WillIWin?
02-18 10:16 AM
Hello everyone,
I know this topic is taboo and probably raised eleswhere, but I couldn't help wonder one thing.
The BECs have shut down and no more LCs are pending. Also labour substitution is not allowed anymore. So does that not mean that from this point onwards we should NEVER see the priority dates retrogress any further? I mean isint that logical or am I missing something major? Until now, the pending LCs in the BECs were hanging like a sword over our heads, but now that problem is gone (i know a lot of people have suffered over the years for the same and I respect that).
I guess my question is: Is there ANY possible reason for the PDs for any country to further retrogress?
Your reasoning is nearly correct. But you are missing Two points:
1. There will be some cases from BECs which could not file AOSs in time since their labors did not clear for them in the july/aug timeframe. Only when these have cleared will the chances of further retrogression decrease.
2. ALSO - Just as an example, If there are 100000 Eb2s with PDs of 2005. We know that there are NOT 10000 visa #s available for EB2s, in that case too, the dates will retrogress - since thats the only way they can prevent visa #s being used.
Am I making much sense ?
I know this topic is taboo and probably raised eleswhere, but I couldn't help wonder one thing.
The BECs have shut down and no more LCs are pending. Also labour substitution is not allowed anymore. So does that not mean that from this point onwards we should NEVER see the priority dates retrogress any further? I mean isint that logical or am I missing something major? Until now, the pending LCs in the BECs were hanging like a sword over our heads, but now that problem is gone (i know a lot of people have suffered over the years for the same and I respect that).
I guess my question is: Is there ANY possible reason for the PDs for any country to further retrogress?
Your reasoning is nearly correct. But you are missing Two points:
1. There will be some cases from BECs which could not file AOSs in time since their labors did not clear for them in the july/aug timeframe. Only when these have cleared will the chances of further retrogression decrease.
2. ALSO - Just as an example, If there are 100000 Eb2s with PDs of 2005. We know that there are NOT 10000 visa #s available for EB2s, in that case too, the dates will retrogress - since thats the only way they can prevent visa #s being used.
Am I making much sense ?
wallpaper wiz khalifa no sleep single
NKR
08-15 01:57 PM
The whole non-compete agreement is a cruel joke on the employee who finds his own project. All these incapable bad desi employers ban the employee from joining the client whom the employee got them in the first place.
I know a friend of mine works for an employer, he found his own project through a vendor, now because of non-compete agreement he cannot join the client, nor the vendor and now the employer and vendors are buddies and thinking of other business opportunities. In all this the employee is the loser while it was he who brought the employer and vendor together into minting more money at his expense.
I know a friend of mine works for an employer, he found his own project through a vendor, now because of non-compete agreement he cannot join the client, nor the vendor and now the employer and vendors are buddies and thinking of other business opportunities. In all this the employee is the loser while it was he who brought the employer and vendor together into minting more money at his expense.
LostInGCProcess
10-16 05:13 PM
One of my friends got B1 Visa(business visa, it�s valid for 10 years) through a company AAA in January 2008, still he is working for the same company in India, till now he didn't use his B1.
He applied H1-B through a company BBB, recently he received all his H1-B documents, his H1-B company suggested him to come to U.S on B1 and they want to file an amendment to change his status to H1 after coming to US.
My friend want to resign the company in this month and he want to go for training after resigning his job, it will take 2 months for completing the training.
He is planning to come to U.S in February 2009 on B1.
Could any one please help us with your valuable suggestions for the following questions?
Is it possible to come to U.S on B1 even after resigning the job?
Is there any possibility that the company revoke his B1?
What are the documents required to come to U.S on B1?
Thanks in Advance
Do the right thing. Don't try to find a loophole.
He applied H1-B through a company BBB, recently he received all his H1-B documents, his H1-B company suggested him to come to U.S on B1 and they want to file an amendment to change his status to H1 after coming to US.
My friend want to resign the company in this month and he want to go for training after resigning his job, it will take 2 months for completing the training.
He is planning to come to U.S in February 2009 on B1.
Could any one please help us with your valuable suggestions for the following questions?
Is it possible to come to U.S on B1 even after resigning the job?
Is there any possibility that the company revoke his B1?
What are the documents required to come to U.S on B1?
Thanks in Advance
Do the right thing. Don't try to find a loophole.
2011 wiz khalifa no sleep single
mzdial
March 28th, 2004, 11:28 PM
Here was my shot from this evening's game..
Staring off into space, Steve wonders about life, the future, and the outcome of the game.
Staring off into space, Steve wonders about life, the future, and the outcome of the game.
more...
pbojja
06-02 09:20 PM
pbojja, you have contradicted yourself. In 1) you say "No need to File for 140";
Then in 3) you say "They approve Faster in a month" - Which does not make sense if you don't file right?
