psaxena
10-20 12:38 PM
RealClearPolitics - Election 2010 - Iowa Senate - Grassley vs. Conlin (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/ia/iowa_senate_grassley_vs_conlin-1217.html)
This is going nowhere... Guys what are prospects of Grassley winning the Nov elections...I hope he looses
This is going nowhere... Guys what are prospects of Grassley winning the Nov elections...I hope he looses
tonyHK12
01-11 09:28 AM
The second part also sounds pretty reasonable to me:
This PAV would be issued upon successful completion of an application process that would involve the following:
1. Providing documentary evidence (school records, doctor�s records, etc.) that the applicant was in the United States before he or she reached their thirteenth birthday and be no older than twenty-five at the time they file their application;
2. Background checks for any prior convictions involving fraud, assault, reckless driving or DWI, failure to appear at any immigration hearing, or any past record of voluntary or involuntary deportation. Any such convictions would lead to a presumption of an unsuccessful application;
3. Evidence of the withholding of any relevant information, or submitting false information would result in the automatic failure of an application. Any failure of an application would result in the applicant returning to his previous immigration status;
4. Failure of an application due to withholding information or providing false information would subject the applicant to expedited removal proceedings;
5. Waivers of any requirement connected with the application process could only be made on a case by case basis by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security setting out in detail the "compelling evidence" underlying such a waiver and the evidence used to support such a determination.
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following authorizations:
1. PAV holders would be allowed to legally work and obtain a U.S. passport (on the condition of turning in any other passports) for foreign travel;
2. It would allow holders to establish residency in any state according to that state's requirements and be on equal footing with other legal immigrants with regard to state and local laws and policies;
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following prohibitions:
1. Holders of the PAV would not be able to sponsor family members and relatives for LPR status;
2. Holding an PAV would not imply any safe harbor for applicant's family members;
3. Holders of PAVs would not be eligible to receive means-tested public welfare benefits;
4. Holders of PAVs would not be able to adjust their immigration status for a period of 10 years and then only through an administrative hearing in which the holder presented compelling evidence that such an adjustment is in the public interest. Such evidence would consist of, but not be limited to, applicant's work history, community service, military service, family circumstances, and the results of policy and security checks.
A One-time Only Policy: Consistent with the knowledge that adjusting the status of illegal immigrants brings with it the expectation that adjustments of the same kind will be made in the future, the language authorizing this initiative will explicitly state that:
1. That no further adjustments to legal status will be made for children brought into the country illegally after the date on which this bill becomes law;
2. That parents who bring their young children into the country illegally after the date of enactment will be subject to expedited removal proceedings.
This PAV would be issued upon successful completion of an application process that would involve the following:
1. Providing documentary evidence (school records, doctor�s records, etc.) that the applicant was in the United States before he or she reached their thirteenth birthday and be no older than twenty-five at the time they file their application;
2. Background checks for any prior convictions involving fraud, assault, reckless driving or DWI, failure to appear at any immigration hearing, or any past record of voluntary or involuntary deportation. Any such convictions would lead to a presumption of an unsuccessful application;
3. Evidence of the withholding of any relevant information, or submitting false information would result in the automatic failure of an application. Any failure of an application would result in the applicant returning to his previous immigration status;
4. Failure of an application due to withholding information or providing false information would subject the applicant to expedited removal proceedings;
5. Waivers of any requirement connected with the application process could only be made on a case by case basis by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security setting out in detail the "compelling evidence" underlying such a waiver and the evidence used to support such a determination.
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following authorizations:
1. PAV holders would be allowed to legally work and obtain a U.S. passport (on the condition of turning in any other passports) for foreign travel;
2. It would allow holders to establish residency in any state according to that state's requirements and be on equal footing with other legal immigrants with regard to state and local laws and policies;
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following prohibitions:
1. Holders of the PAV would not be able to sponsor family members and relatives for LPR status;
2. Holding an PAV would not imply any safe harbor for applicant's family members;
3. Holders of PAVs would not be eligible to receive means-tested public welfare benefits;
4. Holders of PAVs would not be able to adjust their immigration status for a period of 10 years and then only through an administrative hearing in which the holder presented compelling evidence that such an adjustment is in the public interest. Such evidence would consist of, but not be limited to, applicant's work history, community service, military service, family circumstances, and the results of policy and security checks.
