GCplease
03-11 01:19 PM
I received the rfe details today..Here is my list of documents needed by uscis
1) updated properly completed form G-325A
2) employment letter from my new employer to prove that i am working on the same/similar job as my LC (since I did not submit AC21 documents), I need to do it now, since I changed my address and the letter mentions that I am not staying in the same state as of my original LC and now they require AC21 documents.
Hi eb3retro,
I understand from your signature that you Receipt date is 7/2/07. was your case transferred to Vermont or something and transferred back to TSC. Do you know what was the Receipt date mentioned in the Transfer Notice.
I am just trying to guess when they may come to my case. My receipt date for 485 was from Vermont and is 7/31/07. But then it was transferred back to Texas and this has a Receipt date of 10/1/07. I am just trying to find out which Receipt date will be considered to pre-adjudicate my application.
Thanks.
1) updated properly completed form G-325A
2) employment letter from my new employer to prove that i am working on the same/similar job as my LC (since I did not submit AC21 documents), I need to do it now, since I changed my address and the letter mentions that I am not staying in the same state as of my original LC and now they require AC21 documents.
Hi eb3retro,
I understand from your signature that you Receipt date is 7/2/07. was your case transferred to Vermont or something and transferred back to TSC. Do you know what was the Receipt date mentioned in the Transfer Notice.
I am just trying to guess when they may come to my case. My receipt date for 485 was from Vermont and is 7/31/07. But then it was transferred back to Texas and this has a Receipt date of 10/1/07. I am just trying to find out which Receipt date will be considered to pre-adjudicate my application.
Thanks.
wallpaper born a runette and with
unseenguy
02-09 05:01 PM
To summarize the root causes now that we discussed:
1. Parental interference to control their own child even after marriage. This is cause no 1 of this kind of tensions.
2. Immaturity on the part of children, to let their parents control their feelings. (This is partly due to in arranged marriages, children are closer to parents than the spouse in initial years). This is no 2 issue. Children simply fail to understand they are no more part of their parents family. I honestly feel these people are not really ready for marriage or understand what marriage is.
3. Money transactions. One side expecting money from other side which is not really acceptable. I will elaborate this point a bit more.
4. In cases of couples settled in US/UK, parents know that couples are making a LOT more than by Indian standards. Hence to secure their own old age comfort, everyone tries to exert influence.
On no 3, let us separate our "legal" obligations from "moral".
Morally it is right to send money to parents, but legally it is not. As you can strive but, you wont be fair to either set of parents. Hence I believe "money" should not be sent to parents. Your parents should have planned their own future, including humanitarian needs. Only if your other half agrees, then only you should send money. Otherwise, it is your and your spouse's money.
If your parents needed monetary support then that they should have made clear to other parents at the time of marriage. Not after marriage. If its a love marriage, then the boy/girl should have clearly told this requirement to the other half.
1. Parental interference to control their own child even after marriage. This is cause no 1 of this kind of tensions.
2. Immaturity on the part of children, to let their parents control their feelings. (This is partly due to in arranged marriages, children are closer to parents than the spouse in initial years). This is no 2 issue. Children simply fail to understand they are no more part of their parents family. I honestly feel these people are not really ready for marriage or understand what marriage is.
3. Money transactions. One side expecting money from other side which is not really acceptable. I will elaborate this point a bit more.
4. In cases of couples settled in US/UK, parents know that couples are making a LOT more than by Indian standards. Hence to secure their own old age comfort, everyone tries to exert influence.
On no 3, let us separate our "legal" obligations from "moral".
Morally it is right to send money to parents, but legally it is not. As you can strive but, you wont be fair to either set of parents. Hence I believe "money" should not be sent to parents. Your parents should have planned their own future, including humanitarian needs. Only if your other half agrees, then only you should send money. Otherwise, it is your and your spouse's money.
