Abhinaym
12-10 03:37 PM
Was that expected?
wallpaper Revealing Prom Dresses
lonedesi
08-11 08:33 AM
Members who mailed the letters & form please post here and let us know so that we get an idea how many people actually took part in this campaign so far.
jonty_11
09-10 03:02 PM
Remember this is the October VB...so thisis waht is in store for teh next Fiscal year..Oct 08 to Sept 09....so be ready for another year of drudgery....
Sometimein July Aug 2009, they will move dates again to prevent wastage..and again some lucky bastards will get thru...unlucky-always i.e. u and me...with continue to tread these forums....I need a break.............
Sometimein July Aug 2009, they will move dates again to prevent wastage..and again some lucky bastards will get thru...unlucky-always i.e. u and me...with continue to tread these forums....I need a break.............
2011 Madison High#39;s prom took place
Libra
09-10 08:36 PM
thank you 1 for contribution.
more...
jonty_11
07-05 05:11 PM
Call your state senators, it is effective that way.
already done that
already done that
waitforevergc
02-18 02:58 PM
All,
I am thinking of writing to the DHS Secretary about this never ending wait for AOS and about retrogression.
Could you all contribute with different points please?
Someone has to take initiative someday.
Thanks,
I am thinking of writing to the DHS Secretary about this never ending wait for AOS and about retrogression.
Could you all contribute with different points please?
Someone has to take initiative someday.
Thanks,
more...
waitnwatch
07-06 10:58 AM
Did any of you guys read the USCIS ombudsman report in detail. It talks about FBI namechecks in some detail and specifically mentions that the namechecks are less detailed than what USCIS already does through it's available databases. In fact the FBI checks fewer things than what the USCIS already checks and so the ombudsman believes that the FBI name check is a waste of time and should be done away with.
Nevertheless USCIS still keeps the FBI name check and I believe that is for purely political reasons where they can conveniently pass the buck if something untoward happens.
Therefore harping on the FBI namecheck issue for the weekend processing may not be a good idea.
Nevertheless USCIS still keeps the FBI name check and I believe that is for purely political reasons where they can conveniently pass the buck if something untoward happens.
Therefore harping on the FBI namecheck issue for the weekend processing may not be a good idea.
2010 Paris Prom Dresses
JunRN
09-29 01:29 AM
If USCIS waste another 11,000 visas this year...it is equivalent to one year visas for one country (9,800 EB visas per country per year)....can you imagine that?
The problem is compounded because applicants who supposedly got the visa this year would get the visa allocation from FY2008. That visa number could have been yours....or mine....
The problem is compounded because applicants who supposedly got the visa this year would get the visa allocation from FY2008. That visa number could have been yours....or mine....
more...
raju123
06-01 04:00 PM
This might be useful to you.
Age-Out Problems under the Interplay of the Rule of Concurrent Filing and "Child Status Protection Act"
The "Child Status Protection Act", effective August 6, 2002, addresses the problems of minor children losing their eligibility for certain immigration benefits as a result of INS (now USCIS) processing delays. Prior to the passage of this law, a child's eligibility in Employment-Based Immigration situations to be part of his or her parent's application as a derivative beneficiary was based on the child's age at the time that the child's I-485 was adjudicated. Because of enormous backlogs and processing delays, many children turned 21 before the their I-485 applications were adjudicated. In such cases, the children "age-out" and are no longer considered to be part of the parent's application and lose their eligibility to obtain green cards as a derivative beneficiary.
Children who otherwise would have aged out may successfully adjust their status through the additional interplay of the new Concurrent Filing rule and the "Child Status Protection Act." According to the "Child Status Protection Act," the eligibility of these aging-out children will be determined by their age at the date a visa becomes available to them minus the number of days that the Employment-Based immigration petition was pending. Furthermore, these children must file for permanent resident status within one year of such availability. For a clearer illustration of this rule, please see the different scenarios below.