A One-time Only Policy: Consistent with the knowledge that adjusting the status of illegal immigrants brings with it the expectation that adjustments of the same kind will be made in the future, the language authorizing this initiative will explicitly state that:
1. That no further adjustments to legal status will be made for children brought into the country illegally after the date on which this bill becomes law;
2. That parents who bring their young children into the country illegally after the date of enactment will be subject to expedited removal proceedings.
GCwaitforever
01-24 11:27 AM
Filing for I-485 is better as after six months, the employers can not do much. Disagree with this post altogether.
jkays94
05-03 11:20 AM
We should empahsise how the amnesty offer can set precedence for future influx of people and how US would end up as Latino country, if immigration is not controlled. This can be a sure catalyst for SJ Mercury times as they are trying to find ammunition to counter the Illegal protests
Sundar99, I do agree with some of your sentiments about promoting the cause of legal immigrants but lets not pick battles that will only be turned against IV. IV has many external detractors and the more IV gains exposure in the media, more enemies will continue to emerge. Do you suppose organizations such as FAIR, NumbersUSA and others really distinguish between IV and the undocumented movement ? Visit this blog by one of the FAIR executives : www.steinreport.com (http://www.steinreport.com) and you will understand that legal and illegal immigrants to such organizations are one and the same thing as far as they are concerned and they could care less regardless of the glaring facts. One of the concerns that you highlight is that of increased backlogs in the face of amnesty, it has been reiterated by several senators all in agreement that anyone coming through amnesty will go to the back of the line and not before legal immigrants.
We should empahsise how the amnesty offer can set precedence for future influx of people and how US would end up as Latino country, if immigration is not controlled.
Do you really want to pick a fight with the more than 43 million Americans of Hispanic origin ? This is the very same argument that bloggers are using against IV following the WP article about an invasion by persons of Chinese and Indian origin, arguments made totally out of context. Why should we emulate such organizations and stoop to their level. Lets pick our battles wisely and only those we have a chance of winning.
Sundar99, I do agree with some of your sentiments about promoting the cause of legal immigrants but lets not pick battles that will only be turned against IV. IV has many external detractors and the more IV gains exposure in the media, more enemies will continue to emerge. Do you suppose organizations such as FAIR, NumbersUSA and others really distinguish between IV and the undocumented movement ? Visit this blog by one of the FAIR executives : www.steinreport.com (http://www.steinreport.com) and you will understand that legal and illegal immigrants to such organizations are one and the same thing as far as they are concerned and they could care less regardless of the glaring facts. One of the concerns that you highlight is that of increased backlogs in the face of amnesty, it has been reiterated by several senators all in agreement that anyone coming through amnesty will go to the back of the line and not before legal immigrants.
We should empahsise how the amnesty offer can set precedence for future influx of people and how US would end up as Latino country, if immigration is not controlled.
Do you really want to pick a fight with the more than 43 million Americans of Hispanic origin ? This is the very same argument that bloggers are using against IV following the WP article about an invasion by persons of Chinese and Indian origin, arguments made totally out of context. Why should we emulate such organizations and stoop to their level. Lets pick our battles wisely and only those we have a chance of winning.
more...
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
12-06 11:38 AM
There are so many posts already in the forums about these issues. I think you will get all your answers there. Please do not open a new one
roseball
04-02 12:53 PM
Thank you gc28262. It's just that my attorney havent seen this issue with Pre PERM cases. May be it is because PERM had more specific questions to answer so that there is little flexibility. Form 750 which was used before PERM did not have that many specific questions regarding labor conditions. So there was room for interpretation.
Thanks for murthy's link. Yes, It makes sense Gald I extended my H1 after returning on AP. So I am better positioned there.
Yes, actually the USCIS has argued the same in their revocation response which is that my labor requirements on Form 9089 aren't flexible enough to transfer me to EB3.
----
What your attorney is suggesting I believe is the right approach at this time. I would consult a reputed attorney and take his/her advise before taking any action. I would also have your company start a new PERM case in parallel, just incase. Yes, ETA-750 provides a little more flexibility w.r.t EB2 to EB3 downgrades when compared to 9089, but it depends on the educational requirements mentioned on the form. But your approach should be to get I-485 approval based on earlier I-140 and if that doesn't work out, then request for a downgrade. Hope it works out for you, good luck.
