BharatPremi
09-25 02:07 PM
I dont get this - the PDF clearly mentions that the table is for ALL PENDING EMPLOYMENT-BASED 485s. So that means: -
1. It does not include any Family-based 485s.
2. This is not a count of just pre-adjudicated cases - this is a count of ALL PENDING CASES.
3. And since this is a count of ALL PENDING CASES, it also means that ALL DEPENDENT CASES are also included in this count - all DEPENDENTS HAVE TO FILE THEIR OWN 485s!
Sometimes I just wonder, if most people here on this board have an illness or over-analyzing everything. It is so simple if you just read what is stated and take it at the face!
The only thing I can tell is most of us are trying to search "light" from this "black and dark cloud". USCIS does not seem to be agree with what you are saying. Please have this trend chart and the worksheet in this thread together and then you will realize what we all are saying.:)
1. It does not include any Family-based 485s.
2. This is not a count of just pre-adjudicated cases - this is a count of ALL PENDING CASES.
3. And since this is a count of ALL PENDING CASES, it also means that ALL DEPENDENT CASES are also included in this count - all DEPENDENTS HAVE TO FILE THEIR OWN 485s!
Sometimes I just wonder, if most people here on this board have an illness or over-analyzing everything. It is so simple if you just read what is stated and take it at the face!
The only thing I can tell is most of us are trying to search "light" from this "black and dark cloud". USCIS does not seem to be agree with what you are saying. Please have this trend chart and the worksheet in this thread together and then you will realize what we all are saying.:)
wallpaper  Apparently Charlie Sheen is
aadimanav
01-03 12:56 AM
Part 2 continued....
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
desi3933
08-25 11:24 AM
>> Guys, I am also not going anywhere, . I am here for 10 years now and its my life and I like it.
Thats sum it nicely. Nobody wants to go back.
Though you are sending "I am going back unless you fix it" cards, you are actually not serious about it. Great. Just Great.
And you think, that will fix the system.
To the "brave" person who gave me red dot with this comment
u r a sicko...even after getting citizenship u r here and that says a lot...looks like you've no friends and family. Feel sorry for u - Loner.
Hope you are feeling better after venting out your frustration. It was so nice of you to leave "anonymous" comments.
Good Luck to you.
Wishing the very best for you!
Thats sum it nicely. Nobody wants to go back.
Though you are sending "I am going back unless you fix it" cards, you are actually not serious about it. Great. Just Great.
And you think, that will fix the system.
To the "brave" person who gave me red dot with this comment
u r a sicko...even after getting citizenship u r here and that says a lot...looks like you've no friends and family. Feel sorry for u - Loner.
Hope you are feeling better after venting out your frustration. It was so nice of you to leave "anonymous" comments.
Good Luck to you.
Wishing the very best for you!
2011 Re: Charlie Sheen - The
mihird
06-29 04:28 PM
Damn this green card-If its true-What are they thinking screwing our lives-torture-saddistic I hate this man-thats the limit-all these years we wait-they have no word of honour-selfish cruel people.
I always thought, the system was fair, it was only the overwhelming numbers of immigrants from certain countries that made it look unfair....but the closer I get to the stage where DOS decisions start impacting me, the more I realize that the system is not fair at all. The game of visa numbers and allocations is driven by white house politics alone...DOS being the spokesperson for the politics. Essentially the white house is directly throttling immigration through the DOS...on its own whims and fancy.
I wouldn't say they are cruel, but they are certainly selfish..and are bent on sucking the blood of would be immigrants/working non-immigrants...the best way to prevent this from happening is to not come here....let the Indians/Chinese completely stop coming here on H1s/L1s and then we'll see how far can America fly...
Back home we spend so much for our govt for our own education -here no respect for us-I feel really hurted this time-Staying at home in H4 is a torture-
So, what made you import yourself here? You could have stayed back in your own country..by the way, coming on a H4 was a choice..it wasn't forced upon you...didn't you know before coming here that you would have to stay home on a H4? H4->F1, H4->H1...all these options are always open to you..
