOL!!!! I wonder if they want "chai - paan" like their brethren back home. :D
more...
need4gc
09-10 11:08 AM
Come Jan '08 (6 months after the July fiasco) and these companies will learn their lesson hard way. July filers will be able to exercise AC-21 rule to switch employers and most of these desi consulting companies who have no end clients and only supply cheap H1 consultants will have to fold up.
2010 amores perros valeria.
fuzzy logic
07-01 02:06 PM
The amended H-1B by itself will not be an issue when it comes to GC.
My question was more about why for "rajuseattle" there was going to be AC21 since his job location has not changed.
In your case, you have mentioned that you are going to accept more responsibility than that has been stated in PERM, so AC21 is inevitable. As long as you are in the same line of work, I think you should be okay.
Anyone else has inputs for "fuzzy logic"?
sledge hammer - Thanks for your clarification. I hope my company will be willing to amend my H1B.
I appreciate everyone's suggestion on this issue. As for AC21 - my take is that it is a slam dunk if the new and old title fall in the same ONET code or is a related job under the same code. Other wise it gets tricky. This is my take on it, but there are varied interpretations out there.
My question was more about why for "rajuseattle" there was going to be AC21 since his job location has not changed.
In your case, you have mentioned that you are going to accept more responsibility than that has been stated in PERM, so AC21 is inevitable. As long as you are in the same line of work, I think you should be okay.
Anyone else has inputs for "fuzzy logic"?
sledge hammer - Thanks for your clarification. I hope my company will be willing to amend my H1B.
I appreciate everyone's suggestion on this issue. As for AC21 - my take is that it is a slam dunk if the new and old title fall in the same ONET code or is a related job under the same code. Other wise it gets tricky. This is my take on it, but there are varied interpretations out there.
more...
angelfire76
12-07 05:21 PM
Maybe the definition of project managers varies by company. Most PMs I know have maybe around 6-7 years of work experience and I definitely wouldn't classify them as executives or even say that their employment is in the National Interest.
However I do know of some cases where doctors have got NIW based on practicing in an under-served (rural?) area.
Is there a way to prove that one who created a suite of applications without which a business unit will stop functioning comes under National Interest?
Just a thought.
However I do know of some cases where doctors have got NIW based on practicing in an under-served (rural?) area.
Is there a way to prove that one who created a suite of applications without which a business unit will stop functioning comes under National Interest?
Just a thought.
hair Amores Perros
factoryman
02-08 05:31 PM
till Sept 2007. This is as read on another board.
more...
panky72
07-21 10:38 PM
Also with regards to BCG vaccine , the skin test comes positive only within 10 years after BCG is given. If you still have a reaction after 10 years then that means that you have a passive TB and it is recommended that you get it treated. I had a long conversation with an Infectious Disease specialist and he mentioned that there is no urgency to start the treatment because of age factor. So if there is a doctor you know who says that you do not need to be treated even after 10 years of taking the BCG , then probably you should change your doctor for the sake of your own health.
I second that. For more info on the subject please see this link which details the link between BCG and positive skin test in layman language.
http://www.pamf.org/patients/bcg_ppd.html
I second that. For more info on the subject please see this link which details the link between BCG and positive skin test in layman language.
http://www.pamf.org/patients/bcg_ppd.html
hot Amores Perros [ Love#39;s
dpp
07-27 03:02 PM
I-485, 765 and 131 forms are for the applicant who wants to adjust status/ work/travel. So, applicant signature is required. Even though you fill G28, that is for authorizing the attorney in preparing and submitting the forms.
I think no one otherthan the actual applicant can sign the forms. If attorney represent you, then he will sign in his part, thats it. But you need to sign your part anyway.
Please ask your attorney why he did like that.
Yeah, he did, but no form is signed by me. Moreover I have not given any authorization form.
Is it OK.
Please confirm.
Thanks for the earlier reply.
I think no one otherthan the actual applicant can sign the forms. If attorney represent you, then he will sign in his part, thats it. But you need to sign your part anyway.
Please ask your attorney why he did like that.
Yeah, he did, but no form is signed by me. Moreover I have not given any authorization form.
Is it OK.
Please confirm.
Thanks for the earlier reply.
more...
house Amores Perros: A Film Review.
GCwaitforever
06-03 11:08 PM
Sen. Sessions relied on Heritage Foundation report (Robert Rector) extensively. Does any body know the history of Heritage Foundation and who is the engine behind it?
tattoo amores perros soundtrack.
superdude
07-17 11:26 PM
Am I in the same situation? My spouse left US today to INDIA. However we filled the 485 on July 2nd. Will they consider that as abandonment of the application?
I think you are good.She needs to mention that she left to India after filing for 485 at the POE after returning.Talk to your attorney once.
