whitecollarslave
09-23 02:54 PM
Yes, mine was approved a month back without any hassles and bought the home ....
If you don't mind sharing who was the lender?
If you don't mind sharing who was the lender?
wallpaper Dominique Strauss-Kahn
ash27
04-02 11:48 PM
Some time back when I asked my chinese colleagues to join IV they commented that immigrationvoice.org is an "indian" immigration forum...
No wonder they felt that way.
Sk2006, you seem to have an issue. What is your problem if other people want to share their thoughts through this collaboration platform. I told u earlier that if u r not interested, don't go through this thread. If u are sincere, then u will not reply kiddishly and will act sensibly.... Grow up dude....
No wonder they felt that way.
Sk2006, you seem to have an issue. What is your problem if other people want to share their thoughts through this collaboration platform. I told u earlier that if u r not interested, don't go through this thread. If u are sincere, then u will not reply kiddishly and will act sensibly.... Grow up dude....
vjkypally
07-24 05:10 PM
Agree with few points in your argument though overall it went little overboard. Whisky Line??? Are you implying there are no lines in US? Ever heard about GC Line???????:))))))I havent waited for 5 to 7 yrs in India for anything and not got it. Maximum I waited would be Tirupati temple for 12-14 hrs:)
2011 Dominique Strauss-Kahn has
ksrk
09-15 02:47 AM
Assuming 3k spillover from (EB1/EB4/EB5 to EB2) => EB2 will get 13K visa
EB2 ROW uses 7K (700 India, 700 China, +5k others) - there are 6K visa to allocated by Dec 2009 and 12K by March 2010 which will be given to EB2-India.
BEC LCA applicants in 2005 estimate (EB2 India) = 2000 => 4400
PERM applicants in 2005 (7276 of this 40% are Indian and 60% from EB2 ) -> 1750 LCA
1100 LCA => 3850 GC
Total pending I-485 in 2005 (EB2 India) ~ 8000
This would mean PD will cross 2005 in next 2 quarters. I have pesimetic estimates so it will not surprise me it the dates move more rapidly.
...a question, though, about how the spillover is assigned back to over-subscribed countries (India and China) - does that happen in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year (lately in the last month or two) or does it happen each quarter? Looks like your analysis assumes it happens each quarter...
EB2 ROW uses 7K (700 India, 700 China, +5k others) - there are 6K visa to allocated by Dec 2009 and 12K by March 2010 which will be given to EB2-India.
BEC LCA applicants in 2005 estimate (EB2 India) = 2000 => 4400
PERM applicants in 2005 (7276 of this 40% are Indian and 60% from EB2 ) -> 1750 LCA
1100 LCA => 3850 GC
Total pending I-485 in 2005 (EB2 India) ~ 8000
This would mean PD will cross 2005 in next 2 quarters. I have pesimetic estimates so it will not surprise me it the dates move more rapidly.
...a question, though, about how the spillover is assigned back to over-subscribed countries (India and China) - does that happen in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year (lately in the last month or two) or does it happen each quarter? Looks like your analysis assumes it happens each quarter...
more...
dilber
07-15 07:25 PM
For first quarter EB2 India will have 1/4 of 9,800(7% of 140k visas), which are 2,450 visas. I wonder
how u got 800 visas. I dont see much retrogression in EB2 dates other than some mild ones. And the dates move pretty fast on a whole.
About EB3: it wont be like now all the time. The Immigration reform bill wont keep failing all the time. There would be a time for it to pass in the next two years. As soon as it passes all our Employment Based categories, specifically EB3, will get greatest benefit with PDs almost becoming current.
