radhay
06-20 11:07 AM
I am in the same boat (completing a decade of career in US). Can they hire you as a consulting PM so you can still stay with your current employer?
wallpaper second world war posters.
chanduv23
06-12 11:31 AM
Because Mahatma Gandhi was born on october.:):)
His 6years end in oct 2010.
ds
I was born in Oct too :) :)
His 6years end in oct 2010.
ds
I was born in Oct too :) :)
mmandal
06-08 12:18 PM
Chanduv23 wrong on both counts:
"For those who do not care about families - tearing families is the worst thing that can ever happen and if you are on that side, you will understand the pain."
No one is "tearing families." Restricts family immigration to just spouses and children under 21. No more uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces. If people want to come they need to on their merits. Think about LPRs who have to wait years on end to even get their spouses in.
"And for those who think CIR failed which is good for us - just think about the 12 million illegals and walk in their shoes - what goes through them - CIR is their only hope."
No one said CIR failing was good for us because it provided relief for illegals. No jealousy here sir. We wanted CIR to fail because in 'saving' illegals it screwed us. If the illegals took a risk in breaking the law its their burden to bear. Moreover, asking the basic question of why illegals and why not legals should be a part of debate. I believe, our interest is best served by strongly differentiating ourselves from the illegals. Lets do without the socialism.
"For those who do not care about families - tearing families is the worst thing that can ever happen and if you are on that side, you will understand the pain."
No one is "tearing families." Restricts family immigration to just spouses and children under 21. No more uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces. If people want to come they need to on their merits. Think about LPRs who have to wait years on end to even get their spouses in.
"And for those who think CIR failed which is good for us - just think about the 12 million illegals and walk in their shoes - what goes through them - CIR is their only hope."
No one said CIR failing was good for us because it provided relief for illegals. No jealousy here sir. We wanted CIR to fail because in 'saving' illegals it screwed us. If the illegals took a risk in breaking the law its their burden to bear. Moreover, asking the basic question of why illegals and why not legals should be a part of debate. I believe, our interest is best served by strongly differentiating ourselves from the illegals. Lets do without the socialism.
2011 posters-world-war-
anindya1234
07-17 10:13 PM
Need some views on this
more...
sabudanawada
02-27 03:20 PM
once EB3 Row gets current, some relief can be expected for the retrogressed countires where unused visas can be assigned...
before 2007, lot of labor substitution cases are in picture, also people with multiple LC's too...
the actual no. will be smaller...it just depends on how proactively they will manage to capture the unused numbers etc..that will matter the most.
About 25,000 PERM labors were approved in 2007 for Indian nationals. Assuming a 2.5:1 ratio of 'GC filed:Labor approved', implies that each year 62,500 GC are demanded by Indians under EB. Since only 10,000 are available (across all EB classes), this implies each year a backlog of 50,000 cases is created for Indians.
Since PD are essentially retrogressed from Nov. 2005, we can assume that since then another 100,000 Indians have joined the GC backlog. It can also be assumed that between 2001 and Nov. 2005 there must be another (atleast) 50,000 waiting for GC.
Assuming these numbers are correct, a person filing for labor today is looking to wait for atleast 15 years before getting a GC (150,000/10,000).
As for those wth PD prior to Nov. 2005 - well..... probably anywhere between 1 to 5 years .....
Comments on the analysis.........?
before 2007, lot of labor substitution cases are in picture, also people with multiple LC's too...
the actual no. will be smaller...it just depends on how proactively they will manage to capture the unused numbers etc..that will matter the most.
About 25,000 PERM labors were approved in 2007 for Indian nationals. Assuming a 2.5:1 ratio of 'GC filed:Labor approved', implies that each year 62,500 GC are demanded by Indians under EB. Since only 10,000 are available (across all EB classes), this implies each year a backlog of 50,000 cases is created for Indians.
Since PD are essentially retrogressed from Nov. 2005, we can assume that since then another 100,000 Indians have joined the GC backlog. It can also be assumed that between 2001 and Nov. 2005 there must be another (atleast) 50,000 waiting for GC.
Assuming these numbers are correct, a person filing for labor today is looking to wait for atleast 15 years before getting a GC (150,000/10,000).
As for those wth PD prior to Nov. 2005 - well..... probably anywhere between 1 to 5 years .....
Comments on the analysis.........?
paragpujara
10-09 07:10 PM
I applied on 2nd July and got Receipts on 08/27/2007. Still waiting for the FP notice. There are lot of ppl in the same boat. Take it easy. I called USCIS last week and they opened Service Request for myself and mywife. Call USCIS and ask them to open SR.
more...
Jerry2121
07-06 09:26 PM
Hello ,
Here is a run down on my case:
First I-485 applied in 6/2002,
Fingerprint done, EAD obtained in 2/03
Application withdrawn by spouse due to conviction
Second I-485 applied by my 2nd DW in 7/05
Interview granted in 5/06
Case still pending due name check
GC? till date
Anyone with a similar case and any advice on this case? I've spent about 30K USD on this case on Lawyers and still have NOT got any decision from the USCIS. Now , I'm considering filing a WOM. Whats your take on this? Thanks !
