bfadlia
01-29 10:55 AM
Dear sansas,
We have seen a lot of such rumors. Can you be more specific and provide sources ? Logically thinking, this cannot be true at all.
Admins, May I request you to close this thread if sansas is not able/willing to provide sources for his post.
Thanks
Able/willing!!
Look how EB process affected our life.. Labor certification terminology now feels so natural to us
We have seen a lot of such rumors. Can you be more specific and provide sources ? Logically thinking, this cannot be true at all.
Admins, May I request you to close this thread if sansas is not able/willing to provide sources for his post.
Thanks
Able/willing!!
Look how EB process affected our life.. Labor certification terminology now feels so natural to us
wallpaper iPhone Che guevara 00 - The
lostinbeta
10-20 10:56 PM
Oh... yeah that makes sense. I just change the spelling so it still shows, it is just grammatically incorrect :P
sammyb
11-15 09:55 AM
Hello IV members : I am mad about discrimination agst Indian and China born applicants for GC processing times. I have read many posts in here and it states to join tri-state chapters .. What does it mean? How can we be part of this.. Pls. elaborate.
Thanks
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=17
check this link and find out your state chapter ... each state has its own yahoo groups mailing list and identified state chapter leaders...
Thanks
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=17
check this link and find out your state chapter ... each state has its own yahoo groups mailing list and identified state chapter leaders...
2011 che guevara wallpapers.
gc_lover
06-20 08:30 AM
Friends
Please update how long it takes for PBEC approval notice to come in mail.My online status still shows in process
If it is approved don't wait for the actual paper to arrive. You can apply 140/485 right away and USCIS will contact DOL for your LC papers. That's what I am doing. Don't wait just apply!
Please update how long it takes for PBEC approval notice to come in mail.My online status still shows in process
If it is approved don't wait for the actual paper to arrive. You can apply 140/485 right away and USCIS will contact DOL for your LC papers. That's what I am doing. Don't wait just apply!
more...
iq5203
01-20 07:10 PM
In COBRA, you would have to pay the *entire* insurance cost from your pocket. It may comes out $500-$1000 to be a month per person depending on the state and coverage. Unless you have a known condition that makes you very risky, it is usually too expensive to carry forth.
Note by the way, the catch of some individual insurances (not COBRA). Other than being costlier, many of them consider each period as a "new" enrollment (even if you are getting the same insurance from the same company), and therefore, they will declare anything that was found in the previous period as "pre-existing" in the new period and deny coverage.
Read fine prints very carefully.
According to federal law, if you've had coverage for 6 months prior to changing your coverage to the new insurance, they can't refuse to cover pre existing conditions. They may try, I just had to fight this out with CIGNA. They lost. However if you let your coverage lapse, you can get hit with this.
Note by the way, the catch of some individual insurances (not COBRA). Other than being costlier, many of them consider each period as a "new" enrollment (even if you are getting the same insurance from the same company), and therefore, they will declare anything that was found in the previous period as "pre-existing" in the new period and deny coverage.
Read fine prints very carefully.
According to federal law, if you've had coverage for 6 months prior to changing your coverage to the new insurance, they can't refuse to cover pre existing conditions. They may try, I just had to fight this out with CIGNA. They lost. However if you let your coverage lapse, you can get hit with this.
Siboo
07-27 12:52 PM
If NSC had put all applications from July 2nd to July 17th on hold.
Did they open and timestamp it ? for received date ??????
If they did not , then I may be lucky.
Because my package had signatures and all other dates of June 29th . The day when we were planning to ship the package, but for july fiasco.
Do you guys think ? they might see this and enter it as received date ?
I did not think of this. Otherwise I would have written the date in all the forms as 01/01/1995 to make the visa number available to me...:D
You may write any day, month and year in the forms. USCIS will have the time stamp when a package was actually received.
Did they open and timestamp it ? for received date ??????
If they did not , then I may be lucky.