Vdlrao:
First of let me congratulate you. You have been amazingly accurate time and time again about the movement. Do you have some internal sources:rolleyes:
Jokes aside I think you miss calculated the 2450 visas for the first quarter for the EB2 India. I think the 7% country limit is on a state as a whole including EB1, EB2, EB3, and others. So going by this India gets 9800 visas for a year without any spillovers. The spillovers happen in the final quarter only so for each of the first 3 quarters EB2 will get 28 percent of one fourth of 9800 and the same amount will go to EB1 and EB3 as well. so EB2 I gets 686 visas. But I agree with you that in the last quarter EB2 I will move very fast because it will get all the spillovers from EB1 and EB2 ROW..
how u got 800 visas. I dont see much retrogression in EB2 dates other than some mild ones. And the dates move pretty fast on a whole.
About EB3: it wont be like now all the time. The Immigration reform bill wont keep failing all the time. There would be a time for it to pass in the next two years. As soon as it passes all our Employment Based categories, specifically EB3, will get greatest benefit with PDs almost becoming current.
Vdlrao:
First of let me congratulate you. You have been amazingly accurate time and time again about the movement. Do you have some internal sources:rolleyes:
Jokes aside I think you miss calculated the 2450 visas for the first quarter for the EB2 India. I think the 7% country limit is on a state as a whole including EB1, EB2, EB3, and others. So going by this India gets 9800 visas for a year without any spillovers. The spillovers happen in the final quarter only so for each of the first 3 quarters EB2 will get 28 percent of one fourth of 9800 and the same amount will go to EB1 and EB3 as well. so EB2 I gets 686 visas. But I agree with you that in the last quarter EB2 I will move very fast because it will get all the spillovers from EB1 and EB2 ROW..
voldemar
03-28 03:08 PM
Looks like we have 45 days after the rule goes in effect. Please read the following text.
Will you please tell us which text you are refering to?
(2) A permanent labor certification involving a specific job offer
is valid only for the particular job opportunity, the alien named on
the original application (unless a substitution was approved prior to
[effective date of the final rule]), and the area of intended
employment stated on the Application for Alien Employment Certification
(ETA Form 750) or the Application for Permanent Employment
Certification (ETA Form 9089).I'm referring to the above paragraph. The problem is how agency will define "approved" labor substitution.
I think that labor substitution is approved if I-140 is approved.
Again, I'm not a lawyer, it's just my understanding.
Will you please tell us which text you are refering to?
(2) A permanent labor certification involving a specific job offer
is valid only for the particular job opportunity, the alien named on
the original application (unless a substitution was approved prior to
[effective date of the final rule]), and the area of intended
employment stated on the Application for Alien Employment Certification
(ETA Form 750) or the Application for Permanent Employment
Certification (ETA Form 9089).I'm referring to the above paragraph. The problem is how agency will define "approved" labor substitution.
I think that labor substitution is approved if I-140 is approved.
Again, I'm not a lawyer, it's just my understanding.
more...
gc_wow
09-23 05:25 PM
I dont think there is a law which dictates spill over to happen in last quarter? Some USCIS crony has made that happen only in last quarter? Does any one know more about this?
2010 Dominique Strauss-Kahn
rajsenthil
09-03 09:56 AM
Why do u feel sad if people support SRK?
Bcos it sounds odd to highlight and support the shadow hero.
And why do u compare SRK to YSR?
Both are not related to our immigration issue but discussed here.
Don't demonize people just because just because they voice their opinions.
I did not demonize anyone. If you feel that way, that is not my problem.
Bcos it sounds odd to highlight and support the shadow hero.
And why do u compare SRK to YSR?
Both are not related to our immigration issue but discussed here.
Don't demonize people just because just because they voice their opinions.
I did not demonize anyone. If you feel that way, that is not my problem.
more...
ganguteli
06-24 02:49 PM
..I am waiting for the punch line. What's the point of this? We all know it...
Same wine in a new marketing bottle by another lawyer.
Tell us something we do not already know.
Same wine in a new marketing bottle by another lawyer.
Tell us something we do not already know.
hair of a maid at a hotel,
BharatPremi
12-13 01:22 PM
Hello All,
First and foremost, i must thank everyone from IV, who is working tirelessly to resolve the issues of retrogression in the GC process. As an affected individual I am very grateful that leaders of IV are ready to contribute so much effort for its goals. And even though I do not actively work for the IV agenda, I have contributed money to some IV action items.