Could you enlighten us? Also, what do you mean by Happy & Unhappy scenario, only one of them as to be the legit way, no?
Man I was just kidding with Happy scenario , we wish things work our way with CIS , I clearly mentioned unhappy scenario is the reality
Then in 3) you say "They approve Faster in a month" - Which does not make sense if you don't file right?
Could you enlighten us? Also, what do you mean by Happy & Unhappy scenario, only one of them as to be the legit way, no?
Man I was just kidding with Happy scenario , we wish things work our way with CIS , I clearly mentioned unhappy scenario is the reality
ivgclive
03-11 01:05 PM
Hi, For some reason, their employment based insurance rejected their pregnancy coverage. Do you have a link that show that pregnancy is NOT a pre-existing condition in group insurances (Law website or any links?)
her pregnancy is sometime around 6 months now and they will need insurance..
Thx for your help :)
Frequently Asked Questions about Portability of Health Coverage and HIPAA (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_consumer_hipaa.html)
Find out the reason why that "Employment Insurance" rejected the coverage.
My wife was enrolled into my employment-insurance only at 7th month (2006), she did not have 'pregnancy' coverage in her previous insurance. She was covered fully (from 7th month, I paid for the scanning, blood test etc, which was a total of around $1500 till then) for my second son.
Other options are expensive, will cost at least 10K-12K if you want to pay out of your pocket.
her pregnancy is sometime around 6 months now and they will need insurance..
Thx for your help :)
Frequently Asked Questions about Portability of Health Coverage and HIPAA (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_consumer_hipaa.html)
Find out the reason why that "Employment Insurance" rejected the coverage.
My wife was enrolled into my employment-insurance only at 7th month (2006), she did not have 'pregnancy' coverage in her previous insurance. She was covered fully (from 7th month, I paid for the scanning, blood test etc, which was a total of around $1500 till then) for my second son.
Other options are expensive, will cost at least 10K-12K if you want to pay out of your pocket.
more...
Berkeleybee
03-27 07:34 PM
Prolegalimmi,
Our team is in contact with NPR. Are you working with sunil on this?
Thanks,
Berkeleybee
Our team is in contact with NPR. Are you working with sunil on this?
Thanks,
Berkeleybee
2010 wiz khalifa no sleep album
raju123
02-09 07:44 PM
This is very serious matter. EB community should strongly oppose
It is time for Fight to Finish !
I doubt if the above three even know what the whole deal on these 90K visas is. where they come from, what are at stakes, who lost them, why they lost them etc things. I agree with you that we need to call these and let them know that these belong to EB, hence recapture them for EB and request them to allocate special 50K/90K to Schedule A
It is time for Fight to Finish !
I doubt if the above three even know what the whole deal on these 90K visas is. where they come from, what are at stakes, who lost them, why they lost them etc things. I agree with you that we need to call these and let them know that these belong to EB, hence recapture them for EB and request them to allocate special 50K/90K to Schedule A
more...
eilsoe
05-12 04:31 AM
I like 'em :)
The dont is quite hard to make out on some of 'em, but overall I think they're great =) And I'm not just saying that because you're danish :lol:
The dont is quite hard to make out on some of 'em, but overall I think they're great =) And I'm not just saying that because you're danish :lol:
hair wiz khalifa no sleep cover.
jasmin45
07-15 09:02 PM
MSNBC has covered the legal immigrants protest. Video is available in Youtube. But I am not sure about the rally. I know that Fox news covered the rally in the news segment.
more...
reddy77
10-05 03:26 PM
Even I am in the same Boat, but i believe we do not have to worry about this, this is what I found it in murthy.com when I googled for it couple of weeks back ..
If an I-140 is pending at the time that the company changes, according to the CSC, "no action is required" until the completion of the I-140 stage. Evidence of the "bona fides" of the Successor should be submitted at the time of filing the I-485 application
The CSC will allow applicants to supplement the file on an existing I-485 by submitting evidence of the "bona fides" of the Successor that shows that the same position and compensation, etc. are still offered. The CSC has confirmed will not require re-filing of the I-140 or the I-485.
In order to avoid having such evidence routed through the correspondence process, the attorney should clearly establish on the cover letter that attached documents are for consideration in connection with a pending I-485 application, based on CSC/AILA concurrence and make clear reference to the I-485 Receipt number
http://www.murthy.com/news/UDmaepis.html
If an I-140 is pending at the time that the company changes, according to the CSC, "no action is required" until the completion of the I-140 stage. Evidence of the "bona fides" of the Successor should be submitted at the time of filing the I-485 application
The CSC will allow applicants to supplement the file on an existing I-485 by submitting evidence of the "bona fides" of the Successor that shows that the same position and compensation, etc. are still offered. The CSC has confirmed will not require re-filing of the I-140 or the I-485.
