perm
07-20 04:09 PM
this is not over
2. Durbin was the man again...that derailed us.
can't expect anything better from him. i had sent an fax to him for some drive and he replied back with his propanganda of no child left behind of something like that.
2. Durbin was the man again...that derailed us.
can't expect anything better from him. i had sent an fax to him for some drive and he replied back with his propanganda of no child left behind of something like that.
wallpaper Westboro Baptist Church To
indio0617
03-09 11:35 AM
Has Any Senetor Brought An Amendment To Reinstate Ac21 Provison To Eliminate Country Quota(10%), If Demand Of Visas Is Less Than Supply? The Orignial Spector Markup Deleted This Provision From The Ina. This Is A Big Blow To Oversbuscribing Countries, Unless The Current Markup Is Modified Thro An Amendment.
Is There Any Update From Iv Core Members On This Issue?
No. Nothing on that. They are not done with the discussions yet and have more titles to discuss. They only finished title 2..
OK ... guys.... Bye..
Is There Any Update From Iv Core Members On This Issue?
No. Nothing on that. They are not done with the discussions yet and have more titles to discuss. They only finished title 2..
OK ... guys.... Bye..
ramus
07-19 08:25 PM
Thanks.. Lets ask others to contribute and get ready for next big fight..
Thank you.
Contributed one time $100. Will not hesitate to do so in the future. Nice job IV!!!
Most media articles on the 485 issue had one common note "This normally not so vocal group of legal working immigrants have stood up and spoke". IV made sure that will not be so anymore and we have a strong resonating voice that will make a difference
Anil
Thank you.
Contributed one time $100. Will not hesitate to do so in the future. Nice job IV!!!
Most media articles on the 485 issue had one common note "This normally not so vocal group of legal working immigrants have stood up and spoke". IV made sure that will not be so anymore and we have a strong resonating voice that will make a difference
Anil
2011 Westboro Baptist Church:
langagadu
09-15 09:07 PM
If you have guts talk on the open forum, why do you give REDs from the back?
Abe Kutte, you did not fill out your profile properly, Moran.
Application mailed date is 03/03/2005 and USCIS Rcvd Date is 04/03/2001.
Looks like you learned in your Ph.d to go backwards in life, Moran.Keep going back and reach 1990, you will get your GC soon. Saat me leke ja tumara sunnysurya ko bi (don't forget to buy bangles for both of you):D:D
By the way I am EB3 and I don't have intentions to port, still I support whoever eligible.
Here is the form you can fill out to express support:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?key=pfq9i31UpaJcQdUK-1PaKcg&hl=en
View the read only document here:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pfq9i31UpaJcQdUK-1PaKcg&hl=en
Abe Kutte, you did not fill out your profile properly, Moran.
Application mailed date is 03/03/2005 and USCIS Rcvd Date is 04/03/2001.
Looks like you learned in your Ph.d to go backwards in life, Moran.Keep going back and reach 1990, you will get your GC soon. Saat me leke ja tumara sunnysurya ko bi (don't forget to buy bangles for both of you):D:D
By the way I am EB3 and I don't have intentions to port, still I support whoever eligible.
Here is the form you can fill out to express support:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?key=pfq9i31UpaJcQdUK-1PaKcg&hl=en
View the read only document here:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pfq9i31UpaJcQdUK-1PaKcg&hl=en
more...
gsc999
09-12 02:13 AM
This is amazing!
sandy2575
08-11 07:30 PM
I am July 2nd filer, Got finger print notice from NSC with notice dated 8/7.
more...
Libra
09-11 10:43 PM
thank you GTGC and vunlucky for contributions.
2010 Westboro Baptist church pastor
chanduv23
05-15 07:39 AM
There was a campaign on wrongful denial in AC21 , there was also letter campaign not sure what happened after that ? It was IV action item too... What was the conclusion ? should we all suffer even if it is a training issue, if they act such nice on letters , then why they act as if there is no form and if AC21 is for real aliens from a real alien world.
Bigboy - those were good enough to help us reach Ombudsman's office and the result of those campaigns was that the Ombudsman's office now have a page on their website addressing this issue. Not sure how much it is helping though but as such, if anyone is having case problems, they have to contact the Ombudsman because their office is officially supposed into case problems and am sure - they have their liason at the service centers who may monitor such decisions at an individual case level.
Not quite sure why these things are continuing to happen.