If your parents needed monetary support then that they should have made clear to other parents at the time of marriage. Not after marriage. If its a love marriage, then the boy/girl should have clearly told this requirement to the other half.
yagw
07-11 02:08 PM
The per country limit was not adhered to even in the 3rd quarter. Remember how EB2 India rose like a phoenix from Unavailable to April 2004? Once they determine that there are enough visas for spillover, the per country limits don't exist. The question is how they decide to distribute it among the retrogressed countries.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4310.html
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4310.html
2011 or new and sassy runette.
Winner
06-11 01:24 PM
If you do not mind, have you donated to IV?
Why are you ending the conversation? :)
Hope he/she donates.
Why are you ending the conversation? :)
Hope he/she donates.
more...
hindu_king
03-04 11:56 AM
Thats ridiculous. I recently bought a home and got FHA loan from Chevy Chase Bank. To my surprise, they did not ask me a single immigration related document or any proof of legal presence. All they ever asked was a valid ID during closing, and I showed them my drivers license.
CADude
07-04 03:18 PM
Contact your Senator regarding unprecedented move by the Department of State.
If you all can then please contact your senator.
Below is the letter I sent to my local senator.
You can find your local senator by using this link (Enter zip code and state) - http://capwiz.com/aila2/officials/congress/?lvl=C&azip=75063&state=TX.
You can also send email from this link.
It does not matter whether this brings any value or not but there is no harm in doing this, in case you are really frustrated, troubled and sad!.
Dear Senator :
This is to bring to your attention regarding an unprecedented move by Department of State with regards to filing of adjustment of status applications.
On June 13, Department of State announced in its Visa Bulletin for July 2007 that all employment-based categories (except for the Other Workers category) for immigrant visas will be "current," (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3263.html) meaning that individuals/businesses going through the lengthy and backlogged immigrant visa or "green card" process can, throughout July, file adjustment of status applications.
The Department Of State regulations at 22 CFR 42.51 (http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/22cfr42_05.html) and 8 CFR 245.1(g), allows individuals/businesses to rely on and use such information. Historically, they have relied on such information knowing that when they prepare and file such applications, they will be accepted and adjudicated.
However on July 2, 2007, The Department of State issued a new bulletin (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3263.html) with an update on July Visa Availability and USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) started rejecting adjustment of status applications for several employment-based immigration preference categories (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/VisaBulletin2Jul07.pdf), despite the fact that the published July Visa Bulletin shows that visas for these categories are available thereby violating its long-standing policy and the expectations of thousands of people, without any advance notification to the general public or issuing any notification under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Such a revision, coming in the same month in which the bulletin is issued, would be contrary to years of practice in which revisions or adjustments to the availability of immigrant visa numbers are made in the following month of before the beginning of the month, not in the same month individuals and businesses have begun preparing and submitting applications for adjustment of status.
By taking this unprecedented mid-month update, the Departments of State and Homeland Security have seriously undermined the stability and predictability of U.S. immigration law. Thousands of individuals and businesses rely on the monthly bulletins to prepare and plan for the submission of applications. In addition, individuals have taken the necessary steps to prepare and file applications for adjustment of status, including thousands of dollars of expenses to engage counsel, flights for employees to quickly obtain necessary documents and medical exams for the applications, cancellation of business and holiday travel, changes in family plans to ensure families are in the proper location, etc. This unprecedented action of the government is shocking and disturbing. It has left many in a state of disbelief, frustration, confusion, and anger.
Pursuant to Department Of State regulations 8 CFR 245.1(g), [i]f the applicant [for adjustment of status] is a preference alien, the current Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Visa Bulletin will be consulted to determine whether an immigrant visa is immediately available.. Thus, when the Visa Bulletin shows that visas for most preference categories are available for applicants with priority dates on or before the listed priority date, the USCIS must accept those adjustment of status applications for adjudication. Under section 245 of the INA, an alien may apply for adjustment of status if, inter alia, (3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed. The question is what the term immediately available means. The regulation at 8 CFR 245.1(g) defines the term and instructs how to determine when an immigrant visa is immediately available under Sec. 245 of the INA.
