delhiguy79
07-23 07:24 AM
...
prabasiodia
07-17 07:51 PM
Nicely put paskal.
Let's do something (call Senators, Representatives, lobby) and put our collective strength behind getting those 200000 unused visas. RECAPTURE is the mantra .
you must know something i don't.
aman kapoor is the president and founder of iv- of course you can argue he now has his GC but that fact is he is still the heart and soul of iv and runs the organization on a day to day basis. he is EB3.
the "core group" does not much exist in practical terms right now. there is instead a large "leaders group" that helps coordinate actions and strategy.
this group has a lot of active members- and i find it "comfortable" to say that the majority are EB3. which may actually count for something- since i actually do know somethings you don't :-)
no one stops anyone from doing anything. but whatever you do (and yes you actually have to DO, not just keep talking), has to have a sound basis. Many of the suggestions put forward have flaws, and actually papu and others have been pretty helpful in politely helping to point those out and suggesting changes. of course reddog took objection even to that! incidentally, just for the record, you may want to look at pappu's profile . HE IS EB3!
so what do you want anyway? should we go tell USCIS that leftover Gc from EB2 ROW should go to EB3 ROW instead of EB2 I/C? what about the 28.6% that should belong to EB2? and since you are EB3 I- how does this help you in any way? or should we tell them to stop the preference catogories in INA and make EB1=EB2=Eb3? somehow i do not think that is going to fly.
where were you when USCIS implemented vertical spillover in 2006 and left EB2 I in a U state while giving EB2 Gc numbers to EB3 ROW?
did you object then? did you start a campaign? did EB2 I folks here start saying that iv did not care about them?
in 2007 ordinarily, (like 06) EB2 I and EB3 I would have got only 2,800 GC each. because of iv's efforts in reversing the july bulletin, EB3 I got a huge number of Gc instead. many more than any other category. i don't remember anyone else standing up and saying that this was unfair and that iv is all about EB3I. and that's what a lot of anti iv folks say. that iv is all about EB3 India. so this is very ironical.
and i see here a comment that every campaign has been bad for EB3 india.
i guess july reversal was bad. i guess the campaign for recapture is bad. and the 2 year EAD is bad too. not to mention the gathering support to end country quotas.
you opened my eyes :-)
Let's do something (call Senators, Representatives, lobby) and put our collective strength behind getting those 200000 unused visas. RECAPTURE is the mantra .
you must know something i don't.
aman kapoor is the president and founder of iv- of course you can argue he now has his GC but that fact is he is still the heart and soul of iv and runs the organization on a day to day basis. he is EB3.
the "core group" does not much exist in practical terms right now. there is instead a large "leaders group" that helps coordinate actions and strategy.
this group has a lot of active members- and i find it "comfortable" to say that the majority are EB3. which may actually count for something- since i actually do know somethings you don't :-)
no one stops anyone from doing anything. but whatever you do (and yes you actually have to DO, not just keep talking), has to have a sound basis. Many of the suggestions put forward have flaws, and actually papu and others have been pretty helpful in politely helping to point those out and suggesting changes. of course reddog took objection even to that! incidentally, just for the record, you may want to look at pappu's profile . HE IS EB3!
so what do you want anyway? should we go tell USCIS that leftover Gc from EB2 ROW should go to EB3 ROW instead of EB2 I/C? what about the 28.6% that should belong to EB2? and since you are EB3 I- how does this help you in any way? or should we tell them to stop the preference catogories in INA and make EB1=EB2=Eb3? somehow i do not think that is going to fly.
where were you when USCIS implemented vertical spillover in 2006 and left EB2 I in a U state while giving EB2 Gc numbers to EB3 ROW?
did you object then? did you start a campaign? did EB2 I folks here start saying that iv did not care about them?
in 2007 ordinarily, (like 06) EB2 I and EB3 I would have got only 2,800 GC each. because of iv's efforts in reversing the july bulletin, EB3 I got a huge number of Gc instead. many more than any other category. i don't remember anyone else standing up and saying that this was unfair and that iv is all about EB3I. and that's what a lot of anti iv folks say. that iv is all about EB3 India. so this is very ironical.
and i see here a comment that every campaign has been bad for EB3 india.
i guess july reversal was bad. i guess the campaign for recapture is bad. and the 2 year EAD is bad too. not to mention the gathering support to end country quotas.
you opened my eyes :-)
JisDeshMeinGangaBehthiHai
09-22 09:45 AM
I did not go to DC because i did not want to get the green card this way.I grew upwatching aunts,uncles coming from USA bearing gifts.I grew up watching cousins go for USA for higher studies.It used to be so special. Now its become so cheap. Now you guys have literally taken it to the streets. There's no difference between those illegal immigrants and us. This H1visa has ruined it for really smart students who come here on F1 with full scholarship.
