Naveen
05-25 09:56 AM
http://www.aila.com/content/default.aspx?docid=28941
Good Info OP!
Good Info OP!
wallpaper Buenos Aires
alterego
03-10 07:10 PM
This data is ambiguous from the USCIS. It very well could represent pending 140 petitions, in which case all the euphoria would turn to shock. We must try to get clarification about this before anything else.
One of the tables there mentions the NIW, that is determined at the 140 level, after that a 485 is a 485 and it goes into the EB2 queue. So when they list that in the breakdown, I suspect if they may be referring to 140s here. Additionally they list either no NIW140 or NIW-based 485s from the NSC. If they are referring to NIW based 485s, this is incorrect, since I am one of those with an approved NIW and pending 485 at the NSC. There are others like me on IV physician forum.
So lets try to get more information about this response. This data does not give the whole story. In a worst case scenario it is indeed pending 140s they have given.
One of the tables there mentions the NIW, that is determined at the 140 level, after that a 485 is a 485 and it goes into the EB2 queue. So when they list that in the breakdown, I suspect if they may be referring to 140s here. Additionally they list either no NIW140 or NIW-based 485s from the NSC. If they are referring to NIW based 485s, this is incorrect, since I am one of those with an approved NIW and pending 485 at the NSC. There are others like me on IV physician forum.
So lets try to get more information about this response. This data does not give the whole story. In a worst case scenario it is indeed pending 140s they have given.
sparklinks
07-20 12:34 PM
Mine too signed by R Williams at 7.55 AM on July 2nd
2011 City of Buenos Aires
waitin_toolong
07-17 03:12 PM
I applaud you for starting this effort but the petition needs correction, You are calling Lou Dobbs of lying but all the instances you quote are from Sen Tancredo . You may accuse Lou Dobbs of supporting these lies by letting them stand unchallenged not correcting them.
When we fight we should get our facts straight so that no one can point a finger at us.
I am saying all this at the risk of being ridiculed and abused by some of you. But before you do read the petition again and read my statement with cool head.
Victory will come to those who are righteous not impetuous
We need to document all the inaccuracies floating around and patiently with the backing of facts dismantle each and every one of them.
When we fight we should get our facts straight so that no one can point a finger at us.
I am saying all this at the risk of being ridiculed and abused by some of you. But before you do read the petition again and read my statement with cool head.
Victory will come to those who are righteous not impetuous
We need to document all the inaccuracies floating around and patiently with the backing of facts dismantle each and every one of them.
more...
pappu
07-16 09:40 PM
All,
AILA has a template of a letter/email to Congress members that can be used to express support for visa recapture and immigration reform.
Please check out
AILA - Web Resources (http://capwiz.com/aila2/issues/alert/?alertid=13300836&type=CO)
You may like to modify the message to suit your life situation and preferences. For example, instead of undocumented aliens, I used the opportunity to stress the difficulties of employment-based applicants. While I have nothing against them, it is my belief that I need to stress my own problem and seek a resolution.
And, I have also forwarded the link and my mail to all my friends who are waiting for green cards. More importantly, I have asked my relatives and friends, who are citizens or who have green cards, to pitch in and write for our sake.
My suggestion, should you agree with the above, is not only to write to your Congress members but also ask your relatives and friends to do likewise.
Best wishes
We advice not to use this template and form. The message and the organization sending it for their advocacy agenda is very important. Even if you change the wording, people will hardly read the letter. They will look at the organization that sent it and its agenda.
It is better to call or email your senators and congressmen with a personal message. When there is a need for a fax campaign, IV will activate its fax campaign system here http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_iv_webfax&task=getContactDetails&Itemid=46
If you email or call your Congressmen or Senator, do tell them that you are a member of ImmigrationVoice so that their office can make the connection to your calls, meetings and emails in our advocacy meetings. Another point to note that in person meetings have much more effect than emails. You may get a standard reply to your emails. Sometimes the response may talk about a general immigration position of the senator rather than a specific reply to your question.