I have a question/suggestion regarding the IV agenda. On IV's about page, pt number 2 asserts amongst other things,
The Discriminatory Per-Country Rationing of Green Cards That Exacerbates the Delays.
and further in the same point
We do not allow employers to discriminate hiring based on their nationality or country of origin. Therefore, the employment-based immigration, which is a derivative benefit of employment, should also be free from rationing based on nationality or country of birth.
I am curious to know what is the "legal" strength of these assertions is. Are they just "moral" statements or can the validity of these statements be tested in the legal framework of this country? In other words, my question is what is the constitutionality of the "Per Country Caps" in Employment / Family Based Immrigration procedures.
A lot of Laws and Statutes have been challenged in the Judicial System of USA. And many more are challenged every year. And if the laws are not constitutional then they can be repealed.
I am sure the leaders of IV must have thought about this argument however a quick search of the forums with 'constitutionality' as the search term did not return any results.
IV's efforts to utilize Lobbying to bring about change to alleviate/eliminate retrogression are certainly beneficial. However, if IV has not already considered and eliminated this legal argument, then it should explore whether there is any substance to this approach.
Hence this post. Below are some of the links that might be relevant.
wikipedia article on constitutionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality)
wikipedia category on US immigration case law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_immigration_and_naturalizat ion_case_law)
thanks and sincerely,
--soljabhai
I am not a lawyer. Here is my understanding as a lay man:
What is constitution?
A: At some point of time, group of people, with having confidence from
majority of people, with a centralizing tone of some common
philosophy/ethics, create the framework of regulations with a goal to make
society orderely, to make sure that common good of people remains
prevalent and maintained and assures the penalty for deed done agianst
common good and breaking the common order of the society. Wise ones,
accepting the limit of individual capabilities, understanding the different
needs of the society at different time, keep windows opened to improve
the "base" constitution with making sure all checks and balances do not
allow the misuse and hecnce the word "Amendment/s" have the existence.
Now there has to be some base ground when base consitution is prepared.
What that could be? During the process of human evolution, with accumulated experience of centuries, human societies have established some common practices which we now name "Ethics" and amazingly many are similar across many culture. For example, Burglary is considered crime in each and every society without any question or difference. Why?.. I do not like somebody snatches away my chain as in my mind I have established my ownership to that chain. You also do not like it somebody snatches away your car.If there are only two humans on earth, things might have been simpler considering one is burglar of those two. But here in society now every body has to establish the proof that s/he is aowner of something and somebody else snatches that away then it is not good. So wise ones decided (to keep
controlled and organized society) made a rule : "From today we will call the act of snatching something away from somebody an act of crime if the person can prove that s/he is the original owner of that thing and let's call that person a "burglar" because he snatched away the thing" Now it was suited to everybody because it was protecting their belonging so that was established as "Ethics" and stories of "criminal behaviour"were created by every society for snatching away the thing from somebody. That make every human understand the fact that snatching away is bad thing
(if done openly:), If lawyer snatches away big money from your pocket .. no it is not a crime or that matter USCIS... just kidding :))
Now making story short, after 200/300 years of evolution, USA has legally decided to push the "Ethics" of employment: "Equivalent Oppertunity to all Citizens without race, creed, color, country of origin" and "Skill is the criteria of an employment" Now when these ethical and progressive principals are already implemented for common good of citizens, it should be implemented for foreign labor (non immigrants/immigrants).
Can we "constitutionally" label some person that, hey you will be called burglar if you snatches thing away from US born person but you will not be called burglar if you snatches away the thing from pakistani or Sweedish or Chiense who has just arrived in this country?
So bootmline: If at all constitution is permitting "per country based ceilings" then
we will have to fight to change that because it is not right.
First and foremost, i must thank everyone from IV, who is working tirelessly to resolve the issues of retrogression in the GC process. As an affected individual I am very grateful that leaders of IV are ready to contribute so much effort for its goals. And even though I do not actively work for the IV agenda, I have contributed money to some IV action items.
I have a question/suggestion regarding the IV agenda. On IV's about page, pt number 2 asserts amongst other things,
The Discriminatory Per-Country Rationing of Green Cards That Exacerbates the Delays.
and further in the same point
We do not allow employers to discriminate hiring based on their nationality or country of origin. Therefore, the employment-based immigration, which is a derivative benefit of employment, should also be free from rationing based on nationality or country of birth.
I am curious to know what is the "legal" strength of these assertions is. Are they just "moral" statements or can the validity of these statements be tested in the legal framework of this country? In other words, my question is what is the constitutionality of the "Per Country Caps" in Employment / Family Based Immrigration procedures.
A lot of Laws and Statutes have been challenged in the Judicial System of USA. And many more are challenged every year. And if the laws are not constitutional then they can be repealed.
I am sure the leaders of IV must have thought about this argument however a quick search of the forums with 'constitutionality' as the search term did not return any results.
IV's efforts to utilize Lobbying to bring about change to alleviate/eliminate retrogression are certainly beneficial. However, if IV has not already considered and eliminated this legal argument, then it should explore whether there is any substance to this approach.
Hence this post. Below are some of the links that might be relevant.
wikipedia article on constitutionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality)
wikipedia category on US immigration case law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_immigration_and_naturalizat ion_case_law)
thanks and sincerely,
--soljabhai
I am not a lawyer. Here is my understanding as a lay man:
What is constitution?
A: At some point of time, group of people, with having confidence from
majority of people, with a centralizing tone of some common
philosophy/ethics, create the framework of regulations with a goal to make
society orderely, to make sure that common good of people remains
prevalent and maintained and assures the penalty for deed done agianst
common good and breaking the common order of the society. Wise ones,
accepting the limit of individual capabilities, understanding the different
needs of the society at different time, keep windows opened to improve
the "base" constitution with making sure all checks and balances do not
allow the misuse and hecnce the word "Amendment/s" have the existence.
Now there has to be some base ground when base consitution is prepared.
What that could be? During the process of human evolution, with accumulated experience of centuries, human societies have established some common practices which we now name "Ethics" and amazingly many are similar across many culture. For example, Burglary is considered crime in each and every society without any question or difference. Why?.. I do not like somebody snatches away my chain as in my mind I have established my ownership to that chain. You also do not like it somebody snatches away your car.If there are only two humans on earth, things might have been simpler considering one is burglar of those two. But here in society now every body has to establish the proof that s/he is aowner of something and somebody else snatches that away then it is not good. So wise ones decided (to keep
controlled and organized society) made a rule : "From today we will call the act of snatching something away from somebody an act of crime if the person can prove that s/he is the original owner of that thing and let's call that person a "burglar" because he snatched away the thing" Now it was suited to everybody because it was protecting their belonging so that was established as "Ethics" and stories of "criminal behaviour"were created by every society for snatching away the thing from somebody. That make every human understand the fact that snatching away is bad thing
(if done openly:), If lawyer snatches away big money from your pocket .. no it is not a crime or that matter USCIS... just kidding :))
Now making story short, after 200/300 years of evolution, USA has legally decided to push the "Ethics" of employment: "Equivalent Oppertunity to all Citizens without race, creed, color, country of origin" and "Skill is the criteria of an employment" Now when these ethical and progressive principals are already implemented for common good of citizens, it should be implemented for foreign labor (non immigrants/immigrants).
Can we "constitutionally" label some person that, hey you will be called burglar if you snatches thing away from US born person but you will not be called burglar if you snatches away the thing from pakistani or Sweedish or Chiense who has just arrived in this country?
So bootmline: If at all constitution is permitting "per country based ceilings" then
we will have to fight to change that because it is not right.
more...
mbawa2574
03-27 01:57 PM
widower zardari will be marrying kumari mayawati just after election to unite subcontinent and bring peace to world.