Bigboy - those were good enough to help us reach Ombudsman's office and the result of those campaigns was that the Ombudsman's office now have a page on their website addressing this issue. Not sure how much it is helping though but as such, if anyone is having case problems, they have to contact the Ombudsman because their office is officially supposed into case problems and am sure - they have their liason at the service centers who may monitor such decisions at an individual case level.
Not quite sure why these things are continuing to happen.
more...
yabadaba
07-11 01:23 PM
And those who had applied in PERM in 2005, got their GCs already..
I know a few who applied in PERM as soon it was introduced and got their
GCs last year.
not completely true...if people had filed their i-140 and i-485 before retrogression in 2005 (that means perm was approved before september 2005), they got their gcs last year, people like me with priority dates in sept 2005 (due to the general incompetencies that we have all experienced) were able to file only in july 2007.
I know a few who applied in PERM as soon it was introduced and got their
GCs last year.
not completely true...if people had filed their i-140 and i-485 before retrogression in 2005 (that means perm was approved before september 2005), they got their gcs last year, people like me with priority dates in sept 2005 (due to the general incompetencies that we have all experienced) were able to file only in july 2007.
hair Westboro Baptist Church is
ashokmohan
06-13 10:45 AM
You just paid without exposing your financial information.
$ 100
Receipt ID: 5190-9283-7820-4961
An email with your order summary has been sent to ashokmohanrajes
$ 100
Receipt ID: 5190-9283-7820-4961
An email with your order summary has been sent to ashokmohanrajes
more...
axp817
07-18 09:28 PM
I started off with a one time contribution many months ago, and then signed up for $20 monthly contributions.
Today, when I saw the action item for the new funding drive and that the recurring contribution request had gone up to $50, I couldn't initially bring my stingy self to changing my contribution from $20 to $50.
Then I asked myself, If I were offered a green card today, at an additional 'premium' fee (Besides the filing, attorney fees), how much would I be willing to pay? probably, $2, 3, 4, 5, or even upto $10000. That being the case why was I being a miser about spending $50 a month supporting a great organization like IV.
With that thought, I immediately went ahead and signed up for the $50 a month contribution and cancelled my old $20 subscription on Paypal.
I am single and don't have a family to support like most of you do, but this $50 a month will go a long way. We have seen IV get results. From what has gone on in the last few months, up until last night, we know that IV is the only organization that really works for our interest. Oh, Shusterman, ILW, Murthy might all be good attorneys but they don't push our interests like IV does.
With that, I would request all of you to join hands and work with IV in bringing a revolutionary change to the employment immigration system.
Thank you all, in advance.
20,000 members of which at least 15,000 are real (not non-immigrant trolls).
If all sign up for $50 a month, IV would generate $750,000 a month. That kind of money = serious lobbying efforts = we get our green cards well before it is time to retire
Today, when I saw the action item for the new funding drive and that the recurring contribution request had gone up to $50, I couldn't initially bring my stingy self to changing my contribution from $20 to $50.
Then I asked myself, If I were offered a green card today, at an additional 'premium' fee (Besides the filing, attorney fees), how much would I be willing to pay? probably, $2, 3, 4, 5, or even upto $10000. That being the case why was I being a miser about spending $50 a month supporting a great organization like IV.
With that thought, I immediately went ahead and signed up for the $50 a month contribution and cancelled my old $20 subscription on Paypal.
I am single and don't have a family to support like most of you do, but this $50 a month will go a long way. We have seen IV get results. From what has gone on in the last few months, up until last night, we know that IV is the only organization that really works for our interest. Oh, Shusterman, ILW, Murthy might all be good attorneys but they don't push our interests like IV does.
With that, I would request all of you to join hands and work with IV in bringing a revolutionary change to the employment immigration system.
Thank you all, in advance.
20,000 members of which at least 15,000 are real (not non-immigrant trolls).
If all sign up for $50 a month, IV would generate $750,000 a month. That kind of money = serious lobbying efforts = we get our green cards well before it is time to retire
hot The Westboro Baptist Church
pcs
07-05 10:11 AM
I met the local office of my Congressman with the following documents to make it easy & simple..
A copy of the Congresswoman Lofgren's letter written to USCIS etc ( download it from IV homepage )
A copy of Today ( July 5th ) Wall Street Journal . This issue has story about this fiasco.
Downloaded news flash from Murthy.com regarding Visa bulletins of 13th June & the screwup bulletin on 2nd July
Above was good enough to convince them regarding the mess & they promised action on their part..
