upuaut
10-21 01:42 AM
I agree
wallpaper AMERICAN IDOL: RANDY JACKSON
paskal
07-08 08:49 PM
Any Drive in Minneapolis???
could not find one.
btw are you signed up to the state chapter (MN) ?
could not find one.
btw are you signed up to the state chapter (MN) ?
jagan13
02-23 01:49 PM
I have sent an email to the Embassy today, enquiring about the status of my application and finally, for the very first time, received a response saying it will be checked into. I hope to hear that they have already mailed it out.
2011 mohawk Randy Jackson;
doubleyou
05-20 09:36 AM
I agree that recapture is a big issue, but background check is also another issue that affects many IV members.
It just does not matter if wheter one is a paying member or non paying member, i am sure that there are paying members who are also having same issue.
As a start IV should get a count of members who are in the background check doloop.
It just does not matter if wheter one is a paying member or non paying member, i am sure that there are paying members who are also having same issue.
As a start IV should get a count of members who are in the background check doloop.
more...
coolmanasip
07-19 10:54 AM
I would say talk to someone at H&R or alike........they will help you ammend it........this is crazy isn't it!! God knows what all we have to do to get a stupid GC!!!
singhsa3
10-22 01:00 PM
Some one gave me negative feedback on this thread.
To that person, why not you come out in open and discuss your problem.
To that person, why not you come out in open and discuss your problem.
more...
psk79
05-30 12:20 AM
My few cents.. I was well aware of this situation from my past.. When you first filed h1 with A in 2006 and got approved, it doesn't mean anything unless u started the job with A. So that 'overridden' stuff is WRONG.
Basically u could continue with univ. as along as ur h1 is with them is valid.. then when u tried to transfer that old employerA's h1 to B, u are in GOOD status as u r working with the univ. However, the reason for using A is only to show uscis that u were counted against the CAP once before and u don't need cap for this new employment with B.
Since the problem here is with B, you better get some more info on why it was denied. See if they can appeal or something.. I didn't know that employer has to be qualified? Do they mean this company doesn't have enough revenue to support u or something?
Also there are different opinions on using employer A's h1 to transfer without actually working with A. Half the people say its not possible as u never worked for A and the other half say its fine as u were counted in CAP. B should have told you to wait until ur H1 was approved as this is a weird situation.
Anyway, since u already left univ, u can try to go back to univ or atleast start with A. Once u go out of the country and get the visa stamped, you should be clear of any out of status issues I believe.
Basically u could continue with univ. as along as ur h1 is with them is valid.. then when u tried to transfer that old employerA's h1 to B, u are in GOOD status as u r working with the univ. However, the reason for using A is only to show uscis that u were counted against the CAP once before and u don't need cap for this new employment with B.
Since the problem here is with B, you better get some more info on why it was denied. See if they can appeal or something.. I didn't know that employer has to be qualified? Do they mean this company doesn't have enough revenue to support u or something?
Also there are different opinions on using employer A's h1 to transfer without actually working with A. Half the people say its not possible as u never worked for A and the other half say its fine as u were counted in CAP. B should have told you to wait until ur H1 was approved as this is a weird situation.
Anyway, since u already left univ, u can try to go back to univ or atleast start with A. Once u go out of the country and get the visa stamped, you should be clear of any out of status issues I believe.
2010 randy jackson the jacksons.
laborfd
10-15 02:06 PM
What is LUD? and how do we check it?
more...
yagw
12-10 03:01 PM
The dot system if used properly is a good system as other community members can privately control the reputation of each other. Community can also identify posters who are mischief makers by giving them reds and identifying them publicly. This reduces the need for moderators significantly as moderators cannot read every post and every thread everyday. Pls suggest better ways in which we should handle reputation system.
Pappu,
This reasoning may not apply here. Lets see, what is the positive effect of "other community members controlling reputation of each other"? We are not ignoring some one's post just because he got lot of red dots. Like wise, we don't value some one's post because he got more green dots. Do we? AFAI see here, we value the post based on its content.
Also, I am not sure how this reputation system helps moderators. From seeing the posts here, the members always alerts the admin to delete some offensive posts and not the reputation points.
So the better option is, remove this reputation system and let the users call out for admins to delete posts, if it is offensive. That way, the moderators/admins don't have to read all the posts.