...:d:d:d
...:d:d:d
hot hot Dominique Strauss-Kahn
sertasheep
07-03 04:42 PM
We have the following stories compiled so far;
New Jersey Member Stories (http://www.mydatabus.com/public/immigrationvoice/NJ_Stories_V5.pdf)
Disclaimer:This is a PDF. Please use your discretion and caution in scanning it for viruses.
Please note that we need all the extra help, and require your diligent set of eyes and ears.
In addition to that, you can also publish your story here as a post along with your Name and bio details like in the above document.
New Jersey Member Stories (http://www.mydatabus.com/public/immigrationvoice/NJ_Stories_V5.pdf)
Disclaimer:This is a PDF. Please use your discretion and caution in scanning it for viruses.
Please note that we need all the extra help, and require your diligent set of eyes and ears.
In addition to that, you can also publish your story here as a post along with your Name and bio details like in the above document.
more...
house Dominique Strauss-Kahn
sumagiri
07-25 08:40 PM
I dont know what this means. He said previously EB3 backlog is massive. So assuming40 percent of indians would give 160,000. Out of those assuming 50 percent for EB2 would give 80,000. Question: Is eb2:eb3 ration 50% ??
"I think that the numbers are generally accurate, but I disagree with the conclusion. In large part, I rely on what I was told in a conversation with the State Department officer responsible for calculating cutoff dates. He told me that the Indian E2 cutoff date is going to retrogress back to late 2002 or early 2003 in October. He said that the Indian E2 backlog is MASSIVE.
Looking at the total number of people who have filed AOS applications, or who have been reported as documentarily qualified to consular posts, we see a group of at least 400,000. This was as of a couple of months ago, after much of this year's quota had been used. I'm told that between 40% and 45% of the people in the known backlog are chargeable to India - and most of those are E2".
IMO, "MASSIVE" is a relative term. Even if there are 400,000 applicants and 45% of them are India and 60% of those are E2, the total is just 108,000. Not that bad if we look at the calculations and E2 numbers India gets this year and next year. I think it is sensible to say the actual number would be lower than 108K.
Having said that, before horizontal spill over, all these numbers (spill overs) were going to E3 ROW. Why is E3 ROW still severely retrogressed? Apart from calculations, I am attempting to do all reality checks. Is the volume of E3 ROW so heavy that around 50k + additional visas are not helping to bring E3 ROW to current. Read some where about amnesty causing this back log. Any one knows this for sure?
"I think that the numbers are generally accurate, but I disagree with the conclusion. In large part, I rely on what I was told in a conversation with the State Department officer responsible for calculating cutoff dates. He told me that the Indian E2 cutoff date is going to retrogress back to late 2002 or early 2003 in October. He said that the Indian E2 backlog is MASSIVE.
Looking at the total number of people who have filed AOS applications, or who have been reported as documentarily qualified to consular posts, we see a group of at least 400,000. This was as of a couple of months ago, after much of this year's quota had been used. I'm told that between 40% and 45% of the people in the known backlog are chargeable to India - and most of those are E2".
IMO, "MASSIVE" is a relative term. Even if there are 400,000 applicants and 45% of them are India and 60% of those are E2, the total is just 108,000. Not that bad if we look at the calculations and E2 numbers India gets this year and next year. I think it is sensible to say the actual number would be lower than 108K.
Having said that, before horizontal spill over, all these numbers (spill overs) were going to E3 ROW. Why is E3 ROW still severely retrogressed? Apart from calculations, I am attempting to do all reality checks. Is the volume of E3 ROW so heavy that around 50k + additional visas are not helping to bring E3 ROW to current. Read some where about amnesty causing this back log. Any one knows this for sure?
tattoo Strauss-Kahn DNA found on
eastindia
01-25 02:45 PM
Making Sure H-1Bs Actually Work for Their "Employers" | Center for Immigration Studies (http://www.cis.org/miano/h1bjobshops)
Making Sure H-1Bs Actually Work for Their "Employers"
By John Miano, January 21, 2010
Making Sure H-1Bs Actually Work for Their "Employers"
By John Miano, January 21, 2010
more...
pictures Dominique Strauss-Kahn on
sroyc
02-12 08:44 PM
I don't think Abhijit chose the right analogy, so your response to that makes sense.