Example 1
The Labor Certification application that was submitted on John's behalf on January 1, 2000 was later approved on December 31, 2000. Afterwards, his employer submits an I-140 (EB-2) immigration petition on John's behalf on January 1, 2002. At that time, John's son, Junior, is 20 years and 7 months old. John's I-140 petition was pending for six months and was approved on July 1, 2002, one month after Junior turns 21 years of age. The visa number for EB-2 was available for John on July 1, 2002. Under the old law without the Child Status Protection Act, Junior has aged out because he is now 21 years old. However, under the new law, his age is fixed as of the date that a visa number becomes available minus the number of days that the I-140 was pending. Because John's I-140 was pending for six months, these six months must be subtracted from Junior's age at the time the visa number became available on July 1, 2002. Subtracting six months from Junior's age of 21 years and one month on July 1, 2002, Junior's age is fixed at 20 years and 7 months. Thus, even though he was already 21 years and one month on July 1, 2002, he is still considered a "child" for purposes of accompanying his parents in adjusting his status to permanent residence. However, Junior has to file his I-485 within one year from the date of I-140 approval, that is before July 1, 2003. The length of time that is takes the USCIS to adjudicate Junior's case is no longer important in these cases.
According to "Child Status Protection Act", if through the above calculation, the child's age is fixed at 21 or older, the child would be automatically reclassified to an appropriate category and retains the principal beneficiary's original priority date. Please see the next example below.
Example 2
Same facts as above except that Junior is 21 years and seven months old at the time of John's I-140 approval. Because John's I-140 was pending for six months, Junior's age will be fixed at 21 years and one month. Even with the Child Status Protection Act, Junior still ages out and may not adjust his status at this time. However, he will automatically be reclassified to an appropriate category, family-based 2B, and retain his father's original priority date, January 1, 2000, which is the date John's employer filed John's Labor Certification application.
Example 3
Richard filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 1, 2002. Richard's son, Simon, is 21 years and one month old. According to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, Richard filed his I-485 because the visa number was currently available for Richard at that time. However, Simon cannot file his I-485 with his father because he aged out.
Example 4
Howard's daughter, Rachel, is 20 years and 10 months old. Howard filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 1, 2002. According to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, Howard and Rachel filed their I-485 since the visa number was available for Howard at that time. Thus, according to the "Child Status Protection Act," no matter how much time Howard's I-140 is pending, Rachel will not age out.
Visa numbers are currently available to all EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 categories. Thus, with the new Concurrent Filing rule, any person who is a beneficiary (or applicant) of an I-140 petition that has already been filed or is filing the I-140 at this time is now eligible to file the I-485 application as well. Family members will be eligible to file the I-485 along with the principal alien. However, since the Concurrent Filing rule became effective, visa numbers may become unavailable in the future because more eligible aliens will be filing their I-485. Thus, eligible aliens with aging-out children should file their I-485 as soon as possible. Please see next example.
Example 5
Jenny filed her I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 10, 2002. Jenny has a son, Benny, who is 20 years and eleven months old. However, due to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, many aliens have filed their I-140 and I-485 together and the visa number for EB-2 has been exhausted. However, the visa number will not be current until December 2002 when Benny will be 21 years and three months old. If Jenny's I-140 is pending for six months and will be approved in February 2003, these six months will be reduced from Benny's age in December 2002 when he is 21 years and three months old. Thus, his age is fixed as 20 years nine months. However, if Jenny's I-140 petition is pending for only two months and will be approved in October 2002, Benny's age will be fixed as 21 years and one month. Thus, Benny ages out in this scenario and must wait until his priority date under family-based 2B immigration becomes current.
Example 6
Jason filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on June 30, 2002. Jason has a son, Ken, who is 20 years and ten months old at that time. According to the visa bulletin, an immigration visa number became available for Jason on July 31, 2002. Ken was 20 years and eleven months on July 31, and he is not in the U.S. but in his home country. Because of the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule Jason filed his I-485 on August 10, 2002. If Jason's I-140 is pending for 6 months until December 31, 2002, one month pending period from June 30 to July 31, 2002 should be subtracted from Ken's age on July 31, 2002. Thus, Ken's age is fixed as 20 years and 10 months. Ken may apply for his immigrant visa through Consular Processing at U.S. Consulate in his home country within one year from July 31, 2002.