Or at least remove the anonymous nature of the reputation system.
I personally think, this anonymous nature of affecting some one else' reputation brings the worst out of our human nature. I have got some red dots a while back with comments like "don't answer trivial questions." I know who that person is and I am pretty sure the real intention is different.
Even though it didn't put me off from visiting IV, things like this definitely makes it not a welcoming place.
YAGW.
Pappu,
This reasoning may not apply here. Lets see, what is the positive effect of "other community members controlling reputation of each other"? We are not ignoring some one's post just because he got lot of red dots. Like wise, we don't value some one's post because he got more green dots. Do we? AFAI see here, we value the post based on its content.
Also, I am not sure how this reputation system helps moderators. From seeing the posts here, the members always alerts the admin to delete some offensive posts and not the reputation points.
So the better option is, remove this reputation system and let the users call out for admins to delete posts, if it is offensive. That way, the moderators/admins don't have to read all the posts.
Or at least remove the anonymous nature of the reputation system.
I personally think, this anonymous nature of affecting some one else' reputation brings the worst out of our human nature. I have got some red dots a while back with comments like "don't answer trivial questions." I know who that person is and I am pretty sure the real intention is different.
Even though it didn't put me off from visiting IV, things like this definitely makes it not a welcoming place.
YAGW.
hair journey band randy jackson.
lskreddy
07-30 10:11 AM
Pappu - I agree with you in totality that it is an opportunity wasted when people focus on the individual issues. But, after listening in on a couple of calls, I find the whole call to be not much of use as they always defer the question with 'we have asked the TSC to find out' or 'that is for the USCIS to answer'.
I appreciate a channel of communication and a watchdog for USCIS activities but when communicating regarding problems with USCIS, I see ombudsman's office as a level of indirection. They seem to identify problems, pass on as a report that gets nowhere or gets partially addressed.
If USCIS took cues and had allowed a conference call with the USCIS leadership directly, or if one of us (could be me but I need some ideas as to how to approach) could do such a thing, we could see far more benefit in gathering more significant problems and getting them answered.
I would rather hear the news from the 'horse's mouth' than listening to someone who barely has an influence. I would gladly stand corrected if history has shown otherwise.
I appreciate a channel of communication and a watchdog for USCIS activities but when communicating regarding problems with USCIS, I see ombudsman's office as a level of indirection. They seem to identify problems, pass on as a report that gets nowhere or gets partially addressed.
If USCIS took cues and had allowed a conference call with the USCIS leadership directly, or if one of us (could be me but I need some ideas as to how to approach) could do such a thing, we could see far more benefit in gathering more significant problems and getting them answered.
I would rather hear the news from the 'horse's mouth' than listening to someone who barely has an influence. I would gladly stand corrected if history has shown otherwise.
more...
njdude26
07-12 01:39 PM
My case was closed in Error at the PBEC. My attorney had sent a letter saying this some months ago. Today my attorney informed me that there is some new procedure of re-opening cases that was closed in error using which he says he sent the information by email today.
Just thought will give you guys the info.
Just thought will give you guys the info.
hot Seacrest amp; Randy Jackson
NewDocinUS
02-05 02:56 PM
I know the residency application process. I needed help in finding out any hospitals or institutions offering the observership programs.
Thanks
Thanks
more...
house judge Randy Jackson on the
vgc
07-26 10:37 AM
SA 2428. Mr. CORNYN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2638, making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. EMPLOYMENT-BASED VISAS.
(a) Recapture of Unused Employment-Based Immigrant Visas.--Section 106(d) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-313; 8 U.S.C. 1153 note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``1994, 1996, 1997, 1998,'' after ``available in fiscal year'';
(B) by striking ``or 2004'' and inserting ``2004, or 2006''; and
(C) by striking ``be available'' and all that follows and inserting the following: ``be available only to--
``(A) employment-based immigrants under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b));
``(B) the family members accompanying or following to join such employment-based immigrants under section 203(d) of such Act; and
``(C) those immigrant workers who had petitions approved based on Schedule A, Group I under section 656.5 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated by the Secretary of Labor.''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``1999 through 2004'' and inserting ``1994, 1996 through 1998, 2001 through 2004, and 2006''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by amending clause (ii) to read as follows:
``(ii) DISTRIBUTION OF VISAS.--The total number of visas made available under paragraph (1) from unused visas from fiscal years 1994, 1996 through 1998, 2001 through 2004, and 2006 shall be distributed as follows:
``(I) The total number of visas made available for immigrant workers who had petitions approved based on Schedule A, Group I under section 656.5 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated by the Secretary of Labor shall be 61,000.