This software industry and these cheap bodyshopping companies made it nothing more than a whore business.
My heart is broken. I dont care anymore.thats why i did not come to DC.
This software industry and these cheap bodyshopping companies made it nothing more than a whore business.
My heart is broken. I dont care anymore.thats why i did not come to DC.
NolaIndian32
02-07 02:11 PM
Sent three letters yesterday, and an additional 10 letters were sent by friends and family yesterday and today.
more...
bfadlia
01-14 06:27 PM
So what? Just because they came and skewed the lines doesn't mean you can choose where you're born or when. the rule is unfair wihtout any reason. there is no graceful solution short of removing the quotas. anyway I doubt fairness is the reason you're so fond of this quota.
Here's a one step way to quit.
1. Accept that the reason you're defending this useless rule is that it benefits you.
Sure.. if you say so.. y didn't u say that earlier.. jeez
It's official guys, we ROWs only argue for the sake of our self servient morality or lack thereof, while all others are on a Utopian conquest of fairness..
Never mind, good luck to everyone and sorry for time wasted thinking we were having a conversation
Good bye :)
Here's a one step way to quit.
1. Accept that the reason you're defending this useless rule is that it benefits you.
Sure.. if you say so.. y didn't u say that earlier.. jeez
It's official guys, we ROWs only argue for the sake of our self servient morality or lack thereof, while all others are on a Utopian conquest of fairness..
Never mind, good luck to everyone and sorry for time wasted thinking we were having a conversation
Good bye :)
Alabaman
07-10 01:18 PM
Two high skilled immigrants fighting over details of what does not even exist� no sorry!
more...
santb1975
04-16 06:49 PM
I have had no problems with them. I always got my emails/ calls answered from my attorney and paralegal in less than a day. They were always reachable. All my paperwork was filed per the timelines that were communicated to me. I could not ask for more. They were awesome
sparky_jones
03-04 10:51 PM
Someone once said...."Freedom comes at a cost.". After reading this, I am thinking...."Freedom of Information comes at a cost too....$5k to be precise"!
more...
amitga
10-08 02:15 PM
Please include the Date also.
Pour encourager les autres ( to encourage others)
IV MI Meet
Location : Troy Recreation Center, Troy ( Livernois b/n Big Beaver and Wattles)
Address : 3179 Livernois, Troy, MI 48083 ( courtesy Google)
Time : 10:00 am sharp ( no ISTs)
Agenda : Discuss future actions - Lawmaker meetings, publicity campaign, getting attorneys to answer GC questions pro bono etc.
Pour encourager les autres ( to encourage others)
IV MI Meet
Location : Troy Recreation Center, Troy ( Livernois b/n Big Beaver and Wattles)
Address : 3179 Livernois, Troy, MI 48083 ( courtesy Google)
Time : 10:00 am sharp ( no ISTs)
Agenda : Discuss future actions - Lawmaker meetings, publicity campaign, getting attorneys to answer GC questions pro bono etc.
franklin
09-20 02:27 AM
but I did my bit because I could not attend. I was part of the rally that happened in San Jose.
Please try to understand the message I am conveying rather than making fun. Although I did have a hearty laugh :)
Its fine - just a gentle teasing, I meant not harm - sorry! That's why I'm so vocal on this board as I'm neither male nor Indian. I was actually glad to see that I wasn't the only at the rally so I didn't look like a total fool!
Please try to understand the message I am conveying rather than making fun. Although I did have a hearty laugh :)
Its fine - just a gentle teasing, I meant not harm - sorry! That's why I'm so vocal on this board as I'm neither male nor Indian. I was actually glad to see that I wasn't the only at the rally so I didn't look like a total fool!
more...
kate123
02-12 05:33 PM
Thanks for the link and I did read the text...
What I understood is that an alien can be granted a PR only when visas are available...
BUT ... we are asking CIS to allow to apply for AOS when immigrant visa is not avaialable...
for a minute let us assume you are correct and If it can be ONLY be changed by Law, then why did DHS secretary mention in the memo as ... "including a possible pre-application filing procedure for adjustment cases"
I am not trying to argue... I am just trying to justify
Please correct me if I am wrong
Thanks a lot,
Kiran :)
It's not possible to achieve this without changing the INA.
It's a legal requirement that an immigrant visa is immediately available to an applicant at the time AOS application is filed.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
What I understood is that an alien can be granted a PR only when visas are available...