Because my package had signatures and all other dates of June 29th . The day when we were planning to ship the package, but for july fiasco.
Do you guys think ? they might see this and enter it as received date ?
I did not think of this. Otherwise I would have written the date in all the forms as 01/01/1995 to make the visa number available to me...:D
You may write any day, month and year in the forms. USCIS will have the time stamp when a package was actually received.
more...
gc_chahiye
07-12 11:59 AM
you wont be subject to cap if you jump to H4 and jump back to H1 since you were on cap subject H1 within the past 365 days. However if your spouse jumps to H4, she can only jump back to a non-cap H1. If she wants to work for a for-profit, she has to go through teh H1 cap.
Basically the fact that your H4 was based off a non-cap H1 has no bearing on your own H1 status and cap limits and returning to H1 again.
If you are on 7th year and you get layed off, you can only get the H4->H1 done if you still have that I-140 approved. If in the process of laying you off your employer also cancels teh I-140 you cant come back to H1. You need to wait outside teh US a year and you'll be subject to cap again.
one more thing: I am not sure how long you can stay on H4 and come back to H1 without being subject to cap. (is it 1 year or 6 years)
Basically the fact that your H4 was based off a non-cap H1 has no bearing on your own H1 status and cap limits and returning to H1 again.
If you are on 7th year and you get layed off, you can only get the H4->H1 done if you still have that I-140 approved. If in the process of laying you off your employer also cancels teh I-140 you cant come back to H1. You need to wait outside teh US a year and you'll be subject to cap again.
one more thing: I am not sure how long you can stay on H4 and come back to H1 without being subject to cap. (is it 1 year or 6 years)
2010 Che Guevara Photo
jonty_11
08-15 12:47 PM
Thre is a lot of hurt on these forums related to substituted labor..so help will be slow to come.
more...
pd_recapturing
09-26 04:31 PM
Which number did you call to get the recipt numbers? What info did you have to provide?
Thanks.
800-375-5283
Options 1-2-2-6-2-2-1
u need to tell them that ur app was filed around 90 days ago and u wil get transferred to an 2nd level IO. She will ask you ur full name and DOB. If she finds you in DB , she will verify ur address or mother's maiden name.
Thanks.
800-375-5283
Options 1-2-2-6-2-2-1
u need to tell them that ur app was filed around 90 days ago and u wil get transferred to an 2nd level IO. She will ask you ur full name and DOB. If she finds you in DB , she will verify ur address or mother's maiden name.
hair CHE WALLPAPERS 2(UPDATE)
AB1275
12-12 01:03 PM
I didn't read the RFE but the lawyer said they have requested for Audited Financial Statements which my company does not have.
more...
shankar_thanu
08-05 12:47 PM
RD: July 2nd
PD: Oct 2005
ND: Aug 24 2008
EB2 I
Someone in another thread posted saying TSC IO said they are processing by ND...
PD: Oct 2005
ND: Aug 24 2008
EB2 I
Someone in another thread posted saying TSC IO said they are processing by ND...
hot Abstract Che Guevara iPhone
JunRN
08-11 05:19 PM
That is not a flaw in the system and in the USCIS manual, they know it. Since the previous I-140 is already approved and you've stayed more than 6 months in that I-140, then there's no need for the ability to pay. USCIS is treating your case as if you already have a GC, it is just that it is pending.
If one has a GC, he can transfer to another employer. It is your risk if your new employer has not the ability to pay you. The same is true with portability, USCIS doesn't care anymore if you transfer to an employer with no ability to pay you because the first I-140 is already approved and you worked for it already. They are concerned now about your I-485 (AOS) and your qualifications under it.
If one has a GC, he can transfer to another employer. It is your risk if your new employer has not the ability to pay you. The same is true with portability, USCIS doesn't care anymore if you transfer to an employer with no ability to pay you because the first I-140 is already approved and you worked for it already. They are concerned now about your I-485 (AOS) and your qualifications under it.
more...
house che guevara wallpaper. cheguvera flash wallpapers; cheguvera flash wallpapers. Bennieboy . Apr 21, 09:38 PM
gemini23
07-27 08:34 AM
Can someone with a EAD be in US without a job (say for 1-2 months). Would he be out of status. Will he have any problemsin renewing ead?
tattoo Che Guevara and del Toro by
alkg
08-13 08:41 PM
see the paragraph in bold letters.................
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
more...
pictures Che Guevara iPhone Wallpaper
gotgc?
02-03 05:04 PM
I have used my Canadian PR card for transit thru the UK while on AP. It was quite some time back though. The gate agent took a while to go thru my docs, but was satisfied and was allowed to board both ways. The verification obviously took a bit longer on the way back to the US, but nothing unusual. If I remember well, I did carry a copy of the transit rules with me in case there was any issue. My guess is you should be fine.
Thanks for your reply...judt wanted to make sure, did you travel to and from USA? Where did they check your documents?when you mention gate agent, which gate agent it is? is it your departure airport staff or London Immigration? On the way back who did check these documents? I am planning to take the transit rules with me as well...please let me know
Thanks for your reply...judt wanted to make sure, did you travel to and from USA? Where did they check your documents?when you mention gate agent, which gate agent it is? is it your departure airport staff or London Immigration? On the way back who did check these documents? I am planning to take the transit rules with me as well...please let me know
dresses che guevara, ratm, tim,
reddy77
04-13 05:09 PM
Does your spouse also recieved rfe on 485, in my case both of us got the RFE, still waiting for the document ...
This is my first post, in this website.
I recieved an RFE on my I-485 .
This is a brief summary as to what was asked,
if I am still working for the current employer, or for an intended future employer.
1. Specific Job Title
2. Duties of the offered position
3. Minimum education or training requirements
4. Start date of the employment.
5. Offered salary or wages.
Mine is EB-2 PD APRIL -04.
I did not change my employer, and all the quries asked were already answered during the labor and I-140 stage.
Did any one get similar RFE , plase let me know more in detail
My concern is why would USCIS want to know these details at this stage?
Thanks
SK26
This is my first post, in this website.
I recieved an RFE on my I-485 .
This is a brief summary as to what was asked,
if I am still working for the current employer, or for an intended future employer.
1. Specific Job Title
2. Duties of the offered position
3. Minimum education or training requirements
4. Start date of the employment.
5. Offered salary or wages.
Mine is EB-2 PD APRIL -04.
I did not change my employer, and all the quries asked were already answered during the labor and I-140 stage.
Did any one get similar RFE , plase let me know more in detail
My concern is why would USCIS want to know these details at this stage?
Thanks
SK26
more...
makeup Che Guevara
ssnd03
07-30 02:17 PM
Congratulations on your approval. Yor are really lucky and we envy you.
I know the systems is so much screwed up. There are so many frustrated people with their priority dates EB2 before August 2004 and could not file I-485 until this July. Its a wonder USCIS approved a case with priorioty date of August 2005. :mad: :confused: the system is so disgusting.
Remember one and only one thing prevents FIFO (First in First Out) for I485 approvals and that is FBI name-check delays. I do not believe FIFO is not honored due to USCIS processing problems.
(BEC backlogs also inhibit GC FIFO but hopefully that will be over by Sep 2007)
This guy's security checks were cleared timely and he got a visa number as soon as they were available.
It is rumored that USCIS in last month assigned visa numbers to applicants without FBI security-check completion. However, these GCs will not be approved if FBI checks are not completed by Sep 30, 2007 and the visa numbers will be returned to DOS. Hence, it remains to be seen how many visa numbers will be wasted in FY 2007 despite the fact that the visa bulletin says U August onwards.
