tawlibann
03-18 07:17 PM
Here is what you provided on the banned id
Phone number 631-922-xxxx. I called the number and a lady answered. I asked "Is there any one living with last name FOGGS?" The answer is NO. I asked are you sure? She goes mad. I then went on to see the city you provided in MD exists, Google maps has no clue about the city.
There are many non-contributing & contributing members and its entirely your wish to do so or not but IV does not need any distractions. Don't bring in the free speech and 1st amendment now.
May be its fun for you and our friends, its not funny here.
I am not saying anything about free speech. I realize this is a forum that belongs to a private organization and has not obligations to provide a platform for free speech to anybody. That's why I said that if you do not want me here, I'll leave.
As to the details provided, these were not required details and I didn't agree to anyone to call me at home. I entered the phone, because the form was broken and gave me some errors. Btw, the registration form is still broken, because it has a section for Required Information, and Additional Information. In Additional Information (which I assume is optional), it is still asking whether I'm going to attend DC Rally in 2007. If you do not answer the question about the rally, it doesn't allow you to register.
I haven't filled out all of details, because as I said, I thought they were optional. If there was anything missing that you want me to fill in, you could've told me so rather than ban the handle.
Phone number 631-922-xxxx. I called the number and a lady answered. I asked "Is there any one living with last name FOGGS?" The answer is NO. I asked are you sure? She goes mad. I then went on to see the city you provided in MD exists, Google maps has no clue about the city.
There are many non-contributing & contributing members and its entirely your wish to do so or not but IV does not need any distractions. Don't bring in the free speech and 1st amendment now.
May be its fun for you and our friends, its not funny here.
I am not saying anything about free speech. I realize this is a forum that belongs to a private organization and has not obligations to provide a platform for free speech to anybody. That's why I said that if you do not want me here, I'll leave.
As to the details provided, these were not required details and I didn't agree to anyone to call me at home. I entered the phone, because the form was broken and gave me some errors. Btw, the registration form is still broken, because it has a section for Required Information, and Additional Information. In Additional Information (which I assume is optional), it is still asking whether I'm going to attend DC Rally in 2007. If you do not answer the question about the rally, it doesn't allow you to register.
I haven't filled out all of details, because as I said, I thought they were optional. If there was anything missing that you want me to fill in, you could've told me so rather than ban the handle.
wallpaper Saab 900 1991 Data,
fcres
07-24 05:12 PM
fcres, so would you be waiting till you get the RN and then send out the EVL with a reference to the A#? Or just going ahead and sending it rightaway?
I have RN since i filed in June.
I have RN since i filed in June.
kanakabyraju
07-13 07:29 AM
All right I am current again..exactly after 2 years
So I am having the butterflies in my tummy with nostalgia of my nail biting thriller during 2008 July-Sep bulletin, where I got royally screwed.
mwuahhhaaaa...c'mon..come to papa now :D:D
tick..tock..tick..tock :rolleyes:
You really made me laugh. Thanks
So I am having the butterflies in my tummy with nostalgia of my nail biting thriller during 2008 July-Sep bulletin, where I got royally screwed.
mwuahhhaaaa...c'mon..come to papa now :D:D
tick..tock..tick..tock :rolleyes:
You really made me laugh. Thanks
2011 Saab 900 Turbo SPG edwardian
vandanaverdia
09-10 04:05 PM
Very well explained facts!!! Nice...
I am going to start emailing the same to people I know.....
Let us all join hands & unite in this cause...
I am going to start emailing the same to people I know.....
Let us all join hands & unite in this cause...
more...
indianindian2006
07-14 05:56 PM
Should I send a AC21 letter to USCIS along with my new employment letter?
Who is the best attorney for such cases?
Is it possible that my prevous employer hasn't revoked 140? How can I know that? I have received RFE after one year after filing the case. Is there any way I can know the date when my previous employer did revoke the 140 ( in case he did)?
Ajthakur,
Is their any ways you could contact your previous employer and try to find answers if your 140 is cancelled by that employer as that would give you a good idea of how to reply on this RFE.As suggested by others you have to reply to this RFE or your 485 is in jeopardy.
Who is the best attorney for such cases?
Is it possible that my prevous employer hasn't revoked 140? How can I know that? I have received RFE after one year after filing the case. Is there any way I can know the date when my previous employer did revoke the 140 ( in case he did)?