I always thought, the system was fair, it was only the overwhelming numbers of immigrants from certain countries that made it look unfair....but the closer I get to the stage where DOS decisions start impacting me, the more I realize that the system is not fair at all. The game of visa numbers and allocations is driven by white house politics alone...DOS being the spokesperson for the politics. Essentially the white house is directly throttling immigration through the DOS...on its own whims and fancy.
I wouldn't say they are cruel, but they are certainly selfish..and are bent on sucking the blood of would be immigrants/working non-immigrants...the best way to prevent this from happening is to not come here....let the Indians/Chinese completely stop coming here on H1s/L1s and then we'll see how far can America fly...
Back home we spend so much for our govt for our own education -here no respect for us-I feel really hurted this time-Staying at home in H4 is a torture-
So, what made you import yourself here? You could have stayed back in your own country..by the way, coming on a H4 was a choice..it wasn't forced upon you...didn't you know before coming here that you would have to stay home on a H4? H4->F1, H4->H1...all these options are always open to you..
more...
rajpatelemail
01-06 10:04 AM
NKR .. you know what it is all about..
Looks like all these guys are newbies and do not know the process.
People who stayed long time or having awareness know the GC/citizenship
process.
I do not say we can not do anything. But has to be a bit practical & plausible.
Looks like all these guys are newbies and do not know the process.
People who stayed long time or having awareness know the GC/citizenship
process.
I do not say we can not do anything. But has to be a bit practical & plausible.
CADude
10-10 05:54 PM
I send my Employment based I-485/I-765/I-131 application on June 29th 2007 and received at NSC on July 2nd 2007 (USPS Express mail tracking no. XXXX). It�s more than 100 days and I didn�t even received the Receipt Number for all the applications.
I have following question for CIS Ombudsman�s office:
1) Per US Law, I have to get the EAD in 90 days of filling of my application? How I can get the EAD in 90 days where I didn�t even get the Receipt Number after 100 days?
2) Why �First In First Out (FIFO)� process is not followed by USCIS for receipting? It�s unfair to applicant like me when application filed on August 17th 2007 enjoying the EAD card and able to work.
3) What action you can will take to force USCIS follow their own operational manual guidelines and follow FIFO in future?
I have following question for CIS Ombudsman�s office:
1) Per US Law, I have to get the EAD in 90 days of filling of my application? How I can get the EAD in 90 days where I didn�t even get the Receipt Number after 100 days?
2) Why �First In First Out (FIFO)� process is not followed by USCIS for receipting? It�s unfair to applicant like me when application filed on August 17th 2007 enjoying the EAD card and able to work.
3) What action you can will take to force USCIS follow their own operational manual guidelines and follow FIFO in future?
more...
addsf345
09-23 04:42 PM
Vonage Accounts team is mystry, they are not friendly they are very rude,
Probally more work pressure, and customers with same topic discussing made them like that.
Two things about VONAGE:
1. Tax kills the deal. For me its coming more than $31 per month.
2. I searched on google about calls review. Many people are complaining that the call quality is not that good. On peak times, they do face issues.
Still calling unlimited india is a very tempting idea.;)
Probally more work pressure, and customers with same topic discussing made them like that.
Two things about VONAGE:
1. Tax kills the deal. For me its coming more than $31 per month.
2. I searched on google about calls review. Many people are complaining that the call quality is not that good. On peak times, they do face issues.
Still calling unlimited india is a very tempting idea.;)
2010 Charlie Sheen and very
imneedy
05-16 02:33 PM
Now as per my lawyer's advice probably we will need to change her status back to H4.
Do you know how much time it will take to get that status change? What if your PD is no longer current?
Do you know how much time it will take to get that status change? What if your PD is no longer current?
more...
zram1977
08-13 11:41 AM
Hello guys
Today I had an infopass appointment but it was not at all helpful (The chinese guy whom I talked had no idea at all).. could any body please tell me how to open SR (Any help is greatly appreciated guys)
thanks
The same thing happened to me... today morning...
Hi Techeforever...
qq
Is it in San jose,ca ?
Thx
Today I had an infopass appointment but it was not at all helpful (The chinese guy whom I talked had no idea at all).. could any body please tell me how to open SR (Any help is greatly appreciated guys)
thanks
The same thing happened to me... today morning...
Hi Techeforever...
Is it in San jose,ca ?