BUT ... we are asking CIS to allow to apply for AOS when immigrant visa is not avaialable...
for a minute let us assume you are correct and If it can be ONLY be changed by Law, then why did DHS secretary mention in the memo as ... "including a possible pre-application filing procedure for adjustment cases"
I am not trying to argue... I am just trying to justify
Please correct me if I am wrong
Thanks a lot,
Kiran :)
It's not possible to achieve this without changing the INA.
It's a legal requirement that an immigrant visa is immediately available to an applicant at the time AOS application is filed.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
Robert Kumar
03-26 12:21 PM
When I said that there should be one Item in IV agenda to Ban Porting, everyone got mad.
I still say that they should be allowed to port but should go back in line. they are disturbing the balance. I am not against them, if they were EB2 candidates why they didnt file on EB2 category at first, if now they think they are qualified then they should start new process.
BTW. they will create a big retrogression for EB2 then EB2 people have to port to EB3
Red dots are welcome.
Thanks
I have done some study and can understand not many are porting. But there are few.
But if we raise our voice against porting, they will raise theirs with double the intensity against spillovers. So I dont think we should throw stones on their houses, when ours are made of glass. Moreoever if we see the statistics, there is a HUGE # of EB2 applicants in 2007 onwards I think. Unless we all act together, its not going anywhere.
I know many cases where newer applicants applied in EB2 and were much lesser in hierarchy than their bosses who are in EB3 and waiting. I think we must respect that, and more importantly as soon as raise our voice, they will not keep quite, right. You would also not keep quite if in their shoes.
Best will be if IV comes up with some programs to reduce this backlogs.
I still say that they should be allowed to port but should go back in line. they are disturbing the balance. I am not against them, if they were EB2 candidates why they didnt file on EB2 category at first, if now they think they are qualified then they should start new process.
BTW. they will create a big retrogression for EB2 then EB2 people have to port to EB3
Red dots are welcome.
Thanks
I have done some study and can understand not many are porting. But there are few.
But if we raise our voice against porting, they will raise theirs with double the intensity against spillovers. So I dont think we should throw stones on their houses, when ours are made of glass. Moreoever if we see the statistics, there is a HUGE # of EB2 applicants in 2007 onwards I think. Unless we all act together, its not going anywhere.
I know many cases where newer applicants applied in EB2 and were much lesser in hierarchy than their bosses who are in EB3 and waiting. I think we must respect that, and more importantly as soon as raise our voice, they will not keep quite, right. You would also not keep quite if in their shoes.
Best will be if IV comes up with some programs to reduce this backlogs.
more...
ram04
09-24 08:38 PM
Got H 1 transfered to new company and G 28 in August 08
Applied Ac 21 in August 08
EAD and AP renewals received yesterday.
All done well after 180 days of 140.
Could not contact old employer today - will do tomorrow.
Thinking of taking info pass interview next week if I dont receive any thing by then.
Informed to attorney by mail today. As I receivied deniel email late in the evening could not contact any one today.
Hopefully all will end well with God s grace.
Thanks
Ram
Applied Ac 21 in August 08
EAD and AP renewals received yesterday.
All done well after 180 days of 140.
Could not contact old employer today - will do tomorrow.
Thinking of taking info pass interview next week if I dont receive any thing by then.
Informed to attorney by mail today. As I receivied deniel email late in the evening could not contact any one today.
Hopefully all will end well with God s grace.
Thanks
Ram
ultimate_champ
09-21 11:07 AM
I am sure IV core, volunteers and other helpful folks have in the past and continually trying to contact various media agencies and channels to get the necessary coverage.
I think even after the rally, we should still continue to contact these agencies/tv channel websites (by sending them emails maybe.. calling them..) until they know the intensity & urgency of the issue.
Im sure one email will not suffice. The sheer number can make the difference and get their attention.
While the IV core thinks & works on about the future roadmap, I think all the members can try to contact these channels and then direct them to IV core for proper information...
Do you think this may make some difference and add any value to the movement.
Any other suggestions? Is this doable??
I think even after the rally, we should still continue to contact these agencies/tv channel websites (by sending them emails maybe.. calling them..) until they know the intensity & urgency of the issue.
Im sure one email will not suffice. The sheer number can make the difference and get their attention.
While the IV core thinks & works on about the future roadmap, I think all the members can try to contact these channels and then direct them to IV core for proper information...
Do you think this may make some difference and add any value to the movement.
Any other suggestions? Is this doable??
more...
nixstor
03-20 11:10 PM
Well, which interpretation? The one from April '08 or from November '05? They substantially differ. That's part of the controversy. What motivated them to change it?
