caca1225
12-28 08:01 PM
snram4,
You missed one point from your analysis. Outsourcing/offshoring. Outsourcers don't need any visa to do that. Though many anti-immigrants call H1B an offshoring visa, the fact is outsourcers don't need any visa to outsource. When new projects are implemented from the scratch in offshore locations, it cannot even be called 'offshoring'. Essentially these kinds of bills will make america a less competitive place for businesses.
No matter how you look at it. This bill proposed by Gutierrez is "Union" bill. Today it is easier for someone with some family ties to migrate to this country than one who brings in skills and competitiveness to USA. Skilled immigrants has to jump over many hurdles ( H1B/Labor /I-140/visa wait times) to get his GC. For a family based immigrant, the only requirement is he/she has to be related to someone in US. For a skilled immigrant, he has to prove that a job offer do exist for him all through the insane wait for his gc. For illegals it is even easier. They just have to prove that they were illegally present in US to qualify for his GC.
If U.S.A was United Socialist Amercia, Gutierrez/Grassley bill is the way to go. We all know what happened to GM where unions had the final say in worker compensation as well as performance.
Just because the CIR has a little be help to current H1B holders for EB cap exempt to immediate relatives of applicants , that doesn't make the bill a skilled-worker friendly than illegals friendly bill it supposed to be. Think about all these legal immigrants in order to get their green card, they would have spent more than 20k out of their pockets while the CIR only required $500 fine to get these illegals back in line with us, let alone the metal struggle to the long waiting nontransparent process. I'd rather not having this "benefits" than have to be forced to pay my hard earned money toward illegals' health, food stamp, education etc. Besides, after 6-years period finished, who knows if the cap to GC to all these illegals are shared with H1B? Let the free market eliminates US if that's what they're asking for. I can care less if I can get my GC or not while there're plenty of countries will welcome us skilled workers.
You missed one point from your analysis. Outsourcing/offshoring. Outsourcers don't need any visa to do that. Though many anti-immigrants call H1B an offshoring visa, the fact is outsourcers don't need any visa to outsource. When new projects are implemented from the scratch in offshore locations, it cannot even be called 'offshoring'. Essentially these kinds of bills will make america a less competitive place for businesses.
No matter how you look at it. This bill proposed by Gutierrez is "Union" bill. Today it is easier for someone with some family ties to migrate to this country than one who brings in skills and competitiveness to USA. Skilled immigrants has to jump over many hurdles ( H1B/Labor /I-140/visa wait times) to get his GC. For a family based immigrant, the only requirement is he/she has to be related to someone in US. For a skilled immigrant, he has to prove that a job offer do exist for him all through the insane wait for his gc. For illegals it is even easier. They just have to prove that they were illegally present in US to qualify for his GC.
If U.S.A was United Socialist Amercia, Gutierrez/Grassley bill is the way to go. We all know what happened to GM where unions had the final say in worker compensation as well as performance.
Just because the CIR has a little be help to current H1B holders for EB cap exempt to immediate relatives of applicants , that doesn't make the bill a skilled-worker friendly than illegals friendly bill it supposed to be. Think about all these legal immigrants in order to get their green card, they would have spent more than 20k out of their pockets while the CIR only required $500 fine to get these illegals back in line with us, let alone the metal struggle to the long waiting nontransparent process. I'd rather not having this "benefits" than have to be forced to pay my hard earned money toward illegals' health, food stamp, education etc. Besides, after 6-years period finished, who knows if the cap to GC to all these illegals are shared with H1B? Let the free market eliminates US if that's what they're asking for. I can care less if I can get my GC or not while there're plenty of countries will welcome us skilled workers.
wallpaper ackground textures photoshop.
indianabacklog
04-15 12:51 PM
This action simply contradicts the entry on visa waiver. This allows people to visit (ONLY) with no intention of staying.
Coming in before you know your L visa is going to be coming is fraudulent.
If this individual wishes to leave the US they will have to get the L visa stamped in their passport before they can return. Might be asked why they did not get this done to enter the country for their job in the first place.
Have to say this person is going to need some assistance at some point to explain this away.
Coming in before you know your L visa is going to be coming is fraudulent.
If this individual wishes to leave the US they will have to get the L visa stamped in their passport before they can return. Might be asked why they did not get this done to enter the country for their job in the first place.
