axp817
03-12 02:57 PM
I'm all for the donors only area.
nuff said,
nuff said,
wallpaper th Willow+smith+2011+april
nivasch
03-09 05:07 PM
From Visa bulletin for Schedule A Workers (Q..)
===============================
Schedule A Workers: Employment First, Second, and Third preference Schedule A applicants are entitled to up to 50,000 �recaptured� numbers.
=======================
So from now on words those 50k can be use for us?:confused:
-----------------------
EB3_NEPA, I'm pretty sure that's how it works. They first use the regular EB3 numbers available.
===============================
Schedule A Workers: Employment First, Second, and Third preference Schedule A applicants are entitled to up to 50,000 �recaptured� numbers.
=======================
So from now on words those 50k can be use for us?:confused:
-----------------------
EB3_NEPA, I'm pretty sure that's how it works. They first use the regular EB3 numbers available.
roorry
07-20 11:18 AM
Anybody have a link to the text of amendment. Are we sure, it had any text related to us ?
I guess this link provides the context of the ammendment...
http://cornyn.senate.gov/index.asp?f=record&lid=1&rid=237544
I guess this link provides the context of the ammendment...
http://cornyn.senate.gov/index.asp?f=record&lid=1&rid=237544
2011 Willow Smith#39;s “21st Century
Abhi_OneDay
08-24 03:20 PM
My I-140 was filed in EB2 on the 18th of August and I was heart broken this morning when I came across this memo on IV this morning....I do not have a US Masters and was banking on my Bachelors + 5 years to qualify....My attorney sent me the following reply
"This memo deals with the EB-1 category and the memo does not talk about the EB-2 category. Your I-140 was filed for an EB-2 position and you should not worry about this memo."
Not sure about her comments, what do u guys think?
I was also doing some research online and found that EB-2 "Exceptional Ability" is different from EB-2 with "Advanced Degree Professionals" on . Looks like the 10+ years has always been the criteria for "exceptional ability" and most of us who are looking to substitute our work experience for Advanced degree do not fall into this category.
Please let me know what you guys think?
"This memo deals with the EB-1 category and the memo does not talk about the EB-2 category. Your I-140 was filed for an EB-2 position and you should not worry about this memo."
Not sure about her comments, what do u guys think?
I was also doing some research online and found that EB-2 "Exceptional Ability" is different from EB-2 with "Advanced Degree Professionals" on . Looks like the 10+ years has always been the criteria for "exceptional ability" and most of us who are looking to substitute our work experience for Advanced degree do not fall into this category.
Please let me know what you guys think?
more...
punjabi
09-10 08:59 PM
Its shocking!!! They've foolishly approved many 2006 cases and dont tell me it was unpredictable and now ppl with 2003 r still waiting....how logical is this? A bunch of A** H**** working there or what?
I know, this is very illogical. And very upsetting for the people who are waiting for a long long time. Hopefully, we'll see a shine in the clouds this year. A lot of people are aware now and have stood up against the "injustice" since last year, mainly through the efforts of IV.
And I strongly believe that higher is the volume of the prayers, sooner they get answered.
I know, this is very illogical. And very upsetting for the people who are waiting for a long long time. Hopefully, we'll see a shine in the clouds this year. A lot of people are aware now and have stood up against the "injustice" since last year, mainly through the efforts of IV.
And I strongly believe that higher is the volume of the prayers, sooner they get answered.
gclabor07
09-01 08:56 AM
Arrived in US in August 1999.
Labor started with employer A in 2002.
Changed job with Employer B in 2006.
Attorney screwed up with new labor in October 2006.
Refiled new labor in July 2007.
Missed the July 2007.
Labor started with employer A in 2002.
Changed job with Employer B in 2006.
Attorney screwed up with new labor in October 2006.
Refiled new labor in July 2007.
Missed the July 2007.
more...
bskrishna
07-11 02:32 PM
bang on the money... i think this is just another ingenious way for USCIS to milk us :mad:
I do not think CIS has that much smartness in them. Different sections seem to go about the motions on their own schedule. They seem to be an uncoordinated bunch so far.
I do not think CIS has that much smartness in them. Different sections seem to go about the motions on their own schedule. They seem to be an uncoordinated bunch so far.
2010 Willow Smith At The 2011
msp1976
02-26 04:21 PM
I am still waiting ...July 2004...
more...
chanduv23
11-18 10:41 AM
We must also step forward and work towards resolving other things
(1) Create blog on how to report Employer wage violations to Wage and Hour division
(2) USCIS poor customer service - inconsistencies, rude answers ....... We must create a blog to let people know how to contact Ombudsman to report issues
(3) Any other pressing issues....
Folks please add anything you feel must be addressed
(1) Create blog on how to report Employer wage violations to Wage and Hour division
(2) USCIS poor customer service - inconsistencies, rude answers ....... We must create a blog to let people know how to contact Ombudsman to report issues
(3) Any other pressing issues....
Folks please add anything you feel must be addressed
hair a prank on Willow Smith at
arihant
08-08 02:38 PM
After reading the op-ed by Pankaj, I had the following questions: Has the SKIL bill already passed the Senate? I know it is included as part of CIR. But, what happens if CIR gets thrown out?
more...
insbaby
07-21 11:18 AM
Well, if you do the direct calculations (eventhough it looks correct for most of us), it always results scary.
But that does not happen always. A Government Agency decided to accept that many applications in a month window, defintely it would not have been decided in a lunch or dinner meeting.
They should have known their limitations and how to handle the situation. If there are 20K 485 applications sitting at the storage, it would not create much problems. But it creates so much administration issues if the number is 600K applications.
One major issue is, every year they are going to receive 600K EAD renewals. They will never get time to work on 485, but life long working on renewing this EAD's and no more further GC processing.
So, its not going to be the case. Now they have money, even if it takes first year some more months, they may go for hiring more contracters OR spliting the applications across different centers processing them.
Its a big administration issue to the agency to keep all the applications pending than us.
So, no worries. There must be a solution ahead for us.
But that does not happen always. A Government Agency decided to accept that many applications in a month window, defintely it would not have been decided in a lunch or dinner meeting.
They should have known their limitations and how to handle the situation. If there are 20K 485 applications sitting at the storage, it would not create much problems. But it creates so much administration issues if the number is 600K applications.
One major issue is, every year they are going to receive 600K EAD renewals. They will never get time to work on 485, but life long working on renewing this EAD's and no more further GC processing.
So, its not going to be the case. Now they have money, even if it takes first year some more months, they may go for hiring more contracters OR spliting the applications across different centers processing them.
Its a big administration issue to the agency to keep all the applications pending than us.
So, no worries. There must be a solution ahead for us.
hot Will+and+jada+smith+2011
h1techSlave
05-15 06:15 PM
I was trying to get the loan thru NVR Mortgage. Because of my wife's EAD status, we could not get the loan from NVR.
Then they brokered it out to another agent, who accepted H4. But the loan rate went up from 4.75% to 5.25%. Finally we went with FHA loan (4.875%). FHA loan has an initial payment requirement of 1.75%.
End of story: because of EAD, we lost that 1.75% of the loan. Plus need to pay 0.125% extra.
But were U able to get the loan at the end ?
Then they brokered it out to another agent, who accepted H4. But the loan rate went up from 4.75% to 5.25%. Finally we went with FHA loan (4.875%). FHA loan has an initial payment requirement of 1.75%.
End of story: because of EAD, we lost that 1.75% of the loan. Plus need to pay 0.125% extra.
But were U able to get the loan at the end ?
more...
house Willow Smith 2011 on the way
needhelp!
03-12 03:19 PM
no, i am not going to switch to defensive mode. this is not about me.
OK, then who are you trying to include?
OK, then who are you trying to include?
tattoo Willow and Jaden Smith Have
vjkypally
07-06 05:47 PM
Does Condi know what shes speakin? That they worked during weekend clearing 25000 visas so that no one can apply on July 2nd.
more...
pictures Willow Smith rocks out in the
yabadaba
07-11 08:06 AM
I assume you like the new cutoff-dates ????
Rita ;)
love it....but thats only 1/2 of the battle...the other half is making sure uscis adjudicates my petition in the month of aug
Rita ;)
love it....but thats only 1/2 of the battle...the other half is making sure uscis adjudicates my petition in the month of aug
dresses GLAM SLAM: Willow Smith at the
MDix
08-22 09:32 PM
Simple English : EB2 will be more tough. They do have same strict guideline for EB1 also. If implemented then it will be tough to get EB2.
E21(EB2):
5. Paragraph (2)(A) of Chapter 22.2(j) of the AFM is revised to read as follows:
(A) Evaluation of Evidence Submitted in Support of a Petition for an Alien of Exceptional Ability. 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) provides that, in order to show the requisite exceptional ability, the petition must be accompanied by at least three of six criteria (set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii)). ISOs should use a two-part analysis where the evidence is first counted and then considered in the context of a final merits determination.
Part One: Evaluate Whether the Evidence Provided Meets at Least Three E21 Alien of Exceptional Ability Criteria. You must make a determination regarding whether the evidence submitted in the petition meets at least three criteria at 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii). Note: While ISOs must consider the quality and caliber of the evidence to determine whether a particular regulatory criterion has been met, the ISO should not make a determination relative to the alien�s claimed exceptional ability in Part One of the case analysis.
(i) An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability;
(ii) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being sought;
(iii) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation;
(iv) Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability;
Note: To satisfy this criterion, the evidence must show that the alien has commanded a salary or remuneration for services that is indicative of his or her claimed exceptional ability relative to others working in the field.
(v) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or
(vi) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations.
Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions (AFM Update AD 10-41)
Page 16
(vii) If the above standards do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility.
8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(iii) provides that petitioners may submit �comparable evidence� to establish an alien�s eligibility in cases where the standards set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) do not apply. In cases where such comparable evidence is submitted, it is reasonable to require the petitioner to explain why 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) does not apply.
Part One: Evaluative Determination. The determination in Part One of the analysis is limited whether the evidence submitted satisfies at least three of the criteria at 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) or the comparable evidence criterion in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(iii). After determining that, by a preponderance of the evidence, those criteria have been met, the ISO should move on to Part Two of the analysis to make a separate merits-based determination of eligibility based on the totality of evidence presented.
Part Two: Final Merits Determination. Meeting the minimum requirement by providing evidence three of the regulatory criteria does not, in itself, establish that the alien in fact meets the requirements for classification as an alien of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2) of the INA. In Part Two of the analysis, you must consider all of the evidence to make a final merit determination of whether or not the petitioner has, by a preponderance of the evidence, shown that the beneficiary is at a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered. Therefore, evidence submitted to establish exceptional ability must somehow place the alien above others in the field in order to fulfill the criteria; qualifications possessed by most members of a given field cannot demonstrate a degree of expertise "significantly above that ordinarily encountered." Note that section 203(b)(2)(C) of INA provides that mere possession of a degree, diploma, certificate or similar award from a college, university school or other institution of learning shall not by itself be considered sufficient evidence of exceptional ability. To meet the criterion set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), formal recognition in the form of certificates and other documentation that are contemporaneous with the alien�s claimed contributions and achievements may have more weight than letters prepared for the petition "recognizing" the alien's achievements.
6. The existing text of paragraph (2)(B) of Chapter 22.2(j) of the AFM is removed and the paragraph is reserved.
7. Technical Correction: The thirteenth paragraph in Chapter 22.2(b)(5)(B) of the AFM is revised to read as follows:
For successor-in-interest purposes, the transfer of ownership may occur at any time after the filing of the original labor certification with DOL.
Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions (AFM Update AD 10-41)
Page 17
8. Technical Correction: The DOL email address to use to request duplicate approved labor certifications from DOL in paragraphs (9) and (10) of Chapter 22.2(b) of the AFM is revised (in both paragraphs) to read as follows:
The duplicate
E21(EB2):
5. Paragraph (2)(A) of Chapter 22.2(j) of the AFM is revised to read as follows:
(A) Evaluation of Evidence Submitted in Support of a Petition for an Alien of Exceptional Ability. 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) provides that, in order to show the requisite exceptional ability, the petition must be accompanied by at least three of six criteria (set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii)). ISOs should use a two-part analysis where the evidence is first counted and then considered in the context of a final merits determination.
Part One: Evaluate Whether the Evidence Provided Meets at Least Three E21 Alien of Exceptional Ability Criteria. You must make a determination regarding whether the evidence submitted in the petition meets at least three criteria at 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii). Note: While ISOs must consider the quality and caliber of the evidence to determine whether a particular regulatory criterion has been met, the ISO should not make a determination relative to the alien�s claimed exceptional ability in Part One of the case analysis.
(i) An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability;
(ii) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being sought;
(iii) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation;
(iv) Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability;
Note: To satisfy this criterion, the evidence must show that the alien has commanded a salary or remuneration for services that is indicative of his or her claimed exceptional ability relative to others working in the field.
(v) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or
(vi) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations.
Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions (AFM Update AD 10-41)
Page 16
(vii) If the above standards do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility.
8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(iii) provides that petitioners may submit �comparable evidence� to establish an alien�s eligibility in cases where the standards set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) do not apply. In cases where such comparable evidence is submitted, it is reasonable to require the petitioner to explain why 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) does not apply.
Part One: Evaluative Determination. The determination in Part One of the analysis is limited whether the evidence submitted satisfies at least three of the criteria at 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) or the comparable evidence criterion in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(iii). After determining that, by a preponderance of the evidence, those criteria have been met, the ISO should move on to Part Two of the analysis to make a separate merits-based determination of eligibility based on the totality of evidence presented.
Part Two: Final Merits Determination. Meeting the minimum requirement by providing evidence three of the regulatory criteria does not, in itself, establish that the alien in fact meets the requirements for classification as an alien of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2) of the INA. In Part Two of the analysis, you must consider all of the evidence to make a final merit determination of whether or not the petitioner has, by a preponderance of the evidence, shown that the beneficiary is at a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered. Therefore, evidence submitted to establish exceptional ability must somehow place the alien above others in the field in order to fulfill the criteria; qualifications possessed by most members of a given field cannot demonstrate a degree of expertise "significantly above that ordinarily encountered." Note that section 203(b)(2)(C) of INA provides that mere possession of a degree, diploma, certificate or similar award from a college, university school or other institution of learning shall not by itself be considered sufficient evidence of exceptional ability. To meet the criterion set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), formal recognition in the form of certificates and other documentation that are contemporaneous with the alien�s claimed contributions and achievements may have more weight than letters prepared for the petition "recognizing" the alien's achievements.
6. The existing text of paragraph (2)(B) of Chapter 22.2(j) of the AFM is removed and the paragraph is reserved.
7. Technical Correction: The thirteenth paragraph in Chapter 22.2(b)(5)(B) of the AFM is revised to read as follows:
For successor-in-interest purposes, the transfer of ownership may occur at any time after the filing of the original labor certification with DOL.
Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions (AFM Update AD 10-41)
Page 17
8. Technical Correction: The DOL email address to use to request duplicate approved labor certifications from DOL in paragraphs (9) and (10) of Chapter 22.2(b) of the AFM is revised (in both paragraphs) to read as follows:
The duplicate
more...
makeup Willow Smith: 21st Century
Milind123
09-12 11:16 AM
Thankyou satyachowdary and sameold.
All, please remember my intention is to motivate the people who never contributed and who start
a $50 monthly contribution at least for six months. Also don't forget to PM me when you
start your monthly contibution.
Anyway good start. satyachowdary and sameold please consider monthly contributions.
Here are my details
Order Details - Sep 12, 2007 11:34 AM EDT
Google Order #365470411117583
All, please remember my intention is to motivate the people who never contributed and who start
a $50 monthly contribution at least for six months. Also don't forget to PM me when you
start your monthly contibution.
Anyway good start. satyachowdary and sameold please consider monthly contributions.
Here are my details
Order Details - Sep 12, 2007 11:34 AM EDT
Google Order #365470411117583
girlfriend Jaden and Willow on the orange
MahaBharatGC
09-27 08:54 AM
Arrived before the Millennium: Dec 1999
Started GC processing in 2003 finally filed in March/Apr 2004.
