sk26
04-13 03:46 PM
In my Query it states as 30 days...
This is my first post, in this website.
I recieved an RFE on my I-485 .
This is a brief summary as to what was asked,
if I am still working for the current employer, or for an intended future employer.
1. Specific Job Title
2. Duties of the offered position
3. Minimum education or training requirements
4. Start date of the employment.
5. Offered salary or wages.
Mine is EB-2 PD APRIL -04.
I did not change my employer, and all the quries asked were already answered during the labor and I-140 stage.
Did any one get similar RFE , plase let me know more in detail
My concern is why would USCIS want to know these details at this stage?
Thanks
SK26
This is my first post, in this website.
I recieved an RFE on my I-485 .
This is a brief summary as to what was asked,
if I am still working for the current employer, or for an intended future employer.
1. Specific Job Title
2. Duties of the offered position
3. Minimum education or training requirements
4. Start date of the employment.
5. Offered salary or wages.
Mine is EB-2 PD APRIL -04.
I did not change my employer, and all the quries asked were already answered during the labor and I-140 stage.
Did any one get similar RFE , plase let me know more in detail
My concern is why would USCIS want to know these details at this stage?
Thanks
SK26
wallpaper hot of animal kingdom chart
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
don840
04-03 06:06 PM
Have had unfortunate turn of events and need your guidance.
I had a valid approved h1 petition and i-94 for 2005 through company A.
Company filed for extension of h1 in 2007 and received approved h1 and i-94 valid till 2010. Did not travel out of the country at that time.
Filed for AOS 485, EAD, AP in 2007. Traveled and entered US using AP in 2008.
USCIS did inquiry and has revoked 2005 h1 because of incorrect LCA filing by the company. They have also said that because of incorrect LCA filing, I am in violation of h1 status. Attorneys have advised that USCIS will retroactive hold me as 'out-of-status' but not unlawful present as I was working in good faith based on an approved petition and unexpired i-94s.
The 2007 h1 was also filed in similar fashion as the 2005 h1.
Although USCIS has not revoked current 2007-2010 h1, there is a possibility of that happening. The 485 might be denied in that case.
The only option is to get on h4 by applying from consulate in India.
Since I will be now answering yes to question 38 (have you violated terms of US visa, or unlawful present..?) I have also shown as intent to immigrate based on my 485 filing.
I want to know my chances of getting an h4 approved.
I had a valid approved h1 petition and i-94 for 2005 through company A.
Company filed for extension of h1 in 2007 and received approved h1 and i-94 valid till 2010. Did not travel out of the country at that time.
Filed for AOS 485, EAD, AP in 2007. Traveled and entered US using AP in 2008.
USCIS did inquiry and has revoked 2005 h1 because of incorrect LCA filing by the company. They have also said that because of incorrect LCA filing, I am in violation of h1 status. Attorneys have advised that USCIS will retroactive hold me as 'out-of-status' but not unlawful present as I was working in good faith based on an approved petition and unexpired i-94s.
The 2007 h1 was also filed in similar fashion as the 2005 h1.
Although USCIS has not revoked current 2007-2010 h1, there is a possibility of that happening. The 485 might be denied in that case.
The only option is to get on h4 by applying from consulate in India.
Since I will be now answering yes to question 38 (have you violated terms of US visa, or unlawful present..?) I have also shown as intent to immigrate based on my 485 filing.
I want to know my chances of getting an h4 approved.
2011 Reptile Food Reference Chart
h1-b forever
10-13 10:23 AM
Thanks for replying... Appreciate it ....
I believe the 180 days starts from the day of 485 notice date and not 140 approval. I had confirmed this with my attorney (both my personal one and the companies )before making the shift and I had and RFE on my 485 in June 09 and nothing after that. I would assume that USCIS was happy with my response and the case might have been pre-adjudicated.
As per Ron, one cannot apply for H1B renewals based on revoked 140's. I wanted to see if anyone here has done it successfully. I will check with my attorney as well as my companies attorney.
Did you get an answer?
I believe the 180 days starts from the day of 485 notice date and not 140 approval. I had confirmed this with my attorney (both my personal one and the companies )before making the shift and I had and RFE on my 485 in June 09 and nothing after that. I would assume that USCIS was happy with my response and the case might have been pre-adjudicated.
As per Ron, one cannot apply for H1B renewals based on revoked 140's. I wanted to see if anyone here has done it successfully. I will check with my attorney as well as my companies attorney.
Did you get an answer?
more...
kaisersose
07-26 03:25 PM
To travel out of the US when a 485 is pending,
1. You should have AP or
2. A valid H-1, H-4 or L-1, L-2 stamp on the passport + 485 receipt
So in your case, you have to wait until you either get the AP or the H-4 change is effective. Until then, you cannot travel.
1. You should have AP or
2. A valid H-1, H-4 or L-1, L-2 stamp on the passport + 485 receipt
So in your case, you have to wait until you either get the AP or the H-4 change is effective. Until then, you cannot travel.
pappu
09-14 03:43 PM
Jay is going to speak now. Its an interview.
more...
wandmaker
06-19 07:08 AM
Folks,
I am due for an EAD renewal. However, my I-485 Receipt Notice got lost in mail. :(
Can I still e-file. A lot of you said, we have to send a copy of the receipt notice as a supporting document. Can I do without it.
Any pointers would be really appreciated.
Thank You
-Bipin
Copy of your biometrics notice is enough in case of missing 485 receipt notices. And USCIS should be able to verify pending 485 with the A#.
I am due for an EAD renewal. However, my I-485 Receipt Notice got lost in mail. :(
Can I still e-file. A lot of you said, we have to send a copy of the receipt notice as a supporting document. Can I do without it.
Any pointers would be really appreciated.
Thank You
-Bipin
Copy of your biometrics notice is enough in case of missing 485 receipt notices. And USCIS should be able to verify pending 485 with the A#.
2010 Reptile Food Reference Chart
vin13
01-08 11:06 AM
I returned back from India a few days ago. My experience was very similar to "LostInGCProcess". The only difference was that i had only 2 copies of AP. They kept one and gave me one.
So, it should not be a problem if you have 2 AP copies. Just make sure you come out of Immigration with 1 copy for your future travels.
They will not take the only copy you have if you make another trip out of the country before it expires.
You need just the AP and Passport. Please let the officer know that you are using AP. Or they will keep looking through your passport for a visa.
It is good to have supporting documents such as I-485 receipt, I-140 approval, recent paystubs, employment letter from your HR (stating you are still employed). As 'LostInGCProcess" said, please do not provide them until reqested
So, it should not be a problem if you have 2 AP copies. Just make sure you come out of Immigration with 1 copy for your future travels.
They will not take the only copy you have if you make another trip out of the country before it expires.
You need just the AP and Passport. Please let the officer know that you are using AP. Or they will keep looking through your passport for a visa.
It is good to have supporting documents such as I-485 receipt, I-140 approval, recent paystubs, employment letter from your HR (stating you are still employed). As 'LostInGCProcess" said, please do not provide them until reqested
more...
Dipika
11-03 01:21 PM
i have not done visa extention for my mother in law, but i had asked lawyer about it when last year my mother in law was here.
Lawyer said it's possible to get extention. and they need traveler's check of $5K on my mother in law name to send for extention, which proves she has enough money to stay and travel further in USA.
i had not followed it, but this time i'm going to do it when my in laws visit again.
I would say it would be batter to go through lawyer as they have different tricks to get it faster and easily.
Lawyer said it's possible to get extention. and they need traveler's check of $5K on my mother in law name to send for extention, which proves she has enough money to stay and travel further in USA.
i had not followed it, but this time i'm going to do it when my in laws visit again.
I would say it would be batter to go through lawyer as they have different tricks to get it faster and easily.
hair tattoo of animal kingdom chart
lost_in_migration
05-15 12:38 PM
/\/\
more...
lutherpraveen
09-19 06:44 PM
Lying on the table.... End of discussion.
Before this discussion thread grows bigger and hopes get inflated, I thought I should quote logiclife's post on "Order to Lie on the Table", that was discussed sometime ago for a different amendment. Enjoy the logic and humor.
Before this discussion thread grows bigger and hopes get inflated, I thought I should quote logiclife's post on "Order to Lie on the Table", that was discussed sometime ago for a different amendment. Enjoy the logic and humor.
hot Animal Report
bobzibub
10-06 01:27 PM
Attempting to get USCIS to post a page like that would be like squeezing blood from a stone.
Example: When AILA asked USCIS whether moonlighting on an 485 derived EAD voids your H1-B (when you also keep your main job) seven months ago, they "take it under advice" but haven't bothered to answer the question. I've asked my lawyers and they are unwilling to say either way because they think USCIS could rule on it some day.
Leadership. They've heard of it.
Example: When AILA asked USCIS whether moonlighting on an 485 derived EAD voids your H1-B (when you also keep your main job) seven months ago, they "take it under advice" but haven't bothered to answer the question. I've asked my lawyers and they are unwilling to say either way because they think USCIS could rule on it some day.
Leadership. They've heard of it.
more...
house Here#39;s my Plant Kingdom Chart
paulinasmith
08-10 09:05 PM
I am an EB3 applicant with PD of Sep 2004. I have an EAD but I haven't used it yet. I am still on H1-B.
I have 12 years of experience and a masters degree and given the hopeless EB3 backlog, I have been looking for other suitable employment opportunities (EB2) for the past few weeks.
I have a few questions for the IV members who have switched to new employers and have successfully ported EB3 to EB2:
1. Should I use my EAD and invoke AC21 to transfer to a new employer or should I ask them to file H1-B transfer.
2. How soon is it reasonable to ask the prospective employer to file EB2 labor? I do not want to blow up an opportunity being unreassonable.
In my mind, I am thinking about asking the employer to file for EB2 labor and use my EAD to start working. This is under the assumption that asking an employer to do H1-B transfer and also file EB2 labor might be too much to ask (expense wise) .
Any suggestions/ advice appreciated.
My employer started green card process in November 2009 and still PERM is not filled with DOL (August 2010).Getting a PERM into DOL system and getting it approved/certified is the biggest hurrdle these days.....
I have 12 years of experience and a masters degree and given the hopeless EB3 backlog, I have been looking for other suitable employment opportunities (EB2) for the past few weeks.
I have a few questions for the IV members who have switched to new employers and have successfully ported EB3 to EB2:
1. Should I use my EAD and invoke AC21 to transfer to a new employer or should I ask them to file H1-B transfer.
2. How soon is it reasonable to ask the prospective employer to file EB2 labor? I do not want to blow up an opportunity being unreassonable.
In my mind, I am thinking about asking the employer to file for EB2 labor and use my EAD to start working. This is under the assumption that asking an employer to do H1-B transfer and also file EB2 labor might be too much to ask (expense wise) .
Any suggestions/ advice appreciated.
My employer started green card process in November 2009 and still PERM is not filled with DOL (August 2010).Getting a PERM into DOL system and getting it approved/certified is the biggest hurrdle these days.....
tattoo Animal Kingdom Poster
Berkeleybee
03-01 02:05 PM
Another improvement if I may:
Wondering if the website administrator has the ability to send a mass email to all its members. This is to inform and urge all its members to send web faxes and be more involved in planned activities.
Also, I sent a webfax to all three required personnel, but was hesitant to act since I was under the impression that I have to type the matter, choose the letter format, find the fax number for the official, etc. But later found our thats its as easy as clicking your mouse thrice.
We could have a section that tells people and members just how easy it is to send a web fax, and not having to search for the officials' fax numbers and not having to compose the letter, and such.
Lastly, launching a concerted and a planned membership drive and to reach all immigrant communites. For the fund raisers, and for memberships, we are still relying on a word of mouth which is not as efficient. IV could post some ads in those media that are immigrant friendly and has good reach.
It could also start assessing a fee for membership, and also try to reach corporate sponsors like those businesses that are immigrant owned and run. When these businesses contribute, IV can advertise them on its website as contributors, so they (the sponsors) get the business of immigrant friendly customers.
You have a lot of suggestions in there let me try and respond:
(1) Yes, we do have the ability to get in touch with our members by email. However, mass emails are a strategy to use when we want to launch a massive drive. We do send out regular newsletters, urging members to take action.
(2) We are working to make our webfax feature more transparent. I like your suggestion about letting people know how easy it is. Will try to get that in.
(3) About a concerted membership drive: I agree and we do have an ad running on Rediff; We are also trying to reach out to large organizations like NetIP.
(4) I think it would be counterproductive to charge a membership fee.
One of the big problems that any voluntary organization faces is that there are usually a lot of people with non-specific ideas and not enough people who will take an idea, come up with an action plan and execute it. We need many, many more volunteers who just take the initiative and execute.
We'd love it if you could help us by coming up with a concrete plan and execution strategy for any one of your suggestions. From idea, to steps to delivery.
I urge all the type-A get-things-done people out there to swing in to action!
best,
Berkeleybee
Wondering if the website administrator has the ability to send a mass email to all its members. This is to inform and urge all its members to send web faxes and be more involved in planned activities.
Also, I sent a webfax to all three required personnel, but was hesitant to act since I was under the impression that I have to type the matter, choose the letter format, find the fax number for the official, etc. But later found our thats its as easy as clicking your mouse thrice.
We could have a section that tells people and members just how easy it is to send a web fax, and not having to search for the officials' fax numbers and not having to compose the letter, and such.
Lastly, launching a concerted and a planned membership drive and to reach all immigrant communites. For the fund raisers, and for memberships, we are still relying on a word of mouth which is not as efficient. IV could post some ads in those media that are immigrant friendly and has good reach.
It could also start assessing a fee for membership, and also try to reach corporate sponsors like those businesses that are immigrant owned and run. When these businesses contribute, IV can advertise them on its website as contributors, so they (the sponsors) get the business of immigrant friendly customers.
You have a lot of suggestions in there let me try and respond:
(1) Yes, we do have the ability to get in touch with our members by email. However, mass emails are a strategy to use when we want to launch a massive drive. We do send out regular newsletters, urging members to take action.
(2) We are working to make our webfax feature more transparent. I like your suggestion about letting people know how easy it is. Will try to get that in.
(3) About a concerted membership drive: I agree and we do have an ad running on Rediff; We are also trying to reach out to large organizations like NetIP.
(4) I think it would be counterproductive to charge a membership fee.
One of the big problems that any voluntary organization faces is that there are usually a lot of people with non-specific ideas and not enough people who will take an idea, come up with an action plan and execute it. We need many, many more volunteers who just take the initiative and execute.
We'd love it if you could help us by coming up with a concrete plan and execution strategy for any one of your suggestions. From idea, to steps to delivery.
I urge all the type-A get-things-done people out there to swing in to action!
best,
Berkeleybee
more...
pictures Classification chart old daughter bizarre on the kingdom chart of things
walking_dude
03-20 10:11 AM
There are 35 Senate seats up for election in November along with the post of President. That is 35% of 100 seat Senate. It will be a different Senate as Dems are projected to win many of these seats and Repubs are projected to lose them. As things stand, now GOP [Republicans] are strategizing how to prevent Democrats from getting filibuster-proof 60 seat majority in the Senate. Even if they (dems) don't get 60 seats [ lets say they are 2-3 seats short] they can easily provide incentives for 2-3 Republican Senators to cross-over and vote with them [ much easier than getting 9-10 like now!]. That way, it will be a different Senate.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/senate_races.html
And the whole of House of Representatives [ which has 2 years term] is up for election too [ last election was in 2006]. It's true that all media attention is focussed on Presidential election. But there are also going to be major changes in the House as well as the Senate.
I agree with you on one point. Definitely Lobbying will be needed to be done after the elections. Its the only way to attach IVs provisions to some other bill and getting it passed. There's no other way to get them passed.
Ok move over Prez elections..what happens in 09 after the Prez election..the current senate is the same..which refuses to pass any immi bill..just because the Prez elections will get over this year..why are we expecting that next year any bill will pass??..
So Lobby , more lobbying and extreme lobbying..is the way to go..!!I dont see any other way out;)
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/senate_races.html
And the whole of House of Representatives [ which has 2 years term] is up for election too [ last election was in 2006]. It's true that all media attention is focussed on Presidential election. But there are also going to be major changes in the House as well as the Senate.
I agree with you on one point. Definitely Lobbying will be needed to be done after the elections. Its the only way to attach IVs provisions to some other bill and getting it passed. There's no other way to get them passed.
Ok move over Prez elections..what happens in 09 after the Prez election..the current senate is the same..which refuses to pass any immi bill..just because the Prez elections will get over this year..why are we expecting that next year any bill will pass??..
So Lobby , more lobbying and extreme lobbying..is the way to go..!!I dont see any other way out;)
dresses go the STUDY CHART OF THE
ngopalak
07-05 12:59 PM
i think you are right. 100 M is a LOT of money to forsake for an agency like USCIS.
That I think is the reason they had to stop people from applyng before Julyy27th
If you like to beleive that the USCIS employees care USCIS revenue, you might like this answer.
200K apps (potential applicants in July) times $500 increase.
100,000,000
That I think is the reason they had to stop people from applyng before Julyy27th
If you like to beleive that the USCIS employees care USCIS revenue, you might like this answer.
200K apps (potential applicants in July) times $500 increase.
100,000,000
more...
makeup Animalia+kingdom+chart
hebron
06-14 02:22 PM
Hello All,
My EB3 PD is September 2004 with no end in sight. I was promoted to Principal Software Engineer back in 2007 and would like to know if I can port my EB3 to EB2. I have a Masters degree with 13 years of experience. I have been working with the current employer since 2002 (8 years experience).
I asked my attorney for his advice and he responded with the following: "If you have been promoted to a position for which the company normally requires a Masters degree (or a Bachelors and five years of experience), and we can prove it, then we can certainly do the labor certification again as an EB-2 and we can upgrade the I-140 to an EB-2. The key is being able to prove that it is truly the company�s requirement for the job. Otherwise, we all end up with potential problems for fraud and you may NEVER get the permanent residence."
My question is if anything goes wrong with the porting process, can I fall back to my current EB3 without any issues? Has anybody ported from EB3 to EB2 working with the same employer? If so, could you provide some insight into this?
Thanks.
My EB3 PD is September 2004 with no end in sight. I was promoted to Principal Software Engineer back in 2007 and would like to know if I can port my EB3 to EB2. I have a Masters degree with 13 years of experience. I have been working with the current employer since 2002 (8 years experience).
I asked my attorney for his advice and he responded with the following: "If you have been promoted to a position for which the company normally requires a Masters degree (or a Bachelors and five years of experience), and we can prove it, then we can certainly do the labor certification again as an EB-2 and we can upgrade the I-140 to an EB-2. The key is being able to prove that it is truly the company�s requirement for the job. Otherwise, we all end up with potential problems for fraud and you may NEVER get the permanent residence."
My question is if anything goes wrong with the porting process, can I fall back to my current EB3 without any issues? Has anybody ported from EB3 to EB2 working with the same employer? If so, could you provide some insight into this?
Thanks.
girlfriend Plant Kingdom Chart
yagw
09-26 07:27 PM
This is disheartening...
Don't be. You will be current in Oct and I believe going forward (chances of retrogressing to 2005 is very slim if at all there is any retrogression).
That said, don't wait for USCIS. Be proactive and do all you can. I would suggest
1. Calling the USCIS customer service (get hold of level 2 rep by telling the level 1 your case is outside normal processing time) and try to get the status of your case. Might take few tries before you can get some info.
2. Open an SR.
3. Do the above for your dependents if any.
4. Make infopass (you have already done this).
5. Contact local congress man/woman.
6. Send mail to CIS Ombudsman
7. If your security check is not cleared yet, you can contact FBI (by phone) and find out the status.
(more information on all these can be gotten from simple google search. If not, post here and some one here should be able to help you.)
Good luck.
Don't be. You will be current in Oct and I believe going forward (chances of retrogressing to 2005 is very slim if at all there is any retrogression).
That said, don't wait for USCIS. Be proactive and do all you can. I would suggest
1. Calling the USCIS customer service (get hold of level 2 rep by telling the level 1 your case is outside normal processing time) and try to get the status of your case. Might take few tries before you can get some info.
2. Open an SR.
3. Do the above for your dependents if any.
4. Make infopass (you have already done this).
5. Contact local congress man/woman.
6. Send mail to CIS Ombudsman
7. If your security check is not cleared yet, you can contact FBI (by phone) and find out the status.
(more information on all these can be gotten from simple google search. If not, post here and some one here should be able to help you.)
Good luck.
hairstyles Animal kingdom flow chart
anilsal
12-21 12:00 AM
Since you are going for stamping in India, just be sure to take your degree certificates as well as transcripts.
Not so important - W2 statements for the years in the US as well as tax returns.
Not so important - W2 statements for the years in the US as well as tax returns.
sumant18
07-17 08:52 PM
I've had enough waiting for more than a year now for this. It would help if somebody else can confirm a letter like this if they have received it also.
Sakthisagar
10-21 10:37 AM
Like Ron hira mentioned, try to take a look from politics and 'election' perspective.whether he wins or loses, always tries to be in the news. just ignore.
earlier we have this kind of nonsense from Sen.Sessions and earlier to that Sen.Sensenbrener . These kind of people come and go, but how much they can achieve? Do they really know the implications of what they talk? my sincere guess is 'nothing', other than just want to be in the news
We do not have problems if everybody is ignoring this guy grassley but that is not the Truth. USCIS takes it seriously and issue a memo upon his letter which makes our Legal immigrants life miserable! What do you say for that.
Example: The infamous Employee employer relationship memo of Jan 18th came out from this B*** heads letter to Mr.Mayorkas.
earlier we have this kind of nonsense from Sen.Sessions and earlier to that Sen.Sensenbrener . These kind of people come and go, but how much they can achieve? Do they really know the implications of what they talk? my sincere guess is 'nothing', other than just want to be in the news
We do not have problems if everybody is ignoring this guy grassley but that is not the Truth. USCIS takes it seriously and issue a memo upon his letter which makes our Legal immigrants life miserable! What do you say for that.
Example: The infamous Employee employer relationship memo of Jan 18th came out from this B*** heads letter to Mr.Mayorkas.
No comments:
Post a Comment