akred
05-01 12:49 PM
$100 via billpay / check.
wallpaper Character by Halo -Houston
wandmaker
03-20 07:47 PM
I have got an RFE for 485 application. USCIS is asking me for Employment Letter, Paystubs and W2 for the employer I NEVER worked. (I have typed exact message below)
*
This is my situation-
I worked for 'Employer #1' from Jan-2000 to Jan-2005
Then I started working with 'Employer #2' from Jan-2005 to present. Employer #2 filed my H1/Labor/140/485. I am still working for Employer #2
*
However, I thought of changing job in 2006 and 'Employer X' offered me a job and sponsored my H1 and it got approved too, but I changed my mind and decided to continue with my current employer (Employer #2) and I am still with Employer #2. Please note my latest H1B was sponsored by “Employer X”, but I never worked for this Employer.
*
Please advice-
1) What should I send to USCIS? As I don’t have (can’t get) Employment Letter, Paystubs and W2 for “Employer X”
2) Would you consider this as simple case or complicated?
3) Should I hire attorney? (I self filed my 485 in July-2007)
*
*
This is the exact text - (changed Employer names)
Service records indicate that you were granted an H1-B nonimmigrant worker classification for employment from DEC 11, 2006 to DEC 11, 2009 for “Employer X"-. However, according to the G-325a submitted with your application, you had only worked for "Employer #1" from Jan-2000 to Jan-2005 and for the "Employer #2" from Jan-2005 to the present. Please provide evidence that you were employed with “Employer X". Such evidence may include copies of: employment letter, pay stubs or w2s
Thank you for your time and help.
Ask your attorney to write a letter in response to RFE and explaining the situation you never took the job with employer X though the H1B transfer or new is approved, this will clear the query of USCIS. One catch, you should have maintained a continuous employment with #2 and demonstrate the same to USCIS. Good luck!
Note H1 to L1, H4 to H1, L1 to H1 is completely different, it is change of status - H1 to H1 is not change of status, so there is no question that you recent h1 is valid and past is invalid. Get an attorney, Good weekend
*
This is my situation-
I worked for 'Employer #1' from Jan-2000 to Jan-2005
Then I started working with 'Employer #2' from Jan-2005 to present. Employer #2 filed my H1/Labor/140/485. I am still working for Employer #2
*
However, I thought of changing job in 2006 and 'Employer X' offered me a job and sponsored my H1 and it got approved too, but I changed my mind and decided to continue with my current employer (Employer #2) and I am still with Employer #2. Please note my latest H1B was sponsored by “Employer X”, but I never worked for this Employer.
*
Please advice-
1) What should I send to USCIS? As I don’t have (can’t get) Employment Letter, Paystubs and W2 for “Employer X”
2) Would you consider this as simple case or complicated?
3) Should I hire attorney? (I self filed my 485 in July-2007)
*
*
This is the exact text - (changed Employer names)
Service records indicate that you were granted an H1-B nonimmigrant worker classification for employment from DEC 11, 2006 to DEC 11, 2009 for “Employer X"-. However, according to the G-325a submitted with your application, you had only worked for "Employer #1" from Jan-2000 to Jan-2005 and for the "Employer #2" from Jan-2005 to the present. Please provide evidence that you were employed with “Employer X". Such evidence may include copies of: employment letter, pay stubs or w2s
Thank you for your time and help.
Ask your attorney to write a letter in response to RFE and explaining the situation you never took the job with employer X though the H1B transfer or new is approved, this will clear the query of USCIS. One catch, you should have maintained a continuous employment with #2 and demonstrate the same to USCIS. Good luck!
Note H1 to L1, H4 to H1, L1 to H1 is completely different, it is change of status - H1 to H1 is not change of status, so there is no question that you recent h1 is valid and past is invalid. Get an attorney, Good weekend
walking_dude
09-19 06:07 PM
Guys,
....
I guess (just by reading posts on IV) one point which came out pretty clearly was that IV has good support in some regions and really very little support in some others (support as in visible support, where people are willing to show up for rallies, contribute to IV�s efforts etc), I guess this pretty much means that we need to focus on building the regional chapters of IV, like have strong/formal leadership and goals of each of the chapters.