I think you are good.She needs to mention that she left to India after filing for 485 at the POE after returning.Talk to your attorney once.
more...
pictures Amores Perros
kate123
09-16 03:02 PM
Called all the representatives.... guys it took only 15 minutes.. burn all the fone lines!!!!!!!!its our last chance and only hope...
dresses amores perros images.
paskal
07-08 09:43 PM
i have heard in the past that you can move jobs in the same area, but never gone into the specifics....
my attorney does a lot of this stuff, you can get a free consultation.
pm me if interested.
btw it;s a good question for iv-physicians, are you part of that group? see my signature.
my attorney does a lot of this stuff, you can get a free consultation.
pm me if interested.
btw it;s a good question for iv-physicians, are you part of that group? see my signature.
more...
makeup Amores Perros, een film van
sledge_hammer
07-01 12:54 PM
The amended H-1B by itself will not be an issue when it comes to GC.
My question was more about why for "rajuseattle" there was going to be AC21 since his job location has not changed.
In your case, you have mentioned that you are going to accept more responsibility than that has been stated in PERM, so AC21 is inevitable. As long as you are in the same line of work, I think you should be okay.
Anyone else has inputs for "fuzzy logic"?
I think there will have to AC21 invoked as there is change in the job location. Secondly I will be going from Senior Assurance Associate to Assurance Manager. There will be additional responsibilities from what I already have.
I hope this H1B amendment will not impede in anyway the GC process. Would it? Thanks!
My question was more about why for "rajuseattle" there was going to be AC21 since his job location has not changed.
In your case, you have mentioned that you are going to accept more responsibility than that has been stated in PERM, so AC21 is inevitable. As long as you are in the same line of work, I think you should be okay.
Anyone else has inputs for "fuzzy logic"?
I think there will have to AC21 invoked as there is change in the job location. Secondly I will be going from Senior Assurance Associate to Assurance Manager. There will be additional responsibilities from what I already have.
I hope this H1B amendment will not impede in anyway the GC process. Would it? Thanks!
girlfriend amores perros movie poster.
ARUNRAMANATHAN
06-11 03:03 PM
Is there reason you say that I cannot port the PD ...? Please explain.
Arun
You cannot port your I-140 to the new company. So, your H1B will also get affected as it extn is based on the underlying I-140. The only way you can accomplish moving to company B is by filing for I-485 while still at Company A (if your dates are current), wait for 6 months and then, use the AC21 provision.
This is just my view. There might be better ways but, that is the only one I can think right now.
Arun
You cannot port your I-140 to the new company. So, your H1B will also get affected as it extn is based on the underlying I-140. The only way you can accomplish moving to company B is by filing for I-485 while still at Company A (if your dates are current), wait for 6 months and then, use the AC21 provision.
This is just my view. There might be better ways but, that is the only one I can think right now.
hairstyles das boot, amores perros
dehradoon
02-10 04:55 PM
Hi all,
I have received my EAD in oct 07 and my AP last month, with my spouse being primary applicant. Currently I am on h1b, however, I have a better offer at hand thro another employer who does not sponsor h1b. I was searching for posts on comparing h1b vs ead..but could not locate one.
Could someone enlighten me on this issue as to what wld be common issues that are raised if one switches to ead (other than the possibility of being out of status). I am presuming that if my spouse stays on h1b I can switch to h4 status if required?
Please advice..I need to make a decision this weekend!!
Thanks
San
Has it been 180 days since your 485 was filed. You can switch if YES, Valid H1B is an extra umbrella when using EAD if something goes wrong with EAD. Honestly, I do not see any benefit of H1B over EAD except that it can be valid for longer period of time where as EAD needs to be extended every year ....
I have received my EAD in oct 07 and my AP last month, with my spouse being primary applicant. Currently I am on h1b, however, I have a better offer at hand thro another employer who does not sponsor h1b. I was searching for posts on comparing h1b vs ead..but could not locate one.
Could someone enlighten me on this issue as to what wld be common issues that are raised if one switches to ead (other than the possibility of being out of status). I am presuming that if my spouse stays on h1b I can switch to h4 status if required?
Please advice..I need to make a decision this weekend!!
Thanks
San
Has it been 180 days since your 485 was filed. You can switch if YES, Valid H1B is an extra umbrella when using EAD if something goes wrong with EAD. Honestly, I do not see any benefit of H1B over EAD except that it can be valid for longer period of time where as EAD needs to be extended every year ....
malibuguy007
09-16 01:38 PM
House Judiciary Committee MembersBelow or go to the thread mentioned above
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member new_horizon)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV members cnag & Prashant)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member little_willy)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY SPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member new_horizon)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV members cnag & Prashant)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member little_willy)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY SPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
sen
10-19 10:54 AM
Some of my friends who used AC21 moved to jobs having salary more than 50% of their current one. All got their GCs approved and didn't have any issues. But from what i read from multiple sites, the salary should never go below the one that's mentioned in LCA.
No comments:
Post a Comment