h1bemployee
02-25 06:25 PM
You need to provide more details on bold words from your post. If you really need pointers from IV members.
when my employer replied to the RFE, they came with more questions and doubts...and USCIS asked submit their tax documents
what I understood ..my employer don't want to appeal against it ..because USCIS may come back with more doubts abt the consultancy itself...
when my employer replied to the RFE, they came with more questions and doubts...and USCIS asked submit their tax documents
what I understood ..my employer don't want to appeal against it ..because USCIS may come back with more doubts abt the consultancy itself...
wallpaper quot;Best quotes from Pilot
joydiptac
09-30 05:33 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
Dear Director Mayorkas:
Last week in a speech you ...
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/09/rfe-hell-and-increased-uscis-filing.html)
What is AILA complaining about?
The fee increase? really??:D
or Increased business that they are getting because of RFEs or that USCIS has become efficient and has pre-adjudicated most of the waiting applications by interviewing, RFEs and actual site visits.
Oops! Did I just say that. My bad! Sorry! I should probably have said "Naughty USCIS!!!" USCIS is closing files that AILA wants to remain open forevverr so that the juice keeps flowing.:D
AILA - consider rephrasing your statements these are too transparent. And ... Speak for yourself.
READ THIS:
We the immigrants (customers of USCIS) are perfectly fine with RFEs and interviews and site visits as long as it leads to PRE-ADJUDICATION and green card. Most of us don't even mind paying extra to end this wait. If AILA is really concerned about us please try to do something in that direction so that we can get relief by recapture or thru new legislation or admin fixes.
Dear Director Mayorkas:
Last week in a speech you ...
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/09/rfe-hell-and-increased-uscis-filing.html)
What is AILA complaining about?
The fee increase? really??:D
or Increased business that they are getting because of RFEs or that USCIS has become efficient and has pre-adjudicated most of the waiting applications by interviewing, RFEs and actual site visits.
Oops! Did I just say that. My bad! Sorry! I should probably have said "Naughty USCIS!!!" USCIS is closing files that AILA wants to remain open forevverr so that the juice keeps flowing.:D
AILA - consider rephrasing your statements these are too transparent. And ... Speak for yourself.
READ THIS:
We the immigrants (customers of USCIS) are perfectly fine with RFEs and interviews and site visits as long as it leads to PRE-ADJUDICATION and green card. Most of us don't even mind paying extra to end this wait. If AILA is really concerned about us please try to do something in that direction so that we can get relief by recapture or thru new legislation or admin fixes.
Blog Feeds
01-26 08:40 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
2011 all the est scraps quotes
kondur_007
08-11 09:47 PM
Dear Friends
One of the USCIS IO at NSC told me today that processing date of August 10 2007 for I-485 is nothing but a guess work. She said, in reality the processing date is far behind that. When I said I may have better luck predicting Power Ball numbers, she said that could be very much true than predicting what USCIS does.
Remember, in 2004 then USCIS director along with Bush unveiled a grandose plan in which they said by 2006, they will reduce I-140 petition processing times (for that matter any petition processing time) to 180 days. Four years later, things have became worse. Did anyone take responsibility? No. They give excuses.
For example, for my I-140 under EB2-NIW, NSC processing date shows February 27, 2007; and I filed in April 2007. But, I got approved. (no complaints). Technically, they shouldn't have picked up mine.
My friend applied in June 2007 and his I-140 got approved in December 2007 when their online processing date shows November 2006. So, they processed a petition that was filed 11 months ahead of their processing time. Great....
My colleague who shares office with me applied in October 2006 and still waiting to hear until today. Service requests did not do any good to him. Infopass is a pass. They all said he need to have patience... (lots of it).
Many many instances like this. Online processing dates or what the customer service tells you doesn't mean a shit.
The only thing that is good about online posting of processing dates is, we can file a service request which in many cases, after secondary request, tend to accelerate your case. You still need luck.
How many of you hear "your case is with in normal processing time"... I have been waiting for 18 months for my I-140... what the hell in the world normal about it? Only USCIS seem to understand it.
In the nutshell, its a funny and most idiotic agency and you cannot predict what it does. Do the same treatment to US Citizens, USCIS will be dragged into courts and torn apart in talk shows. Since we are non-citizens who are suffering, no body cares.
