wait4ever
08-20 11:33 AM
delax,
What is your service center?
Below are the details for self and spouse
Aug 13 - soft LUD
Aug 14 - Approval notice sent
Aug 15 - soft LUD. status is still Approval notice sent
My service center is TSC.
Folks
Did anyone get their physical Cards without getting CPO message ?
I have recd the I-797C Approval notice on the 11th but I have not recd the physical cards as yet. BTW I did not get any welcome e-mail or CPO mail - I directly got 485 Approval e-mail and that is all.
What is your service center?
Below are the details for self and spouse
Aug 13 - soft LUD
Aug 14 - Approval notice sent
Aug 15 - soft LUD. status is still Approval notice sent
My service center is TSC.
Folks
Did anyone get their physical Cards without getting CPO message ?
I have recd the I-797C Approval notice on the 11th but I have not recd the physical cards as yet. BTW I did not get any welcome e-mail or CPO mail - I directly got 485 Approval e-mail and that is all.
wallpaper of meiosis I (diakinesis,
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
==================
chmur
07-28 12:33 AM
No one can realistically claim a moral high ground here - neither EB2 nor EB3. and that includes me too! Each one of us here are looking for self interest, period. No amount of calls to empathy/sympathy/solidarity will change that.
For example, I'll get behind the whole "restore the old overflow logic for EB3" campaign in a heartbeat if we can have a consensus that EB3 will share the resulting overflow with EB3 other workers category too. EB3 other workers category is typically in worse shape than EB3-I so all the arguments presented here for EB3 (length of wait and frustration, unfairness of it all etc.) apply equally or more to the EB3 other workers. Any takers for this proposal?
So please see all this for what it is and stop the endless debate. You can not realistically expect EB2s to support any campaign that directly harm their interests. EB3s of course have every right to run whatever campaign they wish but also accept that it *will* split active IV membership (rare as it is) along those lines vertically. That's why the calls to stick to "common minimum program" of visa re-capture. Only those campaigns that don't have conflict of interests will be able to draw whole IV membership behind them. It's human nature - plain and simple.
Agreed. The resource(Visa numbers) is fixed and scarce. so it is natural that everyone will fight with whatever they can to access them , unless the resource is expanded (Recapture)
EB3-I will be foolish to expect EB2-I's to help them out .
IMO, IV has sensed this and maintained a dignified silence . They really cannot take a position on this and still function as objective forum .
I think none of us should force them either ...IV has larger objective of increasing the pie and we should all support it.
Where i disagree is why should EB3-I lobbying should split IV . I see no reason in that.
For example, I'll get behind the whole "restore the old overflow logic for EB3" campaign in a heartbeat if we can have a consensus that EB3 will share the resulting overflow with EB3 other workers category too. EB3 other workers category is typically in worse shape than EB3-I so all the arguments presented here for EB3 (length of wait and frustration, unfairness of it all etc.) apply equally or more to the EB3 other workers. Any takers for this proposal?
So please see all this for what it is and stop the endless debate. You can not realistically expect EB2s to support any campaign that directly harm their interests. EB3s of course have every right to run whatever campaign they wish but also accept that it *will* split active IV membership (rare as it is) along those lines vertically. That's why the calls to stick to "common minimum program" of visa re-capture. Only those campaigns that don't have conflict of interests will be able to draw whole IV membership behind them. It's human nature - plain and simple.
Agreed. The resource(Visa numbers) is fixed and scarce. so it is natural that everyone will fight with whatever they can to access them , unless the resource is expanded (Recapture)
EB3-I will be foolish to expect EB2-I's to help them out .
IMO, IV has sensed this and maintained a dignified silence . They really cannot take a position on this and still function as objective forum .
I think none of us should force them either ...IV has larger objective of increasing the pie and we should all support it.
Where i disagree is why should EB3-I lobbying should split IV . I see no reason in that.
2011 You will divide of steps of
eb3retro
07-19 07:24 PM
the above poster summarized it very good. here are some of my thoughts..
1) we can come up with a formal letter (standard one) which is well written and can be faxed to USCIS director or emailed.
2) we can also fax/email the same letter to ombudsman so that they are aware of this issue.
in my gut feeling ombudsman is as close as we can get to uscis if we need visibility to this. optionally we can use the same letter to send it to the senators/congressman.
The letter should be short, precise, upto the point, without any spelling mistakes, well written. if u look at this post itself, you could very well decide that i am not suitable for that job. can someone in eb3-I who has a good writing skill come up with such a letter and so that we can try what ever we can from our end. its every dog's battle here. and if sanyahari is fighting, its his / her right to do so. so what do u say folks?
