slowwin
05-22 04:44 PM
Tying EB related issues to Wall street is a self defeating enterprise right now in this economic climate.., if our issues are equated with wall street brain drain, we may not get much sympathy from the common public, therefore the politicians.
Hello All,
In Interesting article/Video posted by Yahoo Finance
Contrary to popular opinion and the view of many politicians, the "brain drain" issue on Wall Street is real, says Dave Kansas, author of "The End of Wall Street as We Know It."
Kansas, a Wall Street Journal contributing editor, notes the concurrent trends of foreign-born workers returning to their home countries and Wall Street's homegrown "risk-takers" joining smaller firms or opening their own boutiques.
In other words, when CEOs like Morgan Stanley's John Mack and Citigroup's Vikram Pandit complain about the risk of losing the "best and brightest" if the government imposes onerous restrictions on compensation, there's validity to their claims, Kansas says.
These trends - compensation restrictions, the rise of boutique firms, more competition from international competitors and big shops becoming more risk-averse - come in the wake of a largely self-made cataclysm that hit Wall Street in the past 18 months.
And Kansas notes it's "early innings" in terms of both the industry's transformation and the new regulatory environment that's certain to come down the D.C. beltwa
ARTICLE CAN BE ACCESSED AT:
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/253392/The-New-Wall-Street-%22Brain-Drain%22-Threat-Legit-as-Boutiques-Foreign-Firms-Rise?tickers=GS,JPM,MS,C,XLF,FAS,DB?sec=topStories&pos=9&asset=&ccode=
MY QUESTION TO YOU ALL
Do you think the govt will do something soon about this? Can we expect a merit based point system in the new CIR? Does anyone has information on merit system in new CIR?
Please advise.
Thank you
Hello All,
In Interesting article/Video posted by Yahoo Finance
Contrary to popular opinion and the view of many politicians, the "brain drain" issue on Wall Street is real, says Dave Kansas, author of "The End of Wall Street as We Know It."
Kansas, a Wall Street Journal contributing editor, notes the concurrent trends of foreign-born workers returning to their home countries and Wall Street's homegrown "risk-takers" joining smaller firms or opening their own boutiques.
In other words, when CEOs like Morgan Stanley's John Mack and Citigroup's Vikram Pandit complain about the risk of losing the "best and brightest" if the government imposes onerous restrictions on compensation, there's validity to their claims, Kansas says.
These trends - compensation restrictions, the rise of boutique firms, more competition from international competitors and big shops becoming more risk-averse - come in the wake of a largely self-made cataclysm that hit Wall Street in the past 18 months.
And Kansas notes it's "early innings" in terms of both the industry's transformation and the new regulatory environment that's certain to come down the D.C. beltwa
ARTICLE CAN BE ACCESSED AT:
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/253392/The-New-Wall-Street-%22Brain-Drain%22-Threat-Legit-as-Boutiques-Foreign-Firms-Rise?tickers=GS,JPM,MS,C,XLF,FAS,DB?sec=topStories&pos=9&asset=&ccode=
MY QUESTION TO YOU ALL
Do you think the govt will do something soon about this? Can we expect a merit based point system in the new CIR? Does anyone has information on merit system in new CIR?
Please advise.
Thank you
wallpaper Print Sea Turtle Tattoo
freeskier89
02-09 03:09 PM
^^^ :eyeup:. Did you really actively go out and seek votes?
anurakt
12-21 04:19 PM
I promise ... last bump of the day !! or may be not......:D
2011 Sea Turtle Tattoo
nayekal
02-17 11:29 AM
Hi Nayekal,
I am in the same situation as you. My wife's employment is expected to end in the Middle of March.
1. Is it necessary to have receipt number from I-539 in hand by the time the employment is ending or is it ok to mail the I-539 after the employment end date. I am asking this since my H1 is up for extension after April 1st. I am trying to understand whether there is any risk in applying for my wife's COS H1-H4 along with my H1 extension. In this case, there would be gap of 15 days between my wife's last working day and when I plan to send documents for my H1 extension and my wife's H1-H4 COS.
2. Also, if we change it to H4, is it the end of H1. Do we have the option of switching back to H1 at later date without having to go for a fresh H1.
Can you please share your experience.
Thanks....