For more information about "Age Out", please click the following topics:
What is "Age Out"
Child Status Protection Act
If you are a USC, does CSPA prevent your child from "aging out"?
If you are an LPR or will be an LPR, does CSPA prevent your child from "aging out"?
Age Out Problems in Employment-Based Immigration
Age Out Problems under the Interplay of the Rule of Concurrent Filing and "CSPA"
Child of Asylee and Refugee
Unmarried Sons or Daughters of Naturalized Citizens
Effective Date of the CSPA
Hi All,
I want to know if my 19 year old son can be affected by aging out.
I have just received ALC certification and will now file I140 and I485 concurrently as my priority date NOV 22 2004 EB3 Rest of World will be current in June.
Can someone who understands the aging out rules tell me if my son may have a problem?
Thanks in advance...
Age-Out Problems under the Interplay of the Rule of Concurrent Filing and "Child Status Protection Act"
The "Child Status Protection Act", effective August 6, 2002, addresses the problems of minor children losing their eligibility for certain immigration benefits as a result of INS (now USCIS) processing delays. Prior to the passage of this law, a child's eligibility in Employment-Based Immigration situations to be part of his or her parent's application as a derivative beneficiary was based on the child's age at the time that the child's I-485 was adjudicated. Because of enormous backlogs and processing delays, many children turned 21 before the their I-485 applications were adjudicated. In such cases, the children "age-out" and are no longer considered to be part of the parent's application and lose their eligibility to obtain green cards as a derivative beneficiary.
Children who otherwise would have aged out may successfully adjust their status through the additional interplay of the new Concurrent Filing rule and the "Child Status Protection Act." According to the "Child Status Protection Act," the eligibility of these aging-out children will be determined by their age at the date a visa becomes available to them minus the number of days that the Employment-Based immigration petition was pending. Furthermore, these children must file for permanent resident status within one year of such availability. For a clearer illustration of this rule, please see the different scenarios below.
Example 1
The Labor Certification application that was submitted on John's behalf on January 1, 2000 was later approved on December 31, 2000. Afterwards, his employer submits an I-140 (EB-2) immigration petition on John's behalf on January 1, 2002. At that time, John's son, Junior, is 20 years and 7 months old. John's I-140 petition was pending for six months and was approved on July 1, 2002, one month after Junior turns 21 years of age. The visa number for EB-2 was available for John on July 1, 2002. Under the old law without the Child Status Protection Act, Junior has aged out because he is now 21 years old. However, under the new law, his age is fixed as of the date that a visa number becomes available minus the number of days that the I-140 was pending. Because John's I-140 was pending for six months, these six months must be subtracted from Junior's age at the time the visa number became available on July 1, 2002. Subtracting six months from Junior's age of 21 years and one month on July 1, 2002, Junior's age is fixed at 20 years and 7 months. Thus, even though he was already 21 years and one month on July 1, 2002, he is still considered a "child" for purposes of accompanying his parents in adjusting his status to permanent residence. However, Junior has to file his I-485 within one year from the date of I-140 approval, that is before July 1, 2003. The length of time that is takes the USCIS to adjudicate Junior's case is no longer important in these cases.
According to "Child Status Protection Act", if through the above calculation, the child's age is fixed at 21 or older, the child would be automatically reclassified to an appropriate category and retains the principal beneficiary's original priority date. Please see the next example below.
Example 2
Same facts as above except that Junior is 21 years and seven months old at the time of John's I-140 approval. Because John's I-140 was pending for six months, Junior's age will be fixed at 21 years and one month. Even with the Child Status Protection Act, Junior still ages out and may not adjust his status at this time. However, he will automatically be reclassified to an appropriate category, family-based 2B, and retain his father's original priority date, January 1, 2000, which is the date John's employer filed John's Labor Certification application.
Example 3
Richard filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 1, 2002. Richard's son, Simon, is 21 years and one month old. According to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, Richard filed his I-485 because the visa number was currently available for Richard at that time. However, Simon cannot file his I-485 with his father because he aged out.