...
Agree with you 100%. Instead of 'forming' state chapters in the last moment, they need to be established, nourished, strengthened and developed over a period of time. A grassroots movement needs strong roots in all regions.
I was also thinking that we can possibly learn a lot from the protests by undocumented immigrants. They had record turnouts in their rallies and most of their people stayed away from work to take part in the efforts when ever there was a call for the same.
With all due respect, it was a disaster. They ended up scaring Americans - by holding Flags of thier countries, holding US flag upside-down or disrespecting US flag in other ways. This provided fodder to anti-immigrants to scare Americans of an 'invasion' of law-breaking aliens.
We need to learn lessons from them, in not committing their mistakes
Some of the advantages of having simultaneous local rallies is that
1) No travel expenses � (So that we can spend more money on media and lobbying than travel expenses)
There was a Free Bus from NY/NJ. Yet, how many came?
2) No need to time spent on travel � ( Better turnouts)
How many people from DC participated?
3) Comfort � every one can just go to a local rally point (Better turnouts)
Those seeking 'comfort', will choose it at home. What better comfort than to sleep on a couch and watch TV?
4) Stronger regional chapters � (work at grass root levels)
If wishes were horses...
As of now, idea doesn't look good. 10 people marching in Detroit, 20 in Minneapolis, 40 in New York, 100 in California - will it even be a rally, in the true sense?
....
I guess (just by reading posts on IV) one point which came out pretty clearly was that IV has good support in some regions and really very little support in some others (support as in visible support, where people are willing to show up for rallies, contribute to IV�s efforts etc), I guess this pretty much means that we need to focus on building the regional chapters of IV, like have strong/formal leadership and goals of each of the chapters.
...
Agree with you 100%. Instead of 'forming' state chapters in the last moment, they need to be established, nourished, strengthened and developed over a period of time. A grassroots movement needs strong roots in all regions.
I was also thinking that we can possibly learn a lot from the protests by undocumented immigrants. They had record turnouts in their rallies and most of their people stayed away from work to take part in the efforts when ever there was a call for the same.
With all due respect, it was a disaster. They ended up scaring Americans - by holding Flags of thier countries, holding US flag upside-down or disrespecting US flag in other ways. This provided fodder to anti-immigrants to scare Americans of an 'invasion' of law-breaking aliens.
We need to learn lessons from them, in not committing their mistakes
Some of the advantages of having simultaneous local rallies is that
1) No travel expenses � (So that we can spend more money on media and lobbying than travel expenses)
There was a Free Bus from NY/NJ. Yet, how many came?
2) No need to time spent on travel � ( Better turnouts)
How many people from DC participated?
3) Comfort � every one can just go to a local rally point (Better turnouts)
Those seeking 'comfort', will choose it at home. What better comfort than to sleep on a couch and watch TV?
4) Stronger regional chapters � (work at grass root levels)
If wishes were horses...
As of now, idea doesn't look good. 10 people marching in Detroit, 20 in Minneapolis, 40 in New York, 100 in California - will it even be a rally, in the true sense?
2011 Graffiti Alphabets Characters
vandanaverdia
09-11 12:19 PM
^^^ bump ^^^
more...
mshelat
05-28 01:56 PM
I agree ---- I think the momentum is slowing down...
at least can we not take any legal action for issuing out a rule (you can file MFS and get the stimuls and then amend MFJ) on 04/14/2008??? what about people who filed a long time ago as MFJ?? Because once you filed MFJ, the action is irrevocable!?! In my honest opinion, this stupidity of issuing out a clause the day before filing deadline deserves some "stir"!!
Any news?
at least can we not take any legal action for issuing out a rule (you can file MFS and get the stimuls and then amend MFJ) on 04/14/2008??? what about people who filed a long time ago as MFJ?? Because once you filed MFJ, the action is irrevocable!?! In my honest opinion, this stupidity of issuing out a clause the day before filing deadline deserves some "stir"!!