8 CFR 245.1(g) states, An alien is ineligible for the benefits of section 245 of the Act unless an immigrant visa is immediately available to him or her at the time the application is filed. If the applicant is a preference alien, the current Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Visa Bulletin will be consulted to determine whether an immigrant visa is immediately available. An immigrant visa is considered available for accepting and processing the application Form I-485 i[f] the preference category applicant has a priority date on the waiting list which is earlier than the date shown in the Bulletin (or the Bulletin shows that that numbers for visa applicants in his or her category are current). An immigrant visa is also considered immediately available if the applicant establishes eligibility for the benefits of Public Law 101-238. Information concerning the immediate availability of an immigrant visa may be obtained at any Service Office. (Emphasis added.)
Reliance on the current Visa Bulletin is well-established. In 1994, the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) published a revision to 8 CFR Part 245 in response to enactment of section 245(i) of the Act. In the Supplementary Information provided with that regulation, the INS took the opportunity to revise its definition of immediately available to be consistent with that of the Department of State.
The INS said: All applicants for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Act must have an immediately available immigrant visa number. "Immediately available" for the
purpose of accepting and processing the Form I-485 application filed by a preference alien is defined in 8 CFR 245.1(f) as being not later than the date shown in the current Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Visa Bulletin. The Department of State, however, defines "immediately available" as being earlier than the date shown in the current Visa Bulletin. This rule amends 8 CFR 245.1(f) to bring the adjustment of status provision into accordance with the Department o f State's definition.
I request your prompt attention on this matter asking the Department of State for clarification on this unprecedented change which defies years of established process of individuals/businesses relying on visa bulletin to prepare and file adjustment of status applications.
Sincerely,
If you all can then please contact your senator.
Below is the letter I sent to my local senator.
You can find your local senator by using this link (Enter zip code and state) - http://capwiz.com/aila2/officials/congress/?lvl=C&azip=75063&state=TX.
You can also send email from this link.
It does not matter whether this brings any value or not but there is no harm in doing this, in case you are really frustrated, troubled and sad!.
Dear Senator :
This is to bring to your attention regarding an unprecedented move by Department of State with regards to filing of adjustment of status applications.
On June 13, Department of State announced in its Visa Bulletin for July 2007 that all employment-based categories (except for the Other Workers category) for immigrant visas will be "current," (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3263.html) meaning that individuals/businesses going through the lengthy and backlogged immigrant visa or "green card" process can, throughout July, file adjustment of status applications.
The Department Of State regulations at 22 CFR 42.51 (http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/22cfr42_05.html) and 8 CFR 245.1(g), allows individuals/businesses to rely on and use such information. Historically, they have relied on such information knowing that when they prepare and file such applications, they will be accepted and adjudicated.
However on July 2, 2007, The Department of State issued a new bulletin (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3263.html) with an update on July Visa Availability and USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) started rejecting adjustment of status applications for several employment-based immigration preference categories (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/VisaBulletin2Jul07.pdf), despite the fact that the published July Visa Bulletin shows that visas for these categories are available thereby violating its long-standing policy and the expectations of thousands of people, without any advance notification to the general public or issuing any notification under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Such a revision, coming in the same month in which the bulletin is issued, would be contrary to years of practice in which revisions or adjustments to the availability of immigrant visa numbers are made in the following month of before the beginning of the month, not in the same month individuals and businesses have begun preparing and submitting applications for adjustment of status.
By taking this unprecedented mid-month update, the Departments of State and Homeland Security have seriously undermined the stability and predictability of U.S. immigration law. Thousands of individuals and businesses rely on the monthly bulletins to prepare and plan for the submission of applications. In addition, individuals have taken the necessary steps to prepare and file applications for adjustment of status, including thousands of dollars of expenses to engage counsel, flights for employees to quickly obtain necessary documents and medical exams for the applications, cancellation of business and holiday travel, changes in family plans to ensure families are in the proper location, etc. This unprecedented action of the government is shocking and disturbing. It has left many in a state of disbelief, frustration, confusion, and anger.
Pursuant to Department Of State regulations 8 CFR 245.1(g), [i]f the applicant [for adjustment of status] is a preference alien, the current Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Visa Bulletin will be consulted to determine whether an immigrant visa is immediately available.. Thus, when the Visa Bulletin shows that visas for most preference categories are available for applicants with priority dates on or before the listed priority date, the USCIS must accept those adjustment of status applications for adjudication. Under section 245 of the INA, an alien may apply for adjustment of status if, inter alia, (3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed. The question is what the term immediately available means. The regulation at 8 CFR 245.1(g) defines the term and instructs how to determine when an immigrant visa is immediately available under Sec. 245 of the INA.
8 CFR 245.1(g) states, An alien is ineligible for the benefits of section 245 of the Act unless an immigrant visa is immediately available to him or her at the time the application is filed. If the applicant is a preference alien, the current Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Visa Bulletin will be consulted to determine whether an immigrant visa is immediately available. An immigrant visa is considered available for accepting and processing the application Form I-485 i[f] the preference category applicant has a priority date on the waiting list which is earlier than the date shown in the Bulletin (or the Bulletin shows that that numbers for visa applicants in his or her category are current). An immigrant visa is also considered immediately available if the applicant establishes eligibility for the benefits of Public Law 101-238. Information concerning the immediate availability of an immigrant visa may be obtained at any Service Office. (Emphasis added.)
Reliance on the current Visa Bulletin is well-established. In 1994, the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) published a revision to 8 CFR Part 245 in response to enactment of section 245(i) of the Act. In the Supplementary Information provided with that regulation, the INS took the opportunity to revise its definition of immediately available to be consistent with that of the Department of State.
The INS said: All applicants for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Act must have an immediately available immigrant visa number. "Immediately available" for the
purpose of accepting and processing the Form I-485 application filed by a preference alien is defined in 8 CFR 245.1(f) as being not later than the date shown in the current Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Visa Bulletin. The Department of State, however, defines "immediately available" as being earlier than the date shown in the current Visa Bulletin. This rule amends 8 CFR 245.1(f) to bring the adjustment of status provision into accordance with the Department o f State's definition.
I request your prompt attention on this matter asking the Department of State for clarification on this unprecedented change which defies years of established process of individuals/businesses relying on visa bulletin to prepare and file adjustment of status applications.
Sincerely,
more...
kondur_007
12-16 11:04 AM
Wishful thinking aside - realistically speaking, it's zilch. As USCIS seems to have predicted, even with spillover implemented the PD isn't moving to 2006 any time soon.
jazz
I have been intending to post this for a while: I still have major doubts on the predictions made by DOS. We all are grateful to them to at least do an effort to provide such predictions, but things don't add up.
It is everyone's understanding that these predictions are based on the information about "preadjudicated applications" from USCIS. Now if you look at the total number of preadjudicated applications from what USCIS has published, it seems that PD (for EB2 India) will move to at least to 2007 if not 2008 by the end of fiscal year 2010. There are no new 485 filings (except for EB1 and EB2 ROW) and unless there is a "HUGE" increase in these categories, there is no other way to explain the basis for these predictions.
Someone else mentioned in this thread about the large number of filings in 2005 due to PERM, but remember, this should already be accounted for in USCIS's preadjudicated numbers.
So either these DOS predictions are some form of scare technique, or too much conservative estimate (so as not to disappoint people) or there is a missing piece of information that we have no clue about.
In any case, I do not claim to be a "better predictor" than DOS; but reality is that all these are pedictions and we have to wait till July-Sept 2010 to find out the truth.
Hoping for the best....:)
jazz
I have been intending to post this for a while: I still have major doubts on the predictions made by DOS. We all are grateful to them to at least do an effort to provide such predictions, but things don't add up.
It is everyone's understanding that these predictions are based on the information about "preadjudicated applications" from USCIS. Now if you look at the total number of preadjudicated applications from what USCIS has published, it seems that PD (for EB2 India) will move to at least to 2007 if not 2008 by the end of fiscal year 2010. There are no new 485 filings (except for EB1 and EB2 ROW) and unless there is a "HUGE" increase in these categories, there is no other way to explain the basis for these predictions.
Someone else mentioned in this thread about the large number of filings in 2005 due to PERM, but remember, this should already be accounted for in USCIS's preadjudicated numbers.
So either these DOS predictions are some form of scare technique, or too much conservative estimate (so as not to disappoint people) or there is a missing piece of information that we have no clue about.
In any case, I do not claim to be a "better predictor" than DOS; but reality is that all these are pedictions and we have to wait till July-Sept 2010 to find out the truth.
Hoping for the best....:)
2010 around Reese Witherspoon
gsc999
07-20 02:44 PM
Guys, don't be disappointed about the Cornyn amendment failing! Here's why:
Therefore, even people like Clinton voted no, because if the Cornyn amendment had passed it would have denied them the visibility and publicity that a well-organized and publicized bill would generate. Clinton has spoken in our favor before, and I think that she voted nay now in order to later be part of a more visible (and politically-rewarding) solution for us.
Jamie: IVers agree with latter part of your message that we need to make IV strong.
Many IVers still wrongly believe that Hillary, Obama or Democrats are supportes of our cause. Let us get over this misconception as soon as possible to avoid any future disappointments. Also, please do let us know when Hilllary spoke in our support? I must have missed that. If you can't find that link, most probably its because it never happened. During the recent grand bargain bill her only proposed amendment was for family unification visas, if I remember correctly.
Where is Robinder and his USINPAC now? Look at this link below:
http://www.usinpac.com/
Smiling pics of Hillary and other political figure and millions of dollars in campaign donation. Result, no vote on SKIL bill.
Therefore, even people like Clinton voted no, because if the Cornyn amendment had passed it would have denied them the visibility and publicity that a well-organized and publicized bill would generate. Clinton has spoken in our favor before, and I think that she voted nay now in order to later be part of a more visible (and politically-rewarding) solution for us.
Jamie: IVers agree with latter part of your message that we need to make IV strong.
Many IVers still wrongly believe that Hillary, Obama or Democrats are supportes of our cause. Let us get over this misconception as soon as possible to avoid any future disappointments. Also, please do let us know when Hilllary spoke in our support? I must have missed that. If you can't find that link, most probably its because it never happened. During the recent grand bargain bill her only proposed amendment was for family unification visas, if I remember correctly.
Where is Robinder and his USINPAC now? Look at this link below:
http://www.usinpac.com/
Smiling pics of Hillary and other political figure and millions of dollars in campaign donation. Result, no vote on SKIL bill.
more...
JAWAD
05-03 09:33 AM
Mine has a priority date of October 2002.
Got the 45-day letter last January (2005) and responded - It's been 15 months since......and NOTHING.
Got the 45-day letter last January (2005) and responded - It's been 15 months since......and NOTHING.
hair As Reese Witherspoon found out
vinvin24
05-03 02:09 PM
If there is a template for fax and regular mail, we can get more people involved in this campaign. Thank you for your efforts.
more...
milind70
07-25 09:29 AM
We applied in Nebraska in August 2003, Cleared in State on August 29th 2003, Transferred to Chicago DOL on Sept 1st 2003..Got Certfied on Oct 16th 2003...So yes..in some states Labor was VERY Quick.