1) we can come up with a formal letter (standard one) which is well written and can be faxed to USCIS director or emailed.
2) we can also fax/email the same letter to ombudsman so that they are aware of this issue.
in my gut feeling ombudsman is as close as we can get to uscis if we need visibility to this. optionally we can use the same letter to send it to the senators/congressman.
The letter should be short, precise, upto the point, without any spelling mistakes, well written. if u look at this post itself, you could very well decide that i am not suitable for that job. can someone in eb3-I who has a good writing skill come up with such a letter and so that we can try what ever we can from our end. its every dog's battle here. and if sanyahari is fighting, its his / her right to do so. so what do u say folks?
more...
sunofeast_gc
07-08 03:49 PM
Madam Rice is trying to divert the issue by telling skilled professional from all over the world wants to come here....This is not the issue.....
Issue is there are thousands of high skilled professional with approved labor and I-140 , waiting for years to file I-485.... DOS told then on 13th June that you all can file I-485 and all of the sudden on 2nd July 07 DOS said we can't accept your application...
So madam secretary it's not issue of how many high skilled professional wants to come here. Infact DOS/USCIS/Govt. of US need to think how life is tough for those high skilled professional who already came here and waiting for years to get green card through legal system....
Issue is there are thousands of high skilled professional with approved labor and I-140 , waiting for years to file I-485.... DOS told then on 13th June that you all can file I-485 and all of the sudden on 2nd July 07 DOS said we can't accept your application...
So madam secretary it's not issue of how many high skilled professional wants to come here. Infact DOS/USCIS/Govt. of US need to think how life is tough for those high skilled professional who already came here and waiting for years to get green card through legal system....
coolmanasip
07-02 08:52 AM
Sent out on Friday with an overnight delivery. So hoping that it must reach there today! Lawyers office is busy!!! won't tell the tracking number, only will confirm that it has gone out!!!
more...
govindk
07-04 10:02 AM
Congratulations! Enjoy your independence :)
2010 Only carries one and final Meiosis+1+steps Telophase i when youthe lengthy
lord_labaku
09-16 07:24 AM
Dudes & Dudettes,
Hasnt the issue of processing order been beaten to death?
I understand the momentum here....not trying to rain on a parade or anything...but shouldnt we be a little practical. How long is litigation going to take? Wont only naive lawyers even take this up?
USCIS can always pull the security reason trump card here.
moreover, during the last quarter...in the effort to not waste visas, low hanging easy to approve cases with later priority dates have gotten approved. wudnt u rather have that than visas going waste?
We have been patient for a very long time....lets see how the dates move in the 1st 2 quarters of fiscal 09.
My personal suggestion....stop worrying aout GC...there are much bigger things in life to worry about. :)
Hasnt the issue of processing order been beaten to death?
I understand the momentum here....not trying to rain on a parade or anything...but shouldnt we be a little practical. How long is litigation going to take? Wont only naive lawyers even take this up?
USCIS can always pull the security reason trump card here.
moreover, during the last quarter...in the effort to not waste visas, low hanging easy to approve cases with later priority dates have gotten approved. wudnt u rather have that than visas going waste?
We have been patient for a very long time....lets see how the dates move in the 1st 2 quarters of fiscal 09.
My personal suggestion....stop worrying aout GC...there are much bigger things in life to worry about. :)
more...
ssa
06-22 04:59 PM
My labour and I-140 is approved last year and I am working with current employer from last 1 and half years. Employer is making good money trough me....
m very much in tension and he is talking to me.
Can someone suggest what may be the option for me?
Its all about how you negotiate. You may have some leeway in your negotiations if you have enough years left on your H1B. If all other peaceful negotiations fail let them know - without loosing your temper - that filing I 485 is the most important thing for you at this point and if it does not get done before the PDs retrogress again you will look out for other job using H1B transfer. All they worry about is the billing money they get out of you and they are worried once you file I-485 they will loose it in 6 months due to AC21. If you make them see that they will loose it other way too they may cut some deal with you.
Just my 2 cents
m very much in tension and he is talking to me.
Can someone suggest what may be the option for me?