Any news?
H4_losing_hope
02-26 10:49 PM
Few of my friends (5) mailed their letters over the weekend. This takes my total to 14 (confirmed). Quite a few have promised they'll mail it, need to track them!!!
Lets go for the final stretch!!!
Let's do it IV!
Lets go for the final stretch!!!
Let's do it IV!
more...
amitjoey
05-27 03:59 PM
Thank you KRS, checklaw, navinms, TempWorker, vshar, rkg000, sanju_dba, vallabhu, vinodmp, metroparknj, satishbsk, kkt_tkk, akkotai, bikram_das_in, what_now, sweet23guyin, mantagon, WantGCQuick for your contributions today!!
$8250
$8250
2010 graffiti character sketches
manishs7
05-30 07:49 PM
Excerpts from same site http://pubweb.fdbl.com/news1.nsf/9abe5d703b986cff86256e310080943a/9c1274840ebee3c3852572eb006fde98?OpenDocument
Reallocation of Immigrant Visa Numbers
Immigrant visa quotas would be substantially realigned under S. 1348. Our current law provides for a baseline annual quota of 140,000 immigrant visas for foreign nationals immigrating on the basis of employment. In the past several years, a backlog has developed in several employment-based immigrant categories, with multiyear waits for some prospective immigrant workers. The Senate bill would, in the first five years after enactment, increase the quota for merit-based and employment-based cases, in part to address existing backlogs. An estimated 247,000 numbers would be available for work-related immigration. Beginning in the sixth fiscal year after enactment, however, the quota would drop to 140,000 numbers per year. This level would remain in place for at least two years, until approximately the eighth year after enactment, when the quota would rise to a baseline of 380,000 per year, with additional numbers made available for previously undocumented immigrants who become eligible to apply for permanent residence.
Is the interpretation of current Bill (without amendment) is correct for the work related immigration?
Reallocation of Immigrant Visa Numbers
Immigrant visa quotas would be substantially realigned under S. 1348. Our current law provides for a baseline annual quota of 140,000 immigrant visas for foreign nationals immigrating on the basis of employment. In the past several years, a backlog has developed in several employment-based immigrant categories, with multiyear waits for some prospective immigrant workers. The Senate bill would, in the first five years after enactment, increase the quota for merit-based and employment-based cases, in part to address existing backlogs. An estimated 247,000 numbers would be available for work-related immigration. Beginning in the sixth fiscal year after enactment, however, the quota would drop to 140,000 numbers per year. This level would remain in place for at least two years, until approximately the eighth year after enactment, when the quota would rise to a baseline of 380,000 per year, with additional numbers made available for previously undocumented immigrants who become eligible to apply for permanent residence.
Is the interpretation of current Bill (without amendment) is correct for the work related immigration?
more...
missourian
09-18 12:46 AM
Hi loudoggs, I replied your PM waiting for your answer
hair a-z yellow graffiti letters
nogc_noproblem
07-15 11:53 PM
Include Sep approvals as well, they can’t use all the visas in the month of Aug it self, it never happened before (in fact they wasted thousands of visas by the end of the fiscal each year in the past). This is the first time they have determined (?) to use all the visas, don’t expect 100% success in the first attempt it self. The system has not been fine tuned yet to that level of success.
For Sep, the EB2 dates will remain same or might even move further few months. Oct bulletin will be the interesting one. If there are very little approvals during Aug & Sep, it will move back considerably. If there are so many approvals in the tune of 15-20k, then EB2 PD will go back slightly (say Jan 06) but will move forward at healthy rate. Come last quarter of 2008-09, there will be quantum leap again.
only the month of AUg approvals is going to validate or invalidate...but makes sense so far. ;-)
For Sep, the EB2 dates will remain same or might even move further few months. Oct bulletin will be the interesting one. If there are very little approvals during Aug & Sep, it will move back considerably. If there are so many approvals in the tune of 15-20k, then EB2 PD will go back slightly (say Jan 06) but will move forward at healthy rate. Come last quarter of 2008-09, there will be quantum leap again.
only the month of AUg approvals is going to validate or invalidate...but makes sense so far. ;-)
more...
krishmunn
07-26 01:15 PM
I never knew Hindi is a local language in US:D Moreover I dont have anything against Hindi or any other language. Its the personal experience with people on more than one occasion.
You should know that Consulates and Embassys , even though in a foreign land, are considered a part of the nation they represent. So, legally Indian consulate is NOT in US land , it is in Indian land .
Just the way some people faced rude behaviour and inconvenience for not knowing Hindi, I have faced equal rude behaviour , inconvenience and outright cheating for not knowing Tamil during my trip to Chennai and Madurai. Should I forma general opinion about Tamilians ?
You should know that Consulates and Embassys , even though in a foreign land, are considered a part of the nation they represent. So, legally Indian consulate is NOT in US land , it is in Indian land .
Just the way some people faced rude behaviour and inconvenience for not knowing Hindi, I have faced equal rude behaviour , inconvenience and outright cheating for not knowing Tamil during my trip to Chennai and Madurai. Should I forma general opinion about Tamilians ?
hot Robot Graffiti Posters
pns27
07-21 10:46 AM
This is the most stupid thing i ever heard. sorry if i offended you by saying this, but i myself wish you should be first in the line than me. We(most of us whose pd is later than yours and most of you guys) wish sincerely that you people should get GC before we get. No one opposing your cause, but we are asking to think one more time whether you'll get any benifit from this. IF YOU THINK "YES" PLEASE GO AHEAD, but dont curse or use any kind of bad words, not appreciated.
Very few members of IV are stucked at backlog, so what i suggest is talk to core personally about your cases, ask them to help you guys in finding out what happened to your cases, if a person with pd 2005 got approved and 2004 is stuck means there might be some problem with the case filing, if not yours, your attorney might have done some mistake or so. so i personally think you should talk to core and find a way to solve this problem.
Hi Libra,
Your post is good overall, However I dont think you know how stuff works. I dont think you have any clue how people got stuck in BEC.
You said ".. if a person with pd 2005 got approved and 2004 is stuck means there might be some problem with the case filing, if not yours.." for you information, in almost all cases, BEC cases are not even worked. In your example 2004 cases are not even worked on and 2005 cases are approved.
So the cases in BEC are not even worked on, hope you understand that there is nothing wring with the applications of people got stuck in BEC and that not the reason why they are in BEC.
Very few members of IV are stucked at backlog, so what i suggest is talk to core personally about your cases, ask them to help you guys in finding out what happened to your cases, if a person with pd 2005 got approved and 2004 is stuck means there might be some problem with the case filing, if not yours, your attorney might have done some mistake or so. so i personally think you should talk to core and find a way to solve this problem.
Hi Libra,
Your post is good overall, However I dont think you know how stuff works. I dont think you have any clue how people got stuck in BEC.
You said ".. if a person with pd 2005 got approved and 2004 is stuck means there might be some problem with the case filing, if not yours.." for you information, in almost all cases, BEC cases are not even worked. In your example 2004 cases are not even worked on and 2005 cases are approved.
So the cases in BEC are not even worked on, hope you understand that there is nothing wring with the applications of people got stuck in BEC and that not the reason why they are in BEC.
more...
house graffiti characters Rico 1 Joe
neamoni
08-03 02:51 PM
My experience is that whether an attorney is good or bad depends on the size of the sponsoring company. My boyfriend was working for a big company and got a really great service with Ogletree Deakins who have offices all over the US. When I was experiencing problems with my attorney, he highly recommended Ogletree and my employer contacted them, and our experience was really bad - they promised a lot of things, then realized it was a small company and was not so interested anymore.
That's why after LC got approved, we decided to file everything pro-se. We have had 3 different attorneys. My case started in 2001 and got stuck in BEC and a PERM case was filed to try to capture my PD from 01, and by looking at my signature you can guess what happened. So, lots of experience with attorneys, not one that could recommend.
That's why after LC got approved, we decided to file everything pro-se. We have had 3 different attorneys. My case started in 2001 and got stuck in BEC and a PERM case was filed to try to capture my PD from 01, and by looking at my signature you can guess what happened. So, lots of experience with attorneys, not one that could recommend.
tattoo Graffiti Alphabet Letters A-Z
sunny1000
06-23 04:41 PM
Called the congressman's office and spoke a nice lady. She took down the bill numbers, my name and zipcode and told me that she will pass the message along. She was very friendly and it took me less than a minute to call.
Those who have not called yet, please do.
Those who have not called yet, please do.
more...
pictures Black and White Graffiti
casinoroyale
07-28 10:02 AM
Thanks for your responses.
dresses Graffiti Alphabet,Symbol
lkapildev
04-17 01:02 PM
Trust me you are in the better hands. Everyone is suffering no one happy with their attroney.
Once i called USCIS for my AP using BUNNYBOY sequence. The USCIS officer was rude and asked me who is the attroney. When i mentioned fdbl then he mentioned that fdbl is a respected within fdbl.
They take the process long but their success rate is 99.99%
Once i called USCIS for my AP using BUNNYBOY sequence. The USCIS officer was rude and asked me who is the attroney. When i mentioned fdbl then he mentioned that fdbl is a respected within fdbl.
They take the process long but their success rate is 99.99%
more...
makeup Murals Graffiti Art Spray
BharatPremi
12-10 10:43 AM
Well said Logiclife and Chanduv23.
girlfriend Cool Lounge Graffiti Graphic
factoryman
06-13 11:25 PM
each with one signature each,
The Birth Certificate Affadevit posted as a sample soes not have space for 2 people to sign. Should there be nother affidavit submitted by another family member or should the second person just sign below the first persons affadevit?
Some One please explain
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contributions so far $100
The Birth Certificate Affadevit posted as a sample soes not have space for 2 people to sign. Should there be nother affidavit submitted by another family member or should the second person just sign below the first persons affadevit?
Some One please explain
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contributions so far $100
hairstyles Black and White Graffiti
gk_2000
03-26 09:15 PM
Here I will summarize why we are unable to work with each another
Agreed 100% Porters will eat everything, there will be no movement.
By this and a later post MC is showing openly brazen attitude toward EB3 applicants. Such posts should be first of all, banned from IV and I am going to report all such posts.
Based on Visa Bulletin report, it seems like massive retrogression is likely for EB3 as well as EB2 :( for the rest of the year. Many have ported and some hibernating applications are now active. :(
You wouldn't show this :( expression if it were YOUR hibernating application. Also see if Mr. Nathan's comment below would apply to you
When I said that there should be one Item in IV agenda to Ban Porting, everyone got mad.
I still say that they should be allowed to port but should go back in line. they are disturbing the balance. I am not against them, if they were EB2 candidates why they didnt file on EB2 category at first, if now they think they are qualified then they should start new process.
BTW. they will create a big retrogression for EB2 then EB2 people have to port to EB3
Red dots are welcome.
Thanks
This is the brazen post I was talking about earlier. Even MC himself acknowledges that this post is "unhelpful", and he is deliberately doing this. This gives a negative impression of how serious this person is. I would urge him to buck up and learn to work with everyone, and quit watching "balance" from his sole viewpoint
I have done some study and can understand not many are porting. But there are few.
But if we raise our voice against porting, they will raise theirs with double the intensity against spillovers. So I dont think we should throw stones on their houses, when ours are made of glass. Moreoever if we see the statistics, there is a HUGE # of EB2 applicants in 2007 onwards I think. Unless we all act together, its not going anywhere.
I know many cases where newer applicants applied in EB2 and were much lesser in hierarchy than their bosses who are in EB3 and waiting. I think we must respect that, and more importantly as soon as raise our voice, they will not keep quite, right. You would also not keep quite if in their shoes.
Best will be if IV comes up with some programs to reduce this backlogs.
This is an "us vs them" argument. Not upto the standard desirable from IV point of view
People with EB3 applications should be allowed to port. But these should be EB3 applications which were genuinely applied and not substitute labor which opened during July 2007 fiasco.
Because a EB3 application with substitute labor in July 2007 has a priority date of 2002,2003,2004,2005 or even 2006. Where as a genuinely applied Eb2 prior to that, had the qualifications / job requirements before July 2007 and they are still waiting.
USCIS should realize their mistake in 2007, it encouraged a pay to play scheme, which is putting genuine people at great disadvantage.
Porting like any option was started with a good intention, but because of loop holes it has lost its meaning. There are people who landed in this country during the July 2007 fiasco, paid for the labor and have green cards in their hands now.
Or at least provide the same level of stringent requirements to port like (EB2-->EB1) . Technically a EB3 can port to EB1 also, but porting to EB2 is easier. That way Eb3's can consume Eb1 number and stop spill over to Eb2.
L1A is another one, where people qualify as global project managers with very minimal effort, could have less experience than a EB3 or in some cases they have reported to people in EB3 queue here from 2002 and are ahead of the EB3 within 6 months.
Understand the realities here: IV is struggling to make even the most legitimate views heard and you are sitting and talking away as if USCIS and lawmakers are your servant. Go for the ONE thing to wish for that will solve all troubles, because you have only one chance.
You wont talk about this crap/crab if you are on the receiving end.
Good dialogue. Ironic how it applies to so many posts here arguing in the opposite direction
The CRAB STORY also applies to EB3. Whenever somebody talks about spillover to EB2, all the EB3s are against spillover and making comments that it's not happening this year. It feels like EB3s do not want EB2s to get GCs. If porting is legit, then spillover is also legit and EB3s need to accept that.
Porting was always there and porting must not be more than 300/quarter this year (other wise EB2 PD dates would have retrogressed or gone back). Porting was not something started in FY2011 or FY2010. However, I do accept that the frequency of EB3-EB2 porting has increased slightly due to more US companies outsourcing IT jobs (bad economy -> more outsourcing to reduce costs{check the stock of CTSH!} -> demand for consultants -> resulting in firms like CTSH and small consulting companies agreeing to EB3-EB2 porting to keep talent). Outsourcing will not always result in all the US jobs to completely move to outsourced countries (I guess smart people in this forum already know that).
There will be spillover this year and EB2 PD reaching DEC 2006 by end of FY2011 is a real possiblity. There is no need for EB2s to get all worked up when somebody ports or EB3s to get worked up when somebody talks about spillover. There is GC pie for everybody. Just be patient or do something to solve fundamental problems with GC process ( by participating in IV campaign).
-CinBoy
"all the EB3s are against spillover and making comments that it's not happening this year. It feels like EB3s do not want EB2s to get GCs."
are you yourself convinced of this? I highly doubt.
Agreed 100% Porters will eat everything, there will be no movement.
By this and a later post MC is showing openly brazen attitude toward EB3 applicants. Such posts should be first of all, banned from IV and I am going to report all such posts.
Based on Visa Bulletin report, it seems like massive retrogression is likely for EB3 as well as EB2 :( for the rest of the year. Many have ported and some hibernating applications are now active. :(
You wouldn't show this :( expression if it were YOUR hibernating application. Also see if Mr. Nathan's comment below would apply to you
When I said that there should be one Item in IV agenda to Ban Porting, everyone got mad.
I still say that they should be allowed to port but should go back in line. they are disturbing the balance. I am not against them, if they were EB2 candidates why they didnt file on EB2 category at first, if now they think they are qualified then they should start new process.
BTW. they will create a big retrogression for EB2 then EB2 people have to port to EB3
Red dots are welcome.
Thanks
This is the brazen post I was talking about earlier. Even MC himself acknowledges that this post is "unhelpful", and he is deliberately doing this. This gives a negative impression of how serious this person is. I would urge him to buck up and learn to work with everyone, and quit watching "balance" from his sole viewpoint
I have done some study and can understand not many are porting. But there are few.
But if we raise our voice against porting, they will raise theirs with double the intensity against spillovers. So I dont think we should throw stones on their houses, when ours are made of glass. Moreoever if we see the statistics, there is a HUGE # of EB2 applicants in 2007 onwards I think. Unless we all act together, its not going anywhere.
I know many cases where newer applicants applied in EB2 and were much lesser in hierarchy than their bosses who are in EB3 and waiting. I think we must respect that, and more importantly as soon as raise our voice, they will not keep quite, right. You would also not keep quite if in their shoes.
Best will be if IV comes up with some programs to reduce this backlogs.
This is an "us vs them" argument. Not upto the standard desirable from IV point of view
People with EB3 applications should be allowed to port. But these should be EB3 applications which were genuinely applied and not substitute labor which opened during July 2007 fiasco.
Because a EB3 application with substitute labor in July 2007 has a priority date of 2002,2003,2004,2005 or even 2006. Where as a genuinely applied Eb2 prior to that, had the qualifications / job requirements before July 2007 and they are still waiting.
USCIS should realize their mistake in 2007, it encouraged a pay to play scheme, which is putting genuine people at great disadvantage.
Porting like any option was started with a good intention, but because of loop holes it has lost its meaning. There are people who landed in this country during the July 2007 fiasco, paid for the labor and have green cards in their hands now.
Or at least provide the same level of stringent requirements to port like (EB2-->EB1) . Technically a EB3 can port to EB1 also, but porting to EB2 is easier. That way Eb3's can consume Eb1 number and stop spill over to Eb2.
L1A is another one, where people qualify as global project managers with very minimal effort, could have less experience than a EB3 or in some cases they have reported to people in EB3 queue here from 2002 and are ahead of the EB3 within 6 months.
Understand the realities here: IV is struggling to make even the most legitimate views heard and you are sitting and talking away as if USCIS and lawmakers are your servant. Go for the ONE thing to wish for that will solve all troubles, because you have only one chance.
You wont talk about this crap/crab if you are on the receiving end.
Good dialogue. Ironic how it applies to so many posts here arguing in the opposite direction
The CRAB STORY also applies to EB3. Whenever somebody talks about spillover to EB2, all the EB3s are against spillover and making comments that it's not happening this year. It feels like EB3s do not want EB2s to get GCs. If porting is legit, then spillover is also legit and EB3s need to accept that.
Porting was always there and porting must not be more than 300/quarter this year (other wise EB2 PD dates would have retrogressed or gone back). Porting was not something started in FY2011 or FY2010. However, I do accept that the frequency of EB3-EB2 porting has increased slightly due to more US companies outsourcing IT jobs (bad economy -> more outsourcing to reduce costs{check the stock of CTSH!} -> demand for consultants -> resulting in firms like CTSH and small consulting companies agreeing to EB3-EB2 porting to keep talent). Outsourcing will not always result in all the US jobs to completely move to outsourced countries (I guess smart people in this forum already know that).
There will be spillover this year and EB2 PD reaching DEC 2006 by end of FY2011 is a real possiblity. There is no need for EB2s to get all worked up when somebody ports or EB3s to get worked up when somebody talks about spillover. There is GC pie for everybody. Just be patient or do something to solve fundamental problems with GC process ( by participating in IV campaign).
-CinBoy
"all the EB3s are against spillover and making comments that it's not happening this year. It feels like EB3s do not want EB2s to get GCs."
are you yourself convinced of this? I highly doubt.
GreenCardLegion
03-21 04:06 PM
Well...I got the mail from USCIS for I-485 RFE. Not for H1 as you thought.
Please note all H1Bs, F1s, visas....are part of 485 application.
Thank you
Oh my apologies then. I thought this was purely an H1 RFE. Crazy are the ways of USCIS. Good Luck with the RFE reply process. Keep us all posted on the happenings.
Please note all H1Bs, F1s, visas....are part of 485 application.
Thank you
Oh my apologies then. I thought this was purely an H1 RFE. Crazy are the ways of USCIS. Good Luck with the RFE reply process. Keep us all posted on the happenings.
Winner
05-19 02:59 PM
Sent $50 my banks bill pay.
Thank you very much for your efforts.
Thank you very much for your efforts.
No comments:
Post a Comment