BTW do not quote any bill # yet. If you want to talk about Recapture, just say recapture of unused visas for Employment based category.
AILA has a template of a letter/email to Congress members that can be used to express support for visa recapture and immigration reform.
Please check out
AILA - Web Resources (http://capwiz.com/aila2/issues/alert/?alertid=13300836&type=CO)
You may like to modify the message to suit your life situation and preferences. For example, instead of undocumented aliens, I used the opportunity to stress the difficulties of employment-based applicants. While I have nothing against them, it is my belief that I need to stress my own problem and seek a resolution.
And, I have also forwarded the link and my mail to all my friends who are waiting for green cards. More importantly, I have asked my relatives and friends, who are citizens or who have green cards, to pitch in and write for our sake.
My suggestion, should you agree with the above, is not only to write to your Congress members but also ask your relatives and friends to do likewise.
Best wishes
We advice not to use this template and form. The message and the organization sending it for their advocacy agenda is very important. Even if you change the wording, people will hardly read the letter. They will look at the organization that sent it and its agenda.
It is better to call or email your senators and congressmen with a personal message. When there is a need for a fax campaign, IV will activate its fax campaign system here http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_iv_webfax&task=getContactDetails&Itemid=46
If you email or call your Congressmen or Senator, do tell them that you are a member of ImmigrationVoice so that their office can make the connection to your calls, meetings and emails in our advocacy meetings. Another point to note that in person meetings have much more effect than emails. You may get a standard reply to your emails. Sometimes the response may talk about a general immigration position of the senator rather than a specific reply to your question.
BTW do not quote any bill # yet. If you want to talk about Recapture, just say recapture of unused visas for Employment based category.
ryan
04-20 12:39 PM
[QUOTE=getgreensoon1;2524327]May be that is the reason you took offense when people commented on Bcom thing. An MBA is valuable only if your bachelors degree is valuable. Many people have this wrong notion that it does not matter what you have in your bachelors, if you get an MBA everything is all set. QUOTE]
Hey GG - I did not take offense to your sentiments on B Com. What pissed people off, was your tone and disgust at the poor fellow and his qualifications, especially when you know little about his ability to carry out his job, or his background. In school, or on line -- he earned those degrees. Maybe he didn't have the financial resources to attend the best schools (I don�t know what is IGNOU). His employer has retained him, so perhaps he is good at what he does. He left his home, his family and traveled to some foreign shore to earn a living, not rob a bank. Show some respect. Anyway apologies for anything harsh I have said. Peace.
Hey GG - I did not take offense to your sentiments on B Com. What pissed people off, was your tone and disgust at the poor fellow and his qualifications, especially when you know little about his ability to carry out his job, or his background. In school, or on line -- he earned those degrees. Maybe he didn't have the financial resources to attend the best schools (I don�t know what is IGNOU). His employer has retained him, so perhaps he is good at what he does. He left his home, his family and traveled to some foreign shore to earn a living, not rob a bank. Show some respect. Anyway apologies for anything harsh I have said. Peace.
more...
gbof
06-14 10:37 AM
I guess I may fall victim of FBI background check. Even though, my priority date is not current yet but, it should be next couple of months based on recent EB-2 movement. We had our AOS interview last Nov and IO told us that she is going to initiate another Background check as original BC is more than two years old. In the end of April, I made an Infopass appointment out of curiosity because Background check use to be a major source of delay for many people. Service Rep on window told me that my Background check has not come back yet.. It was almost 5 months since it was ordered.. She did not elaborate on why was it pending.. She asked me couple of weird question which did not make any sense to me. I have schedule another appointment in next couple of days to find out where do I stand. I would like to keep my expectations in check as pending BC can delay it even when priority dates are current.
Can anyone on forum please provide some info on what can be done if Background check is pending over 180 days.. I can make a request to my Congressmen and ask for their help... Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated..