Thx
hair charlie-sheen 0 responses
ZigZag
08-12 01:12 PM
Same is the case here.
Opened a SR on 10Aug2010 and got my CPO mail just today. Although I was very sceptic about following up with USCIS by opening SR etc, now I think it definitely helps. I did not get to speak to an IO or escalate my call to a supervisor, but it still worked. Until I opened SR, nothing was happening and my case status which I was checking 5-6 times a day, remained static with no LUD/HUDs.
So, my recommendation to all those whose dates are current is to at least open a SR so that someone at USCIS looks at your file. If everything is OK and the case is pre-adjudicated, then approval will come through. Also, my guess is they have already allocated a Visa number for all those cases that are current (reason- Dates did not move too much forward in September Visa Bulletin). Good luck to everyone waiting. I am sure your turn will come very soon, but at least open a SR to expedite it somehow.
Opened a SR on 10Aug2010 and got my CPO mail just today. Although I was very sceptic about following up with USCIS by opening SR etc, now I think it definitely helps. I did not get to speak to an IO or escalate my call to a supervisor, but it still worked. Until I opened SR, nothing was happening and my case status which I was checking 5-6 times a day, remained static with no LUD/HUDs.
So, my recommendation to all those whose dates are current is to at least open a SR so that someone at USCIS looks at your file. If everything is OK and the case is pre-adjudicated, then approval will come through. Also, my guess is they have already allocated a Visa number for all those cases that are current (reason- Dates did not move too much forward in September Visa Bulletin). Good luck to everyone waiting. I am sure your turn will come very soon, but at least open a SR to expedite it somehow.
more...
gccovet
09-09 02:47 PM
Hello,
Called most of them, will call the remaining in next break. Responses were good from most of them. Couple of them asked for full address and some were just interested in name, (and or phone number) and zip code.
Will continue calling.
Regards,
GCCovet
Called most of them, will call the remaining in next break. Responses were good from most of them. Couple of them asked for full address and some were just interested in name, (and or phone number) and zip code.
Will continue calling.
Regards,
GCCovet
hot Richards and Charlie Sheen
Goodintentions
03-29 03:02 PM
Dear All,
We need to expose the fraudulent EB1 filing by Indian companies! Under the circumstances, I think that this issue is much more relevant now! As such, I would once again like to share the information which I obtained about 6 weeks back from the local Congressman's office.
I was pleasantly suprised to learn that many Indians have been quietly writing about the fraudulent EB1 filing by Indian IT companies to lawmakers! I was told that the local office had received about 50 or so signed (hard copy) letters and that they had subsequently spoken to the INS office about this. It is a good thing that some conscientous Indians are quietly working behind the scenes for the welfare of the community.
Subsequently, I also made a letter on the subject and hand delivered the same the very next day, to the Congressman's office. I then also posted my letter to the Senators of my state.
I once again plead with all fellow EB Indian friends to write letters (please do not Email) about the fraudulent EB1 filings by Indian IT companies (TCS, CTS, L&T-IT, Infosys, Vetri software, et al) to your local congressman / senators. Please also visit your lawmakers to follow up. Personally, I feel that this very very important. IV is there to help us, but all of us must also play a role to get results
It is the strategy that will win the war, not always brute force! We should adopt a multi-pronged attack strategy, realising that each ever visa no. we get is important!
Spending about an hour of your time to write, print, sign and post could save many atleast 2 years of wait time. Did your realize this?
Imagine the impact of 1000s of covers getting dumped in your law makers' offices!
Even lawmaker's offices feel that the impact of printed and signed hard copies is much higher than Emails!
If we are united and focused, we can all win!
GOD bless the EB Community!!!
We need to expose the fraudulent EB1 filing by Indian companies! Under the circumstances, I think that this issue is much more relevant now! As such, I would once again like to share the information which I obtained about 6 weeks back from the local Congressman's office.
I was pleasantly suprised to learn that many Indians have been quietly writing about the fraudulent EB1 filing by Indian IT companies to lawmakers! I was told that the local office had received about 50 or so signed (hard copy) letters and that they had subsequently spoken to the INS office about this. It is a good thing that some conscientous Indians are quietly working behind the scenes for the welfare of the community.
