mattresscoil
11-18 08:23 PM
Hello group:
Got this response from Ander Crenshaw - Member of Congress
What does this mean? is he going to support or not? should I follow-up and ask anything else?
=================
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about immigration policy. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts with me on this matter.
The basic law governing immigration and naturalization is contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952. The INA establishes a flexible level of permanent admissions. The Act provides for a permanent worldwide level of 675,000 immigrants each year. The worldwide level is flexible in that it may be exceeded in certain circumstances. The permanent immigrant level consists of the following components: (a) family-sponsored immigrants, including immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and family-sponsored preference immigrants; (b) employment-based preference immigrants; and (c) diversity immigrants, those immigrants with low admission levels who must have a high school education or its equivalent or a minimum of two years work experience in a profession requiring two years of training or experience. Additionally, the INA establishes per-country levels that are applicable to family-sponsored and employment-based preference immigrants only. The per-country level is not a "quota" set aside for individual countries. According to the State Department, the per-country level is not an entitlement but, rather, a barrier against monopolization of the immigration by one country in any given year.
Legal immigration has had a positive impact on the United States and our economy. Most immigrants come to this country with a support system already in place (e.g., family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants). The majority of the other legal immigrants are permitted to remain in this country for humanitarian reasons. Studies have also shown that within several short years, most immigrants are net producers, rather than net consumers, in our economy. While there is certainly a legitimate debate regarding the appropriate level of immigration, most would agree that an immigration policy which promotes family unity and requires a certain degree of self-support is generally acceptable.
However, there is a significant difference between legal and illegal immigration. Since my election to Congress in 2000, I have worked with my colleagues to ensure that our border is more secure and that we do not encourage people to come into our country illegally. Illegal aliens place a tremendous financial and social burden on our society, and we must work to stop this unfair practice.
The best way to get illegal immigration under control is to secure our borders. Our porous borders have allowed more than ten million people to cross into our country with no oversight, no accountability, and no record. We simply have no idea who they are, where they came from, and most importantly - why they entered our country illegally. I believe we must increase the size of the Border Patrol to 18,000 agents, we must actively construct a double barrier wall and utilize technological innovations, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, to conduct surveillance operations along the remaining border.
Once we have secured our borders, we must turn our attention to the more than 12 million illegal immigrants already residing here. There are varying proposals currently being debated here in Washington as to what is the most economically feasible approach to addressing this situation. I do not support amnesty for those individuals who have broken our laws and will work to deport those individuals who have become a financial and social burden on our society. I believe that we must establish an Employer Verification System that is easy to use and provides timely feedback to employers. Any employer that continues to knowingly employ illegal aliens should be assessed heavy fines and penalties.
I look forward to debating this issue during the year to come and assure you that I will continue to support revisions to our current immigration policy that provide meaningful reform and offer maximum protection for our borders. Additionally, I will oppose any attempts to provide amnesty to the more than 12 million illegal immigrants currently living in this country.
Again, I want to thank you for taking the time to contact me. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any further assistance on this matter or if you would like additional information on this topic or other issues facing Congress, please visit my Web site at United States Congressman Ander Crenshaw - Florida's 4th District (http://crenshaw.house.gov).
Sincerely,
Ander Crenshaw
Member of Congress
==================
Got this response from Ander Crenshaw - Member of Congress
What does this mean? is he going to support or not? should I follow-up and ask anything else?
=================
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about immigration policy. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts with me on this matter.
The basic law governing immigration and naturalization is contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952. The INA establishes a flexible level of permanent admissions. The Act provides for a permanent worldwide level of 675,000 immigrants each year. The worldwide level is flexible in that it may be exceeded in certain circumstances. The permanent immigrant level consists of the following components: (a) family-sponsored immigrants, including immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and family-sponsored preference immigrants; (b) employment-based preference immigrants; and (c) diversity immigrants, those immigrants with low admission levels who must have a high school education or its equivalent or a minimum of two years work experience in a profession requiring two years of training or experience. Additionally, the INA establishes per-country levels that are applicable to family-sponsored and employment-based preference immigrants only. The per-country level is not a "quota" set aside for individual countries. According to the State Department, the per-country level is not an entitlement but, rather, a barrier against monopolization of the immigration by one country in any given year.