Have to say this person is going to need some assistance at some point to explain this away.
cagedcactus
10-25 08:55 AM
I have received the EAD, but no AP.... same case with my wife...
We havent received our FP yet...
does online status change to show FP update? Maybe folks with FP done can confirm this...
thanks..
We havent received our FP yet...
does online status change to show FP update? Maybe folks with FP done can confirm this...
thanks..
2011 pattern ackground texture
addsf345
12-02 11:44 PM
This in from Ron Gotcher website....I guess they are reading our letters.....
Good news concerning AOS denials based on I-140 revocations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
I hope this means that the supervisors at the service centers involved are now aware of the blatant illegality of these types of denials and will put and end to them in the future. We can only hope that we have seen an end to this nonsense.:mad:
__________________
read carefully all those who are thinking that the issue is over. I don't want to spoil the party, but this issue is still far from over.:confused:
Please do help IV, help yourself, help ourselves. Take part in IV letters campaign for wrongful AC21 denials. Click here (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22182) & send letters.
Good news concerning AOS denials based on I-140 revocations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
I hope this means that the supervisors at the service centers involved are now aware of the blatant illegality of these types of denials and will put and end to them in the future. We can only hope that we have seen an end to this nonsense.:mad:
__________________
read carefully all those who are thinking that the issue is over. I don't want to spoil the party, but this issue is still far from over.:confused:
Please do help IV, help yourself, help ourselves. Take part in IV letters campaign for wrongful AC21 denials. Click here (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22182) & send letters.
more...
ishakapoor
02-16 01:41 PM
iuhiuiouj
SFSweta
08-27 01:40 PM
You may! Because your priority date is based on your PERM/Labor...and that still holds valid.
more...
nixstor
02-09 06:09 PM
http://hammondlawgroup.blogspot.com/2007/02/advocacy-alert-retrogression-were.html
check it out!
check it out!
2010 Rusted metal texture
payal_nag
10-25 02:57 PM
my husband's I-140 just got approved in a week's time. We were still waiting for the receipt number, instead the lawyer said she had received the approval paperwork!
more...
NELLAIKUMAR
02-17 11:50 AM
Nayekal, Thanks for your response.
What I meant to say is that my H1 is expiring on Sep 30th 2009 and therefore the earliest date I can apply for extension is April 1st. That's why I asked the question whether I can wait until April 1st for COS from H1 to H4 for my wife even though my wife's employment is ending on March 13th.
Also, is it necessary to have the proof of I-539 receipt by March 13th or few weeks difference is ok? Can you please let me know your experience in this matter.
Thanks...
What I meant to say is that my H1 is expiring on Sep 30th 2009 and therefore the earliest date I can apply for extension is April 1st. That's why I asked the question whether I can wait until April 1st for COS from H1 to H4 for my wife even though my wife's employment is ending on March 13th.
Also, is it necessary to have the proof of I-539 receipt by March 13th or few weeks difference is ok? Can you please let me know your experience in this matter.
Thanks...
hair ackground textures photoshop.
needhelp!
10-22 05:37 PM
I can't do it all by myself...
more...
gc_kaavaali
06-18 05:25 PM
You are fine!!! just be prepared for the Visa. Collect all the documents needed for VISA. Don't forget Tax returns.
Hi,
I came to US in 2004, my H1 visa was sponsored by cognizant technology solutions. H1 was valid from Nov 04 to Dec 06. later on my I 94 was extended from Dec 06 to July 09 .
I changed company and joined wipro in Aug 08 and now my I 94 is now valid till July 2010.
I have never gone back to India for a visit ever since I landed in US (2004)..I now want to go to India for few months and have read that i'll have to get my visa stamped before reentering US...
My question is if i'll have any problems with visa stamping because I was originally working with cognizant and am now working with wipro?..Am I out of status since my original visa expired in 2006 ?...pls help
Hi,
I came to US in 2004, my H1 visa was sponsored by cognizant technology solutions. H1 was valid from Nov 04 to Dec 06. later on my I 94 was extended from Dec 06 to July 09 .
I changed company and joined wipro in Aug 08 and now my I 94 is now valid till July 2010.
I have never gone back to India for a visit ever since I landed in US (2004)..I now want to go to India for few months and have read that i'll have to get my visa stamped before reentering US...