See, quasi-citizens i.e., people applying for Naturalization have better luck because their local congressman will be making calls and putting fire under USCIS ass because these are potential voters in November. So, they have some leverage. But people who are waiting for green card are no good now... wait for 5 years after you get it, you may have luck in getting their attention.
If you apply for 485, you get finger prints done. After a month, if you apply for EAD, you go again. What? Are your finger prints going to change every one month? What a waste of resources and time? USCIS do these kinds boneheaded things all the time.
Only thing that will get you green card faster is "Luck".
Good luck to all of us.
This is exactly why this is the perfect time to structure our agenda for the upcoming CIR next year and try to introduce it in the bill to streamline this mess for everyone in future.
It is very clear and everyone knows that with current structure and resources, using current procedures, USCIS will never be anywhere close to be "efficient" or even "effective". What is needed is radical change in the procedures and the structure of this agency. I dont think it is the fault of "a person"; the whole system is the problem. I would not be surprised to see a "frustrated" USCIS employee over these inefficiencies.
One of the USCIS IO at NSC told me today that processing date of August 10 2007 for I-485 is nothing but a guess work. She said, in reality the processing date is far behind that. When I said I may have better luck predicting Power Ball numbers, she said that could be very much true than predicting what USCIS does.
Remember, in 2004 then USCIS director along with Bush unveiled a grandose plan in which they said by 2006, they will reduce I-140 petition processing times (for that matter any petition processing time) to 180 days. Four years later, things have became worse. Did anyone take responsibility? No. They give excuses.
For example, for my I-140 under EB2-NIW, NSC processing date shows February 27, 2007; and I filed in April 2007. But, I got approved. (no complaints). Technically, they shouldn't have picked up mine.
My friend applied in June 2007 and his I-140 got approved in December 2007 when their online processing date shows November 2006. So, they processed a petition that was filed 11 months ahead of their processing time. Great....
My colleague who shares office with me applied in October 2006 and still waiting to hear until today. Service requests did not do any good to him. Infopass is a pass. They all said he need to have patience... (lots of it).
Many many instances like this. Online processing dates or what the customer service tells you doesn't mean a shit.
The only thing that is good about online posting of processing dates is, we can file a service request which in many cases, after secondary request, tend to accelerate your case. You still need luck.
How many of you hear "your case is with in normal processing time"... I have been waiting for 18 months for my I-140... what the hell in the world normal about it? Only USCIS seem to understand it.
In the nutshell, its a funny and most idiotic agency and you cannot predict what it does. Do the same treatment to US Citizens, USCIS will be dragged into courts and torn apart in talk shows. Since we are non-citizens who are suffering, no body cares.
See, quasi-citizens i.e., people applying for Naturalization have better luck because their local congressman will be making calls and putting fire under USCIS ass because these are potential voters in November. So, they have some leverage. But people who are waiting for green card are no good now... wait for 5 years after you get it, you may have luck in getting their attention.
If you apply for 485, you get finger prints done. After a month, if you apply for EAD, you go again. What? Are your finger prints going to change every one month? What a waste of resources and time? USCIS do these kinds boneheaded things all the time.
Only thing that will get you green card faster is "Luck".
Good luck to all of us.
This is exactly why this is the perfect time to structure our agenda for the upcoming CIR next year and try to introduce it in the bill to streamline this mess for everyone in future.
It is very clear and everyone knows that with current structure and resources, using current procedures, USCIS will never be anywhere close to be "efficient" or even "effective". What is needed is radical change in the procedures and the structure of this agency. I dont think it is the fault of "a person"; the whole system is the problem. I would not be surprised to see a "frustrated" USCIS employee over these inefficiencies.
more...
InTheMoment
12-04 05:04 PM
NYCGal,
I zoomed into your post when I saw DoL Withdrawn... my case shows "Withdrawn" which was apparently due to the famed computer glitch at the BEC. It should have had been returned back to it's original status (In Process) but that has not yet happened even after the DoL advisory to wait until Dec 1.
My lawyer has gotten in touch with the BEC. I was wondering how much time it took in your case for BEC to correct the error. My RIR conversion recruitement is ongoing and I wonder if the BEC will deliver on correcting in the mistake before it ends.