Its all about how you negotiate. You may have some leeway in your negotiations if you have enough years left on your H1B. If all other peaceful negotiations fail let them know - without loosing your temper - that filing I 485 is the most important thing for you at this point and if it does not get done before the PDs retrogress again you will look out for other job using H1B transfer. All they worry about is the billing money they get out of you and they are worried once you file I-485 they will loose it in 6 months due to AC21. If you make them see that they will loose it other way too they may cut some deal with you.
Just my 2 cents
hair mitosis meiosis games
simple1
05-08 02:31 PM
we are talking about inclusion logic here. Not the exclusion logic.
I do see in sec 203 how some one becomes eligible for "eb quota". I dont see ebdependents there. I see only eb primary.
I am sorry, I am not interested to carry this debate forward for the fun of debating. I strongly urge you to read sec 203. Thanks for understanding.
Do you see anywhere in INA mentioning that "EB-dependents should NOT be filed in EB-category". How is it a "mis-interpretation" then?
Again like I mentioned before you can archive the same goal (which you care about) via a different approach.
I do see in sec 203 how some one becomes eligible for "eb quota". I dont see ebdependents there. I see only eb primary.
I am sorry, I am not interested to carry this debate forward for the fun of debating. I strongly urge you to read sec 203. Thanks for understanding.
Do you see anywhere in INA mentioning that "EB-dependents should NOT be filed in EB-category". How is it a "mis-interpretation" then?
Again like I mentioned before you can archive the same goal (which you care about) via a different approach.
more...
gc_bulgaria
11-22 11:02 AM
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/11/mehuls-dilemma.html
Dear Mehul,
Greg Siskind has addressed your case on his blog. Good luck and hope things turn out well for you!
Dear Mehul,
Greg Siskind has addressed your case on his blog. Good luck and hope things turn out well for you!
hot the steps of livingmitosis
aquarianf
04-24 11:29 AM
Guyz, i met attorney. got copy of non compete agreement from a co-worker. I feel kind of releived after what he said.
As per him, every non-compete agreement that is signed cannot be neccessarily enforced in the court of law. If the sole purpose is to avoid ordinary competition, it is unreasonable and unenforceable. If the agreement is ever challenged in court, the most important question, which will be posed from the Judge to the employer, is "What is the legitimate business purpose that is served by this non-compete agreement?"
Now as h1b employees, as every one knows we r not the key personnel in the company. we do not carry with us any trade secrets or confidential information which might harm their business.
AS per him the higher up the "food chain" an employee is at a company, the more willing courts are to enforce non-compete agreements. Upper level employees are typically exposed to more confidential, trade secret, strategic and other information that gives a company a competitive advantage in the market place. The lower down the food chain an employee is, the less likely a court is to enforce non-compete and non-solicitation terms.
Also non competes always have to give some profits to the employee, say a paid vacation, bonus or somethign like that. An employer cannot
just make the employee sign it to restrict him from making better living and not give anything in return....
Seems like these things are favourable to all the h1b employees.
If any employer is claiming non compete to hold the consultant to his company, then even he should not take employees from competetive companies..... But r they doing it???????? We all know the answer.... IT consulting businesses run like that.
can you ask the attorney if he can work on contingency basis? Or did he gave any estimate of how much it may cost you if you have to face lawsiute or if you have to go to settlement route?
As per him, every non-compete agreement that is signed cannot be neccessarily enforced in the court of law. If the sole purpose is to avoid ordinary competition, it is unreasonable and unenforceable. If the agreement is ever challenged in court, the most important question, which will be posed from the Judge to the employer, is "What is the legitimate business purpose that is served by this non-compete agreement?"
Now as h1b employees, as every one knows we r not the key personnel in the company. we do not carry with us any trade secrets or confidential information which might harm their business.
AS per him the higher up the "food chain" an employee is at a company, the more willing courts are to enforce non-compete agreements. Upper level employees are typically exposed to more confidential, trade secret, strategic and other information that gives a company a competitive advantage in the market place. The lower down the food chain an employee is, the less likely a court is to enforce non-compete and non-solicitation terms.
Also non competes always have to give some profits to the employee, say a paid vacation, bonus or somethign like that. An employer cannot
just make the employee sign it to restrict him from making better living and not give anything in return....
Seems like these things are favourable to all the h1b employees.
If any employer is claiming non compete to hold the consultant to his company, then even he should not take employees from competetive companies..... But r they doing it???????? We all know the answer.... IT consulting businesses run like that.
can you ask the attorney if he can work on contingency basis? Or did he gave any estimate of how much it may cost you if you have to face lawsiute or if you have to go to settlement route?
more...
house meiosis
anzerraja
07-20 02:36 PM
See my other post. People responded very specifically because this drive was directed towards a certain cause. I think we need to respect that.