This is precisely the reason why PERM was introduced and backlog elimnation centers .People filing from Nebraska and Alabama were getting labour in 15 days to a months time .
This is precisely the reason why PERM was introduced and backlog elimnation centers .People filing from Nebraska and Alabama were getting labour in 15 days to a months time .
hot The Side Fringe: Reese
Eb3_frustrated
04-25 02:22 PM
Learning01,
There is too much curbing of free speech, you admins are taking a heavy handed approach to discussions. Deleting posts at will, diverting topics at whims and fancies...
Let there be discussins, there is nothing wrong in floating ideas.. allow members to express. Not every idea needs to be implemented.
This sort of arrogance is not going help anybody's cause.
Just my two cents...
There is too much curbing of free speech, you admins are taking a heavy handed approach to discussions. Deleting posts at will, diverting topics at whims and fancies...
Let there be discussins, there is nothing wrong in floating ideas.. allow members to express. Not every idea needs to be implemented.
This sort of arrogance is not going help anybody's cause.
Just my two cents...
more...
house runette hairstyle pictures.
rsayed
09-10 10:38 AM
I don't what how you define "most" but I am EB2 with US masters with PD 2006 and I am still waiting. Many of my friends with US masters are still waiting.
Same here - Masters from US, with PD 2006....Stilllllllllllllllll waiting!!!!!
I was reading an article handed over by my Lawyer sometime back - the whole GC process was designed to be completed in 6 mos. end-to-end.
This goes to show how outdated the process is, plus the resource crunch they may be facing at USCIS.
All in all - it's a black hole...only your 'karma' can get you out of it:)
Same here - Masters from US, with PD 2006....Stilllllllllllllllll waiting!!!!!
I was reading an article handed over by my Lawyer sometime back - the whole GC process was designed to be completed in 6 mos. end-to-end.
This goes to show how outdated the process is, plus the resource crunch they may be facing at USCIS.
All in all - it's a black hole...only your 'karma' can get you out of it:)
tattoo actress Reese Witherspoon
yabadaba
02-28 05:38 PM
bump...so united nations may post
more...
pictures Audrey Quock Brunette Long
tikka
07-19 02:45 PM
Hi Folks,
I just contributeD $100. I am very glad to be part of IV. Keep up the good work!!
Regards,
your first post and you contributed...:)
thank you for your contribution...
I just contributeD $100. I am very glad to be part of IV. Keep up the good work!!
Regards,
your first post and you contributed...:)
thank you for your contribution...
dresses Reese shocked us when she came
kumhyd2
07-10 01:21 AM
Is there a SoCal IV member list? Any one from San diego?
more...
makeup reese-witherspoon-20070910-
scorion
01-06 12:07 PM
I don't think that was an issue ever. Also keep in mind the new PIM process which is now part of visa stamping might delay things if you go to get a visa stamped
Hi,
I talked to my lawyer and she didn't mention about any kind of delay so can you please give me some more details about this PIM and how does it affect the whole process and slow things down.
Thanks a lot in advanced
Hi,
I talked to my lawyer and she didn't mention about any kind of delay so can you please give me some more details about this PIM and how does it affect the whole process and slow things down.
Thanks a lot in advanced
girlfriend Reese Witherspoon - Reese#39;s Eyes Appr. #3: Because runette!Reese#39;s eyes are
ajay
04-30 08:59 AM
I did call and left a voice message as suggested by Pappu.
Hope for the best. Support IV as always.
Hope for the best. Support IV as always.
hairstyles Sandy. Actress - filmography
vik352
12-18 04:32 PM
My I-140 was applied in May 2007 but I never got the approval until recently. My company opened a service request 30 days ago and I got the approval on Dec 12th. Service request helped in my case.
Kodi
06-22 11:50 AM
If you have the username and password you can check the status in the DOL site. Usually only the lawyer and employer can check it as they don't give you the login details but some don't mind.
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 ..
No comments:
Post a Comment