Subsequently, I also made a letter on the subject and hand delivered the same the very next day, to the Congressman's office. I then also posted my letter to the Senators of my state.
I once again plead with all fellow EB Indian friends to write letters (please do not Email) about the fraudulent EB1 filings by Indian IT companies (TCS, CTS, L&T-IT, Infosys, Vetri software, et al) to your local congressman / senators. Please also visit your lawmakers to follow up. Personally, I feel that this very very important. IV is there to help us, but all of us must also play a role to get results
It is the strategy that will win the war, not always brute force! We should adopt a multi-pronged attack strategy, realising that each ever visa no. we get is important!
Spending about an hour of your time to write, print, sign and post could save many atleast 2 years of wait time. Did your realize this?
Imagine the impact of 1000s of covers getting dumped in your law makers' offices!
Even lawmaker's offices feel that the impact of printed and signed hard copies is much higher than Emails!
If we are united and focused, we can all win!
GOD bless the EB Community!!!
more...
house Charlie Sheen
bugsbunny
09-25 02:49 PM
It seems more and more cases are getting pre-adjudicated. This is something we all knew but its good to see its pace in a nice little chart. I like these new USCIS site improvements
USCIS: National Processing Volumes and Trends (http://dashboard.uscis.gov/index.cfm?formtype=9&office=4&charttype=1)
Hey there is not change for immigration yet...but i think things are certainly much better than a year ago...maybe it will be a little better next year...atleast its not getting worse :)
USCIS: National Processing Volumes and Trends (http://dashboard.uscis.gov/index.cfm?formtype=9&office=4&charttype=1)
Hey there is not change for immigration yet...but i think things are certainly much better than a year ago...maybe it will be a little better next year...atleast its not getting worse :)
tattoo Should Charlie Sheen Have
nrk
10-22 04:27 PM
Isn't it strange, card production ordered mail and Physical card on the same day.
My coworker and his spouse got both physical card and CPO mail yesterday on the same day itself . His PD is Jan 2005, EB-2 India and Nebraska service center.
My coworker and his spouse got both physical card and CPO mail yesterday on the same day itself . His PD is Jan 2005, EB-2 India and Nebraska service center.
more...
pictures Tags: Charlie Sheen
SunnySurya
08-07 10:09 AM
These are the red dots and comments I have got so far:
Calling US educated and... 08-07-2008 10:54 AM anti-immigrant in the making
Calling US educated and... 08-07-2008 10:30 AM
Calling US educated and... 08-07-2008 10:24 AM Selfish!!!
Calling US educated and... 08-07-2008 09:37 AM very disappointing post.
Calling US educated and... 08-07-2008 03:12 AM From your post one thing is clear, you are an embodiment of selfishness. Oh by the way, I am also an EB2 guy who could benefit from your proposal. After GC, what is next stop? NumbersUSA ?
Calling US educated and... 08-07-2008 10:54 AM anti-immigrant in the making
Calling US educated and... 08-07-2008 10:30 AM
Calling US educated and... 08-07-2008 10:24 AM Selfish!!!
Calling US educated and... 08-07-2008 09:37 AM very disappointing post.
Calling US educated and... 08-07-2008 03:12 AM From your post one thing is clear, you are an embodiment of selfishness. Oh by the way, I am also an EB2 guy who could benefit from your proposal. After GC, what is next stop? NumbersUSA ?
dresses In 2010, Charlie Sheen ranked
gc_on_demand
04-01 01:21 PM
I would not trust the lawyers in any of this, because their analysis will be superficial and not even close compared to what we see here. We have around 4-5 different folks here doing some really good sound analysis, so unless it's a lawyer known to historically make accurate predictions, I wouldn't care less about their say.
Lawyer is sharing info that some of their client have got fee invoice from NVC. I have done family based application through NVC for my parents and I know you get fees invoice almost 4 months prior to your GC interview date. So lawyer is thinking that NVC is thinking to go upto Nov 2007 in case if CIS fails to act on enough cases in last months.