``(II) The visas remaining from the total made available under subclause (I) shall be allocated to employment-based immigrants with approved petitions under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (and their family members accompanying or following to join).''.
(b) H-1B Visa Availability.--Section 214(g)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (vi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating clause (vii) as clause (ix); and
(3) by inserting after clause (vi) the following:
[Page: S9966] GPO's PDF ``(vii) 65,000 in each of fiscal years 2004 through 2007;
``(viii) 115,000 in fiscal year 2008; and''.
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. EMPLOYMENT-BASED VISAS.
(a) Recapture of Unused Employment-Based Immigrant Visas.--Section 106(d) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-313; 8 U.S.C. 1153 note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``1994, 1996, 1997, 1998,'' after ``available in fiscal year'';
(B) by striking ``or 2004'' and inserting ``2004, or 2006''; and
(C) by striking ``be available'' and all that follows and inserting the following: ``be available only to--
``(A) employment-based immigrants under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b));
``(B) the family members accompanying or following to join such employment-based immigrants under section 203(d) of such Act; and
``(C) those immigrant workers who had petitions approved based on Schedule A, Group I under section 656.5 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated by the Secretary of Labor.''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``1999 through 2004'' and inserting ``1994, 1996 through 1998, 2001 through 2004, and 2006''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by amending clause (ii) to read as follows:
``(ii) DISTRIBUTION OF VISAS.--The total number of visas made available under paragraph (1) from unused visas from fiscal years 1994, 1996 through 1998, 2001 through 2004, and 2006 shall be distributed as follows:
``(I) The total number of visas made available for immigrant workers who had petitions approved based on Schedule A, Group I under section 656.5 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated by the Secretary of Labor shall be 61,000.
``(II) The visas remaining from the total made available under subclause (I) shall be allocated to employment-based immigrants with approved petitions under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (and their family members accompanying or following to join).''.
(b) H-1B Visa Availability.--Section 214(g)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (vi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating clause (vii) as clause (ix); and
(3) by inserting after clause (vi) the following:
[Page: S9966] GPO's PDF ``(vii) 65,000 in each of fiscal years 2004 through 2007;
``(viii) 115,000 in fiscal year 2008; and''.
tattoo Randy Jackson Mens Frames.
senthil
10-26 05:14 PM
they wanted to see the originals but copies were enough for submitting. as many of our members have experiances lately - with respective to stamping, its should surey help if we consider their advise's. good luck all.
more...
pictures randy jackson the jacksons.
yabadaba
11-19 05:08 PM
Looks like this is the system that USCIS has been saying they are working on to identify pending cases.
Now, what if your case is pending and your Attorney is not a AILA member or you do not use an Attorney?
maybe u should write to the ombudsman and let them know that its not fair for people who dont have aila attorneys.
Now, what if your case is pending and your Attorney is not a AILA member or you do not use an Attorney?
maybe u should write to the ombudsman and let them know that its not fair for people who dont have aila attorneys.
dresses american idol judges 2011.
gveerab
08-21 11:06 PM
Don't worry about GC, all these calculations are useless. Based on your luck your GC will be approved, not based on all these logical things.
If you invoke AC21, that might trigger GC approval also. :D
:D
Thanks for your opinions.
Sorry, I should have included my Category EB2 and Country India in the original post.
I am leaning more towards AC21 as well. But not sure how it will affect the overall scenario (as far as paperwork right now and may be years from now).
I have been patient enough for 5+ years and one thought says "stick it out" the other says "enough is enough, its time to move on"
I am sure there are many on the board like me, and I guess I am looking for some courage, either way.
If you invoke AC21, that might trigger GC approval also. :D
:D
Thanks for your opinions.
Sorry, I should have included my Category EB2 and Country India in the original post.
I am leaning more towards AC21 as well. But not sure how it will affect the overall scenario (as far as paperwork right now and may be years from now).