Example 4
Howard's daughter, Rachel, is 20 years and 10 months old. Howard filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 1, 2002. According to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, Howard and Rachel filed their I-485 since the visa number was available for Howard at that time. Thus, according to the "Child Status Protection Act," no matter how much time Howard's I-140 is pending, Rachel will not age out.
Visa numbers are currently available to all EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 categories. Thus, with the new Concurrent Filing rule, any person who is a beneficiary (or applicant) of an I-140 petition that has already been filed or is filing the I-140 at this time is now eligible to file the I-485 application as well. Family members will be eligible to file the I-485 along with the principal alien. However, since the Concurrent Filing rule became effective, visa numbers may become unavailable in the future because more eligible aliens will be filing their I-485. Thus, eligible aliens with aging-out children should file their I-485 as soon as possible. Please see next example.
Example 5
Jenny filed her I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 10, 2002. Jenny has a son, Benny, who is 20 years and eleven months old. However, due to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, many aliens have filed their I-140 and I-485 together and the visa number for EB-2 has been exhausted. However, the visa number will not be current until December 2002 when Benny will be 21 years and three months old. If Jenny's I-140 is pending for six months and will be approved in February 2003, these six months will be reduced from Benny's age in December 2002 when he is 21 years and three months old. Thus, his age is fixed as 20 years nine months. However, if Jenny's I-140 petition is pending for only two months and will be approved in October 2002, Benny's age will be fixed as 21 years and one month. Thus, Benny ages out in this scenario and must wait until his priority date under family-based 2B immigration becomes current.
Example 6
Jason filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on June 30, 2002. Jason has a son, Ken, who is 20 years and ten months old at that time. According to the visa bulletin, an immigration visa number became available for Jason on July 31, 2002. Ken was 20 years and eleven months on July 31, and he is not in the U.S. but in his home country. Because of the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule Jason filed his I-485 on August 10, 2002. If Jason's I-140 is pending for 6 months until December 31, 2002, one month pending period from June 30 to July 31, 2002 should be subtracted from Ken's age on July 31, 2002. Thus, Ken's age is fixed as 20 years and 10 months. Ken may apply for his immigrant visa through Consular Processing at U.S. Consulate in his home country within one year from July 31, 2002.
For more information about "Age Out", please click the following topics:
What is "Age Out"
Child Status Protection Act
If you are a USC, does CSPA prevent your child from "aging out"?
If you are an LPR or will be an LPR, does CSPA prevent your child from "aging out"?
Age Out Problems in Employment-Based Immigration
Age Out Problems under the Interplay of the Rule of Concurrent Filing and "CSPA"
Child of Asylee and Refugee
Unmarried Sons or Daughters of Naturalized Citizens
Effective Date of the CSPA
Hi All,
I want to know if my 19 year old son can be affected by aging out.
I have just received ALC certification and will now file I140 and I485 concurrently as my priority date NOV 22 2004 EB3 Rest of World will be current in June.
Can someone who understands the aging out rules tell me if my son may have a problem?
Thanks in advance...
hair This is the prom dress that an
Jaime
09-12 05:04 PM
Bump
more...
Libra
09-10 08:38 PM
this is by kittu1991, dont know how much he contributed.....
How do I make sure that IV received the contribution I make?
Here is the google trans num: #705956299363142.
How do I make sure that IV received the contribution I make?
Here is the google trans num: #705956299363142.
hot backless red prom dress.
legalVoice
06-03 12:06 PM
Canadian_Dream, I think your interpretation is wrong..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 (2) PENDING AND APPROVED PETITIONS AND APPLICATIONS.�Petitions
41 for an employment-based visa filed for classification under
42 section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Immigration and Nationality
43 Act (as such provisions existed prior to the enactment of this
44 section) that were filed prior to the date of the introduction of
265
1 the [Insert title of Act] and were pending or approved at the
2 time of the effective date of this section, shall be treated as if
3 such provision remained effective and an approved petition may
4 serve as the basis for issuance of an immigrant visa. Aliens with
5 applications for a labor certification pursuant to section
6 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall
7 preserve the immigrant visa priority date accorded by the date
8 of filing of such labor certification application.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think what AILA, our core group and other attorneys are trying to say is that as long as you filed before May 15, 2007 you will be fine regardless of whether your petition is pending or approved. There is no dispute about this point. Any applications that were filed after May 15, 2007 will become null and void the day this bill is signed by the president to make it a law. The 'effective date' ( Oct 1, 2008 ) does not apply for applications filed after May 15, 2007. I will be glad if you can prove me wrong :)
Well this is very confusing.