Here is a run down on my case:
First I-485 applied in 6/2002,
Fingerprint done, EAD obtained in 2/03
Application withdrawn by spouse due to conviction
Second I-485 applied by my 2nd DW in 7/05
Interview granted in 5/06
Case still pending due name check
GC? till date
Anyone with a similar case and any advice on this case? I've spent about 30K USD on this case on Lawyers and still have NOT got any decision from the USCIS. Now , I'm considering filing a WOM. Whats your take on this? Thanks !
2010 Poster 1
piyu7444
05-08 02:52 PM
Thank you senk1s & gccovet. Have added some Green's to both of you !
more...
gc_on_demand
12-05 10:24 AM
bump
hair from the Second World War
.jpg "World War 2 Photos page 2")
DDash
04-05 08:34 AM
Bump
more...
crystal
02-04 02:42 PM
You are right only if they dont want to use EAD after they come back. If they use EAD once they come back to USA, then they are back to adjustee status.
Well..you can fall back to H-4 if something goes wrong with 485. But if you are on AP you will have to leave the country.
Well..you can fall back to H-4 if something goes wrong with 485. But if you are on AP you will have to leave the country.
hot Second World War - Posters
kondur_007
09-17 09:38 PM
I dont want to duplicate, but I think following "cut and paste" from my previous post may be a fair thing to do; just for the information.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
more...
house Posters During WW2
chinna2003
03-11 09:21 AM
I worked for an employer in WY 2004 as a physician and since then i resigned and moved onto another job with a new labor and I-140. However last year at the time of July isa bulletin fiasco, I asked my employer from WY in 2004 to file for an I-140 based on the previous approved labor condition in 2004 to retain that priority date under EB -2.
Employer knows I have no intent of joining them after the green card and I have my own practice , so i donot intend to join the practice.
In this scenario, if this considered a misuse of retaining priority date and how do i prove the intent and will the USCIS allow a situation like this?
Employer knows I have no intent of joining them after the green card and I have my own practice , so i donot intend to join the practice.
In this scenario, if this considered a misuse of retaining priority date and how do i prove the intent and will the USCIS allow a situation like this?
tattoo US War Propaganda Poster
gccovet
05-08 03:47 PM
Thank you senk1s & gccovet. Have added some Green's to both of you !
Good luck, I am in the same boat as you are. Hence was reading more on this topic.
Regards,
Good luck, I am in the same boat as you are. Hence was reading more on this topic.
Regards,
more...
pictures the Second World War
chanduv23
03-27 09:52 AM
My wife is currently on a H1b doing her residency. When she was on h4, she wanted to do research or observership on a voluntary basis so that she can get some good letters and also have her name on papers and journals.
She got into a research position as a "research volunteer" at Emory University in Atlanta and was an unpaid volunteer. After getting into that position she figured out that the department was actually advertising for that position for a "research assistant" position - which is a salaried position but they could not really find people to fill that position and because they found her promising and did not want to lose her, they offered her a research position.
Without her knowledge she was a regular worker and was dumped with regular work like a paid employee (though she was not paid). They stressed her out and not flexible with hours and never allowed her to study for USMLE etc... and were expecting her to continue that way for 3 months she worked and worked. So I interfered and stopped her from going there, and we wrote a strong letter to the Head of Cardiology at Emory, who got pissed off because she was not aware that the position was not being paid and the department did not officially want to acknowledge that they did it. So they called her to the department and "WARNED" her not to have any kind of communication and not to step into the department or talk to anyone for any reason. We got pissed and we strongly requested for a "Research Experience Letter" which they told they will mail us. We never recieved any mail for 3 months and then one day we called heer superior doctor and blasted her on phone and she in turn blasted us saying we must not call her. Then after a few weeks, we emailed the department politely asking for a experience letter and pleaded them and used a lot of sugar coated words with a lot of A** Ki***" and finally we got a decent letter. Then after a few weeks, the department sent her an email asking her if she still wants her name to be on a paper she worked on, she replied she wanted to. Then they responded that it is not possible to have her name as she was never working there and in future there must not be any communication from us.
The reason I wrote all this is : Most of you people seem to be desperate to work around the system for your benefit. As people do it, it becomes a mess.
Ours was a genuine case and see how an organization like Emory can do whatever they want for their advantage.
So it all depends on the kind of people you deal with - if you want to work on h4 just for sake of experience - expect the unexpected.
Most skilled immigrants are capable of doing great work if allowed to do but we are unable to do it , and organizations that break rules (Desi consultants or Microsoft or Emory or anyone for that sake) - will have only one motive - to exploit your skill and get the work done. In case of any issues, they will "scapegoat you" and make themselves look clean. So think twice before get attracted to breaking rules.