Thanks for murthy's link. Yes, It makes sense Gald I extended my H1 after returning on AP. So I am better positioned there.
Yes, actually the USCIS has argued the same in their revocation response which is that my labor requirements on Form 9089 aren't flexible enough to transfer me to EB3.
----
What your attorney is suggesting I believe is the right approach at this time. I would consult a reputed attorney and take his/her advise before taking any action. I would also have your company start a new PERM case in parallel, just incase. Yes, ETA-750 provides a little more flexibility w.r.t EB2 to EB3 downgrades when compared to 9089, but it depends on the educational requirements mentioned on the form. But your approach should be to get I-485 approval based on earlier I-140 and if that doesn't work out, then request for a downgrade. Hope it works out for you, good luck.
more...
eb2_485_mess
08-29 06:45 PM
did you ask them if the processing date on the website includes applications received on July 2 also? I know it is not clear... but maybe if you had asked them...?
InTheMoment
08-04 01:34 PM
Please refer to this detailed experience on SS update after GC:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20610
Also there is no need to surrender your old SS card or even show it. (maybe good to just keep it with you if asked.)
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20610
Also there is no need to surrender your old SS card or even show it. (maybe good to just keep it with you if asked.)
more...
Prashanthi
12-03 05:13 PM
I stand corrected, thank you for pointing it out, i was thinking of a situation when the I-485 was not filed, in this case the I-485 is pending. See extract from Williams memo issued in February 2003. USCIS has clarified that the date to be looked at is the date that the I-485 was filed when the visa number was available. So basically if you were a dependent when the I-485 was filed and the I-485 visa number then regressed, they will look at your age at the time of filing the I-485 and then subtract the time it took for I-40/I-130 to be approved.
Visa Availability Date Regression
If a visa availability date regresses, and an alien has already filed a Form I-485 based on an approved Form I-130 or Form I-140, the Service should retain the Form I-485 and note the visa availability date at the time the Form I-485 was filed. Once the visa number again becomes available for that preference category, determine whether the beneficiary is a �child� using the visa availability date marked on the Form I-485. If, however, an alien has not filed a Form I-485 prior to the visa availability date regressing, and then files a Form I-485 when the visa availability date again becomes current, the alien�s �age� should be determined using the subsequent visa availability date.
Visa Availability Date Regression
If a visa availability date regresses, and an alien has already filed a Form I-485 based on an approved Form I-130 or Form I-140, the Service should retain the Form I-485 and note the visa availability date at the time the Form I-485 was filed. Once the visa number again becomes available for that preference category, determine whether the beneficiary is a �child� using the visa availability date marked on the Form I-485. If, however, an alien has not filed a Form I-485 prior to the visa availability date regressing, and then files a Form I-485 when the visa availability date again becomes current, the alien�s �age� should be determined using the subsequent visa availability date.
needhelp!
10-10 09:41 AM
join hands to work with IV
more...
gchopes
10-04 09:13 AM
Filed 485 on July 27 at TSC. No CC / RNs. Let me know if any of you receive the receipts. I shall do the same as well.
satishku_2000
07-08 04:35 PM
Just rated and added my comments. Folks dont think about the result , just do your part ...:)
more...
h1techSlave
04-10 02:34 PM
I went thru the tracker to see how many are there before Jan 2004 EB3-I. And the news is not good.
Out of the total cases of 27, 389 (All-no filtering), 757 is before Jan 2004 for EB3-I. That's a % of 2.764%.
Now, let us extrapolate this figure to find out the total remaining EB3-I cases. If we take that there are 400,000 pending EB cases, the count of Eb3-I prior to Jan 2004 would be: 400,000 * 2.764 = 11, 056 cases.
With a country quota of 3000 visas, it would take 11056/3000 = 3.69 years to clear this backlog.
Now a word on the potential visa date movement. I have noticed that there are many PDs in the latter months of 2003 - there are very few people with PDs before June 2003. This points to a very strong possibility of the DOS setting the EB3-I visa date as June/July/August 2003 in the coming months.
Out of the total cases of 27, 389 (All-no filtering), 757 is before Jan 2004 for EB3-I. That's a % of 2.764%.
