Macaca
09-12 04:06 PM
RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
NEELA BANERJEE: nbanerjee@nytimes.com *
JAMES BARRON (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
NINA BERNSTEIN: nbernstein@nytimes.com *
JULIE BOSMAN
EMILY BRADY
CARA BUCKLEY
DAVID W. CHEN
MARJORIE CONNELLY (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
HELENE COOPER
ANNIE CORREAL
NICOLE COTRONEO
MONICA DAVEY
LAWRENCE DOWNES
TIMOTHY EGAN
KAREEM FAHIM
ALAN FEUER
ROBIN FINN
IAN FISHER
SAMUEL G. FREEDMAN sgfreedman@nytimes.com
DAVID GONZALEZ
STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Clyde Haberman
RAYMOND HERNANDEZ (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
JOSEPH P. HOAR
JOHN HOLUSHA
CARL HULSE (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
KIRK JOHNSON (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
CLIFFORD KRAUSS
PAUL KRUGMAN krugman@nytimes.com
MARC LACEY
BRUCE LAMBERT
DAVID LEONHARDT Leonhardt@nytimes.com
PATRICIA NELSON LIMERICK
STEVE LOHR: slohr@nytimes.com *
MICHAEL LUO (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
NEIL MacFARQUHAR
EILEEN MARKEY
ROBERT D. McFADDEN
JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
TIM MURPHY
MIREYA NAVARRO
JACQUELINE PALANK: jpalank@nytimes.com
ROBERT PEAR (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) rpear@nytimes.com
JULIA PRESTON (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) juliapreston@nytimes.com
ANTHONY RAMIREZ: aramirez@nytimes.com | anthonyramirez@nytimes (did not work)
DAVID K. RANDALL
SAM ROBERTS
JESS ROW
JIM RUTENBERG (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
MARC SANTORA (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
JENNIFER STEINHAUER (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
DAVID STOUT (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
HEATHER TIMMONS
ROBIN TONER
MICHAEL WINERIP parenting@nytimes.com
JEFF ZELENY
NEELA BANERJEE: nbanerjee@nytimes.com *
JAMES BARRON (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
NINA BERNSTEIN: nbernstein@nytimes.com *
JULIE BOSMAN
EMILY BRADY
CARA BUCKLEY
DAVID W. CHEN
MARJORIE CONNELLY (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
HELENE COOPER
ANNIE CORREAL
NICOLE COTRONEO
MONICA DAVEY
LAWRENCE DOWNES
TIMOTHY EGAN
KAREEM FAHIM
ALAN FEUER
ROBIN FINN
IAN FISHER
SAMUEL G. FREEDMAN sgfreedman@nytimes.com
DAVID GONZALEZ
STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Clyde Haberman
RAYMOND HERNANDEZ (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
JOSEPH P. HOAR
JOHN HOLUSHA
CARL HULSE (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
KIRK JOHNSON (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
CLIFFORD KRAUSS
PAUL KRUGMAN krugman@nytimes.com
MARC LACEY
BRUCE LAMBERT
DAVID LEONHARDT Leonhardt@nytimes.com
PATRICIA NELSON LIMERICK
STEVE LOHR: slohr@nytimes.com *
MICHAEL LUO (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
NEIL MacFARQUHAR
EILEEN MARKEY
ROBERT D. McFADDEN
JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
TIM MURPHY
MIREYA NAVARRO
JACQUELINE PALANK: jpalank@nytimes.com
ROBERT PEAR (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) rpear@nytimes.com
JULIA PRESTON (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) juliapreston@nytimes.com
ANTHONY RAMIREZ: aramirez@nytimes.com | anthonyramirez@nytimes (did not work)
DAVID K. RANDALL
SAM ROBERTS
JESS ROW
JIM RUTENBERG (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
MARC SANTORA (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
JENNIFER STEINHAUER (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
DAVID STOUT (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
HEATHER TIMMONS
ROBIN TONER
MICHAEL WINERIP parenting@nytimes.com
JEFF ZELENY
wallpaper kim kardashian hairstyles
indio0617
03-09 10:05 AM
senator brownback: amendment on J1 visas
gcformeornot
11-08 04:56 PM
please
2011 Kim Kardashian New Blonde
ashutrip
06-22 01:55 PM
I know they have been saying this from Mid May. Lets see. I guess HOPE is the only answer!!
the only answer is ----TO HELL WITH AMERICA!!!
the only answer is ----TO HELL WITH AMERICA!!!
more...
grupak
08-17 09:52 PM
What if you spend 3-4 K in the new GC process, and after writing these letters USCIS wakes up and release statistics that they have 2000 EB-3 I pending for 2002/2003 and 1000 for 2004 will you still go ahead ? I guess for us the most important thing is to know how many cases are really pending. As I am not filing a new EB-2 and what if there are 15K cases in 2002/2003 and 50K in 2004, I'll be sitting here all my life looking at Visa bulletins :o
Getting the information would be of tremendous help. I already have my GC but I will write the letter after the necessary modification to reflect my status.