Time taken by BEC to correct the error in your case would help me a lot.
thanks:)
I zoomed into your post when I saw DoL Withdrawn... my case shows "Withdrawn" which was apparently due to the famed computer glitch at the BEC. It should have had been returned back to it's original status (In Process) but that has not yet happened even after the DoL advisory to wait until Dec 1.
My lawyer has gotten in touch with the BEC. I was wondering how much time it took in your case for BEC to correct the error. My RIR conversion recruitement is ongoing and I wonder if the BEC will deliver on correcting in the mistake before it ends.
Time taken by BEC to correct the error in your case would help me a lot.
thanks:)
jambapamba
07-19 07:48 AM
NO
1. W2's/TAX statements are NOT REQUIRED for employment based 485's. Some Attorneys may send them along to play it safe.
2. Affidavits of support for employment based 485's are NOT REQUIRED at all.
1. W2's/TAX statements are NOT REQUIRED for employment based 485's. Some Attorneys may send them along to play it safe.
2. Affidavits of support for employment based 485's are NOT REQUIRED at all.
more...
walking_dude
11-26 11:19 AM
Thanks. Please consider sending the E-mail to your friends as well. We need as many to participate as possible. If not possible to attend due to excruciating circumstances, at the least please consider contributing monetarily to this effort.
I contributed $20 to this cause.
I contributed $20 to this cause.
2010 Top 25 Funniest Facebook
DDash
09-22 11:46 AM
....
Thats what GC means to me.
....
On the other hand...Its just the current state of mind...
Very well said....Great post. Often times, we get into a "rat" race and get desperate at times. Do the best that you can with what you have. Dont let the lack of GC limit you from achieving your goals. Dont get me wrong, we should fight for our GCs, but at the same time, dont let the desire to get GC stop you from achieving your goals.
Thats what GC means to me.
....
On the other hand...Its just the current state of mind...
Very well said....Great post. Often times, we get into a "rat" race and get desperate at times. Do the best that you can with what you have. Dont let the lack of GC limit you from achieving your goals. Dont get me wrong, we should fight for our GCs, but at the same time, dont let the desire to get GC stop you from achieving your goals.
more...
dreamworld
10-26 11:57 AM
Hi guys,
My 8th year extension was filed on June 14th. I have not heard from them since. Lawyer says he has contacted USCIS on Oct 3rd and has not heard back yet either. He has asked me to wait for one month before initiating any further communication with them. Does anyone know how long h1 processing is taking these days? I live in Texas. Now, if I want to transfer this to Premium processing:
a) is it possible to transfer now?
b) how long will the transfer take?
Thanks a lot for your advice/information :)
A) Yes, you can transfer the pending h1 extension to premium.
B) For current status https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/ptimes.jsp with your respective service center.
My 8th year extension was filed on June 14th. I have not heard from them since. Lawyer says he has contacted USCIS on Oct 3rd and has not heard back yet either. He has asked me to wait for one month before initiating any further communication with them. Does anyone know how long h1 processing is taking these days? I live in Texas. Now, if I want to transfer this to Premium processing:
a) is it possible to transfer now?
b) how long will the transfer take?
Thanks a lot for your advice/information :)
A) Yes, you can transfer the pending h1 extension to premium.
B) For current status https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/ptimes.jsp with your respective service center.
hair Best Quotes - 3.9
pateketu
08-17 10:22 AM
DesiGuy,
What difference did you find in work culture in UK vs US, I have heard racism and favoritism is very common when it comes to promotion and stuff, is that true?
What difference did you find in work culture in UK vs US, I have heard racism and favoritism is very common when it comes to promotion and stuff, is that true?
more...
pitha
08-04 05:07 PM
I too dont have an A# on my my I-140 approval. Does the I140 receipt notice have an A# on it. I dont have the receipt for the i140.
I have the notice of action for my I-140 approval. It doesn't mention an A# anywhere. Are you sure about this?
I have the notice of action for my I-140 approval. It doesn't mention an A# anywhere. Are you sure about this?
hot BEST AUSTIN FACEBOOK STATUS
siddar
09-04 01:41 PM
This is as per USCIC:
06/05/08. Previous editions will be accepted only for medical exams conducted before August 1, 2008. Medical exams conducted on or after August 1, 2008, require use of the 06/05/08 edition (link at bottom of page).