I have been patient enough for 5+ years and one thought says "stick it out" the other says "enough is enough, its time to move on"
I am sure there are many on the board like me, and I guess I am looking for some courage, either way.
more...
makeup selena gomez kca 2011 orange
GCProbs
09-15 07:10 PM
Hi All,
I need an advise from IV folks..
here is my situation..
I've got my I-485 approved through company A (Future Employment) on 09-2010 (Case details: PD 06 I-140 AD 02 I-485 RD 07-2007 AD 09-2010). I've never worked for the Company A and my GC-sponsoring company is about to close any time. Since 01-2008 I've been working for company B in same/similar field and did not file AC-21. If I want to continue working for company B, do I have to file AC-21? Please let me know if I need to concern about any thing in future.
Since GC-Sponsoring company is going to close any time... So I cannot return back to that company...
Please advise me...
I need an advise from IV folks..
here is my situation..
I've got my I-485 approved through company A (Future Employment) on 09-2010 (Case details: PD 06 I-140 AD 02 I-485 RD 07-2007 AD 09-2010). I've never worked for the Company A and my GC-sponsoring company is about to close any time. Since 01-2008 I've been working for company B in same/similar field and did not file AC-21. If I want to continue working for company B, do I have to file AC-21? Please let me know if I need to concern about any thing in future.
Since GC-Sponsoring company is going to close any time... So I cannot return back to that company...
Please advise me...
girlfriend Katherine Jackson is doing
designserve
09-04 01:08 PM
IMHO,Since the validity of the 797 starts by Nov 09,thet will take precedence over your entry now.I had a similar issue and asked an online question to
https://help.cbp.gov/.I had traveled to canada and my I-94 expiry was the visa expiry date(oct 08).However,my 797 was valid till june 09.
They told me that the 797 date was valid and I got a renewal after that till 2012.I believe you should not have an issue here....Now then, I am not the authority here too.
https://help.cbp.gov/.I had traveled to canada and my I-94 expiry was the visa expiry date(oct 08).However,my 797 was valid till june 09.
They told me that the 797 date was valid and I got a renewal after that till 2012.I believe you should not have an issue here....Now then, I am not the authority here too.
hairstyles american idol season 10 judges
abhishek101
05-21 12:42 AM
Can you please let me know which service center (Texas or Nebraska) processed yours and your wife's I485 application.
If you don't mind can you please let me know how long it took to receive I-485 receipt notice and Finger print notice (for your wife).
My situation is
Priority date is 08/01/06 (EB2). Becoming current on June 1st 2011. Need to add my wife as dependent to my green card process (she is in US in H4 status now). Texas Service Center is processing my I-485.
Filed at : Nebraska Service Center
For Wife
Filed 485 on March 10, Finger printing May 6th, GC Approved May 9th, GC received May 13th
My Wife was on EAD/OPT based on her student visa (and not on H4)
If you don't mind can you please let me know how long it took to receive I-485 receipt notice and Finger print notice (for your wife).
My situation is
Priority date is 08/01/06 (EB2). Becoming current on June 1st 2011. Need to add my wife as dependent to my green card process (she is in US in H4 status now). Texas Service Center is processing my I-485.
Filed at : Nebraska Service Center
For Wife
Filed 485 on March 10, Finger printing May 6th, GC Approved May 9th, GC received May 13th
My Wife was on EAD/OPT based on her student visa (and not on H4)
purgan
01-14 04:41 PM
Now, that's a good idea. How about Cutting Permanent Residency Delays.
18 months is too long for citizenship applicants, and 6 years not too long for permanent residency applicants.
===
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/us/12citizen.html
Agency Acts to Cut Delay in Gaining Citizenship
By JULIA PRESTON
Published: January 12, 2008
Federal officials said Friday that they had agreed on an emergency plan to hire back about 700 retired government employees in an effort to pare an immense backlog in applications for citizenship by legal immigrants.
Under the plan, first proposed by Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, retired workers could return to the federal Citizenship and Immigration Services agency without sacrificing any part of their pensions. The agency will be authorized to hire former employees who have long since passed training programs and could be on the job quickly to help handle the more than one million citizenship applications filed in the first 10 months of last year, Mr. Schumer said.