1. Is it necessary to have receipt number from I-539 in hand by the time the employment is ending or is it ok to mail the I-539 after the employment end date. I am asking this since my H1 is up for extension after April 1st. I am trying to understand whether there is any risk in applying for my wife's COS H1-H4 along with my H1 extension. In this case, there would be gap of 15 days between my wife's last working day and when I plan to send documents for my H1 extension and my wife's H1-H4 COS.
What I understood from your question is your H1 expires on End of March and you need to apply for H1 extension from Aril 1 2009. If this case, you can apply for extension right now as well. Remember, you can apply for H1 extension within 6 months of your current H1 exp date. This is what my company did for me. They applied 5 months earlier. So, when you are applying for H1 extension, you can apply for H1 to H4 for your wife. In that case, your wife status is safe and your wife will get approval for H4 with I-94 period as stated in your new H1 copy (her H4 period equal to your new H1 period).
2. Also, if we change it to H4, is it the end of H1. Do we have the option of switching back to H1 at later date without having to go for a fresh H1.
In case your wife gets a job offer later, her company can file for H1 (independent of quota) and she gets H1 for 6- whatever period she already served on H1, capped at 3 years.
Good Luck.
I am in the same situation as you. My wife's employment is expected to end in the Middle of March.
1. Is it necessary to have receipt number from I-539 in hand by the time the employment is ending or is it ok to mail the I-539 after the employment end date. I am asking this since my H1 is up for extension after April 1st. I am trying to understand whether there is any risk in applying for my wife's COS H1-H4 along with my H1 extension. In this case, there would be gap of 15 days between my wife's last working day and when I plan to send documents for my H1 extension and my wife's H1-H4 COS.
2. Also, if we change it to H4, is it the end of H1. Do we have the option of switching back to H1 at later date without having to go for a fresh H1.
Can you please share your experience.
Thanks....
1. Is it necessary to have receipt number from I-539 in hand by the time the employment is ending or is it ok to mail the I-539 after the employment end date. I am asking this since my H1 is up for extension after April 1st. I am trying to understand whether there is any risk in applying for my wife's COS H1-H4 along with my H1 extension. In this case, there would be gap of 15 days between my wife's last working day and when I plan to send documents for my H1 extension and my wife's H1-H4 COS.
What I understood from your question is your H1 expires on End of March and you need to apply for H1 extension from Aril 1 2009. If this case, you can apply for extension right now as well. Remember, you can apply for H1 extension within 6 months of your current H1 exp date. This is what my company did for me. They applied 5 months earlier. So, when you are applying for H1 extension, you can apply for H1 to H4 for your wife. In that case, your wife status is safe and your wife will get approval for H4 with I-94 period as stated in your new H1 copy (her H4 period equal to your new H1 period).
2. Also, if we change it to H4, is it the end of H1. Do we have the option of switching back to H1 at later date without having to go for a fresh H1.
In case your wife gets a job offer later, her company can file for H1 (independent of quota) and she gets H1 for 6- whatever period she already served on H1, capped at 3 years.
Good Luck.
more...
vikki76
07-02 02:16 AM
If Gandhi hadn't shun his western style clothes and became a common indian-India's freedom struggle would have remained in hands of exclusive elite Congress.
Congress was founded by a western person only, with sole aim of "Home Rule".
Gandhi brought Freedom struggle to masses ,and when that spirit was awakened ,everybody decided to participate in struggle in their own way.
Will 30 crore people followed Gandhi followed if he was wearing a three piece suite and speaking to famine ridden half starving Bengal?
Congress was founded by a western person only, with sole aim of "Home Rule".
Gandhi brought Freedom struggle to masses ,and when that spirit was awakened ,everybody decided to participate in struggle in their own way.
Will 30 crore people followed Gandhi followed if he was wearing a three piece suite and speaking to famine ridden half starving Bengal?
pappu
05-24 10:18 AM
all new members, pls bring in more people like us to this forum.
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=36
has an email format that you can forward to your friends. Lets increase the presence on this forum.
we only have about 4k members. However people on H1B visas every year are 65+K and retrogression affected people are more than 300K. Thus we have lot of scope for bringing more members. Remember, more numbers would also mean more weight for IV when talking to lawmakers.
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=36
has an email format that you can forward to your friends. Lets increase the presence on this forum.
we only have about 4k members. However people on H1B visas every year are 65+K and retrogression affected people are more than 300K. Thus we have lot of scope for bringing more members. Remember, more numbers would also mean more weight for IV when talking to lawmakers.
more...
voldemar
06-27 11:53 AM
EAD is not required for invoking AC-21. If your lawyer says so, then go for second opinion.