Zoooom, Anzeraja & All pledgers,
Thanks for driving this effort. Subsequent to Aman's post, we can direct these pledges to the normal contribution drive for IV.
It was amazing to see such response to call for funds for Aman and other core members.
Zoooom, Anzeraja & All pledgers,
Thanks for driving this effort. Subsequent to Aman's post, we can direct these pledges to the normal contribution drive for IV.
It was amazing to see such response to call for funds for Aman and other core members.
tattoo picture interphase g Steps
bluemask
05-23 09:52 AM
Sent 2+10 emails.
Will call later and ask friends do the same thing.
Thanks IV!
Will call later and ask friends do the same thing.
Thanks IV!
more...
pictures Meiosis.
Lasantha
07-05 12:57 PM
Yes, The word Gandhigiri is a combination of Gandhi - giri , the first is in reference to Mahatma Gandhi and giri is a slang for doing things in a certain way. Gandhigiri means protesting in a peacful way but in a way that embaresses the people being protested against.
Thanks Crystal and nfinity for the explaination. Sounds like a great idea. Count me in.
Thanks Crystal and nfinity for the explaination. Sounds like a great idea. Count me in.
dresses steps of mitosis. meiosis
caeb2rir
08-03 04:52 PM
My checks got cleared at TSC today.
Previously
My 140 was approved at TSC, sent 485 to Nebraska on June 22, they received on June 25. I called to check status yesterday, the lady said to wait. On asking if case will be transferred to TSC and if TSC will generate receipts, she said she doesn't know, but it may take at least 2-3 weeks to process receipts at Nebraska.
Previously
My 140 was approved at TSC, sent 485 to Nebraska on June 22, they received on June 25. I called to check status yesterday, the lady said to wait. On asking if case will be transferred to TSC and if TSC will generate receipts, she said she doesn't know, but it may take at least 2-3 weeks to process receipts at Nebraska.
more...
makeup stages of mitosis and meiosis
Macaca
07-10 10:13 AM
Thanks for posting this link. This is a must read on AOS.
8 CFR PART 245 -- ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cf90b70814c3464912a08093ce96e 83c)
This link is for section 245 in TITLE 8 OF CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (8 CFR) (I think!) . This CFR may have other sections of use for us. For example, there may be section 240 that explains some other GC stage.
Please post a link that is table of contents of CFR. That is, it gives all section titles in CFR: Sec 1, Sec 2, .. Sec 245, Sec 246, ... Thanks!
8 CFR PART 245 -- ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cf90b70814c3464912a08093ce96e 83c)
This link is for section 245 in TITLE 8 OF CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (8 CFR) (I think!) . This CFR may have other sections of use for us. For example, there may be section 240 that explains some other GC stage.
Please post a link that is table of contents of CFR. That is, it gives all section titles in CFR: Sec 1, Sec 2, .. Sec 245, Sec 246, ... Thanks!
girlfriend Meiosis+1+telophase+1
solaris27
08-12 08:07 AM
Mailed: July 12th
RD: Jul 15th
ND: July 15th
EAD approved - August 12 2008
What I did till now.
1) Contacted Senator/Congressman/Governor
2) Filled 7001 form for Ombudsman
3) Called USCIS 10 times in last 10 days and come to know that everything is cleared on my and wife applications.
4) Strange thing applied EAD on July 15th 2008 and got approved today august 12 2008.
RD: Jul 15th
ND: July 15th
EAD approved - August 12 2008
What I did till now.
1) Contacted Senator/Congressman/Governor
2) Filled 7001 form for Ombudsman
3) Called USCIS 10 times in last 10 days and come to know that everything is cleared on my and wife applications.
4) Strange thing applied EAD on July 15th 2008 and got approved today august 12 2008.
hairstyles meiosis and mitosis steps
anantc
08-20 02:45 PM
EAD renewal applied for spouse: July 21 2008
Receipt dt/Check EnCashed: July 23 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------
PD:Oct 2003
I-140 (EB2) Filed in Oct'06 received query in Dec 2007. Employer forced to change to EB3 140..so
I-140(EB3) Pending and transfered to Nebraska Center
I-485 Pending (But applied before EB2 140 got query) ..so
No Idea!! :((
More than 9yrs waiting now! with some Hope of getting EB3 485 moving to Oct 2003 and up in Sept.