The required waiver was approved in a letter on Thursday to immigration officials from Linda M. Springer, the director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The rehiring program is one step to help the immigration agency overcome an embarrassing backlog. Legal immigrants, saying they were spurred by a fee increase that took effect July 30 and by worries raised in the fierce political debate over immigration, applied in huge numbers last summer to become citizens. They were aided by a nationwide drive led by Hispanic groups and Univision, the Spanish-language television network.
According to its Web site, the immigration agency is projecting that it could take up to 18 months to process citizenship applications received after June 1. Hispanic groups have protested that hundreds of thousands of applicants would be unable to vote in the presidential election.
�It�s a problem of their own making,� William Ramos, director of the Washington office of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund, said of the agency. �We kept telling them, there is going to be a surge.�
In recent days, the immigration agency confirmed that it received 1,026,951 citizenship applications from last January to October, nearly double the number in that period in 2006.
The agency also received a deluge of other immigration petitions.
Hispanic groups have demanded that the agency complete by July 4 the naturalizations of all immigrants who applied in the 2007 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, Mr. Ramos said.
Normally, when retired federal employers return to work, their salaries are reduced by the amount of their pension payments. Under the new waiver, retired workers who return to the immigration agency will receive full salary as well as their regular pension payments.
Christopher Bentley, a spokesman for Citizenship and Immigration Services, said the agency was also reorganizing its work force and imposing mandatory overtime on current workers.
The immigration agency plans to hire at least 1,500 new regular employees by the end of this year, Mr. Bentley said.
18 months is too long for citizenship applicants, and 6 years not too long for permanent residency applicants.
===
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/us/12citizen.html
Agency Acts to Cut Delay in Gaining Citizenship
By JULIA PRESTON
Published: January 12, 2008
Federal officials said Friday that they had agreed on an emergency plan to hire back about 700 retired government employees in an effort to pare an immense backlog in applications for citizenship by legal immigrants.
Under the plan, first proposed by Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, retired workers could return to the federal Citizenship and Immigration Services agency without sacrificing any part of their pensions. The agency will be authorized to hire former employees who have long since passed training programs and could be on the job quickly to help handle the more than one million citizenship applications filed in the first 10 months of last year, Mr. Schumer said.
The required waiver was approved in a letter on Thursday to immigration officials from Linda M. Springer, the director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The rehiring program is one step to help the immigration agency overcome an embarrassing backlog. Legal immigrants, saying they were spurred by a fee increase that took effect July 30 and by worries raised in the fierce political debate over immigration, applied in huge numbers last summer to become citizens. They were aided by a nationwide drive led by Hispanic groups and Univision, the Spanish-language television network.
According to its Web site, the immigration agency is projecting that it could take up to 18 months to process citizenship applications received after June 1. Hispanic groups have protested that hundreds of thousands of applicants would be unable to vote in the presidential election.
�It�s a problem of their own making,� William Ramos, director of the Washington office of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund, said of the agency. �We kept telling them, there is going to be a surge.�
In recent days, the immigration agency confirmed that it received 1,026,951 citizenship applications from last January to October, nearly double the number in that period in 2006.
The agency also received a deluge of other immigration petitions.
Hispanic groups have demanded that the agency complete by July 4 the naturalizations of all immigrants who applied in the 2007 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, Mr. Ramos said.
Normally, when retired federal employers return to work, their salaries are reduced by the amount of their pension payments. Under the new waiver, retired workers who return to the immigration agency will receive full salary as well as their regular pension payments.
Christopher Bentley, a spokesman for Citizenship and Immigration Services, said the agency was also reorganizing its work force and imposing mandatory overtime on current workers.
The immigration agency plans to hire at least 1,500 new regular employees by the end of this year, Mr. Bentley said.
ssbaruah@yahoo.com
06-10 12:35 AM
Pl. help with your precious advice. I got laid off five months back. I kept hunting new job but could not get one. Now I plan to move out of the country. In the circumstances, is my employer who was holding my H1b during termination, liable to give return tickets to my base country ? Can I claim the same after five monthsof my termination since I failed to get any job? What about my family members?
Can anyone send any link emphasising this Rule so that I can quote that to my employer?
Any advice in this respect is highly appreciated. Thanks.
Can anyone send any link emphasising this Rule so that I can quote that to my employer?
Any advice in this respect is highly appreciated. Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment