shreekarthik
10-09 12:08 AM
How about forcing FBI remove reference files from the name check? Basically put the name check process back to how it was pre-Nov. Dec. 2002 ? Here's the story of name check
In Oct-2002 a person was cleared by FBI as having no records but INS somehow found that he was involved in foreign counter intelligence investigation. So it asked FBI how such a person could be cleared with no records. At that time FBI checked only the main files (even today FOIPA requests checks only the main files) and it didn't find that guy in the main file. It then queried the reference files and found him there. So instead of investigating why the agent did not add this record to the main file what it did was add the reference file to search. The reference file will have all sorts of records, good or bad including stuff like traffic tickets, witness to a crime, FBI Tipping etc. So now if a person has a hit FBI has to determine whether that hit was due to a good deed or bad deed from the person. What kind of stupid decision is this ? If a fellow was missed in the main file then action should be taken to fix the main file not add all and every other file to the search and start manually separating wheat from chaff.
If the name check process is reverted to pre nov. 2002 mode things will definitely move fast.
In Oct-2002 a person was cleared by FBI as having no records but INS somehow found that he was involved in foreign counter intelligence investigation. So it asked FBI how such a person could be cleared with no records. At that time FBI checked only the main files (even today FOIPA requests checks only the main files) and it didn't find that guy in the main file. It then queried the reference files and found him there. So instead of investigating why the agent did not add this record to the main file what it did was add the reference file to search. The reference file will have all sorts of records, good or bad including stuff like traffic tickets, witness to a crime, FBI Tipping etc. So now if a person has a hit FBI has to determine whether that hit was due to a good deed or bad deed from the person. What kind of stupid decision is this ? If a fellow was missed in the main file then action should be taken to fix the main file not add all and every other file to the search and start manually separating wheat from chaff.
If the name check process is reverted to pre nov. 2002 mode things will definitely move fast.
wallpaper Kobe Bryant Dunking On Dwayne
capriol
09-12 07:19 PM
Isn't that they have completed input and receipt issuance for cases received by certain date (late Aug.?) according to their update? How come so many July filers still have not received receipts? Weird!
No, it seems as per the latest USCIS update (on Sept 7, 2007) the NSC has completed issuing receipt notices till July 28, 2007, and TSC till July 2, 2007.
Do you have any other updates?
Thanks.
No, it seems as per the latest USCIS update (on Sept 7, 2007) the NSC has completed issuing receipt notices till July 28, 2007, and TSC till July 2, 2007.
Do you have any other updates?
Thanks.
eb3_nepa
05-02 11:33 AM
Ragz thanks for removing the unnecessary quotes :)
2011 VIDEO: Kobe Bryant Dunks On
anju
12-19 02:29 PM
On the same boat. Filed SR twice. No fp notice yet.
more...
nefrateedi
09-18 10:34 AM
Hello Everyone,
My checks were cashed yesterday. My application reached NSC on July 14. My I-140 was also approved from NSC.
I got the receipt numbers from the back of the checks, however when I entered them on the USCIS website, it said that the numbers were invalid. Any idea if I need to wait another day or so before the system will accept them?
Good luck to everyone still waiting...
My checks were cashed yesterday. My application reached NSC on July 14. My I-140 was also approved from NSC.
I got the receipt numbers from the back of the checks, however when I entered them on the USCIS website, it said that the numbers were invalid. Any idea if I need to wait another day or so before the system will accept them?
Good luck to everyone still waiting...
kshitijnt
07-09 02:24 PM
where is the attachment?
It was a long time dialogue from various websites / including my attorney , that you cannot work for your own company on AC21 basis.
http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/news/2005,0520-ac21.pdf
Here is the link. Your attorney is not the law. Some other attorney might say you can do it.
It was a long time dialogue from various websites / including my attorney , that you cannot work for your own company on AC21 basis.
http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/news/2005,0520-ac21.pdf
Here is the link. Your attorney is not the law. Some other attorney might say you can do it.
more...
bsbawa10
05-10 05:08 AM
GC Visa's are per country per year, where as H1's are not per country based, we indians used most H1's and stood in queue for GC's of course there is path so we stood, in fact it is one attraction they used to bring over here, to start with, per country GC visa limit is a poor thought.
GC quota should be better tied to H1 quota or raise the limit and god knows when did they put the numbers per country GC, before H1b program or after H1b program.
H1b program allowed hundred's of thousands to come in, in fact which they encouraged i can dare to say and GC visa count is not according to that and they let all these families to stay in limbo or wait forever is not a good sign.
Irony is majority of these folks are purposed to solve or improve all kinds of problems ranging from improving enterprise's response time from months to minutes or minutes to secs and other kinds improvements, who's families and them selves stuck in a decade long "legal immigration" battle of their life.
Hey, I like this suggestion a lot.
GC quota should be better tied to H1 quota or raise the limit and god knows when did they put the numbers per country GC, before H1b program or after H1b program.
H1b program allowed hundred's of thousands to come in, in fact which they encouraged i can dare to say and GC visa count is not according to that and they let all these families to stay in limbo or wait forever is not a good sign.
Irony is majority of these folks are purposed to solve or improve all kinds of problems ranging from improving enterprise's response time from months to minutes or minutes to secs and other kinds improvements, who's families and them selves stuck in a decade long "legal immigration" battle of their life.
Hey, I like this suggestion a lot.
2010 LeBron James
rajmirk
05-05 10:49 AM
The second part of that post was offensive, but come-on guys - have to admit that the first part was just hilarious!!
'Can Uma Thurman help with the SKIL Bill' ... hehehehehe
'Can Uma Thurman help with the SKIL Bill' ... hehehehehe
more...
psk79
09-11 10:02 AM
I got that same LUD and my EAD arrived in the mail a couple of days later! Good Luck to you and I hope you receive it soon!!
Hi Lisap,
I got an email last night saying EAD card ordered on Sep8 which is a saturday.. This morning I got two emails again saying that same card was ordered on Sep 10. However this is the spouse's ead and I see the lud as 9/10 on 5 of our 485/ead/ap apps. However spouse AP (whose ead was ordered) still has 9/5. I don't understand y they approve one and take time for the other. I think their system has some issues...
Did ur case status say 'ordered' before you got the ead in mail?
Thanks.
Hi Lisap,
I got an email last night saying EAD card ordered on Sep8 which is a saturday.. This morning I got two emails again saying that same card was ordered on Sep 10. However this is the spouse's ead and I see the lud as 9/10 on 5 of our 485/ead/ap apps. However spouse AP (whose ead was ordered) still has 9/5. I don't understand y they approve one and take time for the other. I think their system has some issues...
Did ur case status say 'ordered' before you got the ead in mail?
Thanks.
hair Kobe Bryant dunks as Lebron
xlr8r
05-27 07:22 PM
Done.
more...
cygent
02-14 05:25 PM
Your transaction ID for this payment is: 37X0990761241871V.
Thanks everyone!
Thanks everyone!
hot If u put Lebron James and Kobe
sam2006
07-20 12:24 PM
Congratulations Aman !!!
100 $ more from my side once the Checks get cleared !!!
100 $ more from my side once the Checks get cleared !!!
more...
house kobe bryant dunks on lebron
Sachin_Stock
09-24 05:36 PM
cat got your tongue ?
Its an absurd analogy. If I stress it too much and try to derive some sense out of it, my bar on GMAT prep would actually go down south!
Its an absurd analogy. If I stress it too much and try to derive some sense out of it, my bar on GMAT prep would actually go down south!
tattoo LA Lakers#39; Kobe Bryant
ThinkTwice
07-19 06:59 PM
Good job Think Twice.. you are putting your money where your mouth is. :D :D :o
I pledge $200 towards this fund.
I pledge $200 towards this fund.
more...
pictures Then Kobe Bryant flew in and
s_r_e_e
08-29 05:01 PM
What a unfair system?
Change title to - What AN unfair system :D:D:D:D
Change title to - What AN unfair system :D:D:D:D
dresses hairstyles lebron james heat
immigrationvoice1
03-26 10:23 AM
Any comment from anyone?
Wanted to know what the members here think of the probability of receiving RFE from USCIS to find out whether the applicant is still in a "same or similar" job when the time comes to adjudicate cases for for EB3 India.
I ask this because in a poll conducted in a separate thread, it seems the number of people waiting for their GCs are more with PDs before Dec 2004 than after that date.
When the dates become current again for these people, do you think USCIS will be sending RFEs to get the employment information for every single of them ? Is there is a percentage from the pending applications that they pick for RFE, assuming all applicants who changed employers DID NOT notify USCIS when they changed jobs OR is it completely up to the whims of the adjudicating officer to send an RFE ?
There are several people I know who changed employers with EAD, never notified USCIS and got their GCs without any RFE. Trying to understand whether USCIS will think twice before sending RFEs for everyone as the number of applicants waiting with PDs of 2004 and earlier are huge now than ever before. Won't it be too overwhelming for them to issue RFEs to all and manage their responses?
Wanted to know what the members here think of the probability of receiving RFE from USCIS to find out whether the applicant is still in a "same or similar" job when the time comes to adjudicate cases for for EB3 India.
I ask this because in a poll conducted in a separate thread, it seems the number of people waiting for their GCs are more with PDs before Dec 2004 than after that date.
When the dates become current again for these people, do you think USCIS will be sending RFEs to get the employment information for every single of them ? Is there is a percentage from the pending applications that they pick for RFE, assuming all applicants who changed employers DID NOT notify USCIS when they changed jobs OR is it completely up to the whims of the adjudicating officer to send an RFE ?
There are several people I know who changed employers with EAD, never notified USCIS and got their GCs without any RFE. Trying to understand whether USCIS will think twice before sending RFEs for everyone as the number of applicants waiting with PDs of 2004 and earlier are huge now than ever before. Won't it be too overwhelming for them to issue RFEs to all and manage their responses?
more...
makeup kobe bryant dunks on lebron
immihelp2
12-16 01:55 PM
Thank you all for your wonderful responses, I am overwhelmed by the feedback. Some of you have posted such detailed things and personal information, for which I am very grateful. I intend to print out the thread and keep it on my desk for instant inspiration :)
Matthew Oh has summarised the predicament of folks in a situation such as mine:
12/16/2007: India EB-2 Retrogression for Two Years and 2002 and 2001 Priority Date Applications
Traditionally, the legacy INS and USCIS have been exercising its discretion more or less expediting those cases whose visa numbers would be retrogressed substantially to relieve them from the hardship. We have no information available about the number of Indian EB-2 cases with the priority dates between January 2002 and January 2000. These cases are available for adjudication in December 2007. These cases could have been those received approval of the traditional labor certification cases which were approved before October 1, 2007 by the DOL Backlog Elimination Centers. Unfortunately, the huge retrogression will occur during the nation's most celebrated year-end holiday period when the working days and adjudication resources will be very limited. We trust that the USCIS leaders are and will be doing everything possible to adjudicate these Indian cases before the end of the year.
Matthew Oh has summarised the predicament of folks in a situation such as mine:
12/16/2007: India EB-2 Retrogression for Two Years and 2002 and 2001 Priority Date Applications
Traditionally, the legacy INS and USCIS have been exercising its discretion more or less expediting those cases whose visa numbers would be retrogressed substantially to relieve them from the hardship. We have no information available about the number of Indian EB-2 cases with the priority dates between January 2002 and January 2000. These cases are available for adjudication in December 2007. These cases could have been those received approval of the traditional labor certification cases which were approved before October 1, 2007 by the DOL Backlog Elimination Centers. Unfortunately, the huge retrogression will occur during the nation's most celebrated year-end holiday period when the working days and adjudication resources will be very limited. We trust that the USCIS leaders are and will be doing everything possible to adjudicate these Indian cases before the end of the year.
girlfriend kobe bryant dunks on lebron
Ramba
04-20 03:50 PM
First there is not enough AC21 cases to give feed back how their 485s were handled (approved/detail of RFE/denied) due to job change. Becase, almost all guys who used ac21 still in waiting game due to retrogression.
The main thing what I see here is, USCIS has not yet published the final regulation to interpret AC21 act, even after 7 years of passing AC21 act. They are issuing internal field office memo. These memos are non-binding. In other words, one cannot firmly relay on memos or challange the USCIS decision on AC21 portability according to these memos.
However, sofar, these memos are very favorable to workers, including allowing self-employment, one can port even before 140 approval ect...However, USCIS were cautioning in each memos, that the final regulation may be restrictive than memos. If they took restrictive position in final regulation, it will be a huge problem for most peoples, as they might have violated the final regulation.
Another issue is, definition of "same or similar occupational classification". This is going to be very subjective based on how uscis adjudicator going to compare old and new jobs. The memo says by comparing job duties both old and new jobs and based on SOC or ONET code of old and new job they have to decide both jobs are same or similar. As there is no clear regulation it is big issue to go howmuch level of similarity between jobs. For example one guy may think "database administrator" and "network administrator" are similar job to port. The USCIS may think it may not. It is not quantified.