His lawyer was right. If he has H1 he can do H1 transfer to another employer and invoke AC21 to continue AOS.
His lawyer was right. If he has H1 he can do H1 transfer to another employer and invoke AC21 to continue AOS.
2010 c) Check into the Hampton Inn.
setpit_gc
06-08 01:23 PM
got 1st LUD on 05/31/2009 with message change.
Soft LUDs so far:
06/02/2009,
06/03/2009,
06/05/2009,
06/07/2009
06/08/2009
Whats going on?. Any idea?.
Soft LUDs so far:
06/02/2009,
06/03/2009,
06/05/2009,
06/07/2009
06/08/2009
Whats going on?. Any idea?.
more...
amitjoey
03-17 12:26 PM
Ask your lawyer. I agree, be proactive and if there is a way you can send the results and file it with your case, do it. Any case medicals are valid for 12-18 months, so if an RFE comes, You can send them same ones again. Again, not sure if you can do this, ask your lawyer.
hair tribal tattoos arm.
larmani
04-09 06:30 PM
If you are buying a new construction home from builder go with an agent the builder will pay 3% commission to the agent usually and you can get some $$ back from agent
more...
485Mbe4001
10-02 07:53 PM
short answer...You are the chosen one you can do what ever you want, while USCIS will do what they think is right...IMHO plenty of legal trouble for you, your company and your lawyer. While you are at it why not ask companies C,D&E to sponsor parallel applications for you, the more the merrier....i think you are a troll...Hardworking, law abiding immigrats get a bad rap because of people like you.
So am still little confused... Should I go this route... The reason is the company who is willing to do my GC is doing also in good faith. But with the economy the way it shapes up... they are not sure, but as a good faith they did agree to start my GC process. Well I will be bearing the lawyer expenses...they would manage the mandatory fees. So they have very little to loose.
What do you guys suggest! I have heard many people who work with company A and GC is done by Company B ... ( Correct me if I am wrong here)
Appreciated
So am still little confused... Should I go this route... The reason is the company who is willing to do my GC is doing also in good faith. But with the economy the way it shapes up... they are not sure, but as a good faith they did agree to start my GC process. Well I will be bearing the lawyer expenses...they would manage the mandatory fees. So they have very little to loose.
What do you guys suggest! I have heard many people who work with company A and GC is done by Company B ... ( Correct me if I am wrong here)
Appreciated
hot such as the sea turtle,
leoindiano
08-01 03:06 PM
these 4 are already there, Looks like some consulting company duped USCIS and Obama...
* A customer-centric home page that provides applicants with a �one-stop shop� of immigration services information.
entering all your cases under one login, this is already there....
* Simplified navigation and improved search capability.
this may be new
* Enhanced customer service tools including expanded Case Status Online with both email and text functionality.
email and text, this is there already, what they really improved...
* Information that is written clearly and meets the needs of our customers.
we have to wait and see..
* A customer-centric home page that provides applicants with a �one-stop shop� of immigration services information.
entering all your cases under one login, this is already there....
* Simplified navigation and improved search capability.
this may be new
* Enhanced customer service tools including expanded Case Status Online with both email and text functionality.
email and text, this is there already, what they really improved...
* Information that is written clearly and meets the needs of our customers.
we have to wait and see..
more...
house Print Sea Turtle Tattoo 3
Blog Feeds
10-15 06:30 PM
[Federal Register: October 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 192)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
tattoo Sea Turtle Tattoo Designs 1
reno_john
01-19 08:54 PM
For 140 approval it takes anywhere between 6 to 8 months. Last year, the wait time was less.This is normal and the wait time will keep on increasing. Because last year there was few number of labors approved but as the days pass by that number will keep on increasing. My friend with I140(NSC) applied date of June 2006 was approved last week. My first I140(TSC) applied on Feb 2006 was approved by August 2006 and my second I140(NSC) applied in Sep 2006 is pending till today.
And if you try to break the queue by premium processing then the chances of getting a dumb RFE( A no sense evidence to the case applied) is 99.99% because they want more time to process the case.
And if you try to break the queue by premium processing then the chances of getting a dumb RFE( A no sense evidence to the case applied) is 99.99% because they want more time to process the case.
more...
pictures sea turtle tattoo
gcwait2007
06-28 04:39 PM
You need last 2 paystubs and one of them is issued within last 30 days.
dresses Realistic Sea Turtle Tattoo
nixstor
02-09 07:10 PM
I know that its a blog but that the tone of blog clearly says that they are very close. If I am not mistaken, their previous 50K was also recaptured from unused EB numbers.
more...
makeup Sea Turtle Tattoo 4
breddy2000
08-19 09:48 PM
Me too getting worried about my wife's status...
Good thing is she had this issue when transferring H1 Visa when she was out of status for few months and she had to go to home country for stamping (explaining IO the situation where she was out of status) and came back on status...and she was on status till date.
One more thing is , the status will be counted from the last date of entry to US . If this is the case, I do not have any problem on my wife's status.
If your wife has maintained her status since she last visted US, may be going for H1 stamping and coming back to US, this should not matter..and more over she filed 485 as your dependent.
This is what my understanding is with respect to maintaing status....Let me know if this is not correct
Good thing is she had this issue when transferring H1 Visa when she was out of status for few months and she had to go to home country for stamping (explaining IO the situation where she was out of status) and came back on status...and she was on status till date.
One more thing is , the status will be counted from the last date of entry to US . If this is the case, I do not have any problem on my wife's status.
If your wife has maintained her status since she last visted US, may be going for H1 stamping and coming back to US, this should not matter..and more over she filed 485 as your dependent.
This is what my understanding is with respect to maintaing status....Let me know if this is not correct
girlfriend Tribal Turtle Tattoos
chakalov
07-31 04:05 PM
Hey everyone,
I am from Florida and just filed my I-485. I went to the DMV yesterday to renew my drivers license and something unexpected happened. They took away my old license and gave a temporary one valid for 30 days. They also said they will have to verify my immigration status and once this is done they will mail my new drivers license. Has anyone had such an experience? How long did it take to get your new license?
I am from Florida and just filed my I-485. I went to the DMV yesterday to renew my drivers license and something unexpected happened. They took away my old license and gave a temporary one valid for 30 days. They also said they will have to verify my immigration status and once this is done they will mail my new drivers license. Has anyone had such an experience? How long did it take to get your new license?
hairstyles Print Sea Turtle Tattoo 4
Singer
10-21 11:06 PM
I am a vocalist based in the US for the last 13 years. I have performed around the world at World music festivals, television shows, radios, various clubs, private events, for stars like P... S.... and D.... B.... and for organizations such as UN, UNESCO, UNDP, NDI, Schomburg Center, etc.I have always been legal and on several P1/O1 artist visas), I have applied on December 2006 for a EB1-EA green card
On June 10th 2007 I have received a RFE from the Nebraska Service Center, and I had to submit additional stuff proving I am really a singer with an international carreer. (I won an award by the way)before August 15th 2007. On August 3rd 2007 I went myself to the FedEx office and sent a priority 8.0lbs package to the Nebraska Service Center. It was delivered on August 6th signed by Mr. Brad B... at the Nebraska Center.
When I called they said my case was pending, same thing on the USCIS website where I create a portfolio. It is until April 2009 that thanks to congressional and senatorial help that we found out that my I-140 and I-485 had been denied, closed archived since end of August 2007! They said that my response to the RFE was received by them in October!
We argued that I never received the denial notice, neither my attorney received. My congressional liaison faxed them the ax receipt, then the congressional liaison there said: "O my God!" We were hoping that at this stage they would simply reopen the case and look at my 8 pounder RFE response! Nebraska Service Center decided that i will have to file an appeal.
In April 2008 I filled and appeal with Administrative Appeals Office in DC in 2008 (more money into thei pockets) to demonstrate that both my I-140 and I-485 were denied in error, (they had lost my application) the case was returned to Nebraska for them to reconsider.
The AAO decision granted me all that was in their power to give.
1. The appeal was rejected because it was untimely filed -- By statute (law) they cannot consider an untimely appeal regardless of circumstances however.
2. They state that if "an utimely appeal meets the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider, the appeal "MUST" be treated as a motion and a decision "MUST" be made on the merits of the case. -- This is exactly what I asked for.
3. They state that a motion to reconsider must establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. Again this is exactly what I claimed.
4. They catagoricaly state in paragraph 2 on page 3 -- Here, the untimely appeal "MEETS" the requirements of a motion to reopen and reconsider. They also positively state that you "SUCCESSFULLY" argue that the October 10, 2007 decision was "FLAWED" and they point to 2 specific reasons -- that yur attorney of record was not properly notified and that your response to the RFE was not considered.
5. In paragraph 5 on page 3 they conclude that the October 10, 2007 decision was "CLEARLY IN ERROR" and that the decision "DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS".
6. Finally, in the last pragraph on page 3 and the 1st paragraph of page 4 they state "therefore, the director "MUST" consider the untimely appeal as a motion to reopen and reconsider and render a "NEW" decision acccordingly"
7. They also state that the "NEW" decision "MUST" thoroughly address all of the evidence submitted in your response to the RFE.
So the AAO�s office sent back my file to the Nebraska Service Center.
Then the I-140 was reopened and I finally approved May 20th 2009. At that time the rest should be like �a letter in the mail�. That is when I demanded that my I-485 be reopened as well.
They responded to my congressional liaison telling him that they will reopen the I-485 and tat the green cards were being prepared and would be sent to us in less then 60 days. Stating: This has been going on for too long�
That is when the �saga� took another turn. On August 14th 09 I received another RFE on the I-485! I was told by one lawyer that it was not so bad (they just needed to update my records since 2006 is the date of my first GC filling), But this RFE did not make sense because once the I-140 is approved they should not ask me to supply any documents work related. They wanted me to prove that I will continue to work in my field, what I have been doing for the last 2 years since they have denied my case and what will be my upcoming work offers.
Remember that in May 2009 they have said that the green cards would be sent�
We responded again with a 5 pounder file! We mailed it September 1rst 2009. I provided them with the same documents I sent in the 8 pounder they have lost in 2006, plus everything I have done since. Including all the performances with P. S., D. B. and letters from future contractors such as The United Nations, Schomburg, my booking agents letters, etc...)
October 19th 2009 we received an email from USCIS saying that a decision has been taken and that my husband�s I-485 has been denied!
Another ridiculous thing.
1-I am the petitioner, not my husband.
2-They should adjudicate my case first, not my husband�s!
3-my case is still pending no decision made on it�
At this time, we are awaiting the full denial explanation letter, to see what is the reason for their decision. Hoping that they just made another mistake for example dissociated my husband I-485 from mine the petitioner.
I am currently (Thank God) on an 01-visa valid until 2011, my husband has a -O3-visa
Because of this terrible saga, we have endured a tremendous stress, and anxiety. We have lost a lot of money. Between the lawyers fees, the various application fees plus the appeal we have spent more than $20,000. I have decided not to file another appeal because this is more money into their pockets. I am ready to sue the USICS with a writ of mandamus and more if they do not fix the multiple mistakes they have made.
Please somebody in this forum answers me. What should I do? Please help!
Thank you.
Singer
On June 10th 2007 I have received a RFE from the Nebraska Service Center, and I had to submit additional stuff proving I am really a singer with an international carreer. (I won an award by the way)before August 15th 2007. On August 3rd 2007 I went myself to the FedEx office and sent a priority 8.0lbs package to the Nebraska Service Center. It was delivered on August 6th signed by Mr. Brad B... at the Nebraska Center.
When I called they said my case was pending, same thing on the USCIS website where I create a portfolio. It is until April 2009 that thanks to congressional and senatorial help that we found out that my I-140 and I-485 had been denied, closed archived since end of August 2007! They said that my response to the RFE was received by them in October!
We argued that I never received the denial notice, neither my attorney received. My congressional liaison faxed them the ax receipt, then the congressional liaison there said: "O my God!" We were hoping that at this stage they would simply reopen the case and look at my 8 pounder RFE response! Nebraska Service Center decided that i will have to file an appeal.
In April 2008 I filled and appeal with Administrative Appeals Office in DC in 2008 (more money into thei pockets) to demonstrate that both my I-140 and I-485 were denied in error, (they had lost my application) the case was returned to Nebraska for them to reconsider.
The AAO decision granted me all that was in their power to give.
1. The appeal was rejected because it was untimely filed -- By statute (law) they cannot consider an untimely appeal regardless of circumstances however.
2. They state that if "an utimely appeal meets the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider, the appeal "MUST" be treated as a motion and a decision "MUST" be made on the merits of the case. -- This is exactly what I asked for.