My question is if i'll have any problems with visa stamping because I was originally working with cognizant and am now working with wipro?..Am I out of status since my original visa expired in 2006 ?...pls help
hot hot with Textures In Photoshop
WaitingForMyGC
09-26 11:16 AM
Congratulations..would you change ur IV handle now to GC_ROCKS or something :-)
more...
house Photoshop: How To Make An
need_EAD
03-17 11:44 AM
Good News. Great Job Jay.
tattoo for ackground, textures
perm2gc
09-18 02:30 PM
Hi,
I am a F1 student and am on OPT now. I got my H1B visa approved from Oct-1 2006 to Sep-30 2009.
But my school said I cannot get my degree certificate till December 2006.
My question is when I apply for my Green card will I be considered into EB2 list or EB3 list. On what basis will this be decided.
Please suggest.
Thank you,
Vijaya.
If your employer has applied H1B on your bachelor degree then you are EB3 but it can change if you have BS+5yrs Experience before filing LC ..
As of now you are EB3
Correct me guys if i am wrong
I am a F1 student and am on OPT now. I got my H1B visa approved from Oct-1 2006 to Sep-30 2009.
But my school said I cannot get my degree certificate till December 2006.
My question is when I apply for my Green card will I be considered into EB2 list or EB3 list. On what basis will this be decided.
Please suggest.
Thank you,
Vijaya.
If your employer has applied H1B on your bachelor degree then you are EB3 but it can change if you have BS+5yrs Experience before filing LC ..
As of now you are EB3
Correct me guys if i am wrong
more...
pictures wallpaper texture photoshop.
jliechty
August 3rd, 2005, 09:09 AM
The 300D and D50 would be too limited in my humble opinion, such that if you plan to buy a body and keep it for a while, you'll run into their "issues" after a little while. Definitely consider 350D or D70(s), along with as good of a lens as you can afford. The 18-70 DX kit lens for Nikon cameras is good from what I've seen from it, but the Canon 18-55 kit lens is sometimes said not to be quite so good. I don't know what to recommend on the Canon side, but there are plenty of folks here who can help you out on that. :)
For what it's worth, I got into photography with an old manual film camera when I was about 9. Then, a few years ago for a very short time, I used a Kodak P&S digital, before getting disgusted with it and going back to film. Finally, this spring my wallet suffered major damage with a used D1 and a couple of lenses (24-85 zoom and 90mm macro). College (this fall) will probably put an end to my photographic acquisitions for a while, but now that the Luminous Landscape did an article on video cameras, I have even more stuff to dream / drool about. Must... hide... credit card... now..! :D
For what it's worth, I got into photography with an old manual film camera when I was about 9. Then, a few years ago for a very short time, I used a Kodak P&S digital, before getting disgusted with it and going back to film. Finally, this spring my wallet suffered major damage with a used D1 and a couple of lenses (24-85 zoom and 90mm macro). College (this fall) will probably put an end to my photographic acquisitions for a while, but now that the Luminous Landscape did an article on video cameras, I have even more stuff to dream / drool about. Must... hide... credit card... now..! :D
dresses Pink lights ackground
kum31
10-01 09:53 PM
hi ,
Here is my situation.
(employer) -> (middle vendor ) -> prime vendor -> (End client ).
I am working to a client in california in the above mentioned order. After 1 year we got rid of middle vendor and prime vendor is working with my employer directly . Now middle vendor is threatning me that he can sue me for breaking the line of contract .
i dont understand ho can even its possible as i never signed any document with middle vendor and he is not even my employer . He is just acting as middle layer by showing prime vendor that i am his employee which is wrong. now we removed him from line of contract and he is saying that he will sue all of us for doing this.
is there any way that he can even do this ?
- Thanks in advance.
Here is my situation.
(employer) -> (middle vendor ) -> prime vendor -> (End client ).
I am working to a client in california in the above mentioned order. After 1 year we got rid of middle vendor and prime vendor is working with my employer directly . Now middle vendor is threatning me that he can sue me for breaking the line of contract .
i dont understand ho can even its possible as i never signed any document with middle vendor and he is not even my employer . He is just acting as middle layer by showing prime vendor that i am his employee which is wrong. now we removed him from line of contract and he is saying that he will sue all of us for doing this.
is there any way that he can even do this ?