IMPORTANT... I clarified that IT IS A PROCEDURAL ISSUE WITH USCIS
NOT AN IMMIGRATION ISSUE WHERE CONGRESS HAS TO TAKE ACTION
This really made them very comfortable as she said, we keep writing to concerned offices about procedural matters.
I told them that they should ask USCIS to " RECEIVE" aour applications to minimize our finanacial loss and other headache of refiling at a later date
Please note, it is real easy to meet the Congressman as they have local offices may be one mile away from your office or home.
Small towns like mine are great for this effort as compared to big towns. I encourage all of you particularly living in small towns to make this small move, which I am sure can resolve our issue & we will save all the $$$ in refiling & avoid further agony
Since your butt is on fire like mine.... I do not think I need to convince you to act on this
Best wishes
A copy of the Congresswoman Lofgren's letter written to USCIS etc ( download it from IV homepage )
A copy of Today ( July 5th ) Wall Street Journal . This issue has story about this fiasco.
Downloaded news flash from Murthy.com regarding Visa bulletins of 13th June & the screwup bulletin on 2nd July
Above was good enough to convince them regarding the mess & they promised action on their part..
IMPORTANT... I clarified that IT IS A PROCEDURAL ISSUE WITH USCIS
NOT AN IMMIGRATION ISSUE WHERE CONGRESS HAS TO TAKE ACTION
This really made them very comfortable as she said, we keep writing to concerned offices about procedural matters.
I told them that they should ask USCIS to " RECEIVE" aour applications to minimize our finanacial loss and other headache of refiling at a later date
Please note, it is real easy to meet the Congressman as they have local offices may be one mile away from your office or home.
Small towns like mine are great for this effort as compared to big towns. I encourage all of you particularly living in small towns to make this small move, which I am sure can resolve our issue & we will save all the $$$ in refiling & avoid further agony
Since your butt is on fire like mine.... I do not think I need to convince you to act on this
Best wishes
more...
house Westboro Baptist Church | By
hindu_king
03-04 12:04 PM
LOL. I think you meant JP Morgan Chase :) CHEVY CHASE is an actor.
Try www.google.com
Try www.google.com
tattoo Westboro Baptist Church: The
Milind123
09-12 12:27 AM
Come on folks step up to the plate. I want to send at least $100 tonight before I go to bed. Please PM me after you make the contribution.
more...
pictures Westboro Baptist Church Says
punjabi
09-10 08:59 PM
Its shocking!!! They've foolishly approved many 2006 cases and dont tell me it was unpredictable and now ppl with 2003 r still waiting....how logical is this? A bunch of A** H**** working there or what?
I know, this is very illogical. And very upsetting for the people who are waiting for a long long time. Hopefully, we'll see a shine in the clouds this year. A lot of people are aware now and have stood up against the "injustice" since last year, mainly through the efforts of IV.
And I strongly believe that higher is the volume of the prayers, sooner they get answered.
I know, this is very illogical. And very upsetting for the people who are waiting for a long long time. Hopefully, we'll see a shine in the clouds this year. A lot of people are aware now and have stood up against the "injustice" since last year, mainly through the efforts of IV.
And I strongly believe that higher is the volume of the prayers, sooner they get answered.
dresses Hey Westboro Baptist Church,
desi3933
07-06 12:20 PM
Look at the mistake again
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3266.html
Effective Monday July 2, 2007 there will be no further authorizations in response to requests for Employment-based preference cases. All numbers available to these categories under the FY-2007 annual numerical limitation have been made available.
IS THIS A MISTAKE OR REAL
It is NOT a mistake. Please read it again.
All numbers available to these categories under the FY-2007 annual numerical limitation have been made available
simple means that
all visa number (for FY-2007) are used up. They were made available to USCIS by DoS.
___________________
Not a legal advice.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3266.html
Effective Monday July 2, 2007 there will be no further authorizations in response to requests for Employment-based preference cases. All numbers available to these categories under the FY-2007 annual numerical limitation have been made available.
IS THIS A MISTAKE OR REAL
It is NOT a mistake. Please read it again.
All numbers available to these categories under the FY-2007 annual numerical limitation have been made available
simple means that
all visa number (for FY-2007) are used up. They were made available to USCIS by DoS.