Now, let us extrapolate this figure to find out the total remaining EB3-I cases. If we take that there are 400,000 pending EB cases, the count of Eb3-I prior to Jan 2004 would be: 400,000 * 2.764 = 11, 056 cases.
With a country quota of 3000 visas, it would take 11056/3000 = 3.69 years to clear this backlog.
Now a word on the potential visa date movement. I have noticed that there are many PDs in the latter months of 2003 - there are very few people with PDs before June 2003. This points to a very strong possibility of the DOS setting the EB3-I visa date as June/July/August 2003 in the coming months.
webm
02-14 09:28 AM
"If your RD for the 485 is later than that that means they didn't get to look at your file yet even though your PD is current."
I heard it is based on ND(Notice Date) not RD(ReceivedDate) of 485.
HTH,
I heard it is based on ND(Notice Date) not RD(ReceivedDate) of 485.
HTH,
more...
Sp�rL
05-10 08:55 AM
Yes i have Microsft Visual Studios C++ 2005 (i think its called that)
but i dont have any of the help files :( lol
but ill give looking at the coding of a precoded Win32 app a go.
otherwise more hard work to find things out. :(
peace out.
but i dont have any of the help files :( lol
but ill give looking at the coding of a precoded Win32 app a go.
otherwise more hard work to find things out. :(
peace out.
arunmohan
11-15 12:20 AM
My designation with current job is software engineer and i am getting an offer with designation DBA.does it fall in same or similar catagory.I am switching job using AC21 rule . gurus help
more...
reddymjm
05-16 09:47 PM
What is MI phone list?
They are maintaining list of people who called and from where? My friends called from Michigan. So they said they added it to the Mi phone list.
They are maintaining list of people who called and from where? My friends called from Michigan. So they said they added it to the Mi phone list.
vinzak
04-13 06:53 PM
i remember someone posting right here in IV that they got their GC when PD was not current. USCIS later asked for the GC back cuz it was given in error.:) To make things worse the poor guy obviously didnt renew his EAD and couldnt work.
So even if you get GC out of turn, I believe the correct thing to do is to return it. Or it can be more problems.
Here's the link on that topic:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum105-immigrant-visa/659959-gc-received-in-error.html
So even if you get GC out of turn, I believe the correct thing to do is to return it. Or it can be more problems.
Here's the link on that topic:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum105-immigrant-visa/659959-gc-received-in-error.html
hariswaminathan
01-10 04:46 PM
I prefer your theory to Infopass officer. Sincerely hope you are right because Name check is not where i want to be stuck in.
So, this would mean anyone stuck in name check should never receive FP--correct? I don't think that's the case...i know of a lot of people who get FP notices every 15 (or is it 18?) months or so and are stuck in name checks forever.
The two processes Name check & FP are parallel, not sequential.
I have myself not rcvd FP - July 2nd filer NSC-CSC-NSC transfer victim :-). My way of looking at things is that CSC transferred I-485 to NSC in late September. So my I-485 is queued after an August 17th filer. August 17th filers have rcvd their FPs recently (Bay Area, CA), so it should not be that far away. (BTW, I am not dying to get FP done, i just want to shorten my stay-alert-for-FP window and get it over with it)
USCIS works in strange ways...i may be using logic that's beyond their IQ :)
Take it easy...
So, this would mean anyone stuck in name check should never receive FP--correct? I don't think that's the case...i know of a lot of people who get FP notices every 15 (or is it 18?) months or so and are stuck in name checks forever.
The two processes Name check & FP are parallel, not sequential.
I have myself not rcvd FP - July 2nd filer NSC-CSC-NSC transfer victim :-). My way of looking at things is that CSC transferred I-485 to NSC in late September. So my I-485 is queued after an August 17th filer. August 17th filers have rcvd their FPs recently (Bay Area, CA), so it should not be that far away. (BTW, I am not dying to get FP done, i just want to shorten my stay-alert-for-FP window and get it over with it)
USCIS works in strange ways...i may be using logic that's beyond their IQ :)
Take it easy...
gc_kaavaali
11-14 10:36 AM
After six months can i do H1 transfer with some other company...just want to be on H1 until i get GC (though it is not practical now because it takes years to get GC)...
santb1975
12-24 01:17 PM
Some of our chapter members have been asking for action items to work on during the holidays. This is a great one
No comments:
Post a Comment