Legal immigration has had a positive impact on the United States and our economy. Most immigrants come to this country with a support system already in place (e.g., family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants). The majority of the other legal immigrants are permitted to remain in this country for humanitarian reasons. Studies have also shown that within several short years, most immigrants are net producers, rather than net consumers, in our economy. While there is certainly a legitimate debate regarding the appropriate level of immigration, most would agree that an immigration policy which promotes family unity and requires a certain degree of self-support is generally acceptable.
However, there is a significant difference between legal and illegal immigration. Since my election to Congress in 2000, I have worked with my colleagues to ensure that our border is more secure and that we do not encourage people to come into our country illegally. Illegal aliens place a tremendous financial and social burden on our society, and we must work to stop this unfair practice.
The best way to get illegal immigration under control is to secure our borders. Our porous borders have allowed more than ten million people to cross into our country with no oversight, no accountability, and no record. We simply have no idea who they are, where they came from, and most importantly - why they entered our country illegally. I believe we must increase the size of the Border Patrol to 18,000 agents, we must actively construct a double barrier wall and utilize technological innovations, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, to conduct surveillance operations along the remaining border.
Once we have secured our borders, we must turn our attention to the more than 12 million illegal immigrants already residing here. There are varying proposals currently being debated here in Washington as to what is the most economically feasible approach to addressing this situation. I do not support amnesty for those individuals who have broken our laws and will work to deport those individuals who have become a financial and social burden on our society. I believe that we must establish an Employer Verification System that is easy to use and provides timely feedback to employers. Any employer that continues to knowingly employ illegal aliens should be assessed heavy fines and penalties.
I look forward to debating this issue during the year to come and assure you that I will continue to support revisions to our current immigration policy that provide meaningful reform and offer maximum protection for our borders. Additionally, I will oppose any attempts to provide amnesty to the more than 12 million illegal immigrants currently living in this country.
Again, I want to thank you for taking the time to contact me. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any further assistance on this matter or if you would like additional information on this topic or other issues facing Congress, please visit my Web site at United States Congressman Ander Crenshaw - Florida's 4th District (http://crenshaw.house.gov).
Sincerely,
Ander Crenshaw
Member of Congress
==================
wallpaper also has colouring . harp
syzygy
07-07 12:54 PM
Yes the core problem is visa numbers. We have been fooled to believe for few days we all are safe and GC retrogression is over without even realizing someone was taking us for nice roller coaster ride.
When DOS doesnt have a Immigrant Visa available , its just not available.
DOS made it effective 2nd ,
"Effective Monday July 2, 2007 there will be no further authorizations in response to requests for Employment-based preference cases. All numbers available to these categories under the FY-2007 annual numerical limitation have been made available. "
USCIS by law cant accept any applications effective 2nd.
People whoes H1B applications were accepted on first day and then were rejected , Can they have done something?
Sir , we are screwed, thats doesnt mean a law is broken
We need the legislature intervention to make the limit higher.
When DOS doesnt have a Immigrant Visa available , its just not available.
DOS made it effective 2nd ,
"Effective Monday July 2, 2007 there will be no further authorizations in response to requests for Employment-based preference cases. All numbers available to these categories under the FY-2007 annual numerical limitation have been made available. "
USCIS by law cant accept any applications effective 2nd.
People whoes H1B applications were accepted on first day and then were rejected , Can they have done something?
Sir , we are screwed, thats doesnt mean a law is broken
We need the legislature intervention to make the limit higher.
psk79
08-29 09:44 AM
I filed late June at NSC trs to Texas and received on July 2nd. Just received my RN yesterday for my 485. On line it says that my ead has been approved and the notice went out on the 25th.
Did your checks cashed before you got the receipts? or receipts much faster?? Congrats!
Did your checks cashed before you got the receipts? or receipts much faster?? Congrats!
2011 coloring book: let#39;s get
conchshell
05-11 08:49 PM
Its amazing how this community reacts to these set backs. For last few months I have been consistently seeing people with EB-3 complaining and pleading to the community to come together and join hands to eliminate the country cap. But most of the words fell of dumb ears. Most of the EB-2 members did read the pleads and requests, but did not bother to take and concrete actions or even comment on it.
Now that the EB-2 is regrogressed to 2000, suddenly all the EB-2 members jump in. What happened, friends?