Also, I feel we need more participation in the recapture bill.
Getting the information would be of tremendous help. I already have my GC but I will write the letter after the necessary modification to reflect my status.
Also, I feel we need more participation in the recapture bill.
ujjwal_p
09-10 06:55 PM
This will depend on two factors
Demand from EB1 and EB2-ROW
USCIS allocation strategy (Quarterly spillover or year end spillover)
From historic data I have seen some 15-25k visa spillover to EB2/EB3 India-China, this number varies based on demand of various EB categories each year.
With H-1B cap coming down in 2004 to 65000, demand should go down by a decent margin post 2004, since its the H-1B's which will lead up to the EB queue.
By the way Sachug/vdlrao, do we know if this will be yearly or quarterly spillover. If it is year end, what does this mean? September or July(beginning of last quarter)? And I am sure there is documentation about this new horizontal spillover method from USCIS, but I can't seem to find it. Could someone point me to that. Thanks!
Demand from EB1 and EB2-ROW
USCIS allocation strategy (Quarterly spillover or year end spillover)
From historic data I have seen some 15-25k visa spillover to EB2/EB3 India-China, this number varies based on demand of various EB categories each year.
With H-1B cap coming down in 2004 to 65000, demand should go down by a decent margin post 2004, since its the H-1B's which will lead up to the EB queue.
By the way Sachug/vdlrao, do we know if this will be yearly or quarterly spillover. If it is year end, what does this mean? September or July(beginning of last quarter)? And I am sure there is documentation about this new horizontal spillover method from USCIS, but I can't seem to find it. Could someone point me to that. Thanks!
more...
ashutrip
06-20 12:35 PM
Do you know if you got an audit? Any idea about how they decide to do audits?
per my lawyer...chances of audit is less for EB3
per my lawyer...chances of audit is less for EB3
2010 2009 long straight hairstyle
amitjoey
07-18 05:17 PM
Hi guys,
I am sure every company would have their own 'stuck in gc process' alias.
Please start an IV fund drive, so that you can do this on a company basis.
Theres one going on in mine..and guess what..20 contributions in a couple of hours.
Thanks jk333. That is just awesome.
I am sure every company would have their own 'stuck in gc process' alias.
Please start an IV fund drive, so that you can do this on a company basis.
Theres one going on in mine..and guess what..20 contributions in a couple of hours.
Thanks jk333. That is just awesome.
more...
masti_Gai
01-10 03:30 PM
Am not going back no matter what....
hair kim kardashian haircut. kim
Sakthisagar
08-23 03:24 PM
USCIS should clear the backlogs first, to some extent, because people are stuck here in USA on H1B even after 10 years.. Otherwise they should find a way to pre-register to EAD and GC without all this gimmick approvals of AOS etc.
But this is only in our thoughts, just making memos and making the life of Legal immigrants a mess is the current strategy of the immigratin leadership, this is being done by the anti-immigrant community.
If they are not clearing the backlog, Suffering will be more for all of us who will eternally wait in the Q.
But this is only in our thoughts, just making memos and making the life of Legal immigrants a mess is the current strategy of the immigratin leadership, this is being done by the anti-immigrant community.
If they are not clearing the backlog, Suffering will be more for all of us who will eternally wait in the Q.
more...
eb3_nepa
07-14 02:13 PM
I am trying to pay thru PNC Bank. When trying to add IV, there are 2 options. One is With number and the second Without number.
eb3_nepa: Could you please put some guidelines on how to use BillPAy? Sorry for the ignorance.
I think it would be without a number. Now that depends on which number? If they need an account number then, yes no account number OR you could use your IV handle as the account number. Different banks have different methods of BILL PAY.
eb3_nepa: Could you please put some guidelines on how to use BillPAy? Sorry for the ignorance.