What if a person files the I-140 after May 15th and his/her I-140 is approved. Later assume that I-485 date becomes current for that particular person (before Oct 2008), he/she files for the AOS/I-485 (before Oct 2008). While the I-485 petition is pending the date Oct 2008 comes what happens then? Will this nulify the filed I-140?
Thanks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 (2) PENDING AND APPROVED PETITIONS AND APPLICATIONS.�Petitions
41 for an employment-based visa filed for classification under
42 section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Immigration and Nationality
43 Act (as such provisions existed prior to the enactment of this
44 section) that were filed prior to the date of the introduction of
265
1 the [Insert title of Act] and were pending or approved at the
2 time of the effective date of this section, shall be treated as if
3 such provision remained effective and an approved petition may
4 serve as the basis for issuance of an immigrant visa. Aliens with
5 applications for a labor certification pursuant to section
6 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall
7 preserve the immigrant visa priority date accorded by the date
8 of filing of such labor certification application.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think what AILA, our core group and other attorneys are trying to say is that as long as you filed before May 15, 2007 you will be fine regardless of whether your petition is pending or approved. There is no dispute about this point. Any applications that were filed after May 15, 2007 will become null and void the day this bill is signed by the president to make it a law. The 'effective date' ( Oct 1, 2008 ) does not apply for applications filed after May 15, 2007. I will be glad if you can prove me wrong :)
Well this is very confusing.
What if a person files the I-140 after May 15th and his/her I-140 is approved. Later assume that I-485 date becomes current for that particular person (before Oct 2008), he/she files for the AOS/I-485 (before Oct 2008). While the I-485 petition is pending the date Oct 2008 comes what happens then? Will this nulify the filed I-140?
Thanks
more...
house Hood prom dresses
GooblyWoobly
08-11 02:01 AM
I think the monday deadline makes sense. See, USCIS said they are going to issue the receipting update every week. Last week's update said, 7/1/2007 for EB cases at Nebraska. How would you think it would look if, after a whole week, USCIS issues another update, with the same date. Embarrassing, Eh?
So, since they have to issue the update on Friday, they put this deadline. However, they probably realize that it's not possible for them to issue receipts of all July 2nd filers by Friday, so, they move the internal deadline to Monday. That's probably the reason they did not issue a receipting update today.
Just putting two and two together.
So, since they have to issue the update on Friday, they put this deadline. However, they probably realize that it's not possible for them to issue receipts of all July 2nd filers by Friday, so, they move the internal deadline to Monday. That's probably the reason they did not issue a receipting update today.
Just putting two and two together.
tattoo Prom Dress Trend: Stripper
Jimi_Hendrix
11-30 01:10 AM
Day: Thursday, November 30,2006
Time: 7 PM PST
Conference Dial-In: (712) 432-3000
Conference Bridge: 227974
All new members including Thiru please dial in to the conference. Also new members please forward me your e-mail address at amitg_2000@hotmail.com
Time: 7 PM PST
Conference Dial-In: (712) 432-3000
Conference Bridge: 227974
All new members including Thiru please dial in to the conference. Also new members please forward me your e-mail address at amitg_2000@hotmail.com
more...
pictures Revealing Prom Dresses
obviously
09-14 05:33 PM
Looks like some people will need to get their PhD awards 'overturned'!
Gctest, Pallavi79 etc present a faulty hypothesis and case to mask and promote their myopic self-interests.
e.g. "Eb2 people are highly qualified compared to EB3" - Nowhere in US immigration-based legislation do we find such support for such a categorical assertion.