This is plain selfishness - on the part for few lil stratured people. They should be ashamed of themselves or even to comment on these forums and come up with ideas.
You got it just right. Dear friend, this is the truth for immigrant community. Everyone here stands for their own GC, how can we expect others to fight for you. So as and when USCIS hurts different categories, people come here and form a loosely coupled organization.
Now that the EB-2 is regrogressed to 2000, suddenly all the EB-2 members jump in. What happened, friends?
This is plain selfishness - on the part for few lil stratured people. They should be ashamed of themselves or even to comment on these forums and come up with ideas.
You got it just right. Dear friend, this is the truth for immigrant community. Everyone here stands for their own GC, how can we expect others to fight for you. So as and when USCIS hurts different categories, people come here and form a loosely coupled organization.
more...
skynet2500
09-11 11:33 PM
Congratulations to everyone who is getting their applications approved.
My PD is Aug 2006 and I might have a remote chance of getting approved this month. Can someone give me the customer service number to talk about the 485 status. I keep seeing that many people talk to the customer service and get updates on the case. My case is pending at TSC. Thanks a lot.
My PD is Aug 2006 and I might have a remote chance of getting approved this month. Can someone give me the customer service number to talk about the 485 status. I keep seeing that many people talk to the customer service and get updates on the case. My case is pending at TSC. Thanks a lot.
royus77
06-27 03:22 PM
I am really surprised that you guys are contemplating on going against your employer for a employment letter and filing your GC. I mean, how hard is it for you guys to agree to the terms of your employer that you will work till you get your GC and upto 6 months beyond that..
If you guys came before 2001-2002 and seen how the situation was for green card filers you will now what I am talking about..
1. There was no concurrent filing of I-140/485
2. There was no premium processing for Labor
3. There was no premium processing for I-140
4. There was no AC-21, so there is no way of switching jobs..
Still it used to take 4-5 years to get a GC.
And you guys are complaining about your employer because you worked for 1-2 years and you want to quit as soon as you get EAD..
Just imagine what would have happened if the dates were not CURRENT.. How many more years you would have worked, cursing USCIS
Your greed will ruin you in future, just like you are cursing your employer's greed..
You have to change with the time .For good or Bad there are some laws which are favaourable to us ..so just use them
Also, before you curse your employer, it was you who joined the company and you had many months to find out what kind of employer you have and it quit the company long time back.. You could have switched to different company long time back..
I agree with you on this point
If you guys came before 2001-2002 and seen how the situation was for green card filers you will now what I am talking about..
1. There was no concurrent filing of I-140/485
2. There was no premium processing for Labor
3. There was no premium processing for I-140
4. There was no AC-21, so there is no way of switching jobs..
Still it used to take 4-5 years to get a GC.
And you guys are complaining about your employer because you worked for 1-2 years and you want to quit as soon as you get EAD..
Just imagine what would have happened if the dates were not CURRENT.. How many more years you would have worked, cursing USCIS
Your greed will ruin you in future, just like you are cursing your employer's greed..
You have to change with the time .For good or Bad there are some laws which are favaourable to us ..so just use them
Also, before you curse your employer, it was you who joined the company and you had many months to find out what kind of employer you have and it quit the company long time back.. You could have switched to different company long time back..
I agree with you on this point
more...
EADplease
09-20 10:39 AM
wow. Congratulations.
I also heard from my attorney yesterday that the checks are being processed now. I don't have any information other than that. Can I also call them and get the receipt numbers -- what information do I need to get the number? My case was sent to TSC...
Thank you!
Today I saw that my checks were cashed and I called USCIS to get the receipt numbers. The IO was very polite and gave me the numbers. Although I had filed at the Nebraska center, the receipt number starts with SRC (Texas).
EB2 ROW (Cross Charge)
PD: 1/11/07
I 140 Approved (Texas): 8/22/07
AOS sent (Nebraska) : 7/26/07
Receipt /Notice (SRC): 9/17/07
I also heard from my attorney yesterday that the checks are being processed now. I don't have any information other than that. Can I also call them and get the receipt numbers -- what information do I need to get the number? My case was sent to TSC...
Thank you!