Ajthakur,
Is their any ways you could contact your previous employer and try to find answers if your 140 is cancelled by that employer as that would give you a good idea of how to reply on this RFE.As suggested by others you have to reply to this RFE or your 485 is in jeopardy.
Googler
02-20 02:54 PM
I'd posted elsewhere about my Feb 13, 2008 conversation with the DOS official who sets cutoff dates:
And then there this piece of info from Ron Gotcher posted on Feb 14, 2008
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285
"Last night, at a meeting of the American Immigration Lawyer's Assocation Southern California chapter, Charles Oppenheim spoke. Mr. Oppenheim is the officer within the Visa Office tasked with calculating visa bulletin cutoff dates each month. He offered the following thoughts as to cutoff date movement in the upcoming months:
In April, India and China EB2 will be set at 12/01/2003
EB3 for India and China will slow down for the rest of the fiscal year."
I am riveted by this because I spoke to Oppenheim just the day before this meeting (he referred to it). This was the conversation in which he told me that at present EB-2 India would only get numbers leftover from EB-1 India -- the problem is he doesn't know either exactly how many EB-2 India adjudicated applications there are in any specific PD range -- so every month he makes wild guesses, with the intent of using up visas. So I guess at least as of 2/14/08 he thought moving the date to 12/1/03 would more than mop up whatever was leftover from EB-1 India. Given the end of the FBI boondoggle (the effects of which have not been quantified by Oppenheim or USCIS) I'd predict that even a date in early 2002 would be good enough to mop up. Let us see if he changes his mind by mid March.
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
And then there this piece of info from Ron Gotcher posted on Feb 14, 2008
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285
"Last night, at a meeting of the American Immigration Lawyer's Assocation Southern California chapter, Charles Oppenheim spoke. Mr. Oppenheim is the officer within the Visa Office tasked with calculating visa bulletin cutoff dates each month. He offered the following thoughts as to cutoff date movement in the upcoming months:
In April, India and China EB2 will be set at 12/01/2003
EB3 for India and China will slow down for the rest of the fiscal year."
I am riveted by this because I spoke to Oppenheim just the day before this meeting (he referred to it). This was the conversation in which he told me that at present EB-2 India would only get numbers leftover from EB-1 India -- the problem is he doesn't know either exactly how many EB-2 India adjudicated applications there are in any specific PD range -- so every month he makes wild guesses, with the intent of using up visas. So I guess at least as of 2/14/08 he thought moving the date to 12/1/03 would more than mop up whatever was leftover from EB-1 India. Given the end of the FBI boondoggle (the effects of which have not been quantified by Oppenheim or USCIS) I'd predict that even a date in early 2002 would be good enough to mop up. Let us see if he changes his mind by mid March.
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
more...
sandiboy
08-15 02:29 PM
Would rather be interested to see the Processing times update for this month
2010 saab 900 spg turbo carlsson NEW whale tail whaletail
makemygc
07-16 08:23 PM
From now on every year, we should send a copy of I797 (H1B) and our tax records to each and every senator and house representative so that they do not get carried away by the misinterpreted facts presented to them by Lou Dobbs, NumbersUSA, Programmers Guild and FAIRUS.
Not a good idea. You identity might get stolen. You can't trust these people. They will simply forward your record to identity thiefs.
Not a good idea. You identity might get stolen. You can't trust these people. They will simply forward your record to identity thiefs.
more...
kanaihya
09-26 12:22 PM
What paragraph ? what is the update in the CNN link ? i don't see any, every where its h1B..can somebody pl. help..
hair Mike#39;s Saab 900 “The SPG”
like_watching_paint_dry
03-16 12:18 AM
I agree with you completely ! I wish and pray Interfilers and labor substitution applicants rot in hell.
I'm right there with you on labor substitution, but I would not really blame interfilers that much.
Though one thing that I would like to see USCIS do is allow people to port EB3 priority date to EB2 only if they were eligible for EB2 as of that priority date. i.e. If you did not have a Masters or 5 years exp. as of June 2002 and so you filed EB3 and have a June 2002 EB3 PD, you should not be allowed to claim June 2002 EB2 priority date based today based on the experience or masters degree as of today. Allowing that does not sound fair to a say a June 2003 PD EB2 person who was eligible for EB2 as of June 2003 and filed EB2.