India and China are not sending multiple skilled-immigrant teams to the US. They have come here on their own either to work or study and they are being hired by American companies on the basis of merit, same as everyone else.
Other than the fact that there is a large talent pool of high-tech workers in India and China, there's nothing that stops them for hiring more skilled immigrants from other countries.
If the US truly believes in a quota system for employment based immigration, it should reflect in the workforce first. Enforce the quota system while issuing F1/H1 visas. Then you will also ensure true diversity (only among immigrants) in the workforce.
What you have is two classes of immigrant workers in the same company - those who belong to retrogressed categories and those who are not, with similar qualifications and with similar roles. The difference is that in a few years, the workers who get the green card sooner will have the ability to pursue other opportunities while the other class of workers grind away. With the current scenario, a future colleague from a ROW country can join 6-8 years after me and still get the green card ahead of me. How can you say that it is not discrimination?
If you remove the per country quota, the ROW candidates might have to wait for 3 years instead of 1, but the Indian/Chinese candidates will have to wait for 3 years instead of 8-10. I don't think removing the per country quota will harm ROW folks as much as it'll benefit Indians and Chinese AND it'll ensure fairness.
Per country limit applies to every country in exactly the same way. It doesn't discriminate between Chad or China. So, how is it discrimination? And think about it- in Olympics soccer/basketball every country can send only one team. Should China and India be allowed to send more teams since they have a larger population? We should try to increase the number of GCs.
India and China are not sending multiple skilled-immigrant teams to the US. They have come here on their own either to work or study and they are being hired by American companies on the basis of merit, same as everyone else.
Other than the fact that there is a large talent pool of high-tech workers in India and China, there's nothing that stops them for hiring more skilled immigrants from other countries.
If the US truly believes in a quota system for employment based immigration, it should reflect in the workforce first. Enforce the quota system while issuing F1/H1 visas. Then you will also ensure true diversity (only among immigrants) in the workforce.
What you have is two classes of immigrant workers in the same company - those who belong to retrogressed categories and those who are not, with similar qualifications and with similar roles. The difference is that in a few years, the workers who get the green card sooner will have the ability to pursue other opportunities while the other class of workers grind away. With the current scenario, a future colleague from a ROW country can join 6-8 years after me and still get the green card ahead of me. How can you say that it is not discrimination?
If you remove the per country quota, the ROW candidates might have to wait for 3 years instead of 1, but the Indian/Chinese candidates will have to wait for 3 years instead of 8-10. I don't think removing the per country quota will harm ROW folks as much as it'll benefit Indians and Chinese AND it'll ensure fairness.
Per country limit applies to every country in exactly the same way. It doesn't discriminate between Chad or China. So, how is it discrimination? And think about it- in Olympics soccer/basketball every country can send only one team. Should China and India be allowed to send more teams since they have a larger population? We should try to increase the number of GCs.
dresses hotel maid. Prisoner
byeusa
07-11 03:28 PM
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9026820&source=NLT_PM&nlid=8
Check this out. Pls forward this article to Ron Hira, Berney Sanders John Maino for them helping Microsoft in opening this office in Vancouver
Check this out. Pls forward this article to Ron Hira, Berney Sanders John Maino for them helping Microsoft in opening this office in Vancouver
more...
makeup Dominique Strauss-Kahn
sajimm
05-17 08:50 PM
I would recommend to be very careful if you are considering to use substitution labor. See the quote from http://www.immigration-law.com below.
04/30/2006: Advisory for Substitution I-140 Filers Either Waiting Decision or On Appeal to AAO or Motion to Reopen/Reconsider
The DOL is currently finalizing the rule-making process to eliminate the substitution of labor certifications. The proposed rule which has already been published in the federal register has a clause exempting those who obtained the "substitution approved" at the time of the release of the final regulation which they are currently working on. No one can predict the exact date when this final regulation will be published in the federal register.