Today I saw that my checks were cashed and I called USCIS to get the receipt numbers. The IO was very polite and gave me the numbers. Although I had filed at the Nebraska center, the receipt number starts with SRC (Texas).
EB2 ROW (Cross Charge)
PD: 1/11/07
I 140 Approved (Texas): 8/22/07
AOS sent (Nebraska) : 7/26/07
Receipt /Notice (SRC): 9/17/07
2010 SEAWEED COLORING PAGES family
sunofeast_gc
07-08 08:29 PM
140K GCs were available on Oct 1 2005 and Oct 2006: categories were not current.
< 40K GCs were available on June 12 2007: all categories were current.
If there is a law to prevent acceptance of ALL AOS's on Oct 1 (when 140K GCs are available) then that law was violated on June 12 2007.
If there is no law to prevent acceptance of AOS's on June 12 (when < 40K GCs were available) then all categories should have been current on Oct 1 2005 and Oct 1 2006.
macaca, This is really good point
< 40K GCs were available on June 12 2007: all categories were current.
If there is a law to prevent acceptance of ALL AOS's on Oct 1 (when 140K GCs are available) then that law was violated on June 12 2007.
If there is no law to prevent acceptance of AOS's on June 12 (when < 40K GCs were available) then all categories should have been current on Oct 1 2005 and Oct 1 2006.
macaca, This is really good point
more...
vinnysuru
04-18 07:28 PM
Hi All,
I have to do the landing before june, 2008.
I have already used AP to enter US after my last trip to India. So IO at POE canada will know that I have pending 485. don't know how to handle this situation.
I am planning to do the landing in last week of may via Niagra falls. (toronto)
anyone with similar status done landing please share your experience.
Thanks
Yep, me too. Landing memorial day weekend via Niagara/ Buffalo!:D
I have to do the landing before june, 2008.
I have already used AP to enter US after my last trip to India. So IO at POE canada will know that I have pending 485. don't know how to handle this situation.
I am planning to do the landing in last week of may via Niagra falls. (toronto)
anyone with similar status done landing please share your experience.
Thanks
Yep, me too. Landing memorial day weekend via Niagara/ Buffalo!:D
hair MUSIC COLORING PAGES candi
gc28262
03-07 11:02 AM
Good point, has anybody asked this to any lawyer ? Can we challenge this in court ? This is the definition of judiciary review...If we can proove the country cap to be unconstitutional..
Judicial Review is when the Supreme Court reviews an act of Congress to see if it is Constitutional.
Judicial Review is the power of the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutuion (violation against the laws of the Constitutuion).
Do we have any reference to say it is unconstitutional ? If EB country cap is unconstitutional, FB cap would be unconstitutional too.
IMO this entire country cap rule has racist intent. If the caps were to promote diversity, the cap should be based on ethnicity of US population (ctizens and GC holders). Are Indians and Chinese a a mjority in this country ? No.
How does putting a cap on total visa allocation per year promote diversity ?
Judicial Review is when the Supreme Court reviews an act of Congress to see if it is Constitutional.
Judicial Review is the power of the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutuion (violation against the laws of the Constitutuion).
Do we have any reference to say it is unconstitutional ? If EB country cap is unconstitutional, FB cap would be unconstitutional too.
IMO this entire country cap rule has racist intent. If the caps were to promote diversity, the cap should be based on ethnicity of US population (ctizens and GC holders). Are Indians and Chinese a a mjority in this country ? No.
How does putting a cap on total visa allocation per year promote diversity ?
more...
desi3933
07-10 12:54 PM
@desi3933:
That's the easiest part to prove in case of self-employment. You can either just mention that on the EVL, or register your company with the county, or open an LLC. In the latter cases, they ask the nature of your business, and you can copy-paste that from your labor petition.
Where did you read that requirement? Assuming, again?
A self-employed business is always real.
A business plan can be a 1-page document where you can cut-paste your labor job description. Costs and revenues should be easy to project. Also, in a self-employed business, there can be only one employee. You can also incorporate yourself.
Why do you need funding in a one-person company? Also, the revenues could be *projected*, and you could say that on your business plan and EVL...
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
Question 8. Can an alien port to self-employment under INA �204(j)?