Lawyer is sharing info that some of their client have got fee invoice from NVC. I have done family based application through NVC for my parents and I know you get fees invoice almost 4 months prior to your GC interview date. So lawyer is thinking that NVC is thinking to go upto Nov 2007 in case if CIS fails to act on enough cases in last months.
more...
makeup Charlie Sheen
Green.Tech
09-16 10:18 AM
NumbersUSA is calling in full strength to thwart the bill. We need to come out in full strength to make some noise. Please keep calling. We don't want to be checking visa bulletins or tracking receipts 1, 2, 3 years from now.
Please burn those phone lines today! Every call counts!
Please burn those phone lines today! Every call counts!
girlfriend tattoo see that Charlie Sheen
shouldIwait
05-10 05:37 PM
Few responses to Mr. Hunter.
I'm not blind to stereotyping in this forum or elsewhere. It's not you vs. them kinda thing. You ARE stereotyping based upon some TRUE things but it is still stereotyping, isn't it.
Also, you understood some of my comments wrong. All I was saying is that due to big ISV's like TCS/INFY/WIPRO and mushrooms of bodyshops the actual worker gets pennies on a dollar and they keep the booty. So it's not the worker who causes wage depression it's the circumvention of the spirit of law that these companies do which causes it. I say "spirit of law" because they still stay within the legal framework. As far as offshoring is concerned it's a big discussion in itself and forces of capitalism and globalization are at work. None of us can prevent that but we can counter it by moving up in the value chain.
The scenario you described about modus operandi of big Indian ISV's is 100% correct but to generally imply that Indians are 1/5th as good as Americans when it comes to IT (50 member team vs. 10-12 member team) is a supremacist attitude and completely untrue.
It is true that the Indian counterparts are usually of much younger age but rarely substandard for the job. Companies realize that IT is no-longer considered rocket-science and they can save a few bucks. Try to think objectively keeping personal impact aside.
Now regarding overall economic input of immigrants there are issues broader and larger than you mentioned. Some of the smaller points you mentioned are true but you are completely missing the big picture. We can discuss that in a different thread :)
When Bill Gates says best-and-brightest it applies to individuals and not a VISA category, he's not lying. Among the 65K every year you'll find people from all skill levels, cream-of-the-cream to just-about-ok, and a few rotten-apples too. The immigration system is not designed to test skill level. Overall it's old, irrelevant and doesn't help anyone. It needs to be re-designed but unfortunately people are divided on fake lines and ignore the real issues or rather real solutions.
Although you have said it differently but you are right that solution to mine and your problems lie at the same spot, a modern, common-sense, immigration system that promotes best-and-the-brightest (Indian and American) and discourages exploitation.
I'm not blind to stereotyping in this forum or elsewhere. It's not you vs. them kinda thing. You ARE stereotyping based upon some TRUE things but it is still stereotyping, isn't it.
Also, you understood some of my comments wrong. All I was saying is that due to big ISV's like TCS/INFY/WIPRO and mushrooms of bodyshops the actual worker gets pennies on a dollar and they keep the booty. So it's not the worker who causes wage depression it's the circumvention of the spirit of law that these companies do which causes it. I say "spirit of law" because they still stay within the legal framework. As far as offshoring is concerned it's a big discussion in itself and forces of capitalism and globalization are at work. None of us can prevent that but we can counter it by moving up in the value chain.
The scenario you described about modus operandi of big Indian ISV's is 100% correct but to generally imply that Indians are 1/5th as good as Americans when it comes to IT (50 member team vs. 10-12 member team) is a supremacist attitude and completely untrue.
It is true that the Indian counterparts are usually of much younger age but rarely substandard for the job. Companies realize that IT is no-longer considered rocket-science and they can save a few bucks. Try to think objectively keeping personal impact aside.
Now regarding overall economic input of immigrants there are issues broader and larger than you mentioned. Some of the smaller points you mentioned are true but you are completely missing the big picture. We can discuss that in a different thread :)
When Bill Gates says best-and-brightest it applies to individuals and not a VISA category, he's not lying. Among the 65K every year you'll find people from all skill levels, cream-of-the-cream to just-about-ok, and a few rotten-apples too. The immigration system is not designed to test skill level. Overall it's old, irrelevant and doesn't help anyone. It needs to be re-designed but unfortunately people are divided on fake lines and ignore the real issues or rather real solutions.