In order to avoid having such evidence routed through the correspondence process, the attorney should clearly establish on the cover letter that attached documents are for consideration in connection with a pending I-485 application, based on CSC/AILA concurrence and make clear reference to the I-485 Receipt number
http://www.murthy.com/news/UDmaepis.html
hot wiz khalifa no sleep single
jaggu bhai
07-27 10:35 AM
Hi Friends
My status is I 140 is cleared, waiting for the next step.
Question is....
My wife is on H4 and as it is difficult to get a job now and change to H1 (civil engineer),
We intend to use this time for her studies.
We need your suggestion (few people based on their own experience),
1.As we cannot afford financially to study in a full time college, we wanted to make it part time or online (whatever-which costs us less).
2.Is it good to study on H4 or betterto convert to F1 and study (so that SEVIS and further usage of it down the line!!!!)
3.If some seniors has done like this, pl advise some universities.
Thanks
My status is I 140 is cleared, waiting for the next step.
Question is....
My wife is on H4 and as it is difficult to get a job now and change to H1 (civil engineer),
We intend to use this time for her studies.
We need your suggestion (few people based on their own experience),
1.As we cannot afford financially to study in a full time college, we wanted to make it part time or online (whatever-which costs us less).
2.Is it good to study on H4 or betterto convert to F1 and study (so that SEVIS and further usage of it down the line!!!!)
3.If some seniors has done like this, pl advise some universities.
Thanks
more...
house wiz khalifa no sleep single
GCWhru
06-24 09:16 AM
Xgoogle,
I am in the same boat. I believe you can go ahead and start your full time study, Now I don't think your wife's case is pending based on your work, since you already got your GC.
Even in the worst case you can sponsor your wife with your GC status. I was kidding my wife that I become UC and sponsor her.
I am in the same boat. I believe you can go ahead and start your full time study, Now I don't think your wife's case is pending based on your work, since you already got your GC.
Even in the worst case you can sponsor your wife with your GC status. I was kidding my wife that I become UC and sponsor her.
tattoo wiz khalifa no sleep single
madooripraveen
03-25 01:59 PM
On March 12 2009 I got an query on my I-485.
Requesting discrepancy in the labor applied on Nov'7 2002 and present working place.
My company(abc ltd) applied labor on Nov'07 2002 while I was working at the clients(xyz) place in Los Angeles.
I got my I-140 approved on Feb'15 2006, while I was with the same client(xyz) at that time.
On Dec'04 2006 I moved to Detroit, started working with different client.
RFE goes like this.
The Documentation submitted with your application and/or a review of service records indicate that you no longer reside in the same state or geographical location as the underlying form i-140 immigration petitioner and /or job location specified by your intended permanent employer.
There fore submit a currently dated letter from your original form I-140 employer which which address this discrepancy.
I am still working with the same employer who filed my labor certification.
Any gurus who can suggest me on the query would be greatly appreciated.
Requesting discrepancy in the labor applied on Nov'7 2002 and present working place.
My company(abc ltd) applied labor on Nov'07 2002 while I was working at the clients(xyz) place in Los Angeles.
I got my I-140 approved on Feb'15 2006, while I was with the same client(xyz) at that time.
On Dec'04 2006 I moved to Detroit, started working with different client.
RFE goes like this.
The Documentation submitted with your application and/or a review of service records indicate that you no longer reside in the same state or geographical location as the underlying form i-140 immigration petitioner and /or job location specified by your intended permanent employer.
There fore submit a currently dated letter from your original form I-140 employer which which address this discrepancy.
I am still working with the same employer who filed my labor certification.
Any gurus who can suggest me on the query would be greatly appreciated.
more...
pictures Wiz Khalifa#39;s young but
ilikekilo
07-02 08:48 AM
Hi,
I just got married not long ago.
I'm planning to apply I-485 this july.
My question:
Should she change her name prior to applying I-485 or she can do it after we applying I-485.
How easy it�ll be to change last name while I-140 and I-485 pending?
Anyone in the same boat?
Thanks in advance.
maccaid
i would not hcange until ur done with ur gc....its a pain...wait if u can wait
I just got married not long ago.
I'm planning to apply I-485 this july.
My question:
Should she change her name prior to applying I-485 or she can do it after we applying I-485.
How easy it�ll be to change last name while I-140 and I-485 pending?
Anyone in the same boat?
Thanks in advance.
maccaid
i would not hcange until ur done with ur gc....its a pain...wait if u can wait
dresses Wiz Khalifa – No Sleep
jingi1234
08-19 05:58 PM
Di you submit all F1, H1, EAD documents to the USCIS with your original I0485 submission? Did you send any W2 forms?
Didn't submit anything related to F1 (Only grad certificate). I did submit paystubs + W2's...
Don't know what triggered USCIS for these RFEs..