Answer: Yes, as long as the requirements are met. First, the key is whether the employment is in a "same or similar" occupational classification as the job for which the original I-140 petition was filed. Second, it may be appropriate to confirm that the new employer and the job offer are legitimate through an RFE to the adjustment applicant for relevant information about these issues. ......
what does this mean?
confirm that the new employer and the job offer are legitimate
legitimate means bonafide. Isn't it?
For both, new employer and new job offer.
That's the easiest part to prove in case of self-employment. You can either just mention that on the EVL, or register your company with the county, or open an LLC. In the latter cases, they ask the nature of your business, and you can copy-paste that from your labor petition.
Where did you read that requirement? Assuming, again?
A self-employed business is always real.
A business plan can be a 1-page document where you can cut-paste your labor job description. Costs and revenues should be easy to project. Also, in a self-employed business, there can be only one employee. You can also incorporate yourself.
Why do you need funding in a one-person company? Also, the revenues could be *projected*, and you could say that on your business plan and EVL...
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
Question 8. Can an alien port to self-employment under INA �204(j)?
Answer: Yes, as long as the requirements are met. First, the key is whether the employment is in a "same or similar" occupational classification as the job for which the original I-140 petition was filed. Second, it may be appropriate to confirm that the new employer and the job offer are legitimate through an RFE to the adjustment applicant for relevant information about these issues. ......
what does this mean?
confirm that the new employer and the job offer are legitimate
legitimate means bonafide. Isn't it?
For both, new employer and new job offer.
hot dresses earth day coloring
maag
05-30 09:40 PM
I spent 5000$ + and all down the drain
more...
house coloring bible for
gene77
03-25 10:01 PM
I am curious to know what's stopping the EB3s to port their dates to the EB2 category. I've been seriously considering this lately.
I tried doing that. Convinced the employer to file a new labor for a new position, advertized again, filed a new labor under PERM, applied for a new I-140 and waited for a year for approval ... now the I-140 has been denied for A2P and is under appeal; I must confess that I have lost hope that it'll get re-opened and approved.
So all my efforts for getting a EB2 140 have failed.....what do you recommend, I start this entire process again. Even if I'm willing to bear the cost, the employer will not file yet another labor.
EB3 wait is my only way out now......
thanks
I tried doing that. Convinced the employer to file a new labor for a new position, advertized again, filed a new labor under PERM, applied for a new I-140 and waited for a year for approval ... now the I-140 has been denied for A2P and is under appeal; I must confess that I have lost hope that it'll get re-opened and approved.
So all my efforts for getting a EB2 140 have failed.....what do you recommend, I start this entire process again. Even if I'm willing to bear the cost, the employer will not file yet another labor.
EB3 wait is my only way out now......
thanks
tattoo kindergarten lined paper
nixstor
08-19 07:15 AM
Guys,
There is no point in fighting over the inconsistency of CIS in picking applications. All of us know that a lot of people got approved last year during visa gate and many were left over even though their PD's are current. No one knows how USCIS picks an application for adjudication. It is clearly neither completely RD based nor PD based. It's up to the whims and fancies of CIS.
If IV were to make agenda's on the inconsistencies of USCIS, the list will be endless.
I have 04 PD and am waiting. I have friends with 06 PD's who got approved. I know its frustrating to watch your friends get approved and to have your own case pending for no reason. But this is NOT some thing we should be surprised about. CIS is trying to maximize visa number usage and trying to approve as many applications as they can. All of July 07 filers have passed the 180 days since the FBI name check has been initiated and ideally CIS should be approving applications with old PD's. We all know that we don't live in an ideal world. Imagine all these visa numbers going wasted. I personally (NOT IV) will try to get an answer to this FIFO issue, but the situation itself is short lived and probably will not exist by Oct 1st 08.
There is no point in fighting over the inconsistency of CIS in picking applications. All of us know that a lot of people got approved last year during visa gate and many were left over even though their PD's are current. No one knows how USCIS picks an application for adjudication. It is clearly neither completely RD based nor PD based. It's up to the whims and fancies of CIS.
If IV were to make agenda's on the inconsistencies of USCIS, the list will be endless.