Although you have said it differently but you are right that solution to mine and your problems lie at the same spot, a modern, common-sense, immigration system that promotes best-and-the-brightest (Indian and American) and discourages exploitation.
hairstyles Charlie Sheen Picture
django.stone
09-26 07:03 PM
I agree with 485Mbe4001 and many other folks on this thread that have talked about the results of Obama victory - USA would face socialist policies and personally our GCs could be affected by protectionist agenda. I have never understood why Indians (even 2nd generation) by default support Democrats, when all the values and rational reasons point us towards Republicans. I am libertarian in my views and a staunch supporter of republicans.
Reasons for Immigrants to support Democrats -
1. Generally religion neutral and not influenced by christian right wing
2. Generally tolerant of people from other cultures rather than being a party of white folks run by white men
3. Tendency to help human/environment suffering
4. Afraid of military draft that could recruit our kids
Immigration
Now coming to the issue on hand, overall roughly 60% to 80% of americans do not want any kind of immigration (check wikipedia). That is the unfortunate truth! We should all be lucky to be here due to generally business friendly laws that allows for H1B visas and EB GCs for skilled labor. If left to public, immigration would be banned. Hence, I believe both parties use this as a posturing issue during elections to their favor. khodalmd in the previous thread explained the breakdown of republicans/democrats accurately. Logically speaking, republicans can be convinced about its need to sustain economy and generate taxes as more baby boomers retire, but this logic is these days trumped by mix up with illegals.
If Obama wins, economy/stock market would tank, more jobs would be outsourced. My fear is that during those times, any kind of immigration law would not pass. If god forbid, layoffs start to roll, then many of us may have to start from scratch, hence I call it perfect storm.
Reasons for Immigrants to support Democrats -
1. Generally religion neutral and not influenced by christian right wing
2. Generally tolerant of people from other cultures rather than being a party of white folks run by white men
3. Tendency to help human/environment suffering
4. Afraid of military draft that could recruit our kids
Immigration
Now coming to the issue on hand, overall roughly 60% to 80% of americans do not want any kind of immigration (check wikipedia). That is the unfortunate truth! We should all be lucky to be here due to generally business friendly laws that allows for H1B visas and EB GCs for skilled labor. If left to public, immigration would be banned. Hence, I believe both parties use this as a posturing issue during elections to their favor. khodalmd in the previous thread explained the breakdown of republicans/democrats accurately. Logically speaking, republicans can be convinced about its need to sustain economy and generate taxes as more baby boomers retire, but this logic is these days trumped by mix up with illegals.
If Obama wins, economy/stock market would tank, more jobs would be outsourced. My fear is that during those times, any kind of immigration law would not pass. If god forbid, layoffs start to roll, then many of us may have to start from scratch, hence I call it perfect storm.
JazzByTheBay
09-24 09:03 AM
In essence what the memo seems to state is that I can have another employer file an I-140 petition, and if approved, simply substitute the I-140 in my existing I-485.
Is that right?
jazz
It is possible to use your new approved 140(EB2). Your date are current and do request USCIS and go in front of GC line. Good luck.
You can request USCIS with reference to this citation/pdf.
http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/seminars/august2002_citation2c.pdf
Please make a token contribution to IV.
Is that right?
jazz
It is possible to use your new approved 140(EB2). Your date are current and do request USCIS and go in front of GC line. Good luck.
You can request USCIS with reference to this citation/pdf.
http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/seminars/august2002_citation2c.pdf
Please make a token contribution to IV.
pappu
06-21 08:14 AM
Another answer from Rajiv Khanna: on multiple 485s
I recommend both husband wife file for yourselves and for each other. So between the two , there will be four 485 applications. One: Wife as primary, husband as derivative. Second, husband as primary and wife as derivative. We do this all the time and this is the safest thing to do. You will keep whichever 485 set gets approved, first, the other will be rejected by CIS.
I recommend both husband wife file for yourselves and for each other. So between the two , there will be four 485 applications. One: Wife as primary, husband as derivative. Second, husband as primary and wife as derivative. We do this all the time and this is the safest thing to do. You will keep whichever 485 set gets approved, first, the other will be rejected by CIS.
No comments:
Post a Comment