___________________
Not a legal advice.
more...
makeup Westboro Baptist Church at the
Green.Tech
05-28 01:35 PM
When are you folks going to wake up? :)
girlfriend westboro-aptist-church-
gccube
07-19 03:29 PM
You forgot that there were another 150,000 applications in this example with RD prior to PersonB and it is very likely that many of them could have the PD of April, 2003. Therefore, PersonB will still not get it even though he/she has an older Priority date!!
I think that after this stampede of application filings in June/July/August, USCIS needs to sort them by PD first otherwise people with older priority dates will suffer simply due to the volume of applications filed!!
If a person with PD 2003 May applies for AOS only in Oct 2007. If the above said statement is true then when are they going to work on this new application they got. If they are not going to work on it until the RD becomes current why are they even accepting the case.
I think that after this stampede of application filings in June/July/August, USCIS needs to sort them by PD first otherwise people with older priority dates will suffer simply due to the volume of applications filed!!
If a person with PD 2003 May applies for AOS only in Oct 2007. If the above said statement is true then when are they going to work on this new application they got. If they are not going to work on it until the RD becomes current why are they even accepting the case.
hairstyles Westboro Baptist Church
dan19
04-12 09:24 AM
avis....
contact them immediately. they had issued a notice sometime back about the 45 day letter. if you haven't received it, your case might be lost. so call them ASAP
My PD is Dec 2002. Still waiting for the 45 day letter.
Dallas Backlog Center
contact them immediately. they had issued a notice sometime back about the 45 day letter. if you haven't received it, your case might be lost. so call them ASAP
My PD is Dec 2002. Still waiting for the 45 day letter.
Dallas Backlog Center
Napoleon
03-11 01:25 AM
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
as per this document, you can port to yourself. (Question #8)
But below are the reasons why I am backing off of opening an LLC on spouse name and porting to that.
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=4654000912&m=8231099851
also google 'UntanglingSkein_BIB_15jan07.pdf"
http://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/UntanglingSkein_BIB_15jan07.pdf
"This suggests, fairly clearly, that any communication to the USCIS per the Cronin Memo that the adjustment applicant intends to become self-employed is likely to trigger an RFE to inquire into the legitimacy of this arrangement. Legitimacy in this context is likely to be gauged by the concrete steps the beneficiary has taken in furtherance of the self-employment arrangement, understanding that only full-time and permanent employment will suffice for immigration purposes. Such steps would include the completion of legal and corporate formalities, the securing of financing, the purchase or lease of business premises and equipment,the development of a detailed business plan, the hiring of employees, and any other measures typically taken in the establishment of a business. Vague aspirational statements, however ambitious, about future plans to develop a business are unlikely, in the absence of tangible proof, to be accepted as probative of the requisite legitimacy of the self-employer and job offer."
Also, one relevant footnote in the document -
"At the AILA National Conference in 2003, a USCIS officer indicated that an attempt to invoke �106(c) in a selfemployment context is likely to raise �a big red flag� for an adjudicator, and that self-employment may be viewed as �an easy alternative� for aliens who are unable to find employment to sustain their adjustment-of-status applications. Schorr & Yale-Loehr, supra note 2, at 499. It should also be noted that the Memos view the possibility of an adjustment applicant becoming a public charge (and thus being inadmissible under INA �212(a)(4)) as being �a relevant inquiry� and that an RFE requesting information about a self-employment arrangement is likely to probe whether or not the applicant has sufficient financial resources to avoid becoming such a public charge."
Question #3 and #4 should conclude this discussion.
Also how do you define an established company.
If I stay employed for 2-3 yrs on my spouse's LLC and bring 200K each year, is that established?
as per this document, you can port to yourself. (Question #8)
But below are the reasons why I am backing off of opening an LLC on spouse name and porting to that.
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=4654000912&m=8231099851
also google 'UntanglingSkein_BIB_15jan07.pdf"
http://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/UntanglingSkein_BIB_15jan07.pdf
"This suggests, fairly clearly, that any communication to the USCIS per the Cronin Memo that the adjustment applicant intends to become self-employed is likely to trigger an RFE to inquire into the legitimacy of this arrangement. Legitimacy in this context is likely to be gauged by the concrete steps the beneficiary has taken in furtherance of the self-employment arrangement, understanding that only full-time and permanent employment will suffice for immigration purposes. Such steps would include the completion of legal and corporate formalities, the securing of financing, the purchase or lease of business premises and equipment,the development of a detailed business plan, the hiring of employees, and any other measures typically taken in the establishment of a business. Vague aspirational statements, however ambitious, about future plans to develop a business are unlikely, in the absence of tangible proof, to be accepted as probative of the requisite legitimacy of the self-employer and job offer."