Thanks
I really donot believe they will do Background checks again before approvals for everybody. Can you please elaborate what was the reason for the interview and what were the weird questions -- You can give us a little flavor. -Thanks
Can anyone on forum please provide some info on what can be done if Background check is pending over 180 days.. I can make a request to my Congressmen and ask for their help... Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated..
Thanks
I really donot believe they will do Background checks again before approvals for everybody. Can you please elaborate what was the reason for the interview and what were the weird questions -- You can give us a little flavor. -Thanks
2010 uenos aires city. uenos aires
sam2006
07-19 06:26 PM
already did my 100$ for this drive
please folks contribute for aman and the core !!!
its OUR turn to do the work
please folks contribute for aman and the core !!!
its OUR turn to do the work
more...
GC_1000Watt
01-17 05:15 PM
Count me in...
hair Buenos Aires City
anilsal
11-15 02:41 PM
Why do people spread the false propaganda that H1Bs do not pay taxes? This is utter nonsense.
This is one place where wrong information is provided.
http://www.zazona.com/ShameH1B/Library/Archives/SaveSS.htm
This is one place where wrong information is provided.
http://www.zazona.com/ShameH1B/Library/Archives/SaveSS.htm
more...
prashantc
01-29 12:02 PM
It took 7 working days last december for my passport to come back.
Good for you desiJ.. I think this PIMS system has been implemented very recently.
Good for you desiJ.. I think this PIMS system has been implemented very recently.
hot Buenos Aires, The “Paris” Of
americandesi
07-27 01:32 PM
My PERM got approved on 07/23/2007 and my attorney is planning to file I-140 and I-485 concurrently by Aug 15, 2007.
I was offered a wage less than the proffered wage till pay period 07/15/2007 and my employer revised my wage to match the proffered wage from pay period 07/31/2007. Hence I would be able to submit 2 paystubs for payperiods 07/31/2007 and 08/15/2007 with I-140 application, which shows that I am currently getting paid the proffered wage.
Please let me know if these 2 paystubs alone are sufficient to demonstrate ability to pay.
We wouldn't be able to submit the employers Quarterly Wage reports with the revised wage as the current quarter ends only on Sep 07.
I understand that USCIS will issue a direct denial without an RFE if the employer is unable to prove atleast one of the following
(1) Net income - The initial evidence reflects that the petitioner’s net income is equal to or greater than the proffered wage
- (Supporting Evidence : Tax Returns).
(2) Net current assets - The initial evidence reflects that the petitioner’s net current assets are equal to or greater than the proffered wage.
- (Supporting Evidence : Audited Financial statement)
(3) Employment of the beneficiary - The record contains credible verifiable evidence that the petitioner not only is employing the beneficiary but also has paid or currently is paying the proffered wage.
- (Supporting Evidence : Annual/Quarterly Wage reports, paystubs)
Ours is a small company and doesn't have net income or net assets matching the proffered wage.
I was offered a wage less than the proffered wage till pay period 07/15/2007 and my employer revised my wage to match the proffered wage from pay period 07/31/2007. Hence I would be able to submit 2 paystubs for payperiods 07/31/2007 and 08/15/2007 with I-140 application, which shows that I am currently getting paid the proffered wage.
Please let me know if these 2 paystubs alone are sufficient to demonstrate ability to pay.
We wouldn't be able to submit the employers Quarterly Wage reports with the revised wage as the current quarter ends only on Sep 07.
I understand that USCIS will issue a direct denial without an RFE if the employer is unable to prove atleast one of the following
(1) Net income - The initial evidence reflects that the petitioner’s net income is equal to or greater than the proffered wage
- (Supporting Evidence : Tax Returns).
(2) Net current assets - The initial evidence reflects that the petitioner’s net current assets are equal to or greater than the proffered wage.
- (Supporting Evidence : Audited Financial statement)
(3) Employment of the beneficiary - The record contains credible verifiable evidence that the petitioner not only is employing the beneficiary but also has paid or currently is paying the proffered wage.
