AabTuAgaGC
12-27 03:35 PM
Received date July 27th, 2007. No AP yet:mad::mad::mad::mad:I have to travel in February:(:(
wallpaper Beach Wedding Dresses
samrat_bhargava_vihari
02-13 04:20 PM
It is an Emotional Achievement to me and free from lot of worries with boosted Energy.
saimrathi
08-10 11:42 AM
No checks cashed for us yet.. check my signature for details..
We still haven't got ours, wondering if others have got it or are still waiting like us. No info on check cashed too.
We still haven't got ours, wondering if others have got it or are still waiting like us. No info on check cashed too.
2011 Beach Wedding Attire for the
ski_dude12
09-27 10:25 AM
One of my co-workers had similar situation. He had PD in 2001 on EB3.
He talked to his employer to port to EB2. Porting process/approval took about a year but after that it took only 2 months to get approval.
You should be able to switch from EB3 to EB2.
Put pressure on employer or get some other company (reputed one) to take a AC21 and start processing EB2.
He talked to his employer to port to EB2. Porting process/approval took about a year but after that it took only 2 months to get approval.
You should be able to switch from EB3 to EB2.
Put pressure on employer or get some other company (reputed one) to take a AC21 and start processing EB2.
more...
nirenjoshi
03-05 05:04 PM
ditto
Same here.. LUD=9/11/07
Same here.. LUD=9/11/07
HV000
07-21 08:33 PM
Please write to your CA SENATORS about the EB BACKLOG which is going to last for more years from now.
Its INTERESTING THAT DEMOCRATS HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME AND LOBBIED FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!:mad:
Its INTERESTING THAT DEMOCRATS HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME AND LOBBIED FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!:mad:
more...
addsf345
11-13 08:21 PM
This contradicts with the fact that many reported on IV. Ron says that one can continue employment on EAD. EAD stays valid atleast till the legally allowed time to file for an appeal, and once you file appeal, it stays active till it adjudicated.
However many ppl reported that they had to leave job due to 485 revocation. What is the truth???? Any one?
URL: http://boards.immigration.com/blog.php?b=34
AOS Pending, Should H-1 be Renewed by Rajiv S. Khanna
whether an H-1 should be renewed while the AOS is pending.
---------------------------------------
Bottomline - I think H-1 should be renewed.
A little more info: A few months ago, I used to feel strongly that AOS applicants should keep their H-1 active for several reasons. Two of these are:
One, EAD issuance was erratic and CIS had discontinued issuance of interim EAD's (that is, if in 90 days your EAD is not issued, you could walk with a infopass appointment to your local CIS office and get an EAD). Thus, EAD's were unreliable and given for only a year. You could have interruptions in your work.
Two, if your AOS were to be denied (even in error), you would have no way to work, because the EAD goes with the AOS. And since there is no appeal against AOS denial, only an MTR can be filed. While the MTR is pending, you are not given a work authorization (as of now, July 2008). In addition, you would not be able to get n H-1 extension beyond the original six years because nothing is pending and "final action" has been taken on your green card. This could result in a situation that can be very dangerous. You do not have an H-1, a pending MTR gives you no legal status to sty in the US. Not only can you not work, you are deportable and you are accruing illegal presence even though the MTR is pending.
While CIS has done well to eliminate the first concern by reinstating the interim EAD issuance policy, the second concern still bothers me. While erroneous denials are few an far between (thank heavens), they do, nevertheless, occur. So, just maintain your peace of mind by keeping your H-1 active. That is my opinion. Reasonable people can easily argue against this and perhaps, their points of view may be just as valid.
All the above holds true, whether or not you intend to use AC21 portability. :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
However many ppl reported that they had to leave job due to 485 revocation. What is the truth???? Any one?
URL: http://boards.immigration.com/blog.php?b=34
AOS Pending, Should H-1 be Renewed by Rajiv S. Khanna
whether an H-1 should be renewed while the AOS is pending.
---------------------------------------
Bottomline - I think H-1 should be renewed.
A little more info: A few months ago, I used to feel strongly that AOS applicants should keep their H-1 active for several reasons. Two of these are:
One, EAD issuance was erratic and CIS had discontinued issuance of interim EAD's (that is, if in 90 days your EAD is not issued, you could walk with a infopass appointment to your local CIS office and get an EAD). Thus, EAD's were unreliable and given for only a year. You could have interruptions in your work.
Two, if your AOS were to be denied (even in error), you would have no way to work, because the EAD goes with the AOS. And since there is no appeal against AOS denial, only an MTR can be filed. While the MTR is pending, you are not given a work authorization (as of now, July 2008). In addition, you would not be able to get n H-1 extension beyond the original six years because nothing is pending and "final action" has been taken on your green card. This could result in a situation that can be very dangerous. You do not have an H-1, a pending MTR gives you no legal status to sty in the US. Not only can you not work, you are deportable and you are accruing illegal presence even though the MTR is pending.
While CIS has done well to eliminate the first concern by reinstating the interim EAD issuance policy, the second concern still bothers me. While erroneous denials are few an far between (thank heavens), they do, nevertheless, occur. So, just maintain your peace of mind by keeping your H-1 active. That is my opinion. Reasonable people can easily argue against this and perhaps, their points of view may be just as valid.
All the above holds true, whether or not you intend to use AC21 portability. :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
2010 each-wedding-dresses-p002.jpg
wandmaker
07-11 12:18 PM
can they even withdraw 140 after more then a year now?
employer can withdraw the 140 any time before the approval of 485 - there is no time limit.
employer can withdraw the 140 any time before the approval of 485 - there is no time limit.
more...
isedkeem
03-07 03:37 PM
I was in India recently for a 2 months vacation, and some work from our Indian office,. First few days were tough , lot of dust , traffic , pollution, But after 2 weeks i was loving it the old way .. and when i was flying back i realized I love Delhi .
...
When i was in India, i went to best hotels for food (2000Rs buffets) virtually every week.,just went to NY once for a 200$ buffet, in 6 years.
So everyone has to take a personal decision, based on personal factors..
I went on a business trip to Delhi and Mumbai last year for about 10 days. I stayed at very expensive hotels (Leela in Mumbai, don't remember the Delhi one) but somehow I did not feel that it was worth the $300+ a night or so. The hotels were about the same standard as a Best Western or a Holiday Inn in the US which tend to go for $60-80 usually. There were no reasonable budget options for $100 like in the US. The value for money seems much less in India IMO. I have been to China and Brazil too and the general standards there seem to be orders of magnitude higher.
...
When i was in India, i went to best hotels for food (2000Rs buffets) virtually every week.,just went to NY once for a 200$ buffet, in 6 years.
So everyone has to take a personal decision, based on personal factors..
I went on a business trip to Delhi and Mumbai last year for about 10 days. I stayed at very expensive hotels (Leela in Mumbai, don't remember the Delhi one) but somehow I did not feel that it was worth the $300+ a night or so. The hotels were about the same standard as a Best Western or a Holiday Inn in the US which tend to go for $60-80 usually. There were no reasonable budget options for $100 like in the US. The value for money seems much less in India IMO. I have been to China and Brazil too and the general standards there seem to be orders of magnitude higher.
hair each wedding attire pictures
Green.Tech
06-20 05:19 PM
...and contribute
more...
rajeev_74
04-25 05:41 PM
Go back and look at the forum postings. There are much more amenable and practical suggestions made. This PD thing doesn't pass the basic test: was there a precedence or prior history, can it be done and does it lessen the time for one to apply for I-485 and GC. Does it reduce backlog?
PD as the date of < insert whatever> doesn't pass this basic test.
I guess we can move on then...Thanks
PD as the date of < insert whatever> doesn't pass this basic test.
I guess we can move on then...Thanks
hot Beach wedding gown,High
lazycis
11-24 04:48 PM
it does say that H1B ext beyond 6 years can not be granted if there is not underlying pending process for GC (LC, 140 or 485).
However it does not talk about 'what happens if an ext is already granted'? so it still remains gray area. did I understand correctly?
If extension has already been granted, it remains valid until it's expired, revoked by USCIS, revoked by employer or employer goes out of business. However, H1B status is technically lost (similary to the situation when h1b holder leaves the petitioner but petitioner never revokes h1). Even if USCIS does not revoke the extension, it will be investigated during new I-485 processing/H1 transfer or extension.
However it does not talk about 'what happens if an ext is already granted'? so it still remains gray area. did I understand correctly?
If extension has already been granted, it remains valid until it's expired, revoked by USCIS, revoked by employer or employer goes out of business. However, H1B status is technically lost (similary to the situation when h1b holder leaves the petitioner but petitioner never revokes h1). Even if USCIS does not revoke the extension, it will be investigated during new I-485 processing/H1 transfer or extension.
more...
house Beach Wedding Gowns Picture
CADude
07-06 01:42 PM
I am 100% agree!! Two Govt Dept has their own ego and problems. They didn't work in tandem. Now they have to face the music of AILF. :D
For sure DoS knew that something is wrong at USCIS end. Looks like they dint get along well on this one. So instead of saying that all the visa numbers has been used up, they said " all the entire 2007 numbers has been made available". Which means they know very well USCIS are still processing the cases, even after July 2nd.
Looks like, DOS trying to clean their hands and put the blame on USCIS.
This is what happened. Again my thoughts based on last fews days before the july 2nd.
USCIS was angered by DOS making it current for all categories. Every one knows there will be a minimum 100K apps flooding their gates. Imagine the revenue loss for them just bcoz of making it current b4 30th july. They expected DOS to make it current from Aug 1st instead of July 1st. Had the immigration bill passed, as promised by the GOVT., they would have stand to gain $4B in grants to secure the border. But the bill crashed on 27th of june. So what do they do to stop this loss of revenue from our application. They have to use of the entire fiscal 2007 quota in three days so that legally they can't accept more applications. Now that is legally correct. But they way they claimed all the visas within 4 days wasn't played by the rules and where the AILF stands chance to file a lawsuit against them.
Someone in the USCIS was hell bent upon forcing the DOS to make it unavailable for July. WHY ?
For sure DoS knew that something is wrong at USCIS end. Looks like they dint get along well on this one. So instead of saying that all the visa numbers has been used up, they said " all the entire 2007 numbers has been made available". Which means they know very well USCIS are still processing the cases, even after July 2nd.
Looks like, DOS trying to clean their hands and put the blame on USCIS.
This is what happened. Again my thoughts based on last fews days before the july 2nd.
USCIS was angered by DOS making it current for all categories. Every one knows there will be a minimum 100K apps flooding their gates. Imagine the revenue loss for them just bcoz of making it current b4 30th july. They expected DOS to make it current from Aug 1st instead of July 1st. Had the immigration bill passed, as promised by the GOVT., they would have stand to gain $4B in grants to secure the border. But the bill crashed on 27th of june. So what do they do to stop this loss of revenue from our application. They have to use of the entire fiscal 2007 quota in three days so that legally they can't accept more applications. Now that is legally correct. But they way they claimed all the visas within 4 days wasn't played by the rules and where the AILF stands chance to file a lawsuit against them.
Someone in the USCIS was hell bent upon forcing the DOS to make it unavailable for July. WHY ?
tattoo Elegant Beach Wedding Gown
tinamatthew
07-21 05:44 PM
Hi Tina,
Do you know any employer or recruiting agency (in NY) who can help sponsoring physical therapists for 140 & 485.
I got a NY work permit and got my crdentials evaluated but unfortunately that emplyer is no longer having job vacancy. Now I am stuck and don't know if I can get benefit from some other employer.
Any input would be greatly helpful.
Hi GC
Are you EB2/EB3?
Did your previous employer put up the notice for 10 business days?
Are you willing to relocate if you don't find a sponsor in NY. Time is not on our side if you are EB3.
Even if you found an employer who is willing to sponsor you now, you still have the problem of the 40 day poster.
Let me know.
Do you know any employer or recruiting agency (in NY) who can help sponsoring physical therapists for 140 & 485.
I got a NY work permit and got my crdentials evaluated but unfortunately that emplyer is no longer having job vacancy. Now I am stuck and don't know if I can get benefit from some other employer.
Any input would be greatly helpful.
Hi GC
Are you EB2/EB3?
Did your previous employer put up the notice for 10 business days?
Are you willing to relocate if you don't find a sponsor in NY. Time is not on our side if you are EB3.
Even if you found an employer who is willing to sponsor you now, you still have the problem of the 40 day poster.
Let me know.
more...
pictures each wedding dresses have
bidhanc
03-10 05:42 PM
vparam/ anyone,
i have 2 questions
when i move into my own LLC how far do I need to go in terms of documents/ pay-stubs to prove to the USCIS that it's a legitimate company/ job offer? i guess i am a bit confused as to how to present to USCIS my dual role as owner/ employee with 140 job description?
also from your experiences is it practical (in terms of taxation) to just run your own payroll (from consulting) through your LLC - meaning you are the only employee in your company?
thanks in advance,
manderson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ref (Murthy): " Foreign nationals can port their cases to a self-employed position! This is a very favorable stance, as many foreign nationals desire to establish their own companies and, in that way, control their own destinies. The entrepreneurial spirit is strong among many immigrants. The Memo reiterates the need to show that the new position or job is the same or similar. It also states that the new employer and job offer must be legitimate.
�MurthyDotCom
In these situations, the USCIS is to focus upon whether the original job offer was really the intended employment at the time the I-140 and I-485 were filed. That is, the petitioning company must have intended to employ the foreign national beneficiary and the foreign national beneficiary must have intended to accept the position at the time of filing the I-140 and the I-485."
Source: http://www.murthy.com/news/n_yatmay.html
I think the 2nd paragraph means USCIS might want additional RFEs from your 140 employer later on to prove that original 140 employment offer was valid.
From the above paragraph (quoted on Murthy site), it seems that it would be very much possible to just get self-employed (of course job description should be same and legal).
But here are the Questions:
1). How will USCIS be convinced that the original job offer was really the intended employment at the time the I-140 and I-485 were filed??
2). How do you prove to USCIS that the original job offer was something that you intended to take on getting your GC?
From the below excerpt (same Murthy site and part of above doc)
Ability of New Sponsor to Pay
m
The Memo clarifies that there should not be requests for "ability to pay" proof from the new sponsor as part of the I-140 approval process. However, the Memo does state that it would be appropriate to check the legitimacy of the new employer and the job offer in connection with the I-485 approval. So, the new employer may have to show financial viability and prove that there is a valid job offer in order for the foreign national employee and any family members to obtain the I-485 approval.
Questions:
3).Doesn�t the above mean that USCIS will still check to see if your (lets say) spouse�s company or start-up company has the ability to pay you?
4). So, even though USCIS is saying �Yes� to self employment, will they (excerpt from mandersons musings)
�..ask for 2 yrs of tax filings of future employer to prove that it's an established company (although they are not supposed to bring up 'ability to pay' issue which is already covered in approved 140 -- but being USCIS anything goes...)???
i have 2 questions
when i move into my own LLC how far do I need to go in terms of documents/ pay-stubs to prove to the USCIS that it's a legitimate company/ job offer? i guess i am a bit confused as to how to present to USCIS my dual role as owner/ employee with 140 job description?
also from your experiences is it practical (in terms of taxation) to just run your own payroll (from consulting) through your LLC - meaning you are the only employee in your company?
thanks in advance,
manderson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ref (Murthy): " Foreign nationals can port their cases to a self-employed position! This is a very favorable stance, as many foreign nationals desire to establish their own companies and, in that way, control their own destinies. The entrepreneurial spirit is strong among many immigrants. The Memo reiterates the need to show that the new position or job is the same or similar. It also states that the new employer and job offer must be legitimate.
�MurthyDotCom
In these situations, the USCIS is to focus upon whether the original job offer was really the intended employment at the time the I-140 and I-485 were filed. That is, the petitioning company must have intended to employ the foreign national beneficiary and the foreign national beneficiary must have intended to accept the position at the time of filing the I-140 and the I-485."
Source: http://www.murthy.com/news/n_yatmay.html
I think the 2nd paragraph means USCIS might want additional RFEs from your 140 employer later on to prove that original 140 employment offer was valid.
From the above paragraph (quoted on Murthy site), it seems that it would be very much possible to just get self-employed (of course job description should be same and legal).
But here are the Questions:
1). How will USCIS be convinced that the original job offer was really the intended employment at the time the I-140 and I-485 were filed??
2). How do you prove to USCIS that the original job offer was something that you intended to take on getting your GC?
From the below excerpt (same Murthy site and part of above doc)
Ability of New Sponsor to Pay
m
The Memo clarifies that there should not be requests for "ability to pay" proof from the new sponsor as part of the I-140 approval process. However, the Memo does state that it would be appropriate to check the legitimacy of the new employer and the job offer in connection with the I-485 approval. So, the new employer may have to show financial viability and prove that there is a valid job offer in order for the foreign national employee and any family members to obtain the I-485 approval.
Questions:
3).Doesn�t the above mean that USCIS will still check to see if your (lets say) spouse�s company or start-up company has the ability to pay you?
4). So, even though USCIS is saying �Yes� to self employment, will they (excerpt from mandersons musings)
�..ask for 2 yrs of tax filings of future employer to prove that it's an established company (although they are not supposed to bring up 'ability to pay' issue which is already covered in approved 140 -- but being USCIS anything goes...)???
dresses Beach Wedding Gowns
needhelp!
09-11 11:27 AM
coopheal,
Thank you for you generosity!
Thank you for you generosity!
more...
makeup Beautiful wedding dresses
susie
07-15 11:18 AM
Hi
Here is one draft, not sure if it is the final draft and still checking, but this gives you and idea of our thoughts
Dear Rep./Sen./Readers
Expat�s Voice: Representing the Expat Community
We at Expat�s Voice ask for your support in achieving genuinely comprehensive and fair immigration reform.
Our organization represents thousands of members who have legally immigrated to the United States, including immigrant and nonimmigrant visa holders, and those that are awaiting immigration. The diversity of our membership means we truly understand first hand the problems with the current immigration system.
We commend the work of the Government in attempting to bring in much needed reform. However, the rights of many, specifically of children and of legal immigrants are being overlooked, and we want to bring the pertinent issues to your attention.
First, we ask for a much needed compassionate visa. Many of our members, due to immigration related reasons cannot leave the country without repercussions for their visa status. They have elderly Parents and other relatives in seriously ill condition. Similarly, our own families have not been allowed to enter the USA on a compassionate basis. My own husband passed away last year, but my son was refused a temporary visa to pay his last respects because of problems with �immigrant intent.� The US Embassy showed no compassion or common sense. Yet due to the unfairness of the system, many families have to suffer this type of humiliation on a regular basis as a result of the system, largely because of reasons of mere technicalities. This has to change.
Second, we support all measures that protect children. They are innocent in the whole immigration process whether brought to this country legally or illegally. The US Government has failed repeatedly to bring the Dream Act to fruition. We ask that ALL children, whether having entered the USA illegally or under legal nonimmigrant status, who can bring so much benefit to this country�s future be recognized and protected as soon as possible. There is ambiguity as to whether the Dream Act protects all children the meet the criteria or only illegal children; if it is the latter it needs to expanded to cover legal migrant children, whose Parents have respected and abided with US immigration laws. In addition, the legislation would not prevent certain nonimmigrant dependent (such as E dependents) from aging out at 21 unless they meet certain criteria. Therefore, we also ask for an amendment to the Child Protection Status Act of 2002 (CSPA), if not in the Dream Bill, to prevent these families from being separated when the child reaches 21.
Third, many children �age out� due to the long waiting periods involved with family-based petitions. The Child Protection Status Act of 2002 (CSPA) was intended to address many of these issues, but the legislation has simply failed in this aim. Many of our members are now stuck in their country of residence, despite their Parents and younger siblings having already immigrated to the USA. The CSPA was designed to ensure children who aged out were awarded earlier priority dates associated with their previous petition to prevent being forced to the back of the line with a new petition and new priority date (and, when taking into account the waits associated with both the original petition and the subsequent petition after aging out, this can cause waits in excess of 30 years). However, the failure of the USCIS to apply this law correctly, because of an ambiguity in the way section 3 (INS, section 203(h)) is drafted, and the fact no visa advisory opinion nor any rules have been issued after four and half years since the CSPA was enacted, means many families remain separated.
Fourth, many of our members are E2 and L1 visa holders. They contribute millions of dollars to the US economy and provide employment to many American citizens. However, despite being in this country legally and providing many benefits, they are treated like second class members in the USA. Our E2 members have to return to their country every two years to renew their visa, with no guarantee of visa renewal putting their investment and the American employees at serious risk. This is compounded with severe delays in visa processing times, particularly in London. Despite providing these benefits, often for more than a decade, it is very disappointing that our members do not have a direct path to citizenship. What is even more surprising is that despite having abided by and respected US laws, it is the illegal immigrants who stand to directly benefit from the Strive Bill with a direct path to permanent residency and citizenship.
Our members, many of who are British citizens, feel cheated by the US Government. Much is spoken of our �special relationship,� but in practice it seems the rights of illegal immigrants take priority. Further, many have suffered from poor treatment by immigration and enforcement officials, but we remain patient and respectful. As an organization we are neither for nor against the rights of illegal immigrants. We simply ask that our commitment and duty to this country be recognized with at least equal reward and that you support Rep. Heather Wilson�s proposed E2 Nonimmigrant Investor Adjustment Act of 2007. We do, however, believe the 3,000 proposed figure will create a backlog of investor immigrants and so urge you to remove the proposed cap, or support a larger number and/or also introduce an annual increase to meet market demand.
In sum we ask you for fair reforms: to recognize the principle of family reunification through amendments to the CSPA; to reward those who abide by and respect US laws to at least the same level as those that don�t; to treat the children with compassion and open arms by giving them an opportunity to remain in and benefit this great country; and to show compassion and prevent humiliation to many thousands of families, by allowing family members to be with their loved one on a temporary basis in their time of need and often in their last moments, both in the USA and outside the USA.
For more information please also visit us at www.expatsvoice.org. We have also included an appendix discussing the issues more fully with draft amendments and explanations to provide solutions to the above issues.
Sincerely,
Mrs. S Ward
For and on behalf of
Expats Voice
www.expatsvoice.org
Here is one draft, not sure if it is the final draft and still checking, but this gives you and idea of our thoughts
Dear Rep./Sen./Readers
Expat�s Voice: Representing the Expat Community
We at Expat�s Voice ask for your support in achieving genuinely comprehensive and fair immigration reform.
Our organization represents thousands of members who have legally immigrated to the United States, including immigrant and nonimmigrant visa holders, and those that are awaiting immigration. The diversity of our membership means we truly understand first hand the problems with the current immigration system.
We commend the work of the Government in attempting to bring in much needed reform. However, the rights of many, specifically of children and of legal immigrants are being overlooked, and we want to bring the pertinent issues to your attention.
First, we ask for a much needed compassionate visa. Many of our members, due to immigration related reasons cannot leave the country without repercussions for their visa status. They have elderly Parents and other relatives in seriously ill condition. Similarly, our own families have not been allowed to enter the USA on a compassionate basis. My own husband passed away last year, but my son was refused a temporary visa to pay his last respects because of problems with �immigrant intent.� The US Embassy showed no compassion or common sense. Yet due to the unfairness of the system, many families have to suffer this type of humiliation on a regular basis as a result of the system, largely because of reasons of mere technicalities. This has to change.
Second, we support all measures that protect children. They are innocent in the whole immigration process whether brought to this country legally or illegally. The US Government has failed repeatedly to bring the Dream Act to fruition. We ask that ALL children, whether having entered the USA illegally or under legal nonimmigrant status, who can bring so much benefit to this country�s future be recognized and protected as soon as possible. There is ambiguity as to whether the Dream Act protects all children the meet the criteria or only illegal children; if it is the latter it needs to expanded to cover legal migrant children, whose Parents have respected and abided with US immigration laws. In addition, the legislation would not prevent certain nonimmigrant dependent (such as E dependents) from aging out at 21 unless they meet certain criteria. Therefore, we also ask for an amendment to the Child Protection Status Act of 2002 (CSPA), if not in the Dream Bill, to prevent these families from being separated when the child reaches 21.
Third, many children �age out� due to the long waiting periods involved with family-based petitions. The Child Protection Status Act of 2002 (CSPA) was intended to address many of these issues, but the legislation has simply failed in this aim. Many of our members are now stuck in their country of residence, despite their Parents and younger siblings having already immigrated to the USA. The CSPA was designed to ensure children who aged out were awarded earlier priority dates associated with their previous petition to prevent being forced to the back of the line with a new petition and new priority date (and, when taking into account the waits associated with both the original petition and the subsequent petition after aging out, this can cause waits in excess of 30 years). However, the failure of the USCIS to apply this law correctly, because of an ambiguity in the way section 3 (INS, section 203(h)) is drafted, and the fact no visa advisory opinion nor any rules have been issued after four and half years since the CSPA was enacted, means many families remain separated.
Fourth, many of our members are E2 and L1 visa holders. They contribute millions of dollars to the US economy and provide employment to many American citizens. However, despite being in this country legally and providing many benefits, they are treated like second class members in the USA. Our E2 members have to return to their country every two years to renew their visa, with no guarantee of visa renewal putting their investment and the American employees at serious risk. This is compounded with severe delays in visa processing times, particularly in London. Despite providing these benefits, often for more than a decade, it is very disappointing that our members do not have a direct path to citizenship. What is even more surprising is that despite having abided by and respected US laws, it is the illegal immigrants who stand to directly benefit from the Strive Bill with a direct path to permanent residency and citizenship.
Our members, many of who are British citizens, feel cheated by the US Government. Much is spoken of our �special relationship,� but in practice it seems the rights of illegal immigrants take priority. Further, many have suffered from poor treatment by immigration and enforcement officials, but we remain patient and respectful. As an organization we are neither for nor against the rights of illegal immigrants. We simply ask that our commitment and duty to this country be recognized with at least equal reward and that you support Rep. Heather Wilson�s proposed E2 Nonimmigrant Investor Adjustment Act of 2007. We do, however, believe the 3,000 proposed figure will create a backlog of investor immigrants and so urge you to remove the proposed cap, or support a larger number and/or also introduce an annual increase to meet market demand.
In sum we ask you for fair reforms: to recognize the principle of family reunification through amendments to the CSPA; to reward those who abide by and respect US laws to at least the same level as those that don�t; to treat the children with compassion and open arms by giving them an opportunity to remain in and benefit this great country; and to show compassion and prevent humiliation to many thousands of families, by allowing family members to be with their loved one on a temporary basis in their time of need and often in their last moments, both in the USA and outside the USA.
For more information please also visit us at www.expatsvoice.org. We have also included an appendix discussing the issues more fully with draft amendments and explanations to provide solutions to the above issues.
Sincerely,
Mrs. S Ward
For and on behalf of
Expats Voice
www.expatsvoice.org
girlfriend Beach Wedding Dresses
sriramkalyan
06-09 12:05 PM
i was regular contributor to IV ..I stopped it ..
My request is ..
All postings on IV should identify the user as contributing member or a Free User.
That change will help IV to increase Funding ..
I will sign up for monthly recurring to IV if I see above change ..
My request is ..
All postings on IV should identify the user as contributing member or a Free User.
That change will help IV to increase Funding ..
I will sign up for monthly recurring to IV if I see above change ..
hairstyles Beach Wedding Dress
panini
07-06 02:10 PM
OMG!!! Dude, you are the first one who said something like that and got away with it!!!!
IV core leadership has to change and so is the stratergy. Current Lobbying efforts have clearly not worked out. I call for elections to elect the new core team. All these conference calls and inaction is just wastage of time and things are getting worse. We need an aggressive stratergy and may need to take names and hit people openly to get our agenda pushed. IV leadership clearly lacks these skills.
IV core leadership has to change and so is the stratergy. Current Lobbying efforts have clearly not worked out. I call for elections to elect the new core team. All these conference calls and inaction is just wastage of time and things are getting worse. We need an aggressive stratergy and may need to take names and hit people openly to get our agenda pushed. IV leadership clearly lacks these skills.
lonedesi
08-12 04:04 PM
The answer is "No" - my employer is also not willing to sign that form. They are saying that its against their policy to push Ombudsman or CIS for a I-140 which is pending for 15 months.
They are saying that the only thing they can do for me is "opening a service request" after 60 days of "Processing Date Update" Now Processing Date update is stuck @ Mar 22nd 2007 for last 4 months , so they are happy they are not obligated to do that either.
This is a huge Pain because 140 is actually employer petition and we are beneficiaries.
Lonedesi - Please advise, I'm ready to mail just the letter to CIS Ombudsman.
As mentioned in my previous post (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=274156&postcount=32), it would not be of much help without completed DHS Form 7001.
If all you can do is send a letter, then be prepared to just receive a general response from the Ombudsman's office. They will never be able to look into your specific case and see if there are any reason for the delay in processing your case. They may not be obligated to specifically address this problem for us. They can just send you a standard response and move on without actually helping you.
Given your situation, I think you may as well take a chance and send the letter including all the details(A#, receipt numbers etc) provided on the DHS Form in your letter, so that they can atleast look into your case, if they want to.
They are saying that the only thing they can do for me is "opening a service request" after 60 days of "Processing Date Update" Now Processing Date update is stuck @ Mar 22nd 2007 for last 4 months , so they are happy they are not obligated to do that either.
This is a huge Pain because 140 is actually employer petition and we are beneficiaries.
Lonedesi - Please advise, I'm ready to mail just the letter to CIS Ombudsman.
As mentioned in my previous post (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=274156&postcount=32), it would not be of much help without completed DHS Form 7001.
If all you can do is send a letter, then be prepared to just receive a general response from the Ombudsman's office. They will never be able to look into your specific case and see if there are any reason for the delay in processing your case. They may not be obligated to specifically address this problem for us. They can just send you a standard response and move on without actually helping you.
Given your situation, I think you may as well take a chance and send the letter including all the details(A#, receipt numbers etc) provided on the DHS Form in your letter, so that they can atleast look into your case, if they want to.
boreal
08-24 12:42 PM
And BTW, a 30k salary doesn't matter for executives. Jerry Yang works for $1 a year, so does it mean he is not eligible? And what about the executives working for free for a noble cause? Not everyone is money-minded, and they may choose their goals and priorities
I dont have any opinions on the main topic here - just wanted to chime in on this one...
Many CEOs work for $1 a year - thats just the salary component and only one side of the story. There is another side to it - stocks and options. No one gives up the stocks that they keep getting every year..infact, for many of these guys, the salary is just a drop in the bucket. Their real cash cow is the hundreds of thousands in stocks that they receive each year. Nobody gives those up. The $1 per year is mostly a publicity thing...
I dont have any opinions on the main topic here - just wanted to chime in on this one...
Many CEOs work for $1 a year - thats just the salary component and only one side of the story. There is another side to it - stocks and options. No one gives up the stocks that they keep getting every year..infact, for many of these guys, the salary is just a drop in the bucket. Their real cash cow is the hundreds of thousands in stocks that they receive each year. Nobody gives those up. The $1 per year is mostly a publicity thing...
No comments:
Post a Comment