ganguteli
03-06 04:02 PM
Congrats everyone getting soft LUDs
wallpaper Funny Facebook Status Fails
vvrmurthy
09-01 10:21 PM
Arrived in Jul 1999. Worked for a consulting company till July 2000 as consultant (client - a major computer server maker). Joined the client July 2000. Even now, same job, same designation. Luckily my employer applied for EB3 BEC labor (May 2004). Since it got stuck, my boss convinced exec mgmt to apply for EB 3 PERM in Aug 2006. PERM labor got thru in Nov 2006. PERM based I-140 got thru in March 2007. Applied for I-485 in July 2007. BEC labor came thru in Oct 2007. Filed I-140 for BEC labor and it got thru in Feb 2008. Interfiled and now PD on I-485 is May 2004 (EB3 - India).
On some site there was a way to know how many are ahead of me, given my PD, my nationality and my category. And looks like some 25,500+ EB3 cases are ahead of me.. Some 10+ years... Honestly, life has more to it than a colored card... let us move on with life... I will not allow the card to determine (ruin) my life...!!!!
On some site there was a way to know how many are ahead of me, given my PD, my nationality and my category. And looks like some 25,500+ EB3 cases are ahead of me.. Some 10+ years... Honestly, life has more to it than a colored card... let us move on with life... I will not allow the card to determine (ruin) my life...!!!!
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?
2011 funny facebook break up status
red200
12-10 07:27 PM
I missed the july fiasco by 15 days. Atleast if we get the administrative fix to apply atleast 485. That would help us a lot, after labor if we are allowed to apply for 485 within a specific timeframe it would be nice.
more...
ars01
01-07 02:41 PM
My wife is still waiting for the AP. The receipt notice gives August 6 as the receipt date. She called USCIS last Tuesday and was told that USCIS is running really slow and is taking 180 days to process APs. The lady she spoke to asked my wife to call back after "it is 180 days past her notice date". Her 180 days will complete on February 6. We have postponed out travel plans several times.
Libra
09-10 04:55 PM
thank you.
I contributed whatever I can. Please contribute your part.
I contributed whatever I can. Please contribute your part.
more...
breddy2000
03-25 09:06 AM
The link is there on the Right Hand side corner "Why Contribute" under which there is a Button "Contribute" . Just click on that and it will take you to the Payment page.
Hope this helps
Hi All,
I'm new to immigration Voice. I've read abt this in immigration portal and understand that a group of people are leading this. I wish them all the best and i extend my full support. Also i heard that this group is collecting funds. Can someone please point me where would i contribute.
Thanks
RAJ
SWA: Virginia
SWA Receipt Date (Priority Date): October 31,2002
EB2 - RIR
Forwarded to Philadelphia Regional DOL on June 22, 2004
BEC Case Number: P-04282-*****
45 Day Letter Received and Replied : Feb 2005
Hope this helps
Hi All,
I'm new to immigration Voice. I've read abt this in immigration portal and understand that a group of people are leading this. I wish them all the best and i extend my full support. Also i heard that this group is collecting funds. Can someone please point me where would i contribute.
Thanks
RAJ
SWA: Virginia
SWA Receipt Date (Priority Date): October 31,2002
EB2 - RIR
Forwarded to Philadelphia Regional DOL on June 22, 2004
BEC Case Number: P-04282-*****
45 Day Letter Received and Replied : Feb 2005
2010 I love his last line most of
gc_dedo
04-30 02:44 PM
http://boss.streamos.com/real-live/judiciary/17223/56_judiciary-coj_2141_070212.ram
Need real player
damn not working for me.
maybe its my office proxy problem
Need real player
damn not working for me.
maybe its my office proxy problem
more...
ashutrip
06-22 11:18 AM
Nothing so far. I keep checking the status of my application every day but its still "In Process"
what is your PD?
what is your PD?
hair Now they#39;re on Facebook too,
pd052009
08-13 10:32 AM
I think more than 90% of companies in service industries have more than 50% emps in H1/L1. The fees may be indirectly passed to the employees in terms of cut in salary or cut in profit sharing.
Anyone knows whether there is any fee increase for premium processing?
Anyone knows whether there is any fee increase for premium processing?
more...
JunRN
05-15 11:39 PM
He got info from USCIS through congressional liason that his 140 was indeed approved on the date when the IO claimed it was denied and it was indeed revoked when he got a denial. The revoke was initiated by his employer.
They seem to have all info proper. There is no faulty system. If there is faulty system, probably we have known by now with things never happening right
Thanks for the clarification. Regarding faulty system, if it's not the database, it must be the practice. We have heard not few cases of AC21 cases being improperly denied.
My take is that the system used by USCIS is not designed to check for AC21 cases and so rightfully, when IO sees denied I-140, they deny the I-485. I think their Manual is also not updated to reflect AC21. AC21 is still a memo and not in their Manual.