- Thanks in advance.
more...
makeup Clouds Free Texture or
Sakthisagar
12-01 02:44 PM
Issues facing the 2010 lame-duck session of Congress - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/lameduck/index.html)
1. Tax cuts
The most pressing issue in the lame-duck Congress sounds, at first glance, like a typo.
The federal government spends more money than it takes in. The two parties both agree that this is bad. Here�s what they can�t agree on: How much less should the government take in, in the years to come?
The debate is about income tax cuts, passed under President George W. Bush, which are due to expire Dec. 31. If that happens, a single person earning $46,000 a year might see his or her taxes jump $400, according to the nonprofit Tax Policy Center. A married couple earning a total of $440,000, on the other hand, might see an increase of $20,000.
Most Democrats want to extend tax cuts covering up to the first $250,000 that a family earns in a year. Republican leaders want to keep all the tax cuts, including those on income above $250,000. In a recession, they say, it doesn�t make sense to cut anyone�s taxes.
Congress and the president could agree to a temporary truce, extending all the tax cuts for a few years only. Or, as some Democrats have suggested recently, they could agree to keep tax cuts on incomes less than $1 million.
2. The New START treaty
The point of this U.S.-Russia treaty, signed but not yet ratified, is to continue the slow nuclear stand-down that has followed the Cold War. The two nations would agree to cut deployed long-range nuclear weapons by up to 30 percent and to allow each other to inspect the remaining stockpiles.
The prevention of nuclear armageddon still enjoys wide support on Capitol Hill.
But this treaty does not.
New START must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. That was no problem for two past treaties: the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, signed in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush, and the �Moscow Treaty,� signed in 2003 by President George W. Bush.
But now, Sen. John Kyl (Ariz.), the chamber�s second-ranking Republican, has held up the treaty�s passage. Kyl has said he wants more guarantees that the government will properly maintain the nuclear weapons that remain. He also thinks that the lame-duck session is too short a time to consider the issue.
The White House is now trying to work around Kyl to win over nine other Republican. If it can�t, there will be more Republicans � and perhaps more support for denying Obama a foreign policy win � in January.
3. �Don�t ask, don�t tell�
This 17-year-old rule, which bars gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military, has been under attack all year. This fall, a federal judge ruled the ban unconstitutional and ordered it scrapped. A higher court reinstated the ban while it considers the matter on appeal.
And on Tuesday, a Pentagon report concluded that ending the ban would pose a low risk to military readiness. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said that the repeal of the rule �should be done.�
But �don�t ask, don�t tell� isn�t dead yet and could outlive the lame-duck session.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) could bring it up for a vote on the floor this month. But the ascendant GOP is in no mood to cooperate. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) says he�s still worried about the effect on morale, and other Republican leaders say the whole issue is a distraction from their top priority � job creation.
4. The �Continuing resolution�
A continuing resolution (known in Hill jargon as a �CR�) is a bill that�s introduced when Congress can�t agree on a full budget for the federal government.
Instead, it passes a bill to temporarily �continue� funding federal agencies at their present rates.
Congress must pass a new continuing resolution before Friday. If it doesn�t, the government will shut down � as it did in 1995 during a budget showdown between President Bill Clinton and congressional Republicans.
The sticking point is Republican demands to shrink federal spending back to 2008 levels. But a shutdown still seems unlikely; while a lot of voters want smaller government, very few seem to want no government.
Signs from the Hill indicate legislators will beat Friday�s deadline and pass a resolution good for another few weeks, at least.
5. Unemployment benefits
Another looming deadline. On Tuesday, emergency unemployment insurance � he federal checks given to the jobless � expired. If nothing is done to extend the benefits, advocates say as many as 3 million people will see their checks cut off by the end of January.
Some Republicans have voiced concerns about the high cost of these benefits. In the middle of last month, the House failed to approve a plan to extend them, with all but 11 Democrats voting for it and all but 21 Republicans voting against it.
6. Childhood nutrition
On Wednesday, House Democratic leaders plan to call a vote that could be a measure of the muscle they�ve got left. At issue: a bill that would feed schoolchildren better food.
If they can�t win on that, it could be a long month.
The bill is intended to give more poor children access to subsidized meals at school. It also would improve the quality of those meals and give more federal money to school districts that comply with higher nutrition standards.
�Kids that have food insecurity learn at a slower rate than their peers,� House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters Tuesday. �Food insecurity� is Washington-speak for �hunger.�
The bill passed the Senate unanimously. But it will face some Republican opposition in the House from members who say it will impose more costs on struggling school systems.