Goto www.uscis.gov and click on 'Immigration Forms' and scroll down for I-693.
06/05/08. Previous editions will be accepted only for medical exams conducted before August 1, 2008. Medical exams conducted on or after August 1, 2008, require use of the 06/05/08 edition (link at bottom of page).
Goto www.uscis.gov and click on 'Immigration Forms' and scroll down for I-693.
more...
house est quotes on facebook. est
needhelp!
08-31 12:32 AM
We just had a laugh discussing this, I hope you do too :)..NO.. but back to my initial question, just for Curiosity's sake
Is it your wishful thinking bloke? if it was possible our chinni bhai would have done that instead of waiting this long...
Is it your wishful thinking bloke? if it was possible our chinni bhai would have done that instead of waiting this long...
tattoo est quotes on facebook. funny
saileshdude
07-21 09:56 AM
All you guys,
Take an Infopass appointment and tell them that you have not received FP notice. Sometimes taking infopass appt helps. So you can try that option.
Take an Infopass appointment and tell them that you have not received FP notice. Sometimes taking infopass appt helps. So you can try that option.
more...
pictures est quotes on facebook. funny
BMS1
08-21 12:04 PM
Do you still need to go for an interview? I just wanted to know and what kind of questions they ask during the interview. You could provide us with very helpful tips and what to expect.
Interview is not mandatory for I485. Only a small percentage gets the interview call.
Interview is not mandatory for I485. Only a small percentage gets the interview call.
dresses quotes for facebook statuses.
vbkris77
06-18 03:46 PM
Does anyone has any update on these?? I thought the hearing was just positive and great. Is this markup done already??
more...
makeup Share your prefered quotes
mchundi
02-16 05:04 PM
I did some research on murthy.com and found that AC21 did abolish 'per country of birth quota' on recycled numbers. I am posting a link to this murthy.com article of Oct 6, 2000 which clarifies the issue.
http://www.murthy.com/news/UDh1det.html
If the link fails I am reporducing the paragraph here: -
Major highlights of ACTA are listed below :
Per Country Quotas for Immigrant Visas
"Under Section 104, with respect to immigrant visas, the per country quota, which has been adversely affecting those from China and India and which the U.S. State Department had stated could possibly affect those from the Philippines in the near future, may have been resolved with this Bill. It has always been the case that not all of the available immigrant visas were issued, since most countries did not have enough applicants to use the total available. ACTA provides that if the INS or the U.S. State Department does not issue all of the immigrant visas that should be issued in that FY, the unused immigrant visa numbers should be made available to all countries without the per country quota limit applying."
Retrogression started as the recycled numbers are no longer available and with that country quota showed its horrible effect. It is clear guys we have to concentrate our energy and our thoughts on this quota. Quota on the basis of "country of birth" on talent or skill needed is really hard to explain and we can have good logical arguments to support its abolition.
Good work jungalee32,
It is also part of our resource data base that sandeep compiled, where all these issues are clearly explained. That is why once we have the unused numbers it is like increasing the per country quota. It will bring the priority date to current for a couple of years(even if there are more cases than unused numbers with them. Just because they cannot process that faster)
--MC
http://www.murthy.com/news/UDh1det.html
If the link fails I am reporducing the paragraph here: -
Major highlights of ACTA are listed below :
Per Country Quotas for Immigrant Visas
"Under Section 104, with respect to immigrant visas, the per country quota, which has been adversely affecting those from China and India and which the U.S. State Department had stated could possibly affect those from the Philippines in the near future, may have been resolved with this Bill. It has always been the case that not all of the available immigrant visas were issued, since most countries did not have enough applicants to use the total available. ACTA provides that if the INS or the U.S. State Department does not issue all of the immigrant visas that should be issued in that FY, the unused immigrant visa numbers should be made available to all countries without the per country quota limit applying."
Retrogression started as the recycled numbers are no longer available and with that country quota showed its horrible effect. It is clear guys we have to concentrate our energy and our thoughts on this quota. Quota on the basis of "country of birth" on talent or skill needed is really hard to explain and we can have good logical arguments to support its abolition.