I think it would be without a number. Now that depends on which number? If they need an account number then, yes no account number OR you could use your IV handle as the account number. Different banks have different methods of BILL PAY.
hot Kim Kardashian Hairstyle
spicy_guy
10-21 06:49 PM
I am still not sure, if its considered 8+2=10 months to complete the PERM labor or we should just consider 2 months from start. Every application should go through the first part of it ( in this case 8 months). Right?
more...
house Kim Kardashian Hairstyles 2010
shreekhand
07-18 05:54 PM
I am not sure if the guy with PD 2001 will get the number first as against one with PD 2006 when everything is "C" in the example you presented.
Past data, experience from my acquaintances, official NSC statements as well the SOP clearly indicates the contrary.
priti8888, What is the USCIS 485 processing date in your senario?
Your Receive Date is a factor but PD is also a big factor, if limited number available.
If two person has submitted their application. One has PD 2001 and RD June 10 2007 and other had PD Jan 2006 with RD May 1 2006.
USCIS 485 Processing Date: June 15th 2007 and Visa Bullitin has "C"
Still PD with 2001 will get the the number first before PD 2006 case.
So
485 RD < USCIS 485 Processing date and PD < Visa Bulletin date
Order by PD desc
hope this help
Past data, experience from my acquaintances, official NSC statements as well the SOP clearly indicates the contrary.
priti8888, What is the USCIS 485 processing date in your senario?
Your Receive Date is a factor but PD is also a big factor, if limited number available.
If two person has submitted their application. One has PD 2001 and RD June 10 2007 and other had PD Jan 2006 with RD May 1 2006.
USCIS 485 Processing Date: June 15th 2007 and Visa Bullitin has "C"
Still PD with 2001 will get the the number first before PD 2006 case.
So
485 RD < USCIS 485 Processing date and PD < Visa Bulletin date
Order by PD desc
hope this help
tattoo kim kardashian haircut. kim
Libra
09-11 05:22 PM
thank you gcwait, please also attend rally.
more...
pictures Kim Kardashian Hairstyle
mrajatish
04-25 09:52 AM
This makes a lot of sense and so does the fact that GC wait times for EB immigrants be considered as part of citizenship waittime after 140 is appoved. However, let us do this in parts, let us get the basics right before we build a castle.
Without simple effective legislations like filing for 485, increase in total numbers etc, we are talking about inhuman suffering for everyone.
I came in 1999, my friend came in 2000, he has GC, I am in 140 stage, is that fair, of course not. But then life is not fair in lots of things, and we got make things work for us.
Let us concentrate on our agenda for the time being.
Without simple effective legislations like filing for 485, increase in total numbers etc, we are talking about inhuman suffering for everyone.
I came in 1999, my friend came in 2000, he has GC, I am in 140 stage, is that fair, of course not. But then life is not fair in lots of things, and we got make things work for us.
Let us concentrate on our agenda for the time being.
dresses kim kardashian haircut long
bkn96
11-25 08:39 PM
Ron Gotcher Latest ' ImmInfo Newsletter' states clearly 485 denial is illegal
***********
CIS issuing illegal AOS denials based on I-140 revocations
Recently, the CIS has been issuing denials ofadjustment of status applications in cases where the applicant has an approved I-140, and an AOS application pending for more than 180 days, but the petitioning employer has attempted to revoke the approved I-140.
These denials are patently illegal. They violate both CIS policy and statutory law. Both statutory law and explicit CIS policy are clear on this subject: An employer may not revoke an approved I-140 petition after an adjustment of status application has
been pending for at least 180 days. While we have not seen denials of any of our cases, we have seen a number of such denials by applicants who have contacted our office to assist them with filing motions to reconsider. It is shocking that the CIS
continues to issue denials even after the first MTRs were submitted. They are issuing these denials with full knowledge that there is no legal basis for what they are doing and that their actions violate existing law.
Anyone who receives such a denial must file a motion to reconsider immediately. The CIS has said that they are processing MTRs within 60 days. If the MTR does not result in a reversal of the denial within 60 days, the applicant should proceed in US District Court immediately to see a reversal. Immediate action is necessary to prevent the accumulation of unlawful presence following the denial.
*************************
***********
CIS issuing illegal AOS denials based on I-140 revocations
Recently, the CIS has been issuing denials ofadjustment of status applications in cases where the applicant has an approved I-140, and an AOS application pending for more than 180 days, but the petitioning employer has attempted to revoke the approved I-140.