7. The DREAM Act
This bill is aimed at illegal immigrants who came to this country as children. If they go to college or join the military as adults, it would give them a chance to obtain legal residency.
As attitudes toward illegal immigrants have hardened, support for the bill has collapsed among Republicans and many Democrats. To them, it looks like a kind of amnesty for lawbreakers.
On Tuesday, Reid could promise only a �test vote� on the issue: he would bring the issue to the Senate floor, and take his chances. The implicit message was that Reid might lose � but lose in a way that showed Hispanic voters he was trying.
1. Tax cuts
The most pressing issue in the lame-duck Congress sounds, at first glance, like a typo.
The federal government spends more money than it takes in. The two parties both agree that this is bad. Here�s what they can�t agree on: How much less should the government take in, in the years to come?
The debate is about income tax cuts, passed under President George W. Bush, which are due to expire Dec. 31. If that happens, a single person earning $46,000 a year might see his or her taxes jump $400, according to the nonprofit Tax Policy Center. A married couple earning a total of $440,000, on the other hand, might see an increase of $20,000.
Most Democrats want to extend tax cuts covering up to the first $250,000 that a family earns in a year. Republican leaders want to keep all the tax cuts, including those on income above $250,000. In a recession, they say, it doesn�t make sense to cut anyone�s taxes.
Congress and the president could agree to a temporary truce, extending all the tax cuts for a few years only. Or, as some Democrats have suggested recently, they could agree to keep tax cuts on incomes less than $1 million.
2. The New START treaty
The point of this U.S.-Russia treaty, signed but not yet ratified, is to continue the slow nuclear stand-down that has followed the Cold War. The two nations would agree to cut deployed long-range nuclear weapons by up to 30 percent and to allow each other to inspect the remaining stockpiles.
The prevention of nuclear armageddon still enjoys wide support on Capitol Hill.
But this treaty does not.
New START must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. That was no problem for two past treaties: the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, signed in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush, and the �Moscow Treaty,� signed in 2003 by President George W. Bush.
But now, Sen. John Kyl (Ariz.), the chamber�s second-ranking Republican, has held up the treaty�s passage. Kyl has said he wants more guarantees that the government will properly maintain the nuclear weapons that remain. He also thinks that the lame-duck session is too short a time to consider the issue.
The White House is now trying to work around Kyl to win over nine other Republican. If it can�t, there will be more Republicans � and perhaps more support for denying Obama a foreign policy win � in January.
3. �Don�t ask, don�t tell�
This 17-year-old rule, which bars gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military, has been under attack all year. This fall, a federal judge ruled the ban unconstitutional and ordered it scrapped. A higher court reinstated the ban while it considers the matter on appeal.
And on Tuesday, a Pentagon report concluded that ending the ban would pose a low risk to military readiness. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said that the repeal of the rule �should be done.�
But �don�t ask, don�t tell� isn�t dead yet and could outlive the lame-duck session.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) could bring it up for a vote on the floor this month. But the ascendant GOP is in no mood to cooperate. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) says he�s still worried about the effect on morale, and other Republican leaders say the whole issue is a distraction from their top priority � job creation.
4. The �Continuing resolution�
A continuing resolution (known in Hill jargon as a �CR�) is a bill that�s introduced when Congress can�t agree on a full budget for the federal government.
Instead, it passes a bill to temporarily �continue� funding federal agencies at their present rates.
Congress must pass a new continuing resolution before Friday. If it doesn�t, the government will shut down � as it did in 1995 during a budget showdown between President Bill Clinton and congressional Republicans.
The sticking point is Republican demands to shrink federal spending back to 2008 levels. But a shutdown still seems unlikely; while a lot of voters want smaller government, very few seem to want no government.
Signs from the Hill indicate legislators will beat Friday�s deadline and pass a resolution good for another few weeks, at least.
5. Unemployment benefits
Another looming deadline. On Tuesday, emergency unemployment insurance � he federal checks given to the jobless � expired. If nothing is done to extend the benefits, advocates say as many as 3 million people will see their checks cut off by the end of January.
Some Republicans have voiced concerns about the high cost of these benefits. In the middle of last month, the House failed to approve a plan to extend them, with all but 11 Democrats voting for it and all but 21 Republicans voting against it.
