Tuesday, July 5, 2011

images %IMG_DESC_8% . %IMG_DESC_1%
  • %IMG_DESC_1%

  • mallu
    01-26 01:25 PM
    It really is amazing how much hot air has been generated on this thread over a well established transit visa requirement.

    The reason transit visas are required in the UK is that many passengers with an intention to transit the UK have stayed. The transit visa was introduced as a way of making sure (as much as possible) that the passenger has the intention and the ability to transit the UK and to enter a third country.

    The list of nationals that are required to have a visa to transit the UK represents a list of countries where there has been a particular problem with over stayers. It is not race based, but merely an effort to target the problem.

    It really does not matter what anyone thinks about the transit visa requirement because it is UK law. Everyone has a choice whether or not to transit the UK. Going back to the original post, to book a ticket without researching visa requirements and then trying to deflect personal responsibility by blaming the visa requirement is ridiculous.

    If one doesn't like transit policy of a country, just avoid that transit point, rather than putting curse on that country ( or try changing the policy of that country through democratic means, if one can ).

    wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1% . %IMG_DESC_2%
  • %IMG_DESC_2%

  • sc3
    08-20 11:26 PM
    Good Luck!
    By the way read INA about this and let us all know if there are specific provisions regarding this " EB1 -> older of (EB2-I, EB2-C, EB3-I, EB3-C)"

    There is no specific rule regarding "EB1-> older of ...", however, DoS made it clear in the Jun/Jul bulletin that the spill-over is given to the oldest first.

    BTW: EB1->EB2/EB3 is actually in INA.

    . %IMG_DESC_3%
  • %IMG_DESC_3%

  • gc_wow
    09-24 11:22 AM
    Is there any way to find if state department will do a quarterly spill over? What is the law around this? How to get this fixed?

    2011 %IMG_DESC_2% . %IMG_DESC_4%
  • %IMG_DESC_4%

  • eb_retrogession
    01-05 02:50 PM
    This thread (forum as well)seems to be really enthusiatic abt the immigration reforms.
    Keep it up! I am a new member to this forum who had been passively following the S1932 disaster on immigration.com forums.

    Hopefully things may look better with the new bill sponsored by Arlen Specter.
    The bill looks good but how do we know that it is this bill which will be discussed and not the other bills sponsored by senator hagel,mccain etc..
    Question is even though this bill seems to be a consolidated effort of all the previous bills how can we be sure if this is the bill which will be discussed as part of immigration reforms in feb?
    Also this does not have any clause for applying for I-485 before cut off date?
    So the people who benefit through this bill are probably the Masters/Phd who can automatically adjust their status and the people who have not even applied for a GC ( since no labor cert required).

    But for people who are stuck at their 1-140 waiting to apply for I-485 the only thing this bill helps is increasing the EB quota.
    I am a EB-2 applicant (masters) and would strongly support this bill but i don't see how it helps EB-3 applicants as much unless we have the clause for applying for I-485 before cut off date.

    Even though there is a draft available about this bill, what gets included and what does not, is all up for debate yet. So no one really knows how this bill will look like, come Feb. That is why we are in the effort to have as many proosals that benefit us , be included in the bill.


    . %IMG_DESC_5%
  • %IMG_DESC_5%

  • mrsr
    06-15 11:10 AM
    employer letter sample pleasseeeeeeeee

    . %IMG_DESC_6%
  • %IMG_DESC_6%

  • desi3933
    01-30 10:03 AM
    Hmmm - not sure because, if the job requires that someone must have security clearance - the job must clearly mention that someone with security clearance is needed. What is the point in hiring a citizen without security clearance (unless they want you to get clearance aftewr hiring)

    Non discriminatory postings look like this
    (1) Authorized to work in US for any employer
    (2) Requires a security clearance

    One cannot specifically say - I don't want EAD or GC or I want only Citizens.

    Desi3933 and other knowledgeable folks out here - please write your comments. I hope I am not wrong.

    There are 3 kind of jobs -
    1. Jobs that require active security clearance - this kind of job is only limited to US citizen that have security clearance of that level. Yes, tehre are different levels in security clearance as well.
    2. Jobs that will be in unit where everyone must be US citizen. These kind of jobs can be filled by US citizen without the need of any security clearance.
    3. Jobs that are open for everyone - One must have active work authorization.

    The vast majority of the jobs are of type #3. In any case, if job requires US citizen, the hiring place must be able to answer why that job is restricted to US citizens only.

    US citizen of Indian origin
    Not a legal advice


    . %IMG_DESC_7%
  • %IMG_DESC_7%

  • nivasch
    01-27 09:52 AM
    I don't know is it right Thread or not.
    But i found this information in Rajiv's website.
    The Mesg says:-
    New Volunteer Organization Formed


    Some members of this portal and others have come together to form a new organization supporting legal mmigration with special focus on issues faced by employment-based applicants. Please visit:

    DISCLAIMER: The Law Offices of Rajiv S. Khanna, PC cannot endorse or verify the activities of any organization. Please use your own judgment.
    If we really not get his Endorsement, then we should remove that Information from our website.
    Think about it


    2010 %IMG_DESC_3% . %IMG_DESC_8%
  • %IMG_DESC_8%

  • english_august
    07-11 01:08 AM
    Please make the New York Times article and the Washington Post article the most viewed and most emailed articles on the site



    . %IMG_DESC_9%
  • %IMG_DESC_9%

  • gtg506p
    01-09 08:55 AM
    I just contacted my senator's local office .working on the letters now .Thanks IV for coming up with this wonderful initiative..I hope our community gathers around and works together to make this a success , please put bickering and cynicism to rest for sometime and work pro actively on this new IV action item..

    Thanks IV. I think this is much easier for hundreds of people to participate as its easy, doesent take up too much time etc. and brings about our points across as compared to DC rally (please dont get me wrong here it was great but difficult for lot of people to attend because of various reasons). So I think we should spread out word about this as much as possible. Again, please dont get me wrong. Thank you.

    hair %IMG_DESC_4% . %IMG_DESC_10%
  • %IMG_DESC_10%

  • whitecollarslave
    03-26 02:37 PM
    Just a silly question popped up in my mind...

    Doesn't DOL have a directive telling employers, they have to try to recruit US Citizens first, and only if they do not find properly qualified US Citizens they can go on to search for people having 'other work authorizations' . Isn't that the whole basis for the approval of our Labor certifications in the first place???

    So can the employers not use that directive as a legal loophole and try to prescreen the candidates and ask them whether they are US Citizens or GC or EAD or H1 and so on... as a hidden ploy to figure out whether you are GC or EAD while externally they can still put on a facade that they are just strictly following the legal directives that DOL has laid out?

    Doesn't this 'Try to hire US Citizens first' policy of DOL in total contradiction with the I9 statement of 'no discrimination based on work authorization' ???? I am a bit confused here :confused:

    Where does it say (please quote official DHS/USCIS/DOL publication or a bill) that employers must hire "US Citizens" first? I think the regulations are to give preference to US workers (note that its not US citizens) before brining somebody from abroad.

    You do make a very good observation and we should clarify with the experts. Can anybody help clarifying this from the lawyers?


    . %IMG_DESC_11%
  • %IMG_DESC_11%

  • deepimpact
    09-17 02:44 PM
    Thats very bad news. This means most likely there will be retrogression in November VB.

    Or maybe thats why the dates did not advance for EB2I and advanced only 2 weeks for EB2 C in the Oct 10 VB. Compared to this in the Oct 09 VB, the PD for EB2-I advanced by 2 weeks and for EB2 -C it advanced by 2.5 months.

    hot %IMG_DESC_5% . %IMG_DESC_12%
  • %IMG_DESC_12%

  • willwin
    10-09 05:04 PM
    It is rather unfortunate that people on consular process track despite the fact that they have approved I-140, yet they couldn't be allocated visa while other people on adjustment process could file their I-485 when everybody PD became current. don't you think it is rather unfortunate.
    Any hope for consular processing? with the situation.

    Don't bother to ask anything about CP for people just don't care to respond!

    I have tried enough on every forum including this (even whe we need a genuine information and not just predictions).

    No one to be blamed! But relax, there will be a time for CP guys too!


    house %IMG_DESC_17% . %IMG_DESC_13%
  • %IMG_DESC_13%

  • indianindian2006
    10-05 04:23 PM
    Seems like there might be an internal memo or understanding between USCIS and DOS not to approve many Eb2 India 485 even though there dates are current, this is the only explanation I can come up for the lack for eb2 india approvals in October. Even with the limited number of visas every quarter I was hoping there would be lot of approvals because of Visa spillover occuring every quarter instead of once every year, but looking at the USCIS performance in the first week of october it seems like there wont be any quarterly spillover at all.

    Correct me if I am wrong but to my knowledge quaterly spill overs if any would be in the last month of the quater which should be in Dec 2009

    tattoo %IMG_DESC_6% . %IMG_DESC_14%
  • %IMG_DESC_14%

  • luckylavs
    09-27 04:49 PM
    Hi All

    Today I received email for me
    Your Case Status: Card/ Document Production

    On September 25, 2010, we ordered production of your new card. Please allow 30 days for your card to be mailed to you. If we need something from you we will contact you. If you move before you receive the card, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.

    and for my husband it says

    Your Case Status: Decision

    On September 24, 2010, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within 60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later. If you move before receiving your card, please call our customer service center at 1-800-375-5283.

    I dont understand why his case is in decision when he is the primary .. Has anyone come across similar situation ?
    My PD is sep 05 and service center is TSC.


    pictures %IMG_DESC_7% . %IMG_DESC_15%
  • %IMG_DESC_15%

  • SunnySurya
    08-07 10:59 AM
    If people can move freely between the categories then Why do we have categories?...:confused:
    An EB3 guy had waited patiently after getting into GC queue and you come later with your masters and go ahead of him, isn;t this cutting the GC line?.

    dresses %IMG_DESC_12% . %IMG_DESC_16%
  • %IMG_DESC_16%

  • Canadian_Dream
    11-25 05:49 PM
    As a hypothetical example (because vehicle prices always depreciate, so please ignore the reality), let's say you bought that Gas guzzling SUV at 50k and now suddenly after 2 years, due to whatever reason, you go and try to sell the same SUV to the same dealer and he quotes you 5k. Wouldn't you fault that dealer for selling you the same thing at 50k when the actual value of the same asset 2 year back was 5k (but he sold you at 50k and you have only paid back 10k in monthly installments until now). Who is to blame for that 35k deficit? You? Forget the monthly payments here and concentrate on the actual asset value.

    You forgot that dealer is also making 5K for the SUV that he bought from manufacturer for $50,000. In the end everyone lost 35K. So dealer will loose multiples 35K based on how many SUV he has in his inventory. You might suggest he should go to the manufacturer ?
    What you are saying is unprecedented, it has never happened I don't know why are you so convince that it someone else's fault. You are living with a very simplistic and naive idea about the world and you are convinced that's the way of life. Not only that, you are trying to convince others of that. From what I know and seen what you suggest doesn't work and refusal to accept a problem only deepens it.

    Peace :)


    makeup %IMG_DESC_9% . %IMG_DESC_17%
  • %IMG_DESC_17%

  • letstalklc
    08-21 11:46 AM
    !!!!!!!!!!!!!Not all cell phones are included!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I dont think it's true, I saw these rates are under international calling plan, so we are not signing up to that plan, so I would strongly believe that all cell phone calls are included to India, the same thing you can see when we click on the 60 countires list.....so find out with the tech support guys and keep update here to get the accurate answer on this...

    girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14% . %IMG_DESC_18%
  • %IMG_DESC_18%

  • hopelessGC
    08-20 03:21 PM
    I am already using Vonage and spend an extra $30 per month on phone card. I am salivating at the prospect of saving the $30 per month :D

    hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11% . %IMG_DESC_19%
  • %IMG_DESC_19%

  • sam2006
    01-08 10:37 AM
    my letter is on its way

    will reach by next week .. great goin IV

    08-07 04:12 PM
    The point was about abusing the system to get ahead in the line. In that way labor sub shares similarity with PD porting. If a person who landed yesterday fits the job profile and the law allowed it , then what's wrong.

    On the other hand if those labor are sold for a price then it is serious problem. And thats why Lab Sub was eleminated. Now thats what is going to happen (and happening) in PD porting case.

    any action should be against the so called "paid PD porting" cases. But why harm a honest EB3 person switching companies to go up the ladder? If he is getting the benefit of the rule, what is wrong? As long he it is done by the law, I do not see any problem.

    Tomorrow, if you get a position that justifies EB1 category for you, would you not move to that category? Nothing wrong in that either.

    I endorse Pappu's comments. Wrong doers can be punished. But people benefiting by a certain rule should not be.

    02-21 09:22 PM
    Not so. There are no quota caps for spouses of US citizens, hence no retrogression.

    Thanks, but could i still file for a concurrent AOS even though i am currently in the country on a AP?

    No comments:

    Post a Comment