She got into a research position as a "research volunteer" at Emory University in Atlanta and was an unpaid volunteer. After getting into that position she figured out that the department was actually advertising for that position for a "research assistant" position - which is a salaried position but they could not really find people to fill that position and because they found her promising and did not want to lose her, they offered her a research position.
Without her knowledge she was a regular worker and was dumped with regular work like a paid employee (though she was not paid). They stressed her out and not flexible with hours and never allowed her to study for USMLE etc... and were expecting her to continue that way for 3 months she worked and worked. So I interfered and stopped her from going there, and we wrote a strong letter to the Head of Cardiology at Emory, who got pissed off because she was not aware that the position was not being paid and the department did not officially want to acknowledge that they did it. So they called her to the department and "WARNED" her not to have any kind of communication and not to step into the department or talk to anyone for any reason. We got pissed and we strongly requested for a "Research Experience Letter" which they told they will mail us. We never recieved any mail for 3 months and then one day we called heer superior doctor and blasted her on phone and she in turn blasted us saying we must not call her. Then after a few weeks, we emailed the department politely asking for a experience letter and pleaded them and used a lot of sugar coated words with a lot of A** Ki***" and finally we got a decent letter. Then after a few weeks, the department sent her an email asking her if she still wants her name to be on a paper she worked on, she replied she wanted to. Then they responded that it is not possible to have her name as she was never working there and in future there must not be any communication from us.
The reason I wrote all this is : Most of you people seem to be desperate to work around the system for your benefit. As people do it, it becomes a mess.
Ours was a genuine case and see how an organization like Emory can do whatever they want for their advantage.
So it all depends on the kind of people you deal with - if you want to work on h4 just for sake of experience - expect the unexpected.
Most skilled immigrants are capable of doing great work if allowed to do but we are unable to do it , and organizations that break rules (Desi consultants or Microsoft or Emory or anyone for that sake) - will have only one motive - to exploit your skill and get the work done. In case of any issues, they will "scapegoat you" and make themselves look clean. So think twice before get attracted to breaking rules.
dresses the Second World War find
va_dude
11-06 05:24 PM
This is exactly the piece-meal approach/bill that several people wanted to support.
But i think IV core is backing CIR.
My 2 cents - CIR ain't happening this year (its almost mid-nov now and health care hasn't even been debated on the floor yer). Even enxt year is a long shot.
Need to back this bill.
But i think IV core is backing CIR.
My 2 cents - CIR ain't happening this year (its almost mid-nov now and health care hasn't even been debated on the floor yer). Even enxt year is a long shot.
Need to back this bill.
more...
makeup Unknown (Second World War)
pappu
01-21 11:54 PM
i cud tell my frnds in diffrnt uni's about it to spread the message in thier ISA
Thanks. Any little help from any member is useful in this effort. Imagine the sumtotal of all efforts if every member helps us in some way or another!
Thanks. Any little help from any member is useful in this effort. Imagine the sumtotal of all efforts if every member helps us in some way or another!
girlfriend During the Second World War,
ak_2006
11-09 12:15 PM
I completed the form.
hairstyles the Second World War.
morpheus
04-03 05:33 PM
Morpheus,
Thanks for your interest. We did consider all three of them but when we did more research, we found that all three of them did not get their Green Card on EB category. They had come here because their parents had come here.
qvadis, Thanks for pointing out Andy Bechtolsheim and Safi Qureshey.
OK - good point. Linus Torvalds was an H1/green card immigration to my knowledge, and he would make a good addition to the list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds
Thanks for your interest. We did consider all three of them but when we did more research, we found that all three of them did not get their Green Card on EB category. They had come here because their parents had come here.
qvadis, Thanks for pointing out Andy Bechtolsheim and Safi Qureshey.
OK - good point. Linus Torvalds was an H1/green card immigration to my knowledge, and he would make a good addition to the list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds
micofrost
07-16 05:59 PM
AILA/AILF
Another mess in creation or what. Whatever AILA/AILF is publishing is in stark contrast to IV and others.
What the hell is happening. I would love to believe IV but would hate to ignore AILA. IS AILA screwing up because they need some financial reimbursement too. From their press release, looks like we have a long ride ahead.
Another mess in creation or what. Whatever AILA/AILF is publishing is in stark contrast to IV and others.
What the hell is happening. I would love to believe IV but would hate to ignore AILA. IS AILA screwing up because they need some financial reimbursement too. From their press release, looks like we have a long ride ahead.
jeny
08-06 03:41 AM
Jeny: I believe you are referring to an interview for Consular Processing; not Adjustment of Status, correct?
Thanks,
Jayant
Yes Jayant it is Consular Process. Today i send a mail to them, hope they will replay.
Thanks
Thanks,
Jayant
Yes Jayant it is Consular Process. Today i send a mail to them, hope they will replay.
Thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment