GCAmigo
12-27 09:02 AM
My son who is in high school goes for a federal funded summer program every year.. he is cursing me now as he cannot claim the $1000 stipend since he doesn't have an SSN..
wallpaper KT Tunstall by Brian Clark
starving_dog
07-24 09:44 AM
This thread started just over an hour ago. The IV Core Team have full time jobs, families and competing interests. One of them will surely see the thread and comment in due time.
vin13
03-09 12:22 PM
This is horrible. Does not make much sense.
2011 kt tunstall wedding. kt
minimalist
04-03 12:41 PM
tying GC to housing initiative. You say there are things that can be done without money. Then, when I requested you to outline each step on how to approach, gather people and take it forward, you vanished and you sprout here again.
COntributing or not contributing money is your prerogative. If you don't see merit in something you do not have to contribute. But if you feel something can be done, just don't expect someone else to execute that idea. YOU have to take ownership.
There was a good explanation given on why it needs 10,000. EVeryone knows USCIS asked 5000. That would probably take 2 years time as there are 20,000 requests in queue before this one. Given that fact, they had some ideas to see if they can get a faster response time following a different path. They estimated it would cost about 5000 more.
People who trust them (in terms of their ability and honesty), contributed. If you do not trust them, that is fair enough. But they earned the trust of so many people who are willing to contribute. Believe me, none of the people who contributed have done so after careful deliberation.
Well, even for this initiative, you are welcome to outline steps and then am sure many of the IV members will join you.
very good point and I agree 100 percent ..sad part is that such a good post gets buried under 20 posts which ask for more donations.
as far as I know FOIA campaign was for 5000 dollars ..then it was increased to 10,000. will it increase again ?
COntributing or not contributing money is your prerogative. If you don't see merit in something you do not have to contribute. But if you feel something can be done, just don't expect someone else to execute that idea. YOU have to take ownership.
There was a good explanation given on why it needs 10,000. EVeryone knows USCIS asked 5000. That would probably take 2 years time as there are 20,000 requests in queue before this one. Given that fact, they had some ideas to see if they can get a faster response time following a different path. They estimated it would cost about 5000 more.
People who trust them (in terms of their ability and honesty), contributed. If you do not trust them, that is fair enough. But they earned the trust of so many people who are willing to contribute. Believe me, none of the people who contributed have done so after careful deliberation.
Well, even for this initiative, you are welcome to outline steps and then am sure many of the IV members will join you.
very good point and I agree 100 percent ..sad part is that such a good post gets buried under 20 posts which ask for more donations.
as far as I know FOIA campaign was for 5000 dollars ..then it was increased to 10,000. will it increase again ?
more...
johnwright03
07-01 09:38 AM
06/30/2007: Potential EB Visa Number Exhaution in July and Probable Actions of State Department or USCIS
* By now, people understand that the sources of potential action by the State Department or USCIS are predicated on the two important facts. One was the information from a government source that there were only about 40,000 numbers left for the entire EB visa numbers for the FY 2007 which ends on September 30, 2007. The second important fact was that reportedly the USCIS alone had far more than 40,000 I-485 applications in the backlog queue that were reportedly ready for approval. Considering the fact that the immigrant visa numbers are consumed by the approval of I-485 applications by the USCIS and the approval of immigant visa applications in the consular processing by visa posts througout the world, 40,000 visa numbers could be fairly quickly exhausted in early July 2007. This prediction was exacerbated by the information that the USCIS was apparently picking up the pace of I-485 adjudications lately.
* Obviously the State Department has been in communication with the USCIS and was well aware of the situation. Sources reported that the State Department might revise the July Visa Bulletin either Monday or Tuesday to reflect the situation. However, it is unclear at this point whether this will occur on Monday or Tuesday or, for that matter, some time soon, particulary considering the ongoing uproar in the nation. Assuming that the EB immigrant visa number will be exhausted before the end of July, from the government perspectives, they may have two options to handle this matter. One is the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin based on the newly developed facts and predictions. The other option is that the State Department does not take any action of revising the Visa Bulletin but just notify the USCIS when the visa numbers for certain categories are exhausted. The initial sources of rumor was the former possibility. However, as updated by the AILA afterwards, it might or might not happen.
* Whether the State Department revises the July visa bulletin or not, the fact will remain that 40,000 numbers could indeed be run out in a fairly short period of time in July. It is too obvious that under the statute, when the visa numbers are exhausted, the USCIS will not be able to approve any I-485 applications, and for that reason, the USCIS may wrongly reject the incoming I-485 applications or return I-485 applications which were received after the date when the visa number is exhausted. This happened for the "other worker" category in June when the priority date was current in June for certain other workers. The issue of legality of such action of the USCIS is rooted in the required distinction of the USCIS statutory mandates between its job of adjudication of 485 applications "already in the pipeline" and its job of "accepting new 485 applications." Arguably, when the visa number runs out, there is no question about that the USCIS should not and cannot adjudicate and approve any 485 applications. But there is no legal basis that the USCIS should not and cannot "accept" new 485 applications when the cases fall within the cut-off date of the monthly visa bulletin. If the State Department attempts to revise the July Visa Bulletin, probably they are doing it to overcome the predicament of the USCIS that will face in rejecting the new 485 applications. The problem is the State Department's own legal problem or authority to revise the published Visa Bulletin. Accordingly, either USCIS or State Department will be liable for either abuse of power or arbitrary act depending on who acts. The AILF is planning to sue the USCIS for rejecting "other worker" new 485 applications in June probably on ultra vires or other statutory authority grounds. Should the same thing happen in July, the AILF intends to extend its lawsuit to cover the July 2007 485 applicants, probably in the form of class action. What happens if the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin and the USCIS rejects the new applications based on the new Visa Bulletin? Strictly speaking, there may be no cause of action against the USCIS in that it followed the State Department's Visa Bulletin for the month of July. In this case, probably the lawsuit will have to be directed to the State Department for violation of law in revising the visa bulletin. We will soon find out.
* Where does this leave to the July 485 applicants? Fact remains that all likelihood, the annual limit may reach fairly early in July and they should file their cases before the visa posts and the USCIS exhaust all the numbers. They have to do this probably for the two reasons. One is that should the government take the second option of rejecting new cases after reaching the limit just as we experienced in the other worker cases, those who filed the I-485 application before that date will not be affected. Those who files the application after the date of exhaution and receive rejection of the 485 applications may be entitled to sue the USCIS either in a class action or individually. Secondly, if the government takes the first option of the State Department revising the July Visa Bulletin, they will have to sue the State Department and for that purpose, they should have filed I-485 applications within July 2007. Otherwise, they may have a standing to sue the State Department.
* For the foregoing reasons, we urge the July 485 filers to file the applications as soon as possible. At the same time, we urge the State Department and the USCIS not to take any actions to avoid the lawsuits. They should keep accepting I-485 applications even after the enhaution of the FY 2007 numbers, even though they will not be able to adjudicate these applications until the visa numbers become current again. Again, the agencies should distinguish the requirement for adjudication of 485 applications and the requirement for acceptance of new applications. These are two separate things.
* By now, people understand that the sources of potential action by the State Department or USCIS are predicated on the two important facts. One was the information from a government source that there were only about 40,000 numbers left for the entire EB visa numbers for the FY 2007 which ends on September 30, 2007. The second important fact was that reportedly the USCIS alone had far more than 40,000 I-485 applications in the backlog queue that were reportedly ready for approval. Considering the fact that the immigrant visa numbers are consumed by the approval of I-485 applications by the USCIS and the approval of immigant visa applications in the consular processing by visa posts througout the world, 40,000 visa numbers could be fairly quickly exhausted in early July 2007. This prediction was exacerbated by the information that the USCIS was apparently picking up the pace of I-485 adjudications lately.
* Obviously the State Department has been in communication with the USCIS and was well aware of the situation. Sources reported that the State Department might revise the July Visa Bulletin either Monday or Tuesday to reflect the situation. However, it is unclear at this point whether this will occur on Monday or Tuesday or, for that matter, some time soon, particulary considering the ongoing uproar in the nation. Assuming that the EB immigrant visa number will be exhausted before the end of July, from the government perspectives, they may have two options to handle this matter. One is the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin based on the newly developed facts and predictions. The other option is that the State Department does not take any action of revising the Visa Bulletin but just notify the USCIS when the visa numbers for certain categories are exhausted. The initial sources of rumor was the former possibility. However, as updated by the AILA afterwards, it might or might not happen.
* Whether the State Department revises the July visa bulletin or not, the fact will remain that 40,000 numbers could indeed be run out in a fairly short period of time in July. It is too obvious that under the statute, when the visa numbers are exhausted, the USCIS will not be able to approve any I-485 applications, and for that reason, the USCIS may wrongly reject the incoming I-485 applications or return I-485 applications which were received after the date when the visa number is exhausted. This happened for the "other worker" category in June when the priority date was current in June for certain other workers. The issue of legality of such action of the USCIS is rooted in the required distinction of the USCIS statutory mandates between its job of adjudication of 485 applications "already in the pipeline" and its job of "accepting new 485 applications." Arguably, when the visa number runs out, there is no question about that the USCIS should not and cannot adjudicate and approve any 485 applications. But there is no legal basis that the USCIS should not and cannot "accept" new 485 applications when the cases fall within the cut-off date of the monthly visa bulletin. If the State Department attempts to revise the July Visa Bulletin, probably they are doing it to overcome the predicament of the USCIS that will face in rejecting the new 485 applications. The problem is the State Department's own legal problem or authority to revise the published Visa Bulletin. Accordingly, either USCIS or State Department will be liable for either abuse of power or arbitrary act depending on who acts. The AILF is planning to sue the USCIS for rejecting "other worker" new 485 applications in June probably on ultra vires or other statutory authority grounds. Should the same thing happen in July, the AILF intends to extend its lawsuit to cover the July 2007 485 applicants, probably in the form of class action. What happens if the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin and the USCIS rejects the new applications based on the new Visa Bulletin? Strictly speaking, there may be no cause of action against the USCIS in that it followed the State Department's Visa Bulletin for the month of July. In this case, probably the lawsuit will have to be directed to the State Department for violation of law in revising the visa bulletin. We will soon find out.
* Where does this leave to the July 485 applicants? Fact remains that all likelihood, the annual limit may reach fairly early in July and they should file their cases before the visa posts and the USCIS exhaust all the numbers. They have to do this probably for the two reasons. One is that should the government take the second option of rejecting new cases after reaching the limit just as we experienced in the other worker cases, those who filed the I-485 application before that date will not be affected. Those who files the application after the date of exhaution and receive rejection of the 485 applications may be entitled to sue the USCIS either in a class action or individually. Secondly, if the government takes the first option of the State Department revising the July Visa Bulletin, they will have to sue the State Department and for that purpose, they should have filed I-485 applications within July 2007. Otherwise, they may have a standing to sue the State Department.
* For the foregoing reasons, we urge the July 485 filers to file the applications as soon as possible. At the same time, we urge the State Department and the USCIS not to take any actions to avoid the lawsuits. They should keep accepting I-485 applications even after the enhaution of the FY 2007 numbers, even though they will not be able to adjudicate these applications until the visa numbers become current again. Again, the agencies should distinguish the requirement for adjudication of 485 applications and the requirement for acceptance of new applications. These are two separate things.
rajivkane
07-20 10:42 PM
Hi!
My EB2 PD is Octo'2005 & receipt date of I-485 is Aug'17 2007 (receipt date on the receipt received from USCIS)to NSC(although online it shows first Aug'2007 & now October'2007). NSC online update shows Aug 10'2007. What are the chances that my application will be processed in Aug'2008? I received a soft LUD on 07/03/2008 on my I-485/ead/travel document but nothing after that.
Regards,
Raj
My EB2 PD is Octo'2005 & receipt date of I-485 is Aug'17 2007 (receipt date on the receipt received from USCIS)to NSC(although online it shows first Aug'2007 & now October'2007). NSC online update shows Aug 10'2007. What are the chances that my application will be processed in Aug'2008? I received a soft LUD on 07/03/2008 on my I-485/ead/travel document but nothing after that.
Regards,
Raj
more...
luckylavs
07-09 02:27 PM
any idea how long it will take for an outcome?
2010 KT Tunstall
PavanV
06-10 02:00 PM
If this law does pass, it will definitely will be bad for US economy, good for the world.
more...
ckichannagari
06-10 08:44 PM
sent the message ..
I will be asking 6 more friends to do the same.
I will be asking 6 more friends to do the same.
hair K.T. Tunstall
ArunAntonio
04-20 04:04 PM
I would like to volunteer.
------------------------------------------------
URGENT
------------------------------------------------
We need 4-5 volunteers to make phone calls to IV members in CA. The purpose of the call is to inform and invite IV members in CA about this event so that we all could be well represented at this event. Please post a message or send a private message if you would like to voluneer for this effort. We will provide you with all the information required to make the phone calls to IV members. This task involves volunteering 30-45 minutes of your time. Please help this cause to help us all.
Thanks,
------------------------------------------------
URGENT
------------------------------------------------
We need 4-5 volunteers to make phone calls to IV members in CA. The purpose of the call is to inform and invite IV members in CA about this event so that we all could be well represented at this event. Please post a message or send a private message if you would like to voluneer for this effort. We will provide you with all the information required to make the phone calls to IV members. This task involves volunteering 30-45 minutes of your time. Please help this cause to help us all.
Thanks,
more...
mlvats
06-10 06:23 PM
Friends.
My wife is working with a company "A" in India and have filed for H1 through a company "B" in USA.
Currently she does not have any VISA.
Can her current company "A" apply for L1 and she can come to USA on L1?
And suppose she can come to US on L1 through company "A", What happens if her H1 gets approved through Company "B", Can she still continue
working for Comapny "A".?
Thanks in Advance.
-Moti
My wife is working with a company "A" in India and have filed for H1 through a company "B" in USA.
Currently she does not have any VISA.
Can her current company "A" apply for L1 and she can come to USA on L1?
And suppose she can come to US on L1 through company "A", What happens if her H1 gets approved through Company "B", Can she still continue
working for Comapny "A".?
Thanks in Advance.
-Moti
hot More photos of KT Tunstall in
franklin
07-02 11:16 PM
I strongly believe that the little funds that IV receives should be used for more productive means than spending even more money on a website.
Maintaining a website that multiple people go to isn't going to get us very far at all, other than answering the same question multiple times. Using that money to pay for a lobbying firm, or trips to DC, or media coverage is way more productive and is far more likely to get actual results.
Maintaining a website that multiple people go to isn't going to get us very far at all, other than answering the same question multiple times. Using that money to pay for a lobbying firm, or trips to DC, or media coverage is way more productive and is far more likely to get actual results.
more...
house KT Tunstall- Black Horse And
uppaji
08-03 12:29 PM
Hi Can we all agree up on a standard content format to Lou Dobbs.
Please send your text, if you have already sent emails.
I just want to make sure that they should realize that there is mass response for the smae topic.
Please send your text, if you have already sent emails.
I just want to make sure that they should realize that there is mass response for the smae topic.
tattoo Singer KT Tunstall can#39;t wait
Legal
12-27 09:58 AM
We cannot save for our children's college in college savings plan as every plan needs a GC.
NOT TRUE.
You are considered a permanent resident for tax purposes. :mad:
If you noticed carefully most mutual fund application forms ask "are you a
resident of US? " i.e they are asking you "are you a resident for tax purpsoses". You are not visiting US of r6 months or you are not trying to open an account while living in India. Just say YES;)
NOT TRUE.
You are considered a permanent resident for tax purposes. :mad:
If you noticed carefully most mutual fund application forms ask "are you a
resident of US? " i.e they are asking you "are you a resident for tax purpsoses". You are not visiting US of r6 months or you are not trying to open an account while living in India. Just say YES;)
more...
pictures NEWLYWEDS KT Tunstall and her
meimmi
03-09 04:45 PM
In my husband's case we dont have that much time.
Here what our plan is:-
1. Self file G-28.
2. Follow up with an infopass appt. with in a month.
Rest god willing. What ever is going to happen will happen. No one can stop it from happening.
Hi, Did you send the AC21 letter yourself? Can you please let us know the format of the letter and supporting documents you sent? Also, please share the format of G-28 explanation. How was your experience so far? Did you receive any confirmation back from USCIS? Thanks.
Here what our plan is:-
1. Self file G-28.
2. Follow up with an infopass appt. with in a month.
Rest god willing. What ever is going to happen will happen. No one can stop it from happening.
Hi, Did you send the AC21 letter yourself? Can you please let us know the format of the letter and supporting documents you sent? Also, please share the format of G-28 explanation. How was your experience so far? Did you receive any confirmation back from USCIS? Thanks.
dresses Singer K.T. Tunstall has an
a_paradkar
07-25 05:00 PM
Do you need an EVL if you are just sending in 485 application for your spouse.
My 485 was filed in Sept 2005?
Kind of confused. can someone answer that?
My 485 was filed in Sept 2005?
Kind of confused. can someone answer that?
more...
makeup KT Tunstall versteckt ihre
another one
07-16 05:29 PM
their Vancouver center to achievements of NumbersUSA and Lou Dobbs. We really need to let the world know that programmers guild, NuumbersUSA and Lou Dobbs has declared a war against middle class, and it will now lead to an impact on Seattle's economy. Heard that some people would be selling houses or drinking less coffee.
girlfriend KT Tunstall. On March 6, 2011,
eager_immi
01-18 11:15 AM
Signed up for $20 a month. Have contributed $300 earlier.
Thanks
Thanks
hairstyles kt tunstall wedding
alias
06-10 01:37 PM
Incorrect. You have to submit proof of employment. Basically a letter from employer. If you are unemployed that that will raise a red flag and you cannot renew your EAD anyways. So current and future employment letter is a must for getting EAD. Sometimes they even ask you for salary slips if they suspect your employment. In this proposed amendment the employer also has an obligation to record layoffs and inform government. That makes it very tough for EAD guys to renew their EADs. Even if you are not working for the same company that filed your EAD, USCIS record can show there were layoffs and your applications will be in trouble. Expect lot of RFE and denials. Remember AC21 denials last year?
all you need to file an EAD renewal is:
copy of your old EAD
2 Passport photos
copy of I-94
& the filing fee
all you need to file an EAD renewal is:
copy of your old EAD
2 Passport photos
copy of I-94
& the filing fee
meridiani.planum
03-07 05:32 PM
Until last year, it was important to announce a job change via AC21 to USCIS. This was because many sponsoring employers would revoke the 140 (even after 180 days) so that they could reuse the Labor for someone else.
When that happened and there was no AC21 letter from the applicant, some IOs would deny the 485 even without a NOID. This would mean MTR and a lot of unnecessary work.
This problem no longer exists as Labot substitution has been removed. The employer has no incentive to revoke the 140 and so the chances of goofup from USCIS has been lowered.
Employer still has two incentives to revoke I-140:
* outstanding I-140s get counted in ability-to-pay issues of future I-140s. Better to clear out older ones.
* leaving an approved but unused I-140 is essentially leaving files open with USCIS as well as at your attorneys office. Expect the attorneys to revoke them (my own attorney of a big company asks the employer to close the files with USCIS by revoking the I-140). In addition to opened files, the attorneys get some fees atleast for doing this, so thats another motivation for them.
When that happened and there was no AC21 letter from the applicant, some IOs would deny the 485 even without a NOID. This would mean MTR and a lot of unnecessary work.
This problem no longer exists as Labot substitution has been removed. The employer has no incentive to revoke the 140 and so the chances of goofup from USCIS has been lowered.
Employer still has two incentives to revoke I-140:
* outstanding I-140s get counted in ability-to-pay issues of future I-140s. Better to clear out older ones.
* leaving an approved but unused I-140 is essentially leaving files open with USCIS as well as at your attorneys office. Expect the attorneys to revoke them (my own attorney of a big company asks the employer to close the files with USCIS by revoking the I-140). In addition to opened files, the attorneys get some fees atleast for doing this, so thats another motivation for them.
arunmohan
07-02 12:37 PM
I will give my full support. Even I will ask my all colleague and my boss to sign it.
No comments:
Post a Comment