6. Childhood nutrition
On Wednesday, House Democratic leaders plan to call a vote that could be a measure of the muscle they�ve got left. At issue: a bill that would feed schoolchildren better food.
If they can�t win on that, it could be a long month.
The bill is intended to give more poor children access to subsidized meals at school. It also would improve the quality of those meals and give more federal money to school districts that comply with higher nutrition standards.
�Kids that have food insecurity learn at a slower rate than their peers,� House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters Tuesday. �Food insecurity� is Washington-speak for �hunger.�
The bill passed the Senate unanimously. But it will face some Republican opposition in the House from members who say it will impose more costs on struggling school systems.
7. The DREAM Act
This bill is aimed at illegal immigrants who came to this country as children. If they go to college or join the military as adults, it would give them a chance to obtain legal residency.
As attitudes toward illegal immigrants have hardened, support for the bill has collapsed among Republicans and many Democrats. To them, it looks like a kind of amnesty for lawbreakers.
On Tuesday, Reid could promise only a �test vote� on the issue: he would bring the issue to the Senate floor, and take his chances. The implicit message was that Reid might lose � but lose in a way that showed Hispanic voters he was trying.
girlfriend A lot of texture backgrounds
Singer
10-21 11:06 PM
I am a vocalist based in the US for the last 13 years. I have performed around the world at World music festivals, television shows, radios, various clubs, private events, for stars like P... S.... and D.... B.... and for organizations such as UN, UNESCO, UNDP, NDI, Schomburg Center, etc.I have always been legal and on several P1/O1 artist visas), I have applied on December 2006 for a EB1-EA green card
On June 10th 2007 I have received a RFE from the Nebraska Service Center, and I had to submit additional stuff proving I am really a singer with an international carreer. (I won an award by the way)before August 15th 2007. On August 3rd 2007 I went myself to the FedEx office and sent a priority 8.0lbs package to the Nebraska Service Center. It was delivered on August 6th signed by Mr. Brad B... at the Nebraska Center.
When I called they said my case was pending, same thing on the USCIS website where I create a portfolio. It is until April 2009 that thanks to congressional and senatorial help that we found out that my I-140 and I-485 had been denied, closed archived since end of August 2007! They said that my response to the RFE was received by them in October!
We argued that I never received the denial notice, neither my attorney received. My congressional liaison faxed them the ax receipt, then the congressional liaison there said: "O my God!" We were hoping that at this stage they would simply reopen the case and look at my 8 pounder RFE response! Nebraska Service Center decided that i will have to file an appeal.
In April 2008 I filled and appeal with Administrative Appeals Office in DC in 2008 (more money into thei pockets) to demonstrate that both my I-140 and I-485 were denied in error, (they had lost my application) the case was returned to Nebraska for them to reconsider.
The AAO decision granted me all that was in their power to give.
1. The appeal was rejected because it was untimely filed -- By statute (law) they cannot consider an untimely appeal regardless of circumstances however.
2. They state that if "an utimely appeal meets the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider, the appeal "MUST" be treated as a motion and a decision "MUST" be made on the merits of the case. -- This is exactly what I asked for.
3. They state that a motion to reconsider must establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. Again this is exactly what I claimed.
4. They catagoricaly state in paragraph 2 on page 3 -- Here, the untimely appeal "MEETS" the requirements of a motion to reopen and reconsider. They also positively state that you "SUCCESSFULLY" argue that the October 10, 2007 decision was "FLAWED" and they point to 2 specific reasons -- that yur attorney of record was not properly notified and that your response to the RFE was not considered.
5. In paragraph 5 on page 3 they conclude that the October 10, 2007 decision was "CLEARLY IN ERROR" and that the decision "DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS".
6. Finally, in the last pragraph on page 3 and the 1st paragraph of page 4 they state "therefore, the director "MUST" consider the untimely appeal as a motion to reopen and reconsider and render a "NEW" decision acccordingly"
7. They also state that the "NEW" decision "MUST" thoroughly address all of the evidence submitted in your response to the RFE.
So the AAO�s office sent back my file to the Nebraska Service Center.
Then the I-140 was reopened and I finally approved May 20th 2009. At that time the rest should be like �a letter in the mail�. That is when I demanded that my I-485 be reopened as well.