Next to retrogression, this is a serious problem. But the irony is that retrogression allows FBI to enjoy, at our cost, years of delay in doing their job. However, you can also be so unlucky that your name-check does not clear when years later your PD becomes current
I know the systems is so much screwed up. There are so many frustrated people with their priority dates EB2 before August 2004 and could not file I-485 until this July. Its a wonder USCIS approved a case with priorioty date of August 2005. :mad: :confused: the system is so disgusting.
Remember one and only one thing prevents FIFO (First in First Out) for I485 approvals and that is FBI name-check delays. I do not believe FIFO is not honored due to USCIS processing problems.
(BEC backlogs also inhibit GC FIFO but hopefully that will be over by Sep 2007)
This guy's security checks were cleared timely and he got a visa number as soon as they were available.
It is rumored that USCIS in last month assigned visa numbers to applicants without FBI security-check completion. However, these GCs will not be approved if FBI checks are not completed by Sep 30, 2007 and the visa numbers will be returned to DOS. Hence, it remains to be seen how many visa numbers will be wasted in FY 2007 despite the fact that the visa bulletin says U August onwards.
Next to retrogression, this is a serious problem. But the irony is that retrogression allows FBI to enjoy, at our cost, years of delay in doing their job. However, you can also be so unlucky that your name-check does not clear when years later your PD becomes current
girlfriend Che Guevara
hojo
08-19 07:47 PM
i saw this cool tutorial that used really simple technique to make a really cool outcome.
the tutorial was on making realistic looking fire. so what he did was he wrote text, raterized it, rotated 90 degrees CW and added wind from left. then he rotated back and did an ocean ripple. it sounds more complicated then it really is.
anyway, heres the final product:http://24.26.33.8:42/hojo.bmp
the tutorial was on making realistic looking fire. so what he did was he wrote text, raterized it, rotated 90 degrees CW and added wind from left. then he rotated back and did an ocean ripple. it sounds more complicated then it really is.
anyway, heres the final product:http://24.26.33.8:42/hojo.bmp
hairstyles Che Guevara quote
Lisap
08-03 12:49 PM
------------------------------
This post has been deleted.
Please mantain a civil tone on the forums.
This post has been deleted.
Please mantain a civil tone on the forums.
HRPRO
02-24 08:41 AM
I am not sure if BS (3 yrs) + MCA is considered to be equivalent to MS or not. But if it is, then you can definitely file for EB2 (MS +0). However, your company will need to have a job that requires these qualifications.
Also, I am not sure why you couldn't use the experience gained with your employer. If the job description is at least 50% different than your EB3 job, you can certainly use the experience gained at your current employer.
I am also planning to file under EB2 using the experience gained with current employer. However, I have been concerned about possible audit. Nonetheless, when I asked the audit question (in a different thread), couple of folks shared their personal experience who had gotten approval (using experience gained at same employer) without any audit.
Has anyone seen a case where someone got audited for using the experience gained with the same employer? I think this will be a useful information for several others as well...
Sorry Bostongc
I am certain you cannot count expeience gained from your current employer even if you are applying for another position. All attorneys are aware of this and will advice you not to do.
Sorry for not being able to give an answer in the affirmative but that is the fact.
Also, I am not sure why you couldn't use the experience gained with your employer. If the job description is at least 50% different than your EB3 job, you can certainly use the experience gained at your current employer.
I am also planning to file under EB2 using the experience gained with current employer. However, I have been concerned about possible audit. Nonetheless, when I asked the audit question (in a different thread), couple of folks shared their personal experience who had gotten approval (using experience gained at same employer) without any audit.
Has anyone seen a case where someone got audited for using the experience gained with the same employer? I think this will be a useful information for several others as well...
Sorry Bostongc
I am certain you cannot count expeience gained from your current employer even if you are applying for another position. All attorneys are aware of this and will advice you not to do.
Sorry for not being able to give an answer in the affirmative but that is the fact.
casinoroyale
01-07 11:47 AM
Sorry aps. I corrected the typo above. Please read my post again. I meant to say "after using EAD".
No comments:
Post a Comment