Under the current rule, there is no separate procedure for request for substitution of labor certification apart from the filing of I-140 petition for the new employee with the request to withdraw the pending or approved I-140 petition and substitute the alien beneficiary in the new I-140 petition proceeding. The employer's request for withdrawal of the pending I-140 petition or approved I-140 petition for the old employee is filed as part of the new I-140 petition filing on behalf of the new employee for the substitution. Accordingly, in this context, there is no separation decision which is issued by the USCIS for the approval of the substitutuion. The employers learn the approval of the substitution when they receive either denial or approval of the new substitution I-140 petitions.
Unfortunately, the proposed substitution elimination rule does not elaborate or define "approved substitution." Because of the current USCIS practice making the decision of substitution approval as part of the decision of I-140 petition itself, there is a risk that the DOL and the USCIS may argue that "approved substitution" means "I-140 petition approval." Such interpretation will lead to devastating consequences to the aliens who's I-140 petition will be pending or on appeal to the AAO on other legal issues such as the employer's financial ability to pay the proffered wage at the time of release of the "final regulation" in that all these I-140 petitions will have to be denied because of elimination of the substitution. The damage will mount in the situation of concurrent I-140 and I-485 applications for the alien employees and their family members.
It is thus prudent that the people whose substitution I-140 petitions are still pending consult their legal counsels to discuss strategies or options to avoid the potential deadly consequences
04/30/2006: Advisory for Substitution I-140 Filers Either Waiting Decision or On Appeal to AAO or Motion to Reopen/Reconsider
The DOL is currently finalizing the rule-making process to eliminate the substitution of labor certifications. The proposed rule which has already been published in the federal register has a clause exempting those who obtained the "substitution approved" at the time of the release of the final regulation which they are currently working on. No one can predict the exact date when this final regulation will be published in the federal register.
Under the current rule, there is no separate procedure for request for substitution of labor certification apart from the filing of I-140 petition for the new employee with the request to withdraw the pending or approved I-140 petition and substitute the alien beneficiary in the new I-140 petition proceeding. The employer's request for withdrawal of the pending I-140 petition or approved I-140 petition for the old employee is filed as part of the new I-140 petition filing on behalf of the new employee for the substitution. Accordingly, in this context, there is no separation decision which is issued by the USCIS for the approval of the substitutuion. The employers learn the approval of the substitution when they receive either denial or approval of the new substitution I-140 petitions.
Unfortunately, the proposed substitution elimination rule does not elaborate or define "approved substitution." Because of the current USCIS practice making the decision of substitution approval as part of the decision of I-140 petition itself, there is a risk that the DOL and the USCIS may argue that "approved substitution" means "I-140 petition approval." Such interpretation will lead to devastating consequences to the aliens who's I-140 petition will be pending or on appeal to the AAO on other legal issues such as the employer's financial ability to pay the proffered wage at the time of release of the "final regulation" in that all these I-140 petitions will have to be denied because of elimination of the substitution. The damage will mount in the situation of concurrent I-140 and I-485 applications for the alien employees and their family members.
It is thus prudent that the people whose substitution I-140 petitions are still pending consult their legal counsels to discuss strategies or options to avoid the potential deadly consequences
girlfriend Hotel maid assault scandal
bayarea07
07-27 07:28 PM
Kushal,
Still waiting for your reply and your tax returns for previous years as you promised :-)
Since you are in bay area I will reply to you. I don't need to see his tax papers, as long I can see mine. IF you are happy with your thinking so be it...stay where you are...and you can google froogle whatever you want. You will find your like minded people there too.
I don't need to share my thoughts here...its like talking to anti-immigrants on legal/illegal immigration.
Peace OUT!!
Still waiting for your reply and your tax returns for previous years as you promised :-)
Since you are in bay area I will reply to you. I don't need to see his tax papers, as long I can see mine. IF you are happy with your thinking so be it...stay where you are...and you can google froogle whatever you want. You will find your like minded people there too.