They seem to have all info proper. There is no faulty system. If there is faulty system, probably we have known by now with things never happening right
Thanks for the clarification. Regarding faulty system, if it's not the database, it must be the practice. We have heard not few cases of AC21 cases being improperly denied.
My take is that the system used by USCIS is not designed to check for AC21 cases and so rightfully, when IO sees denied I-140, they deny the I-485. I think their Manual is also not updated to reflect AC21. AC21 is still a memo and not in their Manual.
hot Facebook update
priti8888
07-23 06:34 PM
I think you are unnecessarily suspecting her posting. Retrogression kicked in Oct 2005 bulletin. So it is possible for her to apply in Feb 2005. I know for sure some people got their GC with similar priority dates. I think this whole immigration crap is turning everyone into cynical.
Thx!
Correction:-
My RD IS DEC 04 and I got Ead in feb 05...Mixed up the dates-Sorry!
Thx!
Correction:-
My RD IS DEC 04 and I got Ead in feb 05...Mixed up the dates-Sorry!
more...
house 1000 Status Messages Get some
skv
06-22 11:18 AM
Mine is filed on May 14th at Atlanta :-(. My employer told me that off late it's taking anywhere between 90 to 120 days.
But I hope I can beat this time after 5 long years. :-)
Cheer up guys, nothing to gain being sad. :-)
But I hope I can beat this time after 5 long years. :-)
Cheer up guys, nothing to gain being sad. :-)
tattoo Facebook Funny Statuses
Keeme
03-04 12:46 PM
Forgot to mention, my attorney did state that their office received an approval 2 weeks back whose priority date was not even close to current. She did not share the specifics.
I just checked my online status and it doesnt have any updates since 2007, states its received and pending... Not sure how current is the online info.
I also learned from my attorny office that a case with out having PD current was approved. Will get specifics today on that case.
I just checked my online status and it doesnt have any updates since 2007, states its received and pending... Not sure how current is the online info.
I also learned from my attorny office that a case with out having PD current was approved. Will get specifics today on that case.
more...
pictures Facebook Funny Statuses
GC_Optimist
09-29 11:59 AM
By not utilizing all the visa numbers USCIS is creating artificial scarcity
leading to huge Backlog. I think this needs to be highligted to the
lawmakers. or Administration.
leading to huge Backlog. I think this needs to be highligted to the
lawmakers. or Administration.
dresses funny facebook status messages
gova123
08-02 05:41 PM
Bumping ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
more...
makeup Clever Facebook Status funny
gccube
07-18 02:59 PM
Donot they limit to the apps with current PD. So if some one with PD 2001 Jan filed on July 15th 2007, he would not get his visa no until all the other guys filed with much later PDs got their GCs?
girlfriend on facebook status. funny
Humhongekamyab
04-30 02:35 PM
We have the sound now.
hairstyles Good Funny Facebook Statuses
black_logs
03-16 01:14 PM
I will agree with you partially, you're right, big corporates can make a difference, but I said partially because I feel we are more powerful than the corporates. Look at the numbers, inspite of atleast 350,000 applications stuck in Labor Backlogs & other 200,000 people waiting to file their adjustment of status, we just have 1200 members. So there are only 1-2 % people who thinks they or their fellow citizens can do something. If even 20% of this population start making noise, you'll have a different opinion...
[I posted this comment at another thread a few minutes ago. For a wider read I am also posting here]
Newt said Nothing is going to happen on this Specter or any other immigration bills in Senate. The conference with House will not agree to ......
[I posted this comment at another thread a few minutes ago. For a wider read I am also posting here]
Newt said Nothing is going to happen on this Specter or any other immigration bills in Senate. The conference with House will not agree to ......
pappu
07-23 01:25 PM
/\/\/\/\/
fromnaija
06-01 03:31 PM
No this does not apply to 485. It affects only immigrant 140 petition for alien worker.
AILA (http://www.aila.org/) has an analysis of the immigration bill in an article "Top 5 Concerns Regarding Employment-Based Immigration in S. 1348":
there is a disturbing section in there:
Gaps in Green Card Availability � Immigrant visa petitions filed after May 15, 2007 on the basis of the current employment-based preference system will be rejected. � During the period between May 15, 2007 and the date the new merit based system is up and running (likely October 1, 2008), no new employment-based green card applications can be filed.
Any validity to this claim ?
If so, Does this mean that all I-485 that can be filled with the latest jump in priority date will be voided ?
Is this valid/legal ?
AILA (http://www.aila.org/) has an analysis of the immigration bill in an article "Top 5 Concerns Regarding Employment-Based Immigration in S. 1348":
there is a disturbing section in there:
Gaps in Green Card Availability � Immigrant visa petitions filed after May 15, 2007 on the basis of the current employment-based preference system will be rejected. � During the period between May 15, 2007 and the date the new merit based system is up and running (likely October 1, 2008), no new employment-based green card applications can be filed.
Any validity to this claim ?
If so, Does this mean that all I-485 that can be filled with the latest jump in priority date will be voided ?
Is this valid/legal ?
No comments:
Post a Comment