They responded to my congressional liaison telling him that they will reopen the I-485 and tat the green cards were being prepared and would be sent to us in less then 60 days. Stating: This has been going on for too long�
That is when the �saga� took another turn. On August 14th 09 I received another RFE on the I-485! I was told by one lawyer that it was not so bad (they just needed to update my records since 2006 is the date of my first GC filling), But this RFE did not make sense because once the I-140 is approved they should not ask me to supply any documents work related. They wanted me to prove that I will continue to work in my field, what I have been doing for the last 2 years since they have denied my case and what will be my upcoming work offers.
Remember that in May 2009 they have said that the green cards would be sent�
We responded again with a 5 pounder file! We mailed it September 1rst 2009. I provided them with the same documents I sent in the 8 pounder they have lost in 2006, plus everything I have done since. Including all the performances with P. S., D. B. and letters from future contractors such as The United Nations, Schomburg, my booking agents letters, etc...)
October 19th 2009 we received an email from USCIS saying that a decision has been taken and that my husband�s I-485 has been denied!
Another ridiculous thing.
1-I am the petitioner, not my husband.
2-They should adjudicate my case first, not my husband�s!
3-my case is still pending no decision made on it�
At this time, we are awaiting the full denial explanation letter, to see what is the reason for their decision. Hoping that they just made another mistake for example dissociated my husband I-485 from mine the petitioner.
I am currently (Thank God) on an 01-visa valid until 2011, my husband has a -O3-visa
Because of this terrible saga, we have endured a tremendous stress, and anxiety. We have lost a lot of money. Between the lawyers fees, the various application fees plus the appeal we have spent more than $20,000. I have decided not to file another appeal because this is more money into their pockets. I am ready to sue the USICS with a writ of mandamus and more if they do not fix the multiple mistakes they have made.
Please somebody in this forum answers me. What should I do? Please help!
Thank you.
Singer
On June 10th 2007 I have received a RFE from the Nebraska Service Center, and I had to submit additional stuff proving I am really a singer with an international carreer. (I won an award by the way)before August 15th 2007. On August 3rd 2007 I went myself to the FedEx office and sent a priority 8.0lbs package to the Nebraska Service Center. It was delivered on August 6th signed by Mr. Brad B... at the Nebraska Center.
When I called they said my case was pending, same thing on the USCIS website where I create a portfolio. It is until April 2009 that thanks to congressional and senatorial help that we found out that my I-140 and I-485 had been denied, closed archived since end of August 2007! They said that my response to the RFE was received by them in October!
We argued that I never received the denial notice, neither my attorney received. My congressional liaison faxed them the ax receipt, then the congressional liaison there said: "O my God!" We were hoping that at this stage they would simply reopen the case and look at my 8 pounder RFE response! Nebraska Service Center decided that i will have to file an appeal.
In April 2008 I filled and appeal with Administrative Appeals Office in DC in 2008 (more money into thei pockets) to demonstrate that both my I-140 and I-485 were denied in error, (they had lost my application) the case was returned to Nebraska for them to reconsider.
The AAO decision granted me all that was in their power to give.
1. The appeal was rejected because it was untimely filed -- By statute (law) they cannot consider an untimely appeal regardless of circumstances however.
2. They state that if "an utimely appeal meets the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider, the appeal "MUST" be treated as a motion and a decision "MUST" be made on the merits of the case. -- This is exactly what I asked for.
3. They state that a motion to reconsider must establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. Again this is exactly what I claimed.
4. They catagoricaly state in paragraph 2 on page 3 -- Here, the untimely appeal "MEETS" the requirements of a motion to reopen and reconsider. They also positively state that you "SUCCESSFULLY" argue that the October 10, 2007 decision was "FLAWED" and they point to 2 specific reasons -- that yur attorney of record was not properly notified and that your response to the RFE was not considered.
5. In paragraph 5 on page 3 they conclude that the October 10, 2007 decision was "CLEARLY IN ERROR" and that the decision "DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS".
6. Finally, in the last pragraph on page 3 and the 1st paragraph of page 4 they state "therefore, the director "MUST" consider the untimely appeal as a motion to reopen and reconsider and render a "NEW" decision acccordingly"
7. They also state that the "NEW" decision "MUST" thoroughly address all of the evidence submitted in your response to the RFE.
So the AAO�s office sent back my file to the Nebraska Service Center.