- (Supporting Evidence : Annual/Quarterly Wage reports, paystubs)
Ours is a small company and doesn't have net income or net assets matching the proffered wage.
more...
house Buenos Aires €34
alapkd
08-26 01:35 PM
Oh really? do you think so? RBI controls the exchange rate. You know who control RBI? Banks like ICICI and big corporate companies like RIL etc and other biggies and also big IT comps.
You seem to believe in all the conspiracy theories out there. India is no more a third world country. There are many deep pockets and if there was any such arbitrague existing people will mint money all day long. Rupee is not fully floating currency that doesn't mean you can control what the exchange rate is going to be. No company or congolmerate can manipulate market like that.
You seem to believe in all the conspiracy theories out there. India is no more a third world country. There are many deep pockets and if there was any such arbitrague existing people will mint money all day long. Rupee is not fully floating currency that doesn't mean you can control what the exchange rate is going to be. No company or congolmerate can manipulate market like that.
tattoo Buenos Aires has been
Vexir
06-09 03:41 PM
:lol: as much as I hate wool that looks cool.
more...
pictures Buenos Aires General Travel
nogc_noproblem
01-30 10:10 PM
Now it is 24 and 27
dresses Buenos Aires - The City
trueguy
06-12 02:32 PM
EB3-I is the worst affected category and nobody even wants to talk about it.
I have been separated from my wife for 2 years and now I am going back and work in India.
I hope Media knows about this reverse brain drain that is reality and actually happening around here.
Thanks.
EB3-I
PD Oct2002
I have been separated from my wife for 2 years and now I am going back and work in India.
I hope Media knows about this reverse brain drain that is reality and actually happening around here.
Thanks.
EB3-I
PD Oct2002
more...
makeup Buenos Aires City
needhelp!
11-27 04:55 PM
Update : OUR Enemies are actively supporting LOU Dobbs (http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-91255-0-days0-orderasc-.html). While EB Immigrants are sleeping!
girlfriend Buenos Aires City
gjoe
12-03 10:16 AM
The $5 fee is for giving someone a negative rep point and not for wrong answers
Paid membership irrespective of the amount of payment will drive away the people. With all dues respect to IV, there are defintely other places where you can get good(if not better) information for free.
Strength of online communities is always the members...the higher the members the better.
Having said that, I kind of disagree with the punishing the wrong answers with a $5.00...most of the answers in these forums are people experiences and they are not legal professionals. People will not be able to share the experiences openly/freely. I think, it's the responsibility of the questioner to pick the right answer and donate for the value that he/she deems the question is worth.
My thoughts...anyways..
Paid membership irrespective of the amount of payment will drive away the people. With all dues respect to IV, there are defintely other places where you can get good(if not better) information for free.
Strength of online communities is always the members...the higher the members the better.
Having said that, I kind of disagree with the punishing the wrong answers with a $5.00...most of the answers in these forums are people experiences and they are not legal professionals. People will not be able to share the experiences openly/freely. I think, it's the responsibility of the questioner to pick the right answer and donate for the value that he/she deems the question is worth.
My thoughts...anyways..
hairstyles City Tour around Buenos Aires,
tonyHK12
04-20 06:41 PM
a special "Debate thread" (not fight :) ) where anything goes is probably not a bad idea at this point. where certain members who want to debate can be granted access
The constant hijacking of every thread is getting tiresome. :(
Its only the instigators and flamers, who would want that thread. Personal attacks should be banned on threads. Most people are happy just debating.
The person initiating or using provocation for a personal attack should be banned after a couple of warnings. The victim has no such restrictions and is allowed to retaliate as much as he wants.
The constant hijacking of every thread is getting tiresome. :(
Its only the instigators and flamers, who would want that thread. Personal attacks should be banned on threads. Most people are happy just debating.
The person initiating or using provocation for a personal attack should be banned after a couple of warnings. The victim has no such restrictions and is allowed to retaliate as much as he wants.
chanduv23
01-30 09:52 AM
Though most people here would want retroactive action, I think such a rule will only be applicable for applicants based on a cut off date that will be a future date.