EB categories are EMPLOYMENT BASED - simply put, the requirements of the job determine EB category. Not whether one is smarter than the other.
There is another 10+ page thread on this very topic where this issue has been examined threadbare. Based on current law there is nothing illegal in this porting practice. Also, there is no place for 'ethical' categorization in the letter of the law.
Porting is a legally supported practice which is tied to LABOR and JOB requirements, not to one's esteemed sense of self worth.
There are numerous BUSINESS reasons why EB3 to EB2 porting is allowed. Why not focus on other forms of irrational immigration practice like the 7% quotas which amount to discrimination based on national origin?
Gctest, Pallavi79 etc present a faulty hypothesis and case to mask and promote their myopic self-interests.
e.g. "Eb2 people are highly qualified compared to EB3" - Nowhere in US immigration-based legislation do we find such support for such a categorical assertion.
EB categories are EMPLOYMENT BASED - simply put, the requirements of the job determine EB category. Not whether one is smarter than the other.
There is another 10+ page thread on this very topic where this issue has been examined threadbare. Based on current law there is nothing illegal in this porting practice. Also, there is no place for 'ethical' categorization in the letter of the law.
Porting is a legally supported practice which is tied to LABOR and JOB requirements, not to one's esteemed sense of self worth.
There are numerous BUSINESS reasons why EB3 to EB2 porting is allowed. Why not focus on other forms of irrational immigration practice like the 7% quotas which amount to discrimination based on national origin?
dresses Revealing Prom Dresses
komaragiri
08-02 04:23 PM
Hopefully they can as well speed up their process for July filers.
Wake up Texas !!:)
Wake up Texas !!:)
more...
makeup finding prom dresses in
Libra
09-12 11:43 AM
12k+ more to reach goal. please contribute.
girlfriend Panoply Prom Dress available
lskreddy
04-30 03:55 PM
Jeez, they are done. I am freaking dumbstruck for the sheer lack of substance in the discussion. Gosh, what a waste of tax-payers money!!
hairstyles revealing prom dress.
coolpal
02-04 12:25 PM
My wife has H1B processed in maiden name -(i 797, i-94, stamping). she recently changed her maiden name to married name. she changed her name in SSN and Passport. DMV in NJ are asking to change the name in immigration office. We spoke to the immigration authority and they say there are no relevant forms to make the name change. If anybody have solution let me know.
Explain to the DMV about this... and try not to go on a weekend. They are extremely busy on weekends are easily irritated. Find them when they are relatively calm and free...
pal :)
Explain to the DMV about this... and try not to go on a weekend. They are extremely busy on weekends are easily irritated. Find them when they are relatively calm and free...
pal :)
mmanurker
09-26 11:00 AM
This is the worst DMV in NJ... You may be better off going to Jersey City, Princeton or anywhere else.
Princeton/Trenton are also worst...FYI...My DL already expired on 9th Sept.
I went to Trenton with original receipt and employer letter but still they refused to renew my license.
My attorney forgot to upgrade my H1 application to premium process and then started to defend himself by saying that he did not get any approval from my employer and at the same time he never told me that he did not get my employer authorization till Sept 11th where as I asked him to upgrade to premium sometime in last week of July'07. So from July to Sept'11th he kept making excuses one after another but never mentioned that he needs an employer authorization.Thats how these attorneys work and screw our lives....
Princeton/Trenton are also worst...FYI...My DL already expired on 9th Sept.
I went to Trenton with original receipt and employer letter but still they refused to renew my license.
My attorney forgot to upgrade my H1 application to premium process and then started to defend himself by saying that he did not get any approval from my employer and at the same time he never told me that he did not get my employer authorization till Sept 11th where as I asked him to upgrade to premium sometime in last week of July'07. So from July to Sept'11th he kept making excuses one after another but never mentioned that he needs an employer authorization.Thats how these attorneys work and screw our lives....
vaccine
09-11 09:13 AM
Count me in for $ 100 and I am coming to rally as well. See you all in DC
No comments:
Post a Comment