2007 lucky fiasco gave me and my wife chance on EAD.
Still counting....:confused:
Started GC processing in 2003 finally filed in March/Apr 2004.
2007 lucky fiasco gave me and my wife chance on EAD.
Still counting....:confused:
hairstyles Willow Smith To Whip Her Hair
fromnaija
06-01 05:20 PM
The date of the I-140 approval matters just in case the visa dates are retrogressed again before your case is adjudicated, in which case it will be better the longer the delay on your 140 approval. See examlpe 5 in raju123's posting above.
Thank you for your response......
Yes I believe paperwork will be filed for all my dependants concurrently. Does it even matter when the I140 is approved?
It seems that under the new law his cutoff date is Jun 1 since that is when my priority date will be current so as long as he applies for a green card within one year he is ok.
So if we apply concurrently when is his green card application deemed to have been applied for? When we file concurrently or only when and if the 140is approved.
What do you think?
Thank you for your response......
Yes I believe paperwork will be filed for all my dependants concurrently. Does it even matter when the I140 is approved?
It seems that under the new law his cutoff date is Jun 1 since that is when my priority date will be current so as long as he applies for a green card within one year he is ok.
So if we apply concurrently when is his green card application deemed to have been applied for? When we file concurrently or only when and if the 140is approved.
What do you think?
hazishak
07-19 01:33 PM
Not necessarily. Here is a hypothetical scenario:
PersonA = PD of May 30th, 2003 and RD of June 15th, 2007.
Assume that an additional 150,000 I-485 applications were filed petween PersonA and PersonB
PersonB = PD of May 15, 2002 and RD of July 15th 2007.
USCIS starts pre-adjudicating cases based on Receipt date. Assume that by October 1, 2007, they have pre-adjudicated PersonA plus 9,000 of the 150,000 applications and haven't reached PersonB's application yet (they go by RD).
Assuming that the visa cutoff date in Oct, 2007 bulletin is June,2003 making both PersonA and personB current:
PersonA (PD of 2003) will get a visa number and get the case approved while PersonB (PD of 2002) with an older priority date will have to wait a while because his case hasn't been touched by USCIS yet due to the additional 150,000 filings in between that have to be pre-adjudicated first based on RD even if they have 2004/2005/2006/2007 priority dates!!
.
Since both A and B were current at the time of AOS approval. Person with earlier RD will take precedence. however if the cut off date were April 2003, person B will get the visa.
PersonA = PD of May 30th, 2003 and RD of June 15th, 2007.
Assume that an additional 150,000 I-485 applications were filed petween PersonA and PersonB
PersonB = PD of May 15, 2002 and RD of July 15th 2007.
USCIS starts pre-adjudicating cases based on Receipt date. Assume that by October 1, 2007, they have pre-adjudicated PersonA plus 9,000 of the 150,000 applications and haven't reached PersonB's application yet (they go by RD).
Assuming that the visa cutoff date in Oct, 2007 bulletin is June,2003 making both PersonA and personB current:
PersonA (PD of 2003) will get a visa number and get the case approved while PersonB (PD of 2002) with an older priority date will have to wait a while because his case hasn't been touched by USCIS yet due to the additional 150,000 filings in between that have to be pre-adjudicated first based on RD even if they have 2004/2005/2006/2007 priority dates!!
.
Since both A and B were current at the time of AOS approval. Person with earlier RD will take precedence. however if the cut off date were April 2003, person B will get the visa.
InTheMoment
07-18 02:07 PM
Adjudication means the process of an adjudicator going thro' your file to see whether you are eligible for adjustment!
Here pre-adjudication means irrespective whether the PD is current or not or availabilty of visa numbers the adjudication process continues.
In other words even though visa numbers are "U" till October they would not simply warm their seats but do something !
See http://www.imminfo.com/resources/cissop.html
Here pre-adjudication means irrespective whether the PD is current or not or availabilty of visa numbers the adjudication process continues.
In other words even though visa numbers are "U" till October they would not simply warm their seats but do something !
See http://www.imminfo.com/resources/cissop.html
No comments:
Post a Comment