Good work jungalee32,
It is also part of our resource data base that sandeep compiled, where all these issues are clearly explained. That is why once we have the unused numbers it is like increasing the per country quota. It will bring the priority date to current for a couple of years(even if there are more cases than unused numbers with them. Just because they cannot process that faster)
--MC
girlfriend Best Quotes On Facebook
chanduv23
07-27 03:03 PM
Thank you attorney Sauer and all other IV members for replying to my question.
I am little confused at the reply I received from USCIS. They are saying that my application cannot be adjudicated till visa numbers are available.
Do they mean they will not pre adjudicate my case till visa number is available ?
or
Do they mean that pre adjudication is done, but the visa number assignment process (adjudication) will be done once visa number is avalable?
The processing dates are passed my received date and notice date in the processing center where my application is processed.
Please let me know your thoughts.
In very rare ocassions people get to know that their 485 is preadjudicated.
Check out this case
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/344724-post54.html
Now, once preadjudicated does not mean that your case may not be reviewed again (My thoughts)
I am little confused at the reply I received from USCIS. They are saying that my application cannot be adjudicated till visa numbers are available.
Do they mean they will not pre adjudicate my case till visa number is available ?
or
Do they mean that pre adjudication is done, but the visa number assignment process (adjudication) will be done once visa number is avalable?
The processing dates are passed my received date and notice date in the processing center where my application is processed.
Please let me know your thoughts.
In very rare ocassions people get to know that their 485 is preadjudicated.
Check out this case
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/344724-post54.html
Now, once preadjudicated does not mean that your case may not be reviewed again (My thoughts)
hairstyles est quotes on facebook.
abhijitp
01-26 05:52 PM
I collected 7 letters yesterday by simply talking to people walking in & out of a grocery store. I wanted to see how it will be at the BART station and I am very encouraged by the response received yesterday. Most people (including GC holders and citizens) provided their names and addresses and signatures without hesitation.
The reasons for only 7 letters (could have collected 15):
1. I was on my own after all. When I was talking to someone a bunch of 3 walked out of the store and I could not do anything.
2. Heavy rains which prevented people from getting out in general.
My only worry now... if you guys in and around Fremont continue to look the other way, ignoring this call to your precious 1 hour on any ONE weekday evening, I might get only 200 letters... when you and I together could easily get 1000+ over 2 weeks!
The reasons for only 7 letters (could have collected 15):
1. I was on my own after all. When I was talking to someone a bunch of 3 walked out of the store and I could not do anything.
2. Heavy rains which prevented people from getting out in general.
My only worry now... if you guys in and around Fremont continue to look the other way, ignoring this call to your precious 1 hour on any ONE weekday evening, I might get only 200 letters... when you and I together could easily get 1000+ over 2 weeks!
getgreensoon1
01-26 02:57 PM
2 people from Andhra get into top positions in IIT exams. 1600 people get caught going to fake universities in the US. That is a disgrace. People fron Andhra show desperation in the US and affect the diginity of every Indian in the US.
meridiani.planum
10-13 02:26 PM
Almost everyone knows USCIS rule that EAD can be applied 120 days in advance before previous EAD expires and normal processing time for EAD is 90 days.
With few exceptions, people are applying in time. They have other issue such as one person got in 6 days. In 20-30 days it is not uncommon.
You are one of the few people who did not apply EAD in time and trying to draw attention.
yeah for EAD they should clarify that if its pending >90 days, then we should walk into local office and walk out with interim EAD. afterall USCIS's own guidelines require them to approve within 90 days.
AP is a bigger problem I think. Processing times are running into 5 months and we can apply only upto 4 months in advance. meaning there is a very high likelyhood of ending up in a monthwhere you dont have an AP. If you need to travel in that time, you are screwed.
With few exceptions, people are applying in time. They have other issue such as one person got in 6 days. In 20-30 days it is not uncommon.
You are one of the few people who did not apply EAD in time and trying to draw attention.
yeah for EAD they should clarify that if its pending >90 days, then we should walk into local office and walk out with interim EAD. afterall USCIS's own guidelines require them to approve within 90 days.
AP is a bigger problem I think. Processing times are running into 5 months and we can apply only upto 4 months in advance. meaning there is a very high likelyhood of ending up in a monthwhere you dont have an AP. If you need to travel in that time, you are screwed.
No comments:
Post a Comment