I do think that the interpretation is, at least, debatable, and I can see both interpretations. In the end, the question comes down to: does the country limit have priority over the EB category, and I don't think you can have a conclusive answer.
But it also doesn't say the opposite.
It also states: if Visas available. You can certainly construe the case that Visas can only be available if they cannot be assigned to a lower category. 202 (a) (5) (B) actually states that only in application of 202 (e), Visas should be deemed to be required. Does that mean they are not required otherwise? 203(b) actually uses the same terminology to allow non-required visas to fall through.
Historically, before AC-21 was added, Visa numbers were wasted because they needed to be assigned in proportion. Irrespective of the interpretation of 202 (a) (5) this cannot happen with AC-21.
Snips from Nov 05 Bulletin (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_2712.html)
The AC21 removed the per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of such numbers available.
>> As per my understanding, When there are no per country limits, It can be assigned to any one with oldest PD. Not that it is working like that with USCIS. As I said, before in my previous post, we can imagine these visa numbers tagged with the category name beside them. <<
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
>> Just to let you know before you think I am biased towards one thing or the other, I haven't looked at the text of the INA until a week before and for the past 2 years I have heard the same story that country limits trump category. I have spoken with an attorney and he expressed above similar opinion where we might not have noticed how numbers were overflowing and NOT overflowing to demand or lack of demand. Either way, This is not a panacea for the problem at hand as there is no clarity what so ever in either procedures. <<
I do think that the interpretation is, at least, debatable, and I can see both interpretations. In the end, the question comes down to: does the country limit have priority over the EB category, and I don't think you can have a conclusive answer.
But it also doesn't say the opposite.
It also states: if Visas available. You can certainly construe the case that Visas can only be available if they cannot be assigned to a lower category. 202 (a) (5) (B) actually states that only in application of 202 (e), Visas should be deemed to be required. Does that mean they are not required otherwise? 203(b) actually uses the same terminology to allow non-required visas to fall through.
Historically, before AC-21 was added, Visa numbers were wasted because they needed to be assigned in proportion. Irrespective of the interpretation of 202 (a) (5) this cannot happen with AC-21.
Snips from Nov 05 Bulletin (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_2712.html)
The AC21 removed the per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of such numbers available.
>> As per my understanding, When there are no per country limits, It can be assigned to any one with oldest PD. Not that it is working like that with USCIS. As I said, before in my previous post, we can imagine these visa numbers tagged with the category name beside them. <<
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
>> Just to let you know before you think I am biased towards one thing or the other, I haven't looked at the text of the INA until a week before and for the past 2 years I have heard the same story that country limits trump category. I have spoken with an attorney and he expressed above similar opinion where we might not have noticed how numbers were overflowing and NOT overflowing to demand or lack of demand. Either way, This is not a panacea for the problem at hand as there is no clarity what so ever in either procedures. <<
Kodi
06-25 11:03 PM
So the big day is tomorrow?
more...
mohican
01-13 05:42 PM
prince charming--we should talk. let me know if you are still in the mess--i am still
gapala
03-20 08:42 PM
I guess nuthing :)
Check this post # 9
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=24470&highlight=transfer
And answer this may be I can learn something from you :)
[COLOR="DarkRed"]
So in this case if I work for EMP A and apply for a h1b thru EMP B as soon as the EMP B's petition is approved I lose the approved peition with EMP A ??? COLOR]
In case you missed it, I did answer your question, read the other thread you will find it and I do not want to say "sure you have a lot to learn" not only from me but from others as well on this forum. Lets learn together through these discussions. :)
Check this post # 9
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=24470&highlight=transfer
And answer this may be I can learn something from you :)
[COLOR="DarkRed"]
So in this case if I work for EMP A and apply for a h1b thru EMP B as soon as the EMP B's petition is approved I lose the approved peition with EMP A ??? COLOR]
In case you missed it, I did answer your question, read the other thread you will find it and I do not want to say "sure you have a lot to learn" not only from me but from others as well on this forum. Lets learn together through these discussions. :)
elle26w
09-20 09:53 PM
Alterego has a good point too. we need professional lobbist to organize more efficient events ( in American way ). we do have immigration lawyers association, but I guess they don't really represent us.
and besides another rally, we need persistent effort on this by a dedicated group of people, even some full time ( hired them, like a real job), to keep their attention, not just one strike.
I have to admire the unbelievable energy and commitment of you guys. Especially those who organized the rally and to some extent those who attended it from far away are probably tired and catching their breath!
We need to have some creativity and strategy in our next step. Rally after rally probably is not the best way to get that, the so called law of diminishing returns. The flower protest for example gave us a lot of visibility and media coverage since it was something intriguing and new. It was fairly inexpensive and got us the kind of coverage we wanted and arguably results that were out of size with the effort.
I think we need to think outside the box and have one more high publicity event. Another rally is certainly an option for later should legislative action heat up. I'm hopeful the upcoming legislation will allow someone to introduce friendly legislation. I am sure IV's lobbying advisers will have some input on timing etc. and I am pretty sure organizations like compete America etc. also will use this to push their efforts as well. IV core ought to be in contact with them.
A few very important things came from this rally. Firstly, that we can organize such an event, in no small part due to such a committed and capable leadership team. We got fairly good media coverage in highly visible newspapers, that covered not just the event but also some of the issues facing us in clear detail. Finally the lobby day events were definitely very good. I was amazed that 150 meetings took place.
To put this in context, large national organizations of some professions have these lobby days sometimes, and they do well to get about 100 lawmaker meetings done.
One thing I wish to add is that we must develop a good way of sending out many letters at will/as per the strategy of IV core to the lawmakers at critical times. We are 23K strong. Surely we can get atleast as many letters sent in to lawmakers at critical times. If you can't send a written petition to a lawmaker then I doubt it makes any sense to even think you or anyone can alter your fate, in that case time spent on sites like this is for what reason?
Professional organizations do letter campaigns all the time and get a good response. If everyone moves on these issues it does create a splash and can bring visibility and attention.
All ideas should be collected here in this thread.
and besides another rally, we need persistent effort on this by a dedicated group of people, even some full time ( hired them, like a real job), to keep their attention, not just one strike.
I have to admire the unbelievable energy and commitment of you guys. Especially those who organized the rally and to some extent those who attended it from far away are probably tired and catching their breath!
We need to have some creativity and strategy in our next step. Rally after rally probably is not the best way to get that, the so called law of diminishing returns. The flower protest for example gave us a lot of visibility and media coverage since it was something intriguing and new. It was fairly inexpensive and got us the kind of coverage we wanted and arguably results that were out of size with the effort.
I think we need to think outside the box and have one more high publicity event. Another rally is certainly an option for later should legislative action heat up. I'm hopeful the upcoming legislation will allow someone to introduce friendly legislation. I am sure IV's lobbying advisers will have some input on timing etc. and I am pretty sure organizations like compete America etc. also will use this to push their efforts as well. IV core ought to be in contact with them.
A few very important things came from this rally. Firstly, that we can organize such an event, in no small part due to such a committed and capable leadership team. We got fairly good media coverage in highly visible newspapers, that covered not just the event but also some of the issues facing us in clear detail. Finally the lobby day events were definitely very good. I was amazed that 150 meetings took place.
To put this in context, large national organizations of some professions have these lobby days sometimes, and they do well to get about 100 lawmaker meetings done.
One thing I wish to add is that we must develop a good way of sending out many letters at will/as per the strategy of IV core to the lawmakers at critical times. We are 23K strong. Surely we can get atleast as many letters sent in to lawmakers at critical times. If you can't send a written petition to a lawmaker then I doubt it makes any sense to even think you or anyone can alter your fate, in that case time spent on sites like this is for what reason?
Professional organizations do letter campaigns all the time and get a good response. If everyone moves on these issues it does create a splash and can bring visibility and attention.
All ideas should be collected here in this thread.
amitjoey
05-21 03:53 PM
sugaur: That is awesome!. Thank you!!
I really commend you for doing that. Members: Are you upto this?.
I really commend you for doing that. Members: Are you upto this?.
chanduv23
09-25 10:14 AM
In such cases, where the InfoPass people (IOs or VOs or whatever they are called) pass judgement on whether your 485 should be approved or not, does it help to bring a printed copy of the AC21 Aytes memo (issued in Dec 2005)along to show to them? It is an official USCIS document and it clearly states the following.
Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?
Answer: An I-140 is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
A. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
B. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal
that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.
Well - what is the point? I will take all documentation if it is an interview, in fact I will take lawyer for interview. When you go for interview, take kids and spouse and lawyer - don't go alone.
One must not expect much from Infopass. If you get info - great if not - jst leave it.
Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?
Answer: An I-140 is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
A. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
B. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal
that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.
Well - what is the point? I will take all documentation if it is an interview, in fact I will take lawyer for interview. When you go for interview, take kids and spouse and lawyer - don't go alone.
One must not expect much from Infopass. If you get info - great if not - jst leave it.
No comments:
Post a Comment