I'm right there with you on labor substitution, but I would not really blame interfilers that much.
Though one thing that I would like to see USCIS do is allow people to port EB3 priority date to EB2 only if they were eligible for EB2 as of that priority date. i.e. If you did not have a Masters or 5 years exp. as of June 2002 and so you filed EB3 and have a June 2002 EB3 PD, you should not be allowed to claim June 2002 EB2 priority date based today based on the experience or masters degree as of today. Allowing that does not sound fair to a say a June 2003 PD EB2 person who was eligible for EB2 as of June 2003 and filed EB2.
more...
kaisersose
03-07 04:16 PM
Until last year, it was important to announce a job change via AC21 to USCIS. This was because many sponsoring employers would revoke the 140 (even after 180 days) so that they could reuse the Labor for someone else.
When that happened and there was no AC21 letter from the applicant, some IOs would deny the 485 even without a NOID. This would mean MTR and a lot of unnecessary work.
This problem no longer exists as Labot substitution has been removed. The employer has no incentive to revoke the 140 and so the chances of goofup from USCIS has been lowered.
When that happened and there was no AC21 letter from the applicant, some IOs would deny the 485 even without a NOID. This would mean MTR and a lot of unnecessary work.
This problem no longer exists as Labot substitution has been removed. The employer has no incentive to revoke the 140 and so the chances of goofup from USCIS has been lowered.
hot The Saab 900 Turbo 16 Aero or
nlssubbu
09-28 02:19 PM
Yes, thanks for all your comments, and I would only request everyone to participate more actively on IV stuff. Start building your state chapters, spread the message.
When IV was expecting 10000 people for the rally only 2000 + came. It is obvious that America needs us and we need America and we must all unite to make this a better place.
Jane - your points taken. But, it is not all about rasicm. In a cosmopolitan society, everyone is same. It is just the fact that the communities from the majority opposue us.
A good example is Ron Hira. He is 100% Indian immigrant. He has been one of the architects behind the Durbin Grassley provisions.
So many people who work against us are the recent green card holders. A good example of such people who lurk in our forums is Senthil1. He got his green card and wants to do as much damage as possible for future immigrants, so that he is always in demand and does not face competition.
Since 1970s Indians and Chinese have migrated as doctors and engineers and have been in top positions here. If you are trying to immigrate today - you are a direct competition to their children who are raised here with comforts, they are the ones who influence the govt with restrictive policies.
Recently Jay(logiclife) was on a radio station and the person interviewing jay was a radio jockey of Indian origin. He is definitely not the highly skilled types, and he was behaving exactly like Ron Hira types
Hi Chandu,
Not all GC holders are against the aspiring GC seekers. In fact, I am promoting IV actively to many older GC holders and exposing how bad the system is now when compared to their days. [Say from 10 years ago]. I am trying my best to help many, who are in line with what ever little knowledge I gained during this process. I will be happier one and only if this broken system is fixed and the process is made transparent. I only wish that this will happen during my life time :p
Thanks
PS: I did not had IV during the time when I started my GC process :mad:
When IV was expecting 10000 people for the rally only 2000 + came. It is obvious that America needs us and we need America and we must all unite to make this a better place.
Jane - your points taken. But, it is not all about rasicm. In a cosmopolitan society, everyone is same. It is just the fact that the communities from the majority opposue us.
A good example is Ron Hira. He is 100% Indian immigrant. He has been one of the architects behind the Durbin Grassley provisions.
So many people who work against us are the recent green card holders. A good example of such people who lurk in our forums is Senthil1. He got his green card and wants to do as much damage as possible for future immigrants, so that he is always in demand and does not face competition.
Since 1970s Indians and Chinese have migrated as doctors and engineers and have been in top positions here. If you are trying to immigrate today - you are a direct competition to their children who are raised here with comforts, they are the ones who influence the govt with restrictive policies.
Recently Jay(logiclife) was on a radio station and the person interviewing jay was a radio jockey of Indian origin. He is definitely not the highly skilled types, and he was behaving exactly like Ron Hira types
Hi Chandu,
Not all GC holders are against the aspiring GC seekers. In fact, I am promoting IV actively to many older GC holders and exposing how bad the system is now when compared to their days. [Say from 10 years ago]. I am trying my best to help many, who are in line with what ever little knowledge I gained during this process. I will be happier one and only if this broken system is fixed and the process is made transparent. I only wish that this will happen during my life time :p
Thanks
PS: I did not had IV during the time when I started my GC process :mad:
more...
house 1980 saab 900 turbo 5dr rear
Administrator2
04-20 04:17 PM
I will get it posted on various internal mailing systems of sun. Will bring the banner www.immigrationvoice.org
Sanjeev
Thank you Sanjeev. That will be very helpful.
Sanjeev
Thank you Sanjeev. That will be very helpful.
tattoo 9) Saab 900 Turbo
indrachat_75
05-15 05:11 PM
Hi,
One of my friend needs some advice :
I am in Company A on L1A. Client (Company B) wants to hire me on H1-B. Can I do it now ?
Please advice.
Indra
One of my friend needs some advice :
I am in Company A on L1A. Client (Company B) wants to hire me on H1-B. Can I do it now ?
Please advice.
Indra
more...
pictures 1990 Saab 900 SPG
andy garcia
01-26 09:40 AM
I had trouble sifting through all that data and figuring out what that was all about.
Could you give the specific report that you used for these numbers. And, if possible, any hints on how you arrived at the data below. I would appreciate that.
Thanks....
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
Could you give the specific report that you used for these numbers. And, if possible, any hints on how you arrived at the data below. I would appreciate that.
Thanks....
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
dresses Saab 900 Turbo Spg
Canuck
02-16 09:11 PM
Pls dont forget! More than US needing U, U need US. They get immigrants via temporary visas all the time to fulfill their needs. So, they dont actually need U to be a permanent resident here. So, walk out if u dont like their policy (which u r wrongly calling Divide and Rule by the way) or abide by it and wait.
Really? If all 500K of us waiting in line were to resign the same day and walk out of the country, the U.S. would be reeling from our loss.
It's people like you that perpetuate this "Yes sahib" mentality. How did these Americans become successful? They walked into the North American continent, hacked down all the natives and acted as if they owned the place. While I would hope that we are beyond the barbarous hacking and killing phase, we too should walk into this land and act like we own it. Folks like you that bow their heads down to their American masters and accept every knock that falls upon it with a smile on their face are the exact kind of meek individuals that the Americans are looking for - one who will not question any law as unjust and jump to it.
If the Africans had just continued to abide by slavery, they would never have gotten their freedom, just because, "it's the American policy."
Learn to stand up for yourself and question authority or remain subjugated under tyranny for the rest of your life - the choice is yours, Mr. Venkatappa.
Really? If all 500K of us waiting in line were to resign the same day and walk out of the country, the U.S. would be reeling from our loss.
It's people like you that perpetuate this "Yes sahib" mentality. How did these Americans become successful? They walked into the North American continent, hacked down all the natives and acted as if they owned the place. While I would hope that we are beyond the barbarous hacking and killing phase, we too should walk into this land and act like we own it. Folks like you that bow their heads down to their American masters and accept every knock that falls upon it with a smile on their face are the exact kind of meek individuals that the Americans are looking for - one who will not question any law as unjust and jump to it.
If the Africans had just continued to abide by slavery, they would never have gotten their freedom, just because, "it's the American policy."
Learn to stand up for yourself and question authority or remain subjugated under tyranny for the rest of your life - the choice is yours, Mr. Venkatappa.
more...
makeup Guide – Saab 900 Turbo SPG
logiclife
12-20 07:55 PM
<If anything like out of status or unauthorized employed happened before your last legal entry into USA (whether is more than 180 days or less than 180 days) IT DOES NOT MATTER and you can adjust status. You are fine. What's important is that "out of status" and "unauthorized stay" periods must not happen after you last entered USA and after you filed your 485 - and if it does happen, then it should be less than 180 days.>
So, logiclife, going with your above statement, I don't have any problem with my adustment of status? My last legal entry to the U.S was Mar, 2006. I applied for AOS in July, 2007. Can you point to any USCIS memo/documents stating the above facts? I was out of status in the year 2001 (more than 180 days).
This is not based on any memo. Its in the immigration and nationality act. That is even better because it wont change without an act of congress. Its rock solid. Memos and field manual can be changed by USCIS and they dont need change in laws. To change or edit 245(k), you need change in laws, which needs an act of congress. So the whole thing is on rock solid grounds.
The section is 8 USC � 1255 (k). Also known as 245(k).
Here is how to find the text of 245(k) on USCIS website:
1. Go to USCIS.gov
2. Go to "Laws and Regulations" menu item on top menu.
3. Click on "Immigration and Nationality Act" on the left menu.
4. Click on the link that says "Immigration and Nationality Act" below the 2 paragraph lecture.
5. Scroll down to Chapter 5 and go to "Act 245". DONT GO to "Act 245A".
6. Under Act 245, go to section (k), the lowercase k.
You will read this :
(k) 7/ An alien who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) (or, in the case of an alien who is an immigrant described in section 101(a)(27)(C) , under section 203(b)(4) ) may adjust status pursuant to subsection (a) and notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8), if--
(1) the alien, on the date of filing an application for adjustment of status, is present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission;
(2) the alien, subsequent to such lawful admission has not, for an aggregate period exceeding 180 days--
(A) failed to maintain, continuously, a lawful status;
(B) engaged in unauthorized employment; or
(C) otherwise violated the terms and conditions of the alien's admission.
Another link is here http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
Go to (k) -lowercase k.
So, logiclife, going with your above statement, I don't have any problem with my adustment of status? My last legal entry to the U.S was Mar, 2006. I applied for AOS in July, 2007. Can you point to any USCIS memo/documents stating the above facts? I was out of status in the year 2001 (more than 180 days).
This is not based on any memo. Its in the immigration and nationality act. That is even better because it wont change without an act of congress. Its rock solid. Memos and field manual can be changed by USCIS and they dont need change in laws. To change or edit 245(k), you need change in laws, which needs an act of congress. So the whole thing is on rock solid grounds.
The section is 8 USC � 1255 (k). Also known as 245(k).
Here is how to find the text of 245(k) on USCIS website:
1. Go to USCIS.gov
2. Go to "Laws and Regulations" menu item on top menu.
3. Click on "Immigration and Nationality Act" on the left menu.
4. Click on the link that says "Immigration and Nationality Act" below the 2 paragraph lecture.
5. Scroll down to Chapter 5 and go to "Act 245". DONT GO to "Act 245A".
6. Under Act 245, go to section (k), the lowercase k.
You will read this :
(k) 7/ An alien who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) (or, in the case of an alien who is an immigrant described in section 101(a)(27)(C) , under section 203(b)(4) ) may adjust status pursuant to subsection (a) and notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8), if--
(1) the alien, on the date of filing an application for adjustment of status, is present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission;
(2) the alien, subsequent to such lawful admission has not, for an aggregate period exceeding 180 days--
(A) failed to maintain, continuously, a lawful status;
(B) engaged in unauthorized employment; or
(C) otherwise violated the terms and conditions of the alien's admission.
Another link is here http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
Go to (k) -lowercase k.
girlfriend Saab 900 Turbo SPG
unitednations
12-21 10:48 PM
This is from Murthy chat.
Question: If in the past I have been out of H1B status for 6 months (I-94 not expired), is this going to hurt my GC (or any new petitions to change / extend / adjust status)?
Answer: A person who fails to maintain status for over 180 days may have a problem obtaining the approval of the I-485, which allows a maximum of 180 days for one to be out of status under Section 245(k) of the INA, unless the person is covered under 245(i) of the INA. Sometimes, though, the fault of the employer in not paying the salary while the person is considered an employee may not pose a problem but at other times it may pose a problem. Not having pay stubs will certainly adversely impact the ability to obtain an extension or change of status from the USCIS. Jun-20-2005.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
I had written about this in the past. When I went for local office interview; he had requested all w2's and tax returns from my initial entry shown on g-325( LAST ADDRESS OUTSIDE USA FOR MORE THEN ONE YEAR) which was 1999.
It said prove that you maintained status on each entry.
Now: i didn't have any issues but I was pretty upset that officer was going way outside the law and testing periods that he wasn't supposed to. My date of last entry before filing 485 was December 2002 and he was requesting 1999-2006.
I did inform him that he wasn't supposed to ask for this as it was outside the law. However; what I gathered is that although 245k does have some significant protection for everyone; uscis tries to go other ways in catching/snagging you. Another link was provided in this link where a person listed an employer on his g-325a but he was on bench and never got paid. USCIS was trying to deny his 485 due to fraud. Fraud overrules 24k any time.
Therefore; uscis uses many different avenues to get at other aspects; especially to get you to lie, cover up, mislead in things you don't need to but inadvertently do because you think it is problematic when it really wasn't.
The feeling i got from my interview is that is what he was exactly trying to do.
Question: If in the past I have been out of H1B status for 6 months (I-94 not expired), is this going to hurt my GC (or any new petitions to change / extend / adjust status)?
Answer: A person who fails to maintain status for over 180 days may have a problem obtaining the approval of the I-485, which allows a maximum of 180 days for one to be out of status under Section 245(k) of the INA, unless the person is covered under 245(i) of the INA. Sometimes, though, the fault of the employer in not paying the salary while the person is considered an employee may not pose a problem but at other times it may pose a problem. Not having pay stubs will certainly adversely impact the ability to obtain an extension or change of status from the USCIS. Jun-20-2005.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
I had written about this in the past. When I went for local office interview; he had requested all w2's and tax returns from my initial entry shown on g-325( LAST ADDRESS OUTSIDE USA FOR MORE THEN ONE YEAR) which was 1999.
It said prove that you maintained status on each entry.
Now: i didn't have any issues but I was pretty upset that officer was going way outside the law and testing periods that he wasn't supposed to. My date of last entry before filing 485 was December 2002 and he was requesting 1999-2006.
I did inform him that he wasn't supposed to ask for this as it was outside the law. However; what I gathered is that although 245k does have some significant protection for everyone; uscis tries to go other ways in catching/snagging you. Another link was provided in this link where a person listed an employer on his g-325a but he was on bench and never got paid. USCIS was trying to deny his 485 due to fraud. Fraud overrules 24k any time.
Therefore; uscis uses many different avenues to get at other aspects; especially to get you to lie, cover up, mislead in things you don't need to but inadvertently do because you think it is problematic when it really wasn't.
The feeling i got from my interview is that is what he was exactly trying to do.
hairstyles abdukted#39;s EPIC 1990 turbo
bajrangbali
03-10 05:57 PM
Folks, no changes in PD can be taken in atleast some positive note:
USCIS may be pre-adjudicating the cases and getting them ready to approval when eventually the final quarter spill-over happens. I think they would do it in more orderly way this time having all this time to look over the pending cases and get a better idea of pending cases based on the priority date.
Dont lose heart!!!
USCIS may be pre-adjudicating the cases and getting them ready to approval when eventually the final quarter spill-over happens. I think they would do it in more orderly way this time having all this time to look over the pending cases and get a better idea of pending cases based on the priority date.
Dont lose heart!!!
Polk1848
06-13 11:45 AM
We are not out of the CIR woods yet.
Link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070612/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_immigration
......WE ARE OPPOSED AROUND THE WORLD BY A MONOLITHIC AND RUTHLESS CONSPIRACY THAT RELIES PRIMARILY ON COVERT MEANS FOR EXPANDING ITS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE...ON INFILTRATION INSTEAD OF INVASION...ON SUBVERSION INSTEAD OF ELECTIONS...ON INTIMIDATION INSTEAD OF FREE CHOICE...IT IS A SYSTEM WHICH HAS CONSCRIPTED VAST HUMAN AND MATERIAL RESOURCES INTO THEE BUILDING OF A TIGHTLY KNIT HIGHLY EFFICIENT MACHINE THAT COMBINES MILITARY DIPLOMATIC INTELLIGENT ECONOMIC, SCIENTIFIC, AND POLITICAL OPERATIONS. ITS PREPARATIONS ARE CONCEALED NOT PUBLISHED. ITS MISTAKES ARE BURIED, NOT HEADLINED. ITS DISSENTERS ARE SILENCED. NOT PRAISED. NO EXPENDITURE IS QUESTIONED. NO SECRET IS REVEALED. THAT IS WHY THE ATHENIAN LAWMAKER SOLO DECREED IT A CRIME FOR ANY CITIZEN TO SHRINK FROM CONTROVERSY. I AM ASKING YOUR HELP IN THE TREMENDOUS TASK OF INFORMING AND ALERTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. CONFIDENT THAT WITH YOUR HELP MAN WILL BE WHAT HE WAS BORN TO BE...FREE AND INDEPENDENT" John F Kennedy
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8450558837192717138&hl=en
Link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070612/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_immigration
......WE ARE OPPOSED AROUND THE WORLD BY A MONOLITHIC AND RUTHLESS CONSPIRACY THAT RELIES PRIMARILY ON COVERT MEANS FOR EXPANDING ITS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE...ON INFILTRATION INSTEAD OF INVASION...ON SUBVERSION INSTEAD OF ELECTIONS...ON INTIMIDATION INSTEAD OF FREE CHOICE...IT IS A SYSTEM WHICH HAS CONSCRIPTED VAST HUMAN AND MATERIAL RESOURCES INTO THEE BUILDING OF A TIGHTLY KNIT HIGHLY EFFICIENT MACHINE THAT COMBINES MILITARY DIPLOMATIC INTELLIGENT ECONOMIC, SCIENTIFIC, AND POLITICAL OPERATIONS. ITS PREPARATIONS ARE CONCEALED NOT PUBLISHED. ITS MISTAKES ARE BURIED, NOT HEADLINED. ITS DISSENTERS ARE SILENCED. NOT PRAISED. NO EXPENDITURE IS QUESTIONED. NO SECRET IS REVEALED. THAT IS WHY THE ATHENIAN LAWMAKER SOLO DECREED IT A CRIME FOR ANY CITIZEN TO SHRINK FROM CONTROVERSY. I AM ASKING YOUR HELP IN THE TREMENDOUS TASK OF INFORMING AND ALERTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. CONFIDENT THAT WITH YOUR HELP MAN WILL BE WHAT HE WAS BORN TO BE...FREE AND INDEPENDENT" John F Kennedy
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8450558837192717138&hl=en
retrohatao
02-14 10:23 AM
eb3_nepa,
FBI/Name check clearance is not a sub-issue. I have posted the link where you find tons of people waiting to get 485 cleared. See the linkif you need to understand the issue
http://immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=174845
It is not a sub issue and it is part of the green card process. I lament ( for lack of an apt word) your compariosn of name check to spouses not able to work.
You will realize how big a problem when you reach there.
Logiclife,
This forum has started recently and did not address "name check" as an issue. Its one of the burning issues for many of us ( most likely will impact all those who just want to clear the hurdle of labour clearnace). Believe, I was stuck in labor for 2 years ( due to Bush adminstration's decision to leagalize illegals) and I really thought that labor was the only hurdle. Atleast you could contact USCIS to track your progress. Now I am stuck in security clearance AKA name check. Now I am in totallly in darkness and nowhere to check what is happenning. FBI used to repond to e-mails( 6 months wait period)/phone messages two years ago.Now they have totally stopped it.
There are many like me and it is not just individual cases. Even at the bottom of my heart I feel those who are in labor stage whom you are representing should not have to face it. But the be realistic and I would see 80% of those in current labor would get stuck at this name check process unless some measure are taken by us.
Good luck if you guys think it is a "sub issue"
FBI/Name check clearance is not a sub-issue. I have posted the link where you find tons of people waiting to get 485 cleared. See the linkif you need to understand the issue
http://immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=174845
It is not a sub issue and it is part of the green card process. I lament ( for lack of an apt word) your compariosn of name check to spouses not able to work.
You will realize how big a problem when you reach there.
Logiclife,
This forum has started recently and did not address "name check" as an issue. Its one of the burning issues for many of us ( most likely will impact all those who just want to clear the hurdle of labour clearnace). Believe, I was stuck in labor for 2 years ( due to Bush adminstration's decision to leagalize illegals) and I really thought that labor was the only hurdle. Atleast you could contact USCIS to track your progress. Now I am stuck in security clearance AKA name check. Now I am in totallly in darkness and nowhere to check what is happenning. FBI used to repond to e-mails( 6 months wait period)/phone messages two years ago.Now they have totally stopped it.
There are many like me and it is not just individual cases. Even at the bottom of my heart I feel those who are in labor stage whom you are representing should not have to face it. But the be realistic and I would see 80% of those in current labor would get stuck at this name check process unless some measure are taken by us.
Good luck if you guys think it is a "sub issue"
No comments:
Post a Comment