3. They state that a motion to reconsider must establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. Again this is exactly what I claimed.
4. They catagoricaly state in paragraph 2 on page 3 -- Here, the untimely appeal "MEETS" the requirements of a motion to reopen and reconsider. They also positively state that you "SUCCESSFULLY" argue that the October 10, 2007 decision was "FLAWED" and they point to 2 specific reasons -- that yur attorney of record was not properly notified and that your response to the RFE was not considered.
5. In paragraph 5 on page 3 they conclude that the October 10, 2007 decision was "CLEARLY IN ERROR" and that the decision "DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS".
6. Finally, in the last pragraph on page 3 and the 1st paragraph of page 4 they state "therefore, the director "MUST" consider the untimely appeal as a motion to reopen and reconsider and render a "NEW" decision acccordingly"
7. They also state that the "NEW" decision "MUST" thoroughly address all of the evidence submitted in your response to the RFE.
So the AAO�s office sent back my file to the Nebraska Service Center.
Then the I-140 was reopened and I finally approved May 20th 2009. At that time the rest should be like �a letter in the mail�. That is when I demanded that my I-485 be reopened as well.
They responded to my congressional liaison telling him that they will reopen the I-485 and tat the green cards were being prepared and would be sent to us in less then 60 days. Stating: This has been going on for too long�
That is when the �saga� took another turn. On August 14th 09 I received another RFE on the I-485! I was told by one lawyer that it was not so bad (they just needed to update my records since 2006 is the date of my first GC filling), But this RFE did not make sense because once the I-140 is approved they should not ask me to supply any documents work related. They wanted me to prove that I will continue to work in my field, what I have been doing for the last 2 years since they have denied my case and what will be my upcoming work offers.
Remember that in May 2009 they have said that the green cards would be sent�
We responded again with a 5 pounder file! We mailed it September 1rst 2009. I provided them with the same documents I sent in the 8 pounder they have lost in 2006, plus everything I have done since. Including all the performances with P. S., D. B. and letters from future contractors such as The United Nations, Schomburg, my booking agents letters, etc...)
October 19th 2009 we received an email from USCIS saying that a decision has been taken and that my husband�s I-485 has been denied!
Another ridiculous thing.
1-I am the petitioner, not my husband.
2-They should adjudicate my case first, not my husband�s!
3-my case is still pending no decision made on it�
At this time, we are awaiting the full denial explanation letter, to see what is the reason for their decision. Hoping that they just made another mistake for example dissociated my husband I-485 from mine the petitioner.
I am currently (Thank God) on an 01-visa valid until 2011, my husband has a -O3-visa
Because of this terrible saga, we have endured a tremendous stress, and anxiety. We have lost a lot of money. Between the lawyers fees, the various application fees plus the appeal we have spent more than $20,000. I have decided not to file another appeal because this is more money into their pockets. I am ready to sue the USICS with a writ of mandamus and more if they do not fix the multiple mistakes they have made.
Please somebody in this forum answers me. What should I do? Please help!
Thank you.
Singer
gcisadawg
03-13 02:21 PM
Both Graham and Schumer agree that they want to do this bipartisan. Graham wants one more Republican to support the bill. If not, he wouldn't back it. This is a known fact and even Schumer is well aware of it.
If health care passes through reconciliation, then getting that one crucial Republican vote would become that much difficult. In other words, Immigration bill would never see the light this year.
It tells me, although Graham is in it, he is not really in it... He wants to take the credit for bipartisanship but not the responsibility for making it happen. And that is the reason for one more Republican support.
If health care passes through reconciliation, then getting that one crucial Republican vote would become that much difficult. In other words, Immigration bill would never see the light this year.
It tells me, although Graham is in it, he is not really in it... He wants to take the credit for bipartisanship but not the responsibility for making it happen. And that is the reason for one more Republican support.
pmpforgc
10-31 02:49 PM
Hi
My sch-A appln. I-140 was approved on Oct-30.
I also got LUDs on I-485s of me and my family on Oct-31.
Does that suggest anything or it is just routine update after I-140 apporval?
Your experienced input will help.
My sch-A appln. I-140 was approved on Oct-30.
I also got LUDs on I-485s of me and my family on Oct-31.
Does that suggest anything or it is just routine update after I-140 apporval?
Your experienced input will help.
0 comments:
Post a Comment