Didn't submit anything related to F1 (Only grad certificate). I did submit paystubs + W2's...
Don't know what triggered USCIS for these RFEs..
more...
makeup wiz khalifa no sleep single
snathan
01-28 02:08 PM
Post it in a relevant thread or create new one.
girlfriend wiz khalifa no sleep single
Googler
02-14 04:24 PM
"Based on a review of the facts and bedrock principles of administrative agency law, the Court finds that USCIS�s name check requirement has
(1) never been authorized by Congress;
(2) is not mentioned or contemplated by any fair reading of the current USCIS regulations; and
(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions..."
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08.pdf
What a fabulous ruling this is.
One question for Lazycis:
# (3) actually reads "(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions for naturalization, particularly because Plaintiffs have already undergone a name check in order to achieve LPR status and will clear the �fingerprint check� described in the Memorandum of January 25, 2008.10 The fingerprint check will show whether an LPR who is applying for naturalization has had any contact with the criminal justice system that would warrant denial of the petition."
As far as I can tell even (1) and (2) only apply to Naturalization applicants.
So the question of the hour is: are (1) and (2) true for AOS cases? I am asking this question because to argue a case for compelling recapture you need an AOS version of Baylson's ruling + the Galvez-Howerton decision (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=223315&postcount=121). Only then can you say that there was affirmative misconduct in 2003 and hence compel recapture.
(1) never been authorized by Congress;
(2) is not mentioned or contemplated by any fair reading of the current USCIS regulations; and
(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions..."
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08.pdf
What a fabulous ruling this is.
One question for Lazycis:
# (3) actually reads "(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions for naturalization, particularly because Plaintiffs have already undergone a name check in order to achieve LPR status and will clear the �fingerprint check� described in the Memorandum of January 25, 2008.10 The fingerprint check will show whether an LPR who is applying for naturalization has had any contact with the criminal justice system that would warrant denial of the petition."
As far as I can tell even (1) and (2) only apply to Naturalization applicants.
So the question of the hour is: are (1) and (2) true for AOS cases? I am asking this question because to argue a case for compelling recapture you need an AOS version of Baylson's ruling + the Galvez-Howerton decision (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=223315&postcount=121). Only then can you say that there was affirmative misconduct in 2003 and hence compel recapture.
hairstyles Wiz Khalifa performs a couple
ramaonline
12-29 05:49 PM
3 year h1 extension requires I140 to be approved plus non-current priority dates. You can get a copy of the approval from your attorney
gaggu
07-12 02:20 PM
This place is addictive...
alanoconnor
04-10 07:29 PM
http://www.ows.doleta.gov/foreign/faqsanswers.asp#refile3
REFILING
Can the employer refile a labor certification application filed under the previous permanent labor certification regulations under the new streamlined system and retain the filing date of the original application?
Yes, if a job order has not been placed pursuant to the regulations in effect prior to March 28, 2005, an employer may refile by withdrawing the original application and submitting, within 210 days of withdrawing, an application for an identical job opportunity which complies with all of the filing and recruiting requirements of the new PERM regulation.
NOTE: Indicating on the Application for Permanent Employment Certification, ETA Form 9089, the desire to use the filing date from a previously submitted application, i.e., marking "yes" to question A-1, is deemed to be a withdrawal of the original application.
NOTE: If a job order for an application has been placed by the State Workforce Agency (SWA) as part of the traditional recruitment process under the regulations in effect prior to March 28, 2005, the employer is prohibited from refiling the application and retaining the original filing date. However, if an employer placed a job order as a recruitment step in a reduction-in-recruitment application, the job order is not considered a job order placed by the SWA as part of the traditional recruitment process and the employer is permitted to withdraw and refile.
REFILING
Can the employer refile a labor certification application filed under the previous permanent labor certification regulations under the new streamlined system and retain the filing date of the original application?
Yes, if a job order has not been placed pursuant to the regulations in effect prior to March 28, 2005, an employer may refile by withdrawing the original application and submitting, within 210 days of withdrawing, an application for an identical job opportunity which complies with all of the filing and recruiting requirements of the new PERM regulation.
NOTE: Indicating on the Application for Permanent Employment Certification, ETA Form 9089, the desire to use the filing date from a previously submitted application, i.e., marking "yes" to question A-1, is deemed to be a withdrawal of the original application.
NOTE: If a job order for an application has been placed by the State Workforce Agency (SWA) as part of the traditional recruitment process under the regulations in effect prior to March 28, 2005, the employer is prohibited from refiling the application and retaining the original filing date. However, if an employer placed a job order as a recruitment step in a reduction-in-recruitment application, the job order is not considered a job order placed by the SWA as part of the traditional recruitment process and the employer is permitted to withdraw and refile.
No comments:
Post a Comment