I have 04 PD and am waiting. I have friends with 06 PD's who got approved. I know its frustrating to watch your friends get approved and to have your own case pending for no reason. But this is NOT some thing we should be surprised about. CIS is trying to maximize visa number usage and trying to approve as many applications as they can. All of July 07 filers have passed the 180 days since the FBI name check has been initiated and ideally CIS should be approving applications with old PD's. We all know that we don't live in an ideal world. Imagine all these visa numbers going wasted. I personally (NOT IV) will try to get an answer to this FIFO issue, but the situation itself is short lived and probably will not exist by Oct 1st 08.
more...
pictures village usa kindergarten
feedfront
08-26 03:29 PM
Not sure if I got your question... .
I'm seeing lots of folks being greened whose PD is after us. Is it possible that they have PD on their 485 (because I-140 concurrently filed) and so it was picked up by officer? I guess it's not.
In response to infopass officer's request to expedite, I received letter from USCIS (within a week) . It shows my receipt# correct but shows filing date 10/10/2007. Actually, this is receipt date of case transfer to TSC from NSC.
I'm seeing lots of folks being greened whose PD is after us. Is it possible that they have PD on their 485 (because I-140 concurrently filed) and so it was picked up by officer? I guess it's not.
In response to infopass officer's request to expedite, I received letter from USCIS (within a week) . It shows my receipt# correct but shows filing date 10/10/2007. Actually, this is receipt date of case transfer to TSC from NSC.
dresses chart kindergarten
iak1973
02-17 11:17 AM
Just contributed $50 using paypal
Your transaction ID for this payment is: 24209705S98757631
Your transaction ID for this payment is: 24209705S98757631
more...
makeup Template for kindergarten the
deepak
09-10 08:12 PM
Hi,
There are several restrictions/constraints for many ppl for not being able to devote time/money for the general cause. Let's not fret about the reasons. While it would help for all ppl to join forces that should not distract the group that is doing something about the issues.
And ppl on the sidelines - pls don't be a passive professional critique. However valuable your comments and ideas are they are useless without acting upon it - they are just like seeds sown in a barren land. The good work of the forum will continue without your presence. With your involvement we all can reach the goal that much more faster.
My Labor certification is actually filed in the state of IL. But i am on an assignment in MD till Sep 2010 (after filing for relevant amendments).
It's ~5 hrs drive for me to Baltimore/Washington-DC. So, coming every week for a meeting is not practical. I am extremely eager to support OUR cause given the commuting constraints. I have already written to our congress man here to bring to his notice the struggles of wannabee immigrants.
So, where do i sign up?
Harikris, I hear you. People are in different situations. I was not mad about moving to this country and for a long time, I preferred travelling instead. Then I reached a point where I preferred to be with my family and thought it is best if we move here and we filed for our GC at the same time. If it does not work out, I am entirely content moving back. Heck, even if it does work out, I might move back.
I am not crazy enough for my GC to spend all my waking hours trolling forums and calling people names. It is just not worth it. I do donate, the same way that I donate to the local zoo and botanical garden. I give them money to run something so that I and others may benefit from it. The people who run it are passionate about it and do it for themselves and others.
If things work out, everyone will benefit, the people who worked, and those who didn't, the people who donated and those who didn't. When India fought for its freedom, people donated money and time. I am ready to bet that less than 1% joined in the strugle. There were people who worked for the british government and there were people who went on with their lives. Everyone got freedom, the people who worked got recognized and remembered. That is life.
The ones who are desperate need others to pitch in to create a critical mass in terms of both money and numbers. I think this realization needs to sink in and insulting people into getting donations out of them is probably not a strategy that will work very well.
These forums are an excellent rallying point and I think more people being helpful and polite will go a long way.
Of course, I say all this with my leathery skin waiting to be called a useless idiot who writes bullshit.
There are several restrictions/constraints for many ppl for not being able to devote time/money for the general cause. Let's not fret about the reasons. While it would help for all ppl to join forces that should not distract the group that is doing something about the issues.
And ppl on the sidelines - pls don't be a passive professional critique. However valuable your comments and ideas are they are useless without acting upon it - they are just like seeds sown in a barren land. The good work of the forum will continue without your presence. With your involvement we all can reach the goal that much more faster.
My Labor certification is actually filed in the state of IL. But i am on an assignment in MD till Sep 2010 (after filing for relevant amendments).
It's ~5 hrs drive for me to Baltimore/Washington-DC. So, coming every week for a meeting is not practical. I am extremely eager to support OUR cause given the commuting constraints. I have already written to our congress man here to bring to his notice the struggles of wannabee immigrants.