Receipt dt/Check EnCashed: July 23 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------
PD:Oct 2003
I-140 (EB2) Filed in Oct'06 received query in Dec 2007. Employer forced to change to EB3 140..so
I-140(EB3) Pending and transfered to Nebraska Center
I-485 Pending (But applied before EB2 140 got query) ..so
No Idea!! :((
More than 9yrs waiting now! with some Hope of getting EB3 485 moving to Oct 2003 and up in Sept.
eb3_nepa
05-03 05:14 PM
I wonder how many who come here on H4 know what complexities lay ahead in the G.C processing. unfortunately it is not easy to undo their marriage and go back.
They need a fair deal too just like the way those in EB-3 are waiting for a proposal that addresses their issues more directly rather than trickle down. I guess u r one of them.
I dont know how much u know about G.C before u came here. I am yet to understand it clearly.
--MC
I agree with MChundi here. I have been in this process since 2002 and have worked closely with my lawyers but it never ceases to amaze me how much complexity is built into the GC system. Putting the ads, applying for labor, aplying for I-140 answering any throwbacks from DOL/UCSIS. TO add to that the goof ups by the immigration lawyers and their para-legals certainly confuses the hell out of u.
Most ppl who apply for GCs are unaware about retrogression and PBEC problems at the onset. Even if they are aware u think, "well, my labour will take abt a year or so so by then hopefully things will become current". I mean not a lot of us, have the time or the foresight to plan THAT much in advance.
Now if we as H1s dont know the deal here, H4's CERTAINLY dont know the deal and it takes them a LOT more time to grasp the reality of things coz they have to absorb many other things like learning how to drive here, learning how the credit system works here etc etc etc.
All that being said, i would ask the H4's to try and avoid pointing blame at the IV members. This is not an easy process for sure. We are in NO position to demand anything from the US Govt. Whatever progress we have made is also quite phenomenal. I Still cant believe we collected even $100,000+ !! Right now the best strategy is to solve the primary applicant's problems and try and get the dependents problems go away along with that.
They need a fair deal too just like the way those in EB-3 are waiting for a proposal that addresses their issues more directly rather than trickle down. I guess u r one of them.
I dont know how much u know about G.C before u came here. I am yet to understand it clearly.
--MC
I agree with MChundi here. I have been in this process since 2002 and have worked closely with my lawyers but it never ceases to amaze me how much complexity is built into the GC system. Putting the ads, applying for labor, aplying for I-140 answering any throwbacks from DOL/UCSIS. TO add to that the goof ups by the immigration lawyers and their para-legals certainly confuses the hell out of u.
Most ppl who apply for GCs are unaware about retrogression and PBEC problems at the onset. Even if they are aware u think, "well, my labour will take abt a year or so so by then hopefully things will become current". I mean not a lot of us, have the time or the foresight to plan THAT much in advance.
Now if we as H1s dont know the deal here, H4's CERTAINLY dont know the deal and it takes them a LOT more time to grasp the reality of things coz they have to absorb many other things like learning how to drive here, learning how the credit system works here etc etc etc.
All that being said, i would ask the H4's to try and avoid pointing blame at the IV members. This is not an easy process for sure. We are in NO position to demand anything from the US Govt. Whatever progress we have made is also quite phenomenal. I Still cant believe we collected even $100,000+ !! Right now the best strategy is to solve the primary applicant's problems and try and get the dependents problems go away along with that.
alisa
12-12 12:24 AM
in one of the threads its said that all 90 senators had agreed to pass the SKIL as against one who did not (sen sessions) and since lame duck required unanimous voting it cud not, but when the demo's bring it up early next year, they would not need an unanimous vote on it but a majority vote? so statistically it sud get through? how far off am i on this?
Good question.
Also, I just learnt (through this forum) about 'hold'. Senator Sessions had put a 'hold' (a non-written tradition needing consent to raise in the senate) on the Cornyn bill.
Is that only for the lameduck session? Or is it true in general? Can senators put a 'hold' on a matter in any senate session? If that is true, then Senator Sessions can never even let this matter come up in senate in 2007 (and after.)
Good question.
Also, I just learnt (through this forum) about 'hold'. Senator Sessions had put a 'hold' (a non-written tradition needing consent to raise in the senate) on the Cornyn bill.
Is that only for the lameduck session? Or is it true in general? Can senators put a 'hold' on a matter in any senate session? If that is true, then Senator Sessions can never even let this matter come up in senate in 2007 (and after.)
No comments:
Post a Comment