I don't need to share my thoughts here...its like talking to anti-immigrants on legal/illegal immigration.
Peace OUT!!
hairstyles IMF chief Strauss-Kahn to
walking_dude
02-13 01:26 PM
I request you to rise above your tunnel vision of viewing people as Indians, Chinese and ROW. Start thinking about people as individuals. Then you'll see the light.
By stating that through EB immigration one country is monopolizing the 'agenda' (what freaking agenda?), you are just regurgitating the spittle thrown by racist organizations like NumbersUSA and StormFront. I don't see any difference between your view and theirs. You both consider us "an invasion"! They are more upfront. You do it in a more subtle way.
I was responding to threats we keep receiving on the forum that somehow removing the country will split the movement. Wanted to give some delusioned members a reality check.
Finally you hit the nail on its head. That’s why the per country limit is there so no one country with larger population can monopolize any agenda the way you are trying to do with IV.
By stating that through EB immigration one country is monopolizing the 'agenda' (what freaking agenda?), you are just regurgitating the spittle thrown by racist organizations like NumbersUSA and StormFront. I don't see any difference between your view and theirs. You both consider us "an invasion"! They are more upfront. You do it in a more subtle way.
I was responding to threats we keep receiving on the forum that somehow removing the country will split the movement. Wanted to give some delusioned members a reality check.
Finally you hit the nail on its head. That’s why the per country limit is there so no one country with larger population can monopolize any agenda the way you are trying to do with IV.
desi3933
07-29 12:28 PM
....
....
This does not mean that the CIS has closed out all of the pre-2006 cases pending in their inventory. Far from it. When the new fiscal year starts, Indian E2 is likely to retrogress back to late 2002 or early 2003. This is roughly the point reached by the CIS in processing their inventory of pending cases.
....
....
I agree with this comment. Starting Oct, EB2-Ind is likely to retrogress to 03/2003 to 06/2003.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
....
This does not mean that the CIS has closed out all of the pre-2006 cases pending in their inventory. Far from it. When the new fiscal year starts, Indian E2 is likely to retrogress back to late 2002 or early 2003. This is roughly the point reached by the CIS in processing their inventory of pending cases.
....
....
I agree with this comment. Starting Oct, EB2-Ind is likely to retrogress to 03/2003 to 06/2003.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
dealsnet
09-04 11:28 PM
CHANDRAKANTH VEMULA.
He studied in St. John's school and now a anti Christian. CASTIEST DEVIL. See the link.
Chandrakanth Vemula - LinkedIn (http://www.linkedin.com/in/chandrakanthvemula)
OK breddy I searched in youtube. I see chandu is from vijayawada. Now I know why he is talking crap on YS Rajashekar Reddy.
Dude Chandu, you are in 21st century. Forget about all these castism and all. Live peacefully and get your GC. This castism and all doesn't do any good. Chandrababu and Balakrishan will nto give any GC to you. Save your ass, CASTISM will not help any one. I used to think your senior member and good person. I seriously think your an IDIOT unless you stop this castism. STOP this caste based discussions. I know you are not directly talking but I can join the links.
(BTW, I don't believe in castism, I don't have any caste)
He studied in St. John's school and now a anti Christian. CASTIEST DEVIL. See the link.
Chandrakanth Vemula - LinkedIn (http://www.linkedin.com/in/chandrakanthvemula)
OK breddy I searched in youtube. I see chandu is from vijayawada. Now I know why he is talking crap on YS Rajashekar Reddy.
Dude Chandu, you are in 21st century. Forget about all these castism and all. Live peacefully and get your GC. This castism and all doesn't do any good. Chandrababu and Balakrishan will nto give any GC to you. Save your ass, CASTISM will not help any one. I used to think your senior member and good person. I seriously think your an IDIOT unless you stop this castism. STOP this caste based discussions. I know you are not directly talking but I can join the links.
(BTW, I don't believe in castism, I don't have any caste)
No comments:
Post a Comment