So, where do i sign up?
Harikris, I hear you. People are in different situations. I was not mad about moving to this country and for a long time, I preferred travelling instead. Then I reached a point where I preferred to be with my family and thought it is best if we move here and we filed for our GC at the same time. If it does not work out, I am entirely content moving back. Heck, even if it does work out, I might move back.
I am not crazy enough for my GC to spend all my waking hours trolling forums and calling people names. It is just not worth it. I do donate, the same way that I donate to the local zoo and botanical garden. I give them money to run something so that I and others may benefit from it. The people who run it are passionate about it and do it for themselves and others.
If things work out, everyone will benefit, the people who worked, and those who didn't, the people who donated and those who didn't. When India fought for its freedom, people donated money and time. I am ready to bet that less than 1% joined in the strugle. There were people who worked for the british government and there were people who went on with their lives. Everyone got freedom, the people who worked got recognized and remembered. That is life.
The ones who are desperate need others to pitch in to create a critical mass in terms of both money and numbers. I think this realization needs to sink in and insulting people into getting donations out of them is probably not a strategy that will work very well.
These forums are an excellent rallying point and I think more people being helpful and polite will go a long way.
Of course, I say all this with my leathery skin waiting to be called a useless idiot who writes bullshit.
girlfriend photos coloring pictures
jsb
11-08 01:22 PM
Good suggestion for bringing this to Ombudsman. BUt anyway informing USCIS would be the wise step in a sense you will not invite unforseen problems may be associated with not informing.
Reason for not informing could be the vagueness and subjective element of what is same/similar job. If you are close to getting your GC, and you don't expect any RFE, you might want to avoid that potential issue. Of course, if there is long time interval between I-485 filing and the USCIS decision making time, USCIS might like to reconfirm if original job offer is still there. In that case it is better to inform USCIS about the job change, before they issue an RFE.
Anyway, it is better to get a clarification from Ombudsman
Reason for not informing could be the vagueness and subjective element of what is same/similar job. If you are close to getting your GC, and you don't expect any RFE, you might want to avoid that potential issue. Of course, if there is long time interval between I-485 filing and the USCIS decision making time, USCIS might like to reconfirm if original job offer is still there. In that case it is better to inform USCIS about the job change, before they issue an RFE.
Anyway, it is better to get a clarification from Ombudsman
hairstyles coloringelementary
Janisaris
09-07 02:37 PM
Filing Date: July 2, 2007
Recieved Date: July 3, 2007 9am
PD: Sept. 2002
Center: TSC
Checks cashed: Sept 6, 2007
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=7474050822&m=8971038451
Is you 140 approved from TSC?
Recieved Date: July 3, 2007 9am
PD: Sept. 2002
Center: TSC
Checks cashed: Sept 6, 2007
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=7474050822&m=8971038451
Is you 140 approved from TSC?
simple1
05-02 12:56 PM
Hi,
Sent email to IV core emails listed in
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=57&Itemid=49
Thanks,
I know that IV core members are busy with their own jobs and helping with IV but I think this is an important discussion because it can be done with an administrative fix. If primary applicants are allotted GC's from EB 1,2 and 3 and dependents from FB2A it saves a lot of visa numbers. Somebody pls contact IV core directly and get them involved in this discussion.
This concept is not unique and is being done for age out children before CSPA (Child status protection act) and for children of US citizens and permanent residents who get married before getting GC.
PLS SEE THIS VERY IMPORTANT ARTICLE
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2004,1221-wheeler.shtm
Sent email to IV core emails listed in
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=57&Itemid=49
Thanks,
I know that IV core members are busy with their own jobs and helping with IV but I think this is an important discussion because it can be done with an administrative fix. If primary applicants are allotted GC's from EB 1,2 and 3 and dependents from FB2A it saves a lot of visa numbers. Somebody pls contact IV core directly and get them involved in this discussion.
This concept is not unique and is being done for age out children before CSPA (Child status protection act) and for children of US citizens and permanent residents who get married before getting GC.
PLS SEE THIS VERY IMPORTANT ARTICLE
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2004,1221-wheeler.shtm
GumI485
05-23 01:19 PM
Sent to 2+10 senators.
No comments:
Post a Comment