Then the I-140 was reopened and I finally approved May 20th 2009. At that time the rest should be like �a letter in the mail�. That is when I demanded that my I-485 be reopened as well.
They responded to my congressional liaison telling him that they will reopen the I-485 and tat the green cards were being prepared and would be sent to us in less then 60 days. Stating: This has been going on for too long�
That is when the �saga� took another turn. On August 14th 09 I received another RFE on the I-485! I was told by one lawyer that it was not so bad (they just needed to update my records since 2006 is the date of my first GC filling), But this RFE did not make sense because once the I-140 is approved they should not ask me to supply any documents work related. They wanted me to prove that I will continue to work in my field, what I have been doing for the last 2 years since they have denied my case and what will be my upcoming work offers.
Remember that in May 2009 they have said that the green cards would be sent�
We responded again with a 5 pounder file! We mailed it September 1rst 2009. I provided them with the same documents I sent in the 8 pounder they have lost in 2006, plus everything I have done since. Including all the performances with P. S., D. B. and letters from future contractors such as The United Nations, Schomburg, my booking agents letters, etc...)
October 19th 2009 we received an email from USCIS saying that a decision has been taken and that my husband�s I-485 has been denied!
Another ridiculous thing.
1-I am the petitioner, not my husband.
2-They should adjudicate my case first, not my husband�s!
3-my case is still pending no decision made on it�
At this time, we are awaiting the full denial explanation letter, to see what is the reason for their decision. Hoping that they just made another mistake for example dissociated my husband I-485 from mine the petitioner.
I am currently (Thank God) on an 01-visa valid until 2011, my husband has a -O3-visa
Because of this terrible saga, we have endured a tremendous stress, and anxiety. We have lost a lot of money. Between the lawyers fees, the various application fees plus the appeal we have spent more than $20,000. I have decided not to file another appeal because this is more money into their pockets. I am ready to sue the USICS with a writ of mandamus and more if they do not fix the multiple mistakes they have made.
Please somebody in this forum answers me. What should I do? Please help!
Thank you.
Singer
hairstyles Wood Texture Photoshop Brushes
freeskier89
02-05 05:19 PM
My vote goes to lightgrid! ... oh wait, its not up there. :(
OLDMONK
06-18 06:55 PM
Remember, everthing copy. Nothing Original. don't send your original I-94, but a copy.
I think if affidavits of Marriage and Birth are submitted, those would have to be originals.
I think if affidavits of Marriage and Birth are submitted, those would have to be originals.
jingi1234
08-19 05:30 PM
Hi Friends,
My PD is Mar, 2005 filed under EB2. Me & My wife got an RFE asking status for a particular period [like May 01, xxxx to Feb xxxx]. These dates exactly fall under just one month before graduation to OPT expiration.
For my case �.. no issues providing evidence and everything is straight forward.
But for my wife �.we have some issue (I think)
USCIS wants her status from May 01, 2003 to Mar 01 2006.
She graduated on May 23, 2003. She used 60 days grace period before applying for EAD.
OPT from July 31, 2003 to July 30, 2004 [exactly one year and was looking for job�didn't find one]
We filed H1B in April, 2004 so that she can start working from Oct, 2004 [H1B approved for Oct 2004 to Sep 2007 ..extension approved too�]
But No status from July 31, 2004 to Sep 30, 2004 [USCIS issued a gap relief for all the F1 students like this]�.
What are odds that her case might we rejected�any opinions here.
Thanks,
Jingi
My PD is Mar, 2005 filed under EB2. Me & My wife got an RFE asking status for a particular period [like May 01, xxxx to Feb xxxx]. These dates exactly fall under just one month before graduation to OPT expiration.
For my case �.. no issues providing evidence and everything is straight forward.
But for my wife �.we have some issue (I think)
USCIS wants her status from May 01, 2003 to Mar 01 2006.
She graduated on May 23, 2003. She used 60 days grace period before applying for EAD.
OPT from July 31, 2003 to July 30, 2004 [exactly one year and was looking for job�didn't find one]
We filed H1B in April, 2004 so that she can start working from Oct, 2004 [H1B approved for Oct 2004 to Sep 2007 ..extension approved too�]
But No status from July 31, 2004 to Sep 30, 2004 [USCIS issued a gap relief for all the F1 students like this]�.
What are odds that her case might we rejected�any opinions here.
Thanks,
Jingi
No comments:
Post a Comment