Thats how all laws have been in past.
This is something that is most unwelcome by employers and lawyers and thats why this may have opposition. Especially those consulting companies that thrive on these things.
Thats how all laws have been in past.
This is something that is most unwelcome by employers and lawyers and thats why this may have opposition. Especially those consulting companies that thrive on these things.
gc28262
01-28 04:39 PM
I didn't find where in the PDF AILA is saying the definition is illegal!
They provide one example a court ruling where the EE definition was established in the case of an insurance agent. But such an issue has already been address by the EE memo by USCIS (Temporary/Occasional Off-Site Employment).
Is it your own interpretation that the EE definition in the memo is illegal or did you read it somewhere in AILA's response?
AILA Memo (http://www.laborimmigration.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/AILA-Memo-Seeking-Revokation-of-Neufeld-Memorandum.pdf)
Page 3
The AAO�s analysis contained in non-precedent decisions but cited repeatedly by adjudicators to justify RFEs, NOIDs and Denials -- and now expressed in the AFM revisions regarding H-1B petitions -- begins with the proposition that the beneficiary in any employment-based nonimmigrant or immigrant petition must be an �employee� of the petitioning employer. The AAO then notes that the term �employee� is not clearly defined anywhere in the INA and concludes that absent such a definition, under Darden and Clackamas, it must look to the common law definition of employee to determine who is and is not eligible for employment-based benefits under the INA.2 While the common law definition employs a multi-factor test, the AAO and subsequent adjudications, and the Neufeld Memorandum, have focused almost exclusively on one element: control.
AILA memo deals with multiple issues in the memo, not just consulting company scenario. (L1, Self sponsoring employee etc) Hence we can get lost while reading the memo. Central to the argument is "Common Law" that AILA hasn't gone in depth.
desi3933,
Please refer AILA memo (http://www.laborimmigration.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/AILA-Memo-Seeking-Revokation-of-Neufeld-Memorandum.pdf) as they have already detailed the law points in it.
Also you seem to be quoting USCIS documents. If USCIS was clear about the law, they wouldn't have issued this memo in the first place. If USCIS memo contradicts INA, INA prevails.
They provide one example a court ruling where the EE definition was established in the case of an insurance agent. But such an issue has already been address by the EE memo by USCIS (Temporary/Occasional Off-Site Employment).
Is it your own interpretation that the EE definition in the memo is illegal or did you read it somewhere in AILA's response?
AILA Memo (http://www.laborimmigration.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/AILA-Memo-Seeking-Revokation-of-Neufeld-Memorandum.pdf)
Page 3
The AAO�s analysis contained in non-precedent decisions but cited repeatedly by adjudicators to justify RFEs, NOIDs and Denials -- and now expressed in the AFM revisions regarding H-1B petitions -- begins with the proposition that the beneficiary in any employment-based nonimmigrant or immigrant petition must be an �employee� of the petitioning employer. The AAO then notes that the term �employee� is not clearly defined anywhere in the INA and concludes that absent such a definition, under Darden and Clackamas, it must look to the common law definition of employee to determine who is and is not eligible for employment-based benefits under the INA.2 While the common law definition employs a multi-factor test, the AAO and subsequent adjudications, and the Neufeld Memorandum, have focused almost exclusively on one element: control.
AILA memo deals with multiple issues in the memo, not just consulting company scenario. (L1, Self sponsoring employee etc) Hence we can get lost while reading the memo. Central to the argument is "Common Law" that AILA hasn't gone in depth.
desi3933,
Please refer AILA memo (http://www.laborimmigration.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/AILA-Memo-Seeking-Revokation-of-Neufeld-Memorandum.pdf) as they have already detailed the law points in it.
Also you seem to be quoting USCIS documents. If USCIS was clear about the law, they wouldn't have issued this memo in the first place. If USCIS memo contradicts INA, INA prevails.
No comments:
Post a Comment