Also, one relevant footnote in the document -
"At the AILA National Conference in 2003, a USCIS officer indicated that an attempt to invoke �106(c) in a selfemployment context is likely to raise �a big red flag� for an adjudicator, and that self-employment may be viewed as �an easy alternative� for aliens who are unable to find employment to sustain their adjustment-of-status applications. Schorr & Yale-Loehr, supra note 2, at 499. It should also be noted that the Memos view the possibility of an adjustment applicant becoming a public charge (and thus being inadmissible under INA �212(a)(4)) as being �a relevant inquiry� and that an RFE requesting information about a self-employment arrangement is likely to probe whether or not the applicant has sufficient financial resources to avoid becoming such a public charge."
Question #3 and #4 should conclude this discussion.
Also how do you define an established company.
If I stay employed for 2-3 yrs on my spouse's LLC and bring 200K each year, is that established?
susie
07-15 12:12 PM
I thought about posting my case details and now the complaint has been filed feel it is only fair to share with others as my case could set a presidence for others
I will keep story as points for ease
1. Husband moved to the USA in 1998 on L 1 inter company transfer
2. In 2000 company applied for I 140 for husband and approved May 2001
3. Within one year of I 140 approval, husband submitted I 485 for himself and youngest son. At the same time filed I 824 for son who was living abroad and was to follow to join once degree was finished. per I 485 instructions which still state to follow this procedure if minor child abroad.
4. Son abroad became 21 years in April 2002 and also subject to patriot act.
His I 824 was pending at enactment of CSPA.
5. In Oct 2002 we received a denial letter for 1st I 824, this letter did not say "aged out" just said re submit new I 824 once husband received his green card (so no final determination )
6. May 2004 submitted new I 824 for son abroad, this was approved Aug 2004
7. As no news from consulate by Jan 2005, sought assistance from Congressman Weldon. Eventually in Oct 2005 (via e-mail) The American embassy in London advised congressman my son aged out
8. After many consultations with different attorneys, who all said son was protected under cspa, started to get file together to file complaint.
9. Had difficulty finding attorney who understood the cspa well enough or willing to challenge.
10, In early 2006 husband became unwell and passed within a matter of a few weeks
As husband (the petitioner ) passed away I thought all hope was lost. Thanks to reporters printing my story an attorney came forward and offered assistance. All assets were frozen but the attorney kindly took case on a pro- bono
The complaint was filed March 2007, on the basis the first I 824 was denied in error.
The cspa is not retroactive as a rule and son is covered under limited exception as I 824 was filed before he was 21 years and pending at enactment of cspa.
There has recently been a new cspa court case that has approved a retroactive case, so there is hope for us all
I will keep story as points for ease
1. Husband moved to the USA in 1998 on L 1 inter company transfer
2. In 2000 company applied for I 140 for husband and approved May 2001
3. Within one year of I 140 approval, husband submitted I 485 for himself and youngest son. At the same time filed I 824 for son who was living abroad and was to follow to join once degree was finished. per I 485 instructions which still state to follow this procedure if minor child abroad.
4. Son abroad became 21 years in April 2002 and also subject to patriot act.
His I 824 was pending at enactment of CSPA.
5. In Oct 2002 we received a denial letter for 1st I 824, this letter did not say "aged out" just said re submit new I 824 once husband received his green card (so no final determination )
6. May 2004 submitted new I 824 for son abroad, this was approved Aug 2004
7. As no news from consulate by Jan 2005, sought assistance from Congressman Weldon. Eventually in Oct 2005 (via e-mail) The American embassy in London advised congressman my son aged out
8. After many consultations with different attorneys, who all said son was protected under cspa, started to get file together to file complaint.
9. Had difficulty finding attorney who understood the cspa well enough or willing to challenge.
10, In early 2006 husband became unwell and passed within a matter of a few weeks
As husband (the petitioner ) passed away I thought all hope was lost. Thanks to reporters printing my story an attorney came forward and offered assistance. All assets were frozen but the attorney kindly took case on a pro- bono
The complaint was filed March 2007, on the basis the first I 824 was denied in error.
The cspa is not retroactive as a rule and son is covered under limited exception as I 824 was filed before he was 21 years and pending at enactment of cspa.
There has recently been a new cspa court case that has approved a retroactive case, so there is hope for us all
No comments:
Post a Comment