These denials are patently illegal. They violate both CIS policy and statutory law. Both statutory law and explicit CIS policy are clear on this subject: An employer may not revoke an approved I-140 petition after an adjustment of status application has
been pending for at least 180 days. While we have not seen denials of any of our cases, we have seen a number of such denials by applicants who have contacted our office to assist them with filing motions to reconsider. It is shocking that the CIS
continues to issue denials even after the first MTRs were submitted. They are issuing these denials with full knowledge that there is no legal basis for what they are doing and that their actions violate existing law.
Anyone who receives such a denial must file a motion to reconsider immediately. The CIS has said that they are processing MTRs within 60 days. If the MTR does not result in a reversal of the denial within 60 days, the applicant should proceed in US District Court immediately to see a reversal. Immediate action is necessary to prevent the accumulation of unlawful presence following the denial.
*************************
more...
makeup kardashian+hairstyles+2010
Leo07
04-30 02:16 PM
Cornyn Open to Working on Immigration Reform - Roll Call (http://www.rollcall.com/news/45730-1.html)
We need to get more, but obviously a good beginning.( correction in title. it's Sen Cornyn )
We need to get more, but obviously a good beginning.( correction in title. it's Sen Cornyn )
girlfriend Long Curly Hairstyles From
iak1973
09-07 10:54 AM
Hi;
Landed in 2006;
Changed my company in 2007 to company B
Filed my Labor in Sept 2007;
Filed my I-140 in sometime in July cleared
Waiting for dates.
Arun
Landed in 2006;
Changed my company in 2007 to company B
Filed my Labor in Sept 2007;
Filed my I-140 in sometime in July cleared
Waiting for dates.
Arun
hairstyles Kim Kardashian
mpadapa
09-10 09:21 PM
HR 5882 has the answer for the FIFO problem.
USCIS is pretty good with approving cased based on PD for 3/4th of the year and in the last quarter they for the "Hail mary" play and DOS gives a wide PD range during the last quarter for USCIS to play. Apart from recapturing wasted visa's HR 5882 also has an automatic recapture provision to avoid any future visa wastage. If this provision is in place then UCSIS/DOS will not be in a position to playing the "some how use up visa by sep 31" card to approve random cases.
Rather than focusing on HR 5882 many are still pondering about LUD's and sill day dreaming. The demand for visa's is much higher than the supply of visa's, it doesn't matter what new spillover policy USCIS adopts, it can only provide incremental improvements. For a quantum improvment in the situation we need a legislation and HR 5882 is the best option we have now.
Can some gurus answer this...
Is there some wording in any laws/rules that says USCIS, no matter what, should not be approving cases out of PD order?
OR is PD just a *guidance* to maintain some sort of FIFO and there are enough loopholes in the law that allows USCIS to skirt around them and approve cases with later PDs by claiming that they are actually doing us a service by not wasting visa numbers by approving cases any which way they can?
If its the latter, then we can't do much other than appealing to their conscience and ask them to do a fairer job.
USCIS is pretty good with approving cased based on PD for 3/4th of the year and in the last quarter they for the "Hail mary" play and DOS gives a wide PD range during the last quarter for USCIS to play. Apart from recapturing wasted visa's HR 5882 also has an automatic recapture provision to avoid any future visa wastage. If this provision is in place then UCSIS/DOS will not be in a position to playing the "some how use up visa by sep 31" card to approve random cases.
Rather than focusing on HR 5882 many are still pondering about LUD's and sill day dreaming. The demand for visa's is much higher than the supply of visa's, it doesn't matter what new spillover policy USCIS adopts, it can only provide incremental improvements. For a quantum improvment in the situation we need a legislation and HR 5882 is the best option we have now.
Can some gurus answer this...
Is there some wording in any laws/rules that says USCIS, no matter what, should not be approving cases out of PD order?
OR is PD just a *guidance* to maintain some sort of FIFO and there are enough loopholes in the law that allows USCIS to skirt around them and approve cases with later PDs by claiming that they are actually doing us a service by not wasting visa numbers by approving cases any which way they can?
If its the latter, then we can't do much other than appealing to their conscience and ask them to do a fairer job.
Jaime
09-12 04:37 PM
Bump
GCwaitforever
12-26 03:00 PM
Bad news unless they allow mass conversion of TR applications into non-RIR. Imagine they took two years to get rid of 220,000 easier applications (2005 and 2006). Now they are left with some of the old TR applications and they must be thinking of how to meet the September deadline. I would not be surprised if they ask for an extension, citing processing difficulties.
No comments:
Post a Comment