I feel IV should advocate on liberal/quantifyable defintion for similar jobs in AC21 interpretation. For example, all computer professional jobs should be considered as similar jobs as well as all engineering jobs should be considered similar to port. For example mining engineer can port to chemical engineer job etc...
Also, if any one port to self employment in similar job, there is no much information available wheter one should open a company in his/her name or not (by just working in 1099 etc.. for multiple positions). This needs to have a flexible option for workers, like one can work in 1099 w/o opening a bussiness.
Also, IV should advocate on not to have any restrictive interpretation in final regulation.
The main thing what I see here is, USCIS has not yet published the final regulation to interpret AC21 act, even after 7 years of passing AC21 act. They are issuing internal field office memo. These memos are non-binding. In other words, one cannot firmly relay on memos or challange the USCIS decision on AC21 portability according to these memos.
However, sofar, these memos are very favorable to workers, including allowing self-employment, one can port even before 140 approval ect...However, USCIS were cautioning in each memos, that the final regulation may be restrictive than memos. If they took restrictive position in final regulation, it will be a huge problem for most peoples, as they might have violated the final regulation.
Another issue is, definition of "same or similar occupational classification". This is going to be very subjective based on how uscis adjudicator going to compare old and new jobs. The memo says by comparing job duties both old and new jobs and based on SOC or ONET code of old and new job they have to decide both jobs are same or similar. As there is no clear regulation it is big issue to go howmuch level of similarity between jobs. For example one guy may think "database administrator" and "network administrator" are similar job to port. The USCIS may think it may not. It is not quantified.
I feel IV should advocate on liberal/quantifyable defintion for similar jobs in AC21 interpretation. For example, all computer professional jobs should be considered as similar jobs as well as all engineering jobs should be considered similar to port. For example mining engineer can port to chemical engineer job etc...
Also, if any one port to self employment in similar job, there is no much information available wheter one should open a company in his/her name or not (by just working in 1099 etc.. for multiple positions). This needs to have a flexible option for workers, like one can work in 1099 w/o opening a bussiness.
Also, IV should advocate on not to have any restrictive interpretation in final regulation.
hairstyles Kobe Bryant Vs Lebron James
ThinkTwice
07-11 04:46 PM
So that we have some information to distribute?
I have put the below together ..
------------------------=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=================================================
THE WHAT:
Employment Based Skilled Immigrants have to wait for 7 – 12 years or MORE to get their green cards.
THE WHY:
Numerical caps on Employment Based green cards.
Processing delays in adjudication of files.
THE EFFECT:
These future Americans are facing perpetual uncertainty and stagnations.
No Career growth.
Spouse cannot work.
American Companies cannot hire the best and the brightest.
Stagnation
Stagnation
Stagnation
THE SOLUTION:
Increase Numerical limits.
Eliminate counting spouses against the quota numbers.
Recapture lost visa numbers.
- ImmigrationVoice.org
I have put the below together ..
------------------------=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=================================================
THE WHAT:
Employment Based Skilled Immigrants have to wait for 7 – 12 years or MORE to get their green cards.
THE WHY:
Numerical caps on Employment Based green cards.
Processing delays in adjudication of files.
THE EFFECT:
These future Americans are facing perpetual uncertainty and stagnations.
No Career growth.
Spouse cannot work.
American Companies cannot hire the best and the brightest.
Stagnation
Stagnation
Stagnation
THE SOLUTION:
Increase Numerical limits.
Eliminate counting spouses against the quota numbers.
Recapture lost visa numbers.
- ImmigrationVoice.org
Prashant
07-03 12:00 PM
Guyz what flowers are u sending lets keep it uniform ... l
november
07-02 11:26 PM
I was plannig to go to Canada to take care of the landing formalities, but happened to visit this website, http://www.notcanada.com.
The details provided in the site is really scary. Though we keep Canadian PR as back up, after seeing this, I am wondering do I really need to go for landing.
Can someone validate the details provided in notcanada.com
The details provided in the site is really scary. Though we keep Canadian PR as back up, after seeing this, I am wondering do I really need to go for landing.
Can someone validate the